The Practicum in Teacher Eduaction

This article was downloaded by: [94.159.162.70]On: 01 August 2013, At: 10:56Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Teaching EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cted20

The practicum in preservice teachereducation: a review of empiricalstudiesEsther Cohen (Sayag) a , Ron Hoz b & Haya Kaplan aa Department of Special Education , Kaye College , Beer-Sheva ,Israelb Department of Education , Ben-Gurion University , Beer-Sheva ,IsraelPublished online: 01 Aug 2013.

To cite this article: Teaching Education (2013): The practicum in preservice teacher education: areview of empirical studies, Teaching Education

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2012.711815

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cted20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2012.711815

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

The practicum in preservice teacher education: a review ofempirical studies

Esther Cohen (Sayag)a*, Ron Hozb and Haya Kaplana

aDepartment of Special Education, Kaye College, Beer-Sheva, Israel; bDepartment ofEducation, Ben-Gurion University, Beer-Sheva, Israel

(Received 5 November 2011; final version received 13 May 2012)

This literature review presents a systematic analysis of 113 empirical studiesconducted between 1996 and 2009, portraying a picture of the rationales, goals,activities, roles, and outcomes in the different practicum settings in teacher edu-cation programs. The review shows that the rationale, goals, and activities in thedifferent practicum settings are focused on teaching competencies and acquain-tance with the pupils’ diversity. The supervisors’ role is focused mainly on thepreservice teachers’ inner world, and only few studies examined school stu-dents’ achievements as a result of preservice teachers’ instruction. The individ-ual relationships between mentors, supervisors, and preservice teachers wereattended by tension and conflicts ensuing from different interests, educationalphilosophies, and status differences that were not bridged. Preservice teachers’acquaintance with staff and principals at the host school were a negligible partof the practicum descriptions. The discussion will portray two kinds of asym-metric relations between the host schools and the teacher education programs,and one kind of symmetric relations emerging from the descriptions of the prac-ticum. The implications will suggest a broader view of the practicum, designinga new teacher education program embedded in school organizational culture.

Keywords: teacher education policy; teacher education curriculum

Introduction

The practicum in preservice teacher education programs, whether in the form offield experience, student teaching, clinical teaching, or mentoring programs, typi-cally constitutes the longest and most intensive exposure to the teaching professionexperienced by prospective teachers. In the practicum, preservice teachers act rela-tively independently under the guidance of a mentor, supervisory teachers or super-visors from a university/college of education. This is the typical training structurethat provides theoretical studies in the teacher education programs and hands-onexperience on the school premises (Graham & Thornley, 2000). The growingimportance of the practicum is evidenced by the increased time and intensity allot-ted to this component in teacher education programs, and by the increased numberof conference sessions focused on guided or mentored teaching experience for bothpreservice and beginning teachers (Brush & Saye, 2009; Bullough, Young, Erick-son, Birrell, Clark, & Egan, 2002; Ralph, Walker, & Wimmer, 2008).

*Corresponding author. Emails: [email protected], [email protected]

Teaching Education, 2013http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2012.711815

� 2013 Taylor & Francis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

94.1

59.1

62.7

0] a

t 10:

56 0

1 A

ugus

t 201

3

Despite its ubiquitous nature in the lives of preservice teachers across the world,and its centrality in teacher education programs, there is still much to be learnedabout the practicum experience, from its perceived goals and values to its docu-mented effects and benefits. Our goal in the present review is to offer a more com-prehensive picture of the practicum than presently available in the extant literature,by focusing on a systematic analysis of empirical studies published over the pastdecade.

Literature review

In our survey of previous reviews, we noted that literature reviews of the practi-cum often focus on very specific aspects. For instance, some center on specificcontextual elements, such as preservice teachers’ use of technology (Kay, 2006;Simpson 2006). Other materials we located were papers or research documents,rather than literature reviews, which dealt with diverse aspects of the practicum,including subject matter and pedagogical preparation, clinical training, policy, stu-dent teaching, alternative certification, and updating the curriculum of teacher edu-cation (e.g. Darling-Hammond, Pacheco, Michelli, LePage, & Hammerness, 2005;Wilson, Floden, & Ferrini-Mundy, 2001). As we focused our search for publishedliterature reviews, we realized that reviews of the practicum often focus on twoaspects: learning to teach under mentoring, and learning to teach in a methodscourse.

Learning to teach under mentoring – Learning to teach under mentoring, ortutoring in induction programs, mostly in professional development schools. Hob-son, Ashby, Malderez, and Tomlinson (2009), Ingersoll and Kralik (2004), andWang and Odell (2002) reported on the impact of mentoring on the consequentretention of beginning teachers. In their review of 75 documents and positionpapers, Wang and Odell (2002) identified three mentoring models: (1) mentorsimparting knowledge to preservice teachers, (2) mentors and the teacher educationprogram bridging gaps between theory and practice, mostly by mentors coping withteaching methods adopted by the teacher education programs, (3) mentors andsupervisors collaborating on the investigation and creation of a mentoring model. Inthe reported studies, Ingersoll (2004) found that the practicum has a great impacton job retention among beginning teachers. On mentoring of beginning teachers,Hobson et al. (2009) indicated mentors’ lack of time, knowledge, and preparation.They described successful mentoring as based on emotional support, time for givingfeedback the preservice teachers, and a certain level of autonomy. In their review offield experience in mathematics teacher education policy, Darling-Hammond et al.(2005) noted four such policies: (a) preservice teachers’ abilities based on the sub-ject matter and didactic knowledge as the focus of field experience; (b) personaldevelopment that demands self-inquiry and reflective activities as the focus of fieldexperience; (c) adjustment to school reality as the main focus of field experiencewill be the best preparation for their role; and (d) field experience as the arena ofchange and innovation in which preservice teachers will collaborate with theirsupervisors and teachers to create a new reality in the classroom. Banville’s review(2002) of 25 years of studies on mentors indicated the problematic nature of thementors’ role: despite acknowledging the importance of the mentors’ role, there areneither clear descriptions of their role nor any standards for their functioning orpreparation as a preliminary requirement for role approval.

2 E. Cohen (Sayag) et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

94.1

59.1

62.7

0] a

t 10:

56 0

1 A

ugus

t 201

3

Learning to teach in a methods course (dealing with didactic knowledgeand teaching strategy of specific subject matter) – As part of clinical teachingor field experience, a methods course occasionally measures the outcomes ofpreservice teachers’ teaching capabilities. These studies on methods courses usu-ally included descriptions of the practicum. In their review of 57 studies focus-ing on subject matter in teacher education, Wilson et al. (2001) indicated apositive connection between teachers’ preparation in their subject matter andtheir performance and impact in the classroom. Despite this correlation, theyidentified serious problems with the typical subject-matter knowledge of preser-vice teachers, even among those who majored in academic disciplines. Most ofthe studies concluded that background in subject matter alone is not enough toprepare new teachers for the challenges they face in the classroom and that theviews on teaching subject matter can be realized in classrooms that allow thisto happen.

In their review of methods courses, Cochran-Smith and Fries (2005) concludedthat the aim of the methods course goes further than instructional techniques. Itsaim is to change the preservice teachers’ perceptions. They indicated a similarshortage of research information, especially that which documents the outcomes ofpracticum programs.

Clift and Brady (2005) examined the impact of methods courses in several con-tent areas and field experience on learning to teach in 105 studies. They indicatedthat studies on methods courses emphasize coteaching and social relations in thefield experience as an important element that helps change teaching perceptions andinstruction in class.

We noticed that the reviews differed greatly with respect to their methodo-logical restrictions and requirements on the searched and selected articles, asevidenced by the range of work reviews (e.g. 10 documents, Ingersoll, 2004;50 documents, Wilson et al., 2001; or 215, Murray, Nuttall, & Mitchell,2008). Ingersoll (2004) identified 150 articles about tutoring, but only 10 mettheir selection criteria (e.g. empirical studies with reported outcomes). Cochran-Smith and Fries (2005) pointed at a similar lack of research information, espe-cially concerning the outcomes of practicum programs, whereas they found anincrease in the number of studies on methods courses, only few studies docu-mented outcomes in preservice teachers’ teaching. These researchers alsopointed to the methodology limitations of these studies, which were mainlycase studies or studies with no longitudinal perspective.

The aim of the present review was to portray the different aspects of the practi-cum through empirical studies which described its outcomes.

We were interested in the different actions, relationships, rationale, and out-comes of these activities in the practicum in order to see what kind of a picture wecan portray from research on the practicum over the last decade.

Educational enterprises often follow a path that starts with the reasons, objec-tives, or goals for that enterprise and ends with the results or outcomes realized.Tracking this familiar path, we posed three questions: (a) What are the reasons,goals, and rationale for the implementation of the practicum? (b) What are the spe-cific elements of the practicum experience (the activities and relationships of theindividual participants in the practicum)? (c) What are the effects or benefits ofthese experiences (its outcomes)?

Teaching Education 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

94.1

59.1

62.7

0] a

t 10:

56 0

1 A

ugus

t 201

3

Method

Selection criteria

The review was based on articles that provide empirically based information on thepracticum during a specific period. The three selection criteria for articles to bereviewed were set by the institution that commissioned the review: published in arefereed journal, based or reported on an empirical study and published between1996 and 2006. Since we completed the review in 2009, a three-year extension ofthe search was added to update the data.

The search strategy

The search strategy was based on a computer search for efficiency reasons, but alsoin order to avoid bias, such as basing the review mainly on well-known authors orjournals. We began the search by gathering the relevant terms (student teaching,mentoring, supervision, cooperating teacher, teacher preparation, preservice teachereducation, teacher training, field experience and practicum), conducting independentsearches in each of the keywords using selected search engines (ERIC, Find Arti-cles [LookSmart], Academic Research Library, and ProQuest) in several electroniclibraries and databases. In some engines, this pilot search revealed a few articles(e.g. 13), and in others several hundred, many of which were not relevant, sincethey were about education and not teacher education practicum, or about teacherinduction programs and novices and not preservice teachers. This state of affairs ledus to devise a systematic search strategy in which we distinguished between theframework in which the practicum exists, the practicum itself, and the role of theparticipants. Under framework, we had the terms teacher preparation, preserviceteacher education, and teacher training; terms under practicum included field expe-rience, practicum, and student teaching; and terms under role included mentoring,supervision, and cooperating teacher. Using our search strategy, we conducted atwo chain search including the most productive terms: (1) “field experience” and“student teaching” or “mentoring”, (2) “cooperating teacher” and “preservice tea-cher” or “practicum”. This search strategy resulted in a database of 700 articles.

Pairs of researchers read all the abstracts in order to decide on the relevant stud-ies, and found that most of them were not empirical studies; some were not in theteacher education arena, some were descriptions of programs of field experience,some were theoretical chapters from books about field experience, some were posi-tion papers, and many were descriptions of actions in field experience with noresults. Excluding these articles resulted in 113 relevant articles published in 46 dif-ferent journals.1

Construction of the database

In order to gather the required information from the studies, the following 7-partanalysis form was formulated to answer the review questions: (a) The main topic/focus/subject of the research; (b) the research questions or problems; (c) the compo-nents or participants of the practicum which were studied; (d) the type of researchconducted, the research instruments, data collection and analysis methods, and thevariables; (e) relationship of the teacher education programs to the host school; (f)the participants’ roles, functioning, and activities; and (g) the outcomes of thepracticum events.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

94.1

59.1

62.7

0] a

t 10:

56 0

1 A

ugus

t 201

3

An attempt at writing a summary of one article resulted in differences betweenthe level of details in the summary. In order to overcome on this obstacle, we estab-lished quality control on this 7-part analysis which consisted of three types ofreports: 25 joint reports, namely those merged from the independent reports of twoauthors; 23 revised reports, namely one author’s revisions of another author’sreports; and 65 individual reports (written by a single author).

General characteristics of the reviewed studies

Before considering the three questions guiding the present review, we reviewed cer-tain characteristics of the research studies. We analyzed them for the researchapproach taken, the instrumentation used, and the participants included.

Research methods

The studies we examined often combined several research methodologies, mainlyqualitative, naturalistic, and case study approaches. Since our main interest was inthe descriptive aspects of the practicum, we decided to classify the methodology ofthe studies by their attitude to the practicum as the arena of research: descriptive-neutral, descriptive-evaluative, and examination/test of theoretical or practical issues(see Table 1). Descriptive-neutral studies focused on objective or subjective descrip-tions by means of diverse methods, such as case studies or surveys of the activities,relationships, and features of the participants or components of the practicum. Forexample, one article described two teacher education systems in China and in theUnited States (Ping & Chunxia, 2006), whereas another, by surveying mentors’opinions, described their general and personal teaching efficacy (Broemmel, 2006).

Descriptive-evaluative studies, by comparison, were concerned with evaluationof the activities, relationships, or components of the practicum by means of diversetechniques, such as experimental or qualitative comparisons. For example, one arti-cle described the advantages and disadvantages of several kinds of coteaching mod-els of preservice teachers and their cooperating teachers (Goodnough, Osmond,Dibbon, Glassman, & Stevens, 2009), while another explored the use of technologyin a laboratory setting through the eyes of preservice teachers who participated in atechnology integration course and evaluated the course in journals and interviews(Ma, Walker, Bower, & Gahan, 2008).

The third group of studies involved some form of experimental comparisons.For example, one study compared the self-efficacy of two groups as a result of twodifferent experiences: one group experienced teaching in a laboratory and the otherin authentic situations (Gurvitch & Metzler, 2009). Tillema and Knoll (1997) com-pared the effect of the Direct Instruction and Conceptual Change teaching approach

Table 1. Research methodologies by period of publication.

Period Descriptive-neutral Descriptive-evaluative Theoretical Total

1996–2000 15 6 1 222001–2003 9 16 0 252004–2006 23 25 1 492007–2009 4 9 4 17

Total 51 56 6 113


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

94.1

59.1

62.7

0] a

t 10:

56 0

1 A

ugus

t 201

3

on preservice teachers’ beliefs. Table 1 shows that the majority of the studies weredescriptive-evaluative and descriptive-neutral, with varying proportions betweenthem during the four studied periods.

Tools and participants

The tools most frequently used in the research (see Table 2) included documentanalyses of rather subjective materials produced by preservice teachers (n= 91). Thesecond most frequently used tools included individual interviews with preserviceteachers (n= 64). Questionnaires and classroom observations were less frequentlyused (n= 47 and 37, respectively). The least used data-gathering tools includedgroup interviews among preservice teachers and school exams for school students.

The number of participants was reported in most of the studies, some of whichinvolved more than one group of participants (e.g. preservice teachers and mentor-teachers or university supervisors). The number of participants ranged from 1 tonearly 1400, and almost half the studies (46%) employed 9 to 40 participants. Onlya small number (n = 27, nearly 23%) of the articles reported on the size of the targetgroup of preservice teachers from which the studied samples were selected.

Review findings

Goals and rationales

Four goals were identified in the analyzed studies (see Table 3). The largest cluster,consisting of 20 different goals, had the stated objective that preservice teachers

Table 2. Tools used in the studies.

Instrument

⁄Number ofarticles

Document analysis 91Preservice teachers’ documents and artifacts 46Preservice teachers’ reflective writing and journals 33Others 36

Individual interviews 64Preservice teachers or graduate teachers 44Teacher education faculty, mentor-teachers, school teachers 20

Questionnaires 47In qualitative methodologies 22In integrated methodologies 18In qualitative methodologies 7

Observations 37Classrooms 28Other activities 9

Group interviews with preservice teachers and students, focus groups,and discussions

13

Examinations and tests 8

⁄The numbers do not add up to 113 as some studies used several tools.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

94.1

59.1

62.7

0] a

t 10:

56 0

1 A

ugus

t 201

3

Table3.

Goalsof

thepracticum

.

Goal1:

Promotethepreservice

teachers’professional

abilities

Subgoal

1:To

applyandintegrateparticular

instructionalapproaches

19References:

Abbate-Vaughn(2006),Andersonand

Puckett(2005),Artiles,Trent,Hoffm

an-K

ipp,

andLopez-

Torres(2000),Basham

etal.(2005),Blasi(2002),Brown

andWarschauer(2006),Brush

etal.(2003),Daw

son

(2006),Doering

etal.(2003),Edw

ards,Carr,andSiegel

(2006),Frykholm

andGlasson

(2005),GartonandCano

(1996),West,Wright,Gabbitas,andGraham

(2006),Lee

andWu(2006),Ma,

Lai,Williams,Prejean,andFord

(2008),MurrayandMandell(2006),Nevin

etal.(2002),

Popeet

al.(2005),Snider(2002).

12goals:

•Im

plem

entteaching

forself-regulated

andconstructiv

istlearning;

•Integratemathematicsandscienceteaching;

•Emphasizediscoveryandinquiryof

daily

phenom

enain

scienceclasses;

•Integratetechnology

inteaching

anduseitforreflectio

n,theteaching

ofmathematics,

science,

arts,andreadingstrategies;

•Infuse

ITtechnicalskillsandattitudes

into

specialeducationpreservice

teachers;

•Develop

reflectio

nthroughtechnology

useaimed

atsupportin

gself-evaluation,

Reflectio

n,andfeedback;

•Write

blogsandim

provethepracticum

throughparticipationandmanagem

entof

forums;

•Develop

theunderstandingof

inquiry-basedteaching.

Subgoal

1:Teach

particularcontents

byparticularmethod

s6References:

Capraro

etal.(2005),Ensor

(2001),

Graham

(1997),Martin

(1997),Matus

(1999),Richards

andBrumfield(2003).

4goals:

•Teachreadingandwritin

g,foreignlanguage,andmathematics,either

aspartof

the

teacherprogram

course

orindependently

oftheprogram;

•Learn

tocombine

artandliteracy;

•Apply

particular

methods

ofclassroom

managem

entandteaching

ininnercity

schools;

•Exposethepreservice

teachers’instructionaldifficulties

andteachthem

toshape

appropriateinstructionalmeans

toovercomethesedifficulties.

Subgoal

2:To

developthepreservice

teachers’domainanddidactical

know

ledge

13References:

Alm

arza

(2005),Andersonet

al.(2006),

Ariav

andClin

ard(2001),BeckandKosnik(2000),

Dinsm

oreandWegner(2006),Doppen(2007),Ewartand

Straw

(2005),Goodnough

etal.(2009),Ham

merness

(2006),Hayes

(2002),Tang(2003),Lom

eliet

al.(2006),

Weinberger(2006).

8goals:

•Promoteteaching

skillsandefficacy

inteaching;

•Develop

thepreservice

teachers’capabilitiesto

cope

with

authentic

teaching

situations;

•Employ

practical

know

ledge;

•Acquire

insightsregardingthemotives

ofpracticum

ineducationandthesocial

context

ofteaching;

(Contin

ued)


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

94.1

59.1

62.7

0] a

t 10:

56 0

1 A

ugus

t 201

3

Table

3.(Contin

ued)

•Consolid

ateandincrease

thecoherenceof

thepreservice

teachers’theoretical

know

ledge

acquired

intheteachereducationprogram

andlin

kthat

know

ledgeto

theschool

practice;

•Strengthentherelatio

nshipbetweenteaching

andlearning;

•Becom

eresearchersof

thepreservice

teachers’ow

npractices;

•Develop

anindividual

teaching

style.

Goal2:

gettingto

know

schoolenvironment

18References:

Alm

arza

(2005),Ariav

(2001),Bangel

etal.(2006),Brindleyet

al.(2009),Chang,Early,and

Winton(2005),Doppen(2007),EpanchinandColucci

(2002),Goodnough

etal.(2009),Lom

eliet

al.(2006),

Malew

skiandPhillion

(2009),MurrayandMandell

(2006),Pence

andGillivray(2008),Proctor

etal.(2001),

Reichel

etal.(2002),Nelson(2008),Santoro

andAllard

(2005),Sleeter

(2001),Thompson

andSmith

(2005),

Velez-Rendon(2006),Yendol-Hoppey(2007).

Subgoal

1:Becom

ebetteracquainted

with

theschool'sinternal

andexternal

environm

ent

andto

acttherein

6goals:

•Strengthenthestudent-teachers’know

ledgeandunderstandingof

thecomplex

and

multifaceted

settingsandreality

oftheschool;

•Expandthestudent-teachers’acquaintance

with

thecultu

raldiversity

andpreparethem

fordealingwith

thisreality

;•Get

acquainted

with

variouscultu

resandthefamilies

ofat

risk

studentsandhow

todeal

with

them

;•Learn

toactin

thecontextof

theschool

community

;•Changetheirattitudes

andadapttheteaching

methods

that

help

them

cope

with

immigrant

andinnercity'slow

SESstudents;

•Develop

practical

know

ledgerelevant

fortheinstructionof

school

studentswith

special

needs.

Subgoal

3:Expandtheacquaintance

with

theteacher’srole

13References:

Ariav

(2001),Dinsm

oreandWegner

(2006),EwartandStraw

(2005),Goodnough

etal.(2009),

Iliyan

andTo

ren(2006),Knoblauch

andHoy

(2008),

Knutson,Zuniga,

andGonzalez(2007),LakeandJones

(2008),Nokes

etal.(2008),Scantlebury

etal.(2008),

Slick(1998),ToddandAgnello

(2006),Woods

and

Weasm

er(2003).

4goals:

•Increase

thestudent-teachers’acquaintance

with

theteaching

profession;

•Develop

theirperspectives

ofschool

cultu

reandits

organizatio

n;•Prepare

thestudent-teachers

forteam

work;

•Get

acquainted

with

thecommunity

andits

linkto

theschool.

Goal3:

Promotethepreserviceteachers’

personal

grow

th10

References:

Andersonet

al.(2006),Daw

son(2006),

Westet

al.(2006),Ham

merness

(2006),Iliyan

andToren

(2006),Lee

andWu(2006),Mew

born

(1999),Penso

(1997),Reichenberg

(1998),Tang(2003).

Subgoal

1:To

developthepreservice

teachers’cognitive

skills

5goals:

•Develop

thepreservice

teachers’thinking

andproblem-solving

capabilities;

(Contin

ued)


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

94.1

59.1

62.7

0] a

t 10:

56 0

1 A

ugus

t 201

3

Table

3.(Contin

ued)

•Nurture

thepreservice

teachers’reasoningskills,system

atic

analytic

thinking

and

criticalreflectio

n;•Connect

thepreservice

teachers’know

ledgeof

mathematicstheory

andresearch;

•Teach

inaprofessional

educationalcommunity

andenhancetheinterpersonal

communicationcapabilitiesof

itsmem

bers;

•Increase

thesensitizatio

nandaw

arenessof

theirresponsibilitiesin

teaching,andtheir

progress

andself-evaluationthroughtheirpersonal

experiencesandperceptio

ns.

Goal4:

Impacttheschool

3References:

Lom

eliet

al.(2006),Otaiba(2005),

Thompson

andSmith

(2005).

Subgoal

2:To

boostschool

students’achievem

ents

2goals:

•Teach

readingto

studentsat

risk

inamentoring

projectforstudentswith

reading

problemsor

immigrant

studentsin

orderto

prom

otethem

atschool;

•Promoteallstudents’know

ledgeandskillsandim

provetheirscores

inlanguages,and

nurturesomepersonal

characteristicsthat

arespecified

bystate-setstandards.

Subgoal

2:To

influencethementor-teachers

andthecommunity

3References:

Andersonet

al.(2006),Puk

andHaines

(1999),Thompson

andSmith

(2005).

3goals:

•Prepare

mentor-teachers

tousetheinquiryapproach

andguidetheirmentees

todo

so;

•Disseminatemessagesof

conservatio

nandecologyto

studentsandim

pact

the

community

inthisdirection;

•Prepare

educationalleadership

forinnercity

schools.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

94.1

59.1

62.7

0] a

t 10:

56 0

1 A

ugus

t 201

3

would improve their ability to teach and would apply different teaching approachesand strategies; the second subgoal was to improve their didactical knowledge.

The second group of goals was acquiring a better understanding of the schoolenvironment: Becoming more knowledgeable about the school’s internal and exter-nal environment (6 goals) and expanding acquaintance with the teacher’s role (4goals). The third clustering of goals encompassed 7 different goals that focused onpromoting the preservice teachers’ personal abilities, namely cognitive skills andprofessional identity. The fourth cluster included two subgoals with the generalgoal of impacting the school via the mentors’ or preservice teachers’ activities inthe community and improving school student achievements. These goals appearedin only 6 articles.

Rationales

The rationale for the practicum presents the perceived objectives of the field experi-ence, its conceptualized relationship with the teacher education programs, and itspotential benefits for all participants in that experience (e.g. preservice teachers,mentor-teachers, and university supervisors).

We identified four general rationales, each referring to or emphasizing a differ-ent facet or role of the practicum. The first of these, which we refer to as the “pro-fessional training ground,” regarded the practicum as a reasonable proxy of futureworkplaces for preservice teachers; workplaces that still retained a degree of controlby the preparatory institutions and their agents in the schools. Because of thisdegree of control, the practicum was conceived as an external extension of theteacher education programs nested within a reasonably authentic educational setting(e.g. Lunenberg, 1999; Pope, Hare, & Howard, 2005).

The second kind of rationale for the existence of the practicum experienceinvolved the application of academic content. Specifically, according to this ratio-nale, practicums have the potential of reducing the gap between pedagogicalresearch and theory (e.g. instructional principles and pedagogical ideas) and instruc-tional practice (i.e. classroom teaching) for preservice teachers. The articles whichconveyed this rationale argued that this is achieved in four ways:

(1) The practicum experiences are to be designed, monitored, and structured bythe teacher education programs, which also aligns with and integrates theminto its courses, or adapts the preservice teachers’ mentoring to the program’sapproach (Hammerness, 2006; Hayes, 2002; Otaiba, 2005; Vacc & Bright,1999; Vuchic & Robb, 2006).

(2) Preservice teachers are closely supervised/guided, provided with immediatefeedback, and graded by their mentor-teachers (e.g. Bangel, Enersen, Capobi-anco, & Moon, 2006; Capraro, Capraro, Parker, Kulm, & Raulerson, 2005;Coulon & Lorenzo, 2003; Dunn, Ehrich, Mylonas, & Hansford, 2000; Farrell,Walker, Bower, & Gahan, 2000; Shen, 2002; Snider, 2002; Tsang, 2003).

(3) Mentor-teachers are guided by teacher education, and information on thepracticum is exchanged with them (e.g. Breidenstein, 2002; Shen, 2002).This mentor-teachers model sought or taught instructional modes to beobserved by preservice teachers (e.g. Garton & Cano, 1996; Lunenberg,1999).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

94.1

59.1

62.7

0] a

t 10:

56 0

1 A

ugus

t 201

3

(4) The practicum is accompanied by a particular course (e.g. Hayes, 2002;Thompson & Smith, 2005).

The third kind of rationale we identified in the present review held that the prac-ticum could acquaint preservice teachers with diverse educational settings thatwould not otherwise be likely, while still providing them with important guidanceand support they may require to function in these more diverse and unfamiliarsettings. These rationales were achieved by the preservice teachers by (a) practicingin different cultural backgrounds and schools (e.g. Anderson, Lawson, & Mayer-Smith, 2006); (b) constructing learning environments that propose/provide schoolstudents with learning opportunities and boost their self-esteem (Matus, 1999); and(c) establishing relationships with the communities in which the school is located(Blasi, 2002; Hammerness, 2006; Otaiba, 2005).

The fourth kind of rationale envisioned the practicum as proper ground forencouraging and supporting preservice teachers in the development of their personalidentity. A rationale such as this argued that this identity development can beaccomplished through preservice teachers’ reflection on their teaching self anddevelopment as teachers, and by exploring their ethic and social/cultural identity(e.g. Anderson et al., 2006; Proctor, Rentz, & Jackson, 2001; Santoro & Allard,2005), by designing experiences that would increase their confidence in teachingcertain subjects (Hudson, 2005), and by supporting preservice teachers in shapingtheir practical knowledge (e.g. Lunenberg, 1999; Pope et al., 2005).

Participants’ activities

In this section, we will describe the activities of all three kinds of participants inthe practicum (i.e. preservice teachers, mentor-teachers, and university supervisors),and the relationships between these individuals.

Preservice teachers’ activities

Table 4 summarizes 21 activities that preservice teachers perform as assignments oftheir practicum. We classified these activities into five major groups and nine subcl-usters. The first cluster, mentored teaching activities, fell within four subclusterswith 11 different activities associated with planning, teaching methods, subject-mat-ter instruction, and coteaching with mentor-teachers. For example, the preserviceteachers in Doppen’s (2007) study participated in teacher preparation for socialstudies and had to practice inquiry-based teaching in learning centers in order todevelop their social perceptions and critical thinking.

In the second cluster of activities, we found a smaller variety of five activitiesinvolving reflection on diverse issues in about 29 articles. These reflection activitieswere related to the preservice teachers’ own classes, attitude to and awareness oflearning, individual identity, cultural identity and diversity, philosophy of educationfor social justice, self-professional development, and team reflection. For instance,in Colby and Stapleton’s study (2006), preservice teachers were assigned to docu-ment their teaching and to apply what they learned in a “writer workshop approach”program. Their reflective writing was guided by questions such as “What was theeasiest part and the hardest part of your teaching?”

The third group of activities we documented in the studies involved in 20articles and pertained to four different forms of observations. Specifically, these


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

94.1

59.1

62.7

0] a

t 10:

56 0

1 A

ugus

t 201

3

Table

4.Preserviceteachers’activ

ities

inthepracticum

.

Cluster

1:Mentoredteaching

Subcluster

1:Planningandteaching

particular

subjects

19References:Bangeletal.(2006),B

rush

etal.(2003),

Conderm

anetal.(2005),Frykholm

andGlasson

(2005),

Goodnough

etal.(2009),GurvitchandMetzler

(2009),H

awkey

(1998),Iliy

anandTo

ren(2006),Knoblauch

andHoy

(2008),M

iller

(2008),M

ontano

etal.(2005),Nokes

etal.(2008),Penso

(1997),

SkampandMueller(2001),S

lick(1998),U

tely

andBryant(2005),

VuchicandRobb(2006),Y

ayli(2008).

4activities:

•Planningandteaching

insixdomains

asprescribed

bytheteachereducation

program:English,

mathematicsandscience,

history,

biology,

ITapplication,

and

foreignlanguage;


accordingto

theschool

curriculum

.•Planningandteaching

instructionalunits

ormini-units;


indifferentschools(urban,rural,suburban

schools).

Subcluster


accordingto

particular

approaches

forwhole

classperiods

14References:

Ajayi

andLee

(2005),BrownandWarschauer

(2006),Doering

etal.(2003),Doppen(2007),GartonandCano

(1996),Puk

andHaines(1999),Lee

andWu(2006),Lom

eliet

al.

(2006),Maet

al.(2008),Mew

born

(1999),Moore,(2003),Nevin

etal.(2002),Snider(2002),Tillem

aandKnoll(1997).

Oneactivity:

Teachingaccordingto

nine

approaches

that

have

been

prescribed

bytheteacher

educationprogram:constructiv

ism,problem

solving,

inquiry,

self-regulation,

mathematical

problem

solvingcombinedwith

reflectio

n,effectiveteaching,

multiculturalapproach,technology

integrationandconceptual

change

methods.

Subcluster


particular

subjectsin

specificstudentgroups

9References:AndersonandPuckett(2005),C

olby

andStapleton

(2006),C

oulonandLorenzo

(2003),D

uffy

andAtkinson(2001),

LakeandJones(2008),M

ewborn

(1999),O

taiba(2005),P

roctor

etal.(2001),Schmidt(2005).

3activities:

•Designing

instructionalmaterialsfordiversestudentandethnic

populatio

nswith

specificneeds;

•Enrichm

entprogramsforgifted

students;

•Instructingparticular

subjectsto

individual

students.

Subcluster

4:Coteachingwith

thementor-teacher

8References:Brush

etal.(2003),Daw

son(2006),D

uffy

andAtkinson

(2001),G

oodnough

etal.(2009),GurvitchandMetzler(2009),

Scantlebury

etal.(2008),VuchicandRobb(2006),W

ang(2001).

3activities:

•Actingas

apairof

colleagueswith

thementor-teacherinplanning

andcarrying

out

activ

ities;

•Cooperatin

gwith

peer

preservice

teachers;

•Serving

asthementor-teacher’saide

(inteaching

studentswith

reading

difficulties).

(Contin

ued)


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

94.1

59.1

62.7

0] a

t 10:

56 0

1 A

ugus

t 201

3

Table4.

(Contin

ued)

Cluster

2:Reflectin

g5activities:Reflectin

gon

5entitiesandissues:

30References:

Alm

arza

(2005),Artileset

al.(2000),Blasi

(2002),Breidenstein(2002),Brindleyet

al.(2009),Brush

etal.

(2003),Capraro

etal.(2005),Colby

andStapleton

(2006),Deal

andWhite

(2006),Dinsm

oreandWegner(2006),Doering

etal.

(2003),Doppen(2007),Ensor

(2001),Goodnough

etal.(2009),

Knutson

etal.(2007),Kow

alchuk

(1999),LakeandJones(2008),

Maet

al.(2008),Malew

skiandPhillion

(2009),Martin

(1997),

Miller

(2008),VaccandBright(1999),Pence

andGillivray

(2008),Perry

etal.(2006),RichardsandBrumfield(2003),

Santoro

andAllard

(2005),Tang

(2003),WeaverandStanulis

(1996),Weinberger(2006),Yendol-Hoppey(2007).

•Reflectin

gon

thepreservice

teacher’sow

nclasses,attitudeandaw

arenessto

learning;

•Reflectin

gon

individual

identity,

view

saboutcultu

ralidentityanddiversity

;•Reflectin

gon

philo

sophyof

educationforsocial

justice;

•Reflectin

gon

self-professionaldevelopm

ent;

•Team

reflectio

nin

aquarium

team

meetin

gs.

Cluster

3:Observing

others’actio

n3activities:

14References:

Blake

(2005),Brush

etal.(2003),Graham

(1997),Iliyan

andTo

ren(2006),Maet

al.(2008),Malew

skiand

Phillion

(2009),MurrayandMandell(2006),Nokes

etal.(2008),

Pence

andGillivray(2008),Perry

etal.(2006),PingandChunxia

(2006),SkampandMueller(2001),Tang(2003),Yayli(2008).

•Observing

mentor-teachers’or

peers’

classes;

•Observing

certainaspectsof

theschool

during

thefirstweekof

theyear;

•Observing

family

-focused

practices.

•Analyzing

videorecordings

anddiscussing

them

inelectronic

forums.

6References:

Martin

(1997),Mew

born

(1999),Friel

andCarboni

(2000),CoulonandLorenzo

(2003),Barnett(2006),Dinsm

ore

andWegner(2006).

Cluster

4:Unspecified

activ

ities

•Perform

ingteacher’sclassroom

functio

ns,actin

gin

theclassroom

(nospecificactiv

ities

werereported).

17References:

Andersonet

al.(2006),Broem

mel

(2006),Duffy

andAtkinson(2001),Ensor

(2001),EverhartandVaugh

(2005),

EwartandStraw

(2006),Glenn

(2006),Graham

(1997),Kahn

(2001),Lunenberg

(1999),VaccandBright(1999),Pingand

Chunxia

(2006),RichardsandBrumfield(2003),Siebertet

al.

(2006),Tang

(2003),Thompson

andSmith

(2005),Weaverand

Stanulis

(1996).

Cluster

5:Schoolcommunity

activ

ities

1activity:

•Attendingteam

ordepartmentmeetin

gs,andactiv

ities

outsidetheclassroom

intheschool.

5References:

Andersonet

al.(2006),Blasi(2002),Slick(1998),

Todd

andAgnello

(2006),VuchicandRobb(2006).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

94.1

59.1

62.7

0] a

t 10:

56 0

1 A

ugus

t 201

3

observations focused on mentors’ teaching, the whole school’s activities, family-focused observations, and observations by technological means.

The fourth cluster of activities comprised unspecified actions in the classroom(in 15 articles), which included a general statement of “teaching” with no descrip-tions of the activities. For example, in Broemmel’s study (2006), where mentorswere asked about the competencies in teaching reading of the preservice teachersthat were practicing in their classrooms. No information was given about theirassignments in teaching reading. Likewise, in Glenn’s study (2006), two mentorswere observed in order to characterize good mentors, but the activities of the preser-vice teachers in these mentors’ classrooms were not described except for the generalstatement that they were teaching.

Finally, the fifth group included one type of activity (in 5 articles) with theschool staff: preservice teachers’ assignments included discussing and interviewingprincipals, school staff, and other important persons in the community (Tod &Angelo, 2006), and meeting with parents and school staff in order to learn aboutfamilies at risk (Blasi, 2002).

Mentor-teachers’ activities

In Table 5, we identify four clusters that we further break down into eight subclustersencompassing 39 different activities of mentor-teachers. The largest mentor-teachers’activities primarily consisted of helping preservice teachers through assimilation intoschool culture; nurturing, supporting, observing, and evaluating them all involvedguidance afforded by the mentor-teachers. The second subcluster included activitiessupporting preservice teachers to accomplish teacher education program course tasks.In these activities, mentors cooperated with the teacher education program.

The second cluster was divided into three subclusters: (a) mentor-teachers dem-onstrating, modeling, reflecting, and mirroring; (b) evaluating the preservice teach-ers’ performance and; (c) observing the preservice teachers’ classes and holdingsupervisory conferences. In these activities, mentor-teachers demonstrated theirsupervisory abilities, while in the previous cluster mentor-teachers helped preserviceteachers to get acquainted with their role.

The third cluster of activities focused on cooperation with the teacher educationprogram, specifically: (a) acting in accordance with the teacher education program,(b) assigning classrooms and lessons to the preservice teachers. These activitiesaimed to maintain connections with the teacher education program faculty, receivinginformation from the teacher education program, participating in a course taken bytheir preservice teachers, and evaluating the preservice teachers according to the cri-teria set by the teacher education program. A negligible part of the mentors’ activi-ties, reported in only two articles, targeted the preservice teachers’ professionalidentity. For instance, developing the preservice teachers’ self-confidence, empathyand caring, and empowering their self-efficacy.

University supervisors’ activities

Table 6 presents two clusters divided into six subclusters formed from 31 differentactivities undertaken by university supervisors in the practicum. Most of theactivities in Cluster 1 were carried out with preservice teachers, while Cluster 2activities were carried out with mentors. The first subcluster involved 15 activities


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

94.1

59.1

62.7

0] a

t 10:

56 0

1 A

ugus

t 201

3

Table5.

Mentor-teachers’activ

ities

inthepracticum

.

Cluster

1:Nurturing

preservice

teachers

andsupportin

gthem

inbecomingteachers

Subcluster

1:Providing

preservice

teachers

with

guidance

tohelp

them

assimilate

inthe

school

cultu

reandwith

students

25References:Alm

arza

(2005),BeckandKosnik(2000),

Brindleyet

al.(2009),Dinsm

oreandWegner(2006),

EwartandStraw

(2005),Glenn

(2006),Ham

merness

(2006),Hudson(2005),Iliyan

andToren

(2006),

Knoblauch

andHoy

(2008),Lee

andWu(2006),Martin

(1997),Mew

born

(1999),Moore

(2003),Nokes

etal.

(2008),Proctor


etal.(2008),

Shen(2002),Tang(2003),To

ddandAgnello

(2006),

Velez-Rendon(2006),VuchicandRobb(2006),Woods

andWeasm

er(2003),Yayli(2008),Yendol-Hoppey

(2007).

7activities:

•Assistin

gthepreservice

teacherin

instructionaldesign/planning;

•Givingcleardirections

regardingDOsandDON’Ts.

•Providing

feedback

onthepreservice-teacher’sclasses.

•Helping

thepreservice

teacherdevelopapersonal

teaching

approach

andstyle.

•Preparing

thepreservice

teacherforthebasicteacher’srole

ofclassroom

teaching;

•Assistin

gthepreservice

teacherin

getting

acquainted

with

workin

theclassroom,and

with

theschool

students’community

;•Helping

thepreservice

teachers

adapttasksforindividual

school

students.

Subcluster

2:Cooperatin

gwith

preservice

teachers

andsupportin

gthem

inintegrating

theiractiv

ities

with

teachereducationcourses

14References:Abate-Vaughn(2006),Breidenstein(2002),

Burke

(2006),Daw

son(2006),Dunnet

al.(2000),Ewart

andStraw

(2005),Goodnough

etal.(2009),Hudson

(2005),Perry

etal.(2006),Puk

andHaines(1999),

RichardsandBrumfield(2003),Thompson

andSmith

(2005),Tillem

a(2000),Wang(2001).

7activities:

•Guiding

thepreservice

teacher’steaching

asrequired

bytheteachereducationcourse;

•Discussingthepreservice

teachers’activ

ities

inthetechnology

educationcourse;

•Reviewingandprovidingfeedback

ondraftsof

aninquiry-basedteachereducation

assigned

project;

•Coconductinginquiryactiv

ities

with

theirmentees;

•Coplanninginstructionaltaskssuitableforself-directedlearning;

•Creatingacooperativeenvironm

entto

prom

oteaconstructiv

istapproach

toteaching;

•Encouraging

preservice

teachers

tocollaborate

amongthem

selves.

Cluster

2:Modeling,

evaluatin

g,andobservingthepreservice

teachers

Subcluster

1:Dem

onstratin

g,modeling,

reflectin

g,andmirroring

6References:Blake

(2005),Conderm

anet

al.(2005),

EwartandStraw

(2005),GartonandCano(1996),Ma

etal.(2008),Velez-Rendon(2006).

3activities:

•Serving

asarole

model

ofagood

teacher;

•Modelingself-reflectio

nforteaching

intheproblem-solving

approach;M

irroring

the

school

students’perspectives

tothestudent-teacher.

(Contin

ued)


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

94.1

59.1

62.7

0] a

t 10:

56 0

1 A

ugus

t 201

3

Table5.

(Contin

ued)

Subcluster

2:Evaluatingthepreservice

teachers’performance

5References:BeckandKosnik(2000),Burke

(2006),

Moore

(2003),Schmidt(2005),VuchicandRobb(2006).

3activities:

•Evaluatingtheperformance

ofthepreservice

teacheron

tasksassigned

bythementor-

teacher;

•Evaluatingtheperformance

ofthepreservice

teacheron

tasksof

theteachereducation

program

oraparticular

course;

•Evaluatingthepreservice

teachertogether

with

theuniversity

supervisor

whenthe

preservice

teacherfails.

Subcluster

3:Observing

thepreservice

teachers’classesandholdingsupervisory

conferences

4References:Blake

(2005),Haw

key(1998),Mew

born

(1999),Tillem

a(2000).

2activities:

•Observing

thepreservice

teachers’classesandgiving

feedback

ontheirinstruction;

•Discussingdiverseissues

that

arosefrom

theobservationandpertainedto

teaching.

Cluster

3:Establishing

andmaintaining

cooperationwith

teachereducation

Subcluster

1:Cooperatin

gandactin

gwith

theteachereducationprogram

13References:Abbate-Vaughn(2006),BeckandKosnik

(2000),Daw

son(2006),Doering

etal.(2003),Epanchin

andColucci

(2002),Ham

merness

(2006),Haw

key(1998),

Lee

andWu(2006),Mew

born

(1999),Moore

(2003),

Perry

etal.(2006),Shen(2002),Snider(2002).

10activities:

•Maintaining

contactwith

thefaculty

oftheteachereducationprogram;

•Abiding

bytheteachereducationrequirem

entandem

ployingIT

inclassroom

teaching;

•Receiving

inform

ationandcourse

materialsfrom

theteachereducationprogram;

•Participatingin

acourse

takenby

theirpreservice

teachers;

•Participatingin

thedesign

andim

plem

entatio

nof

thepracticum

;•Supportingandguidingthepreservice

teachers

accordingto

therequirem

entsof

the

teachereducationprogram;

•Discussingwith

thecourse

teacherissues

pertinentto

thepracticum

andits

concom

itant

course;

•Actingin

team

scomprised

ofmentor-teachers,university

supervisorsandmethods

course

teachers;

•Participatingin

supervisoryconferencesof

theuniversity

supervisor

andthepreservice

teacher;

•Evaluatingthepreservice

teachers

accordingto

thecriteriasetby

theteachereducation

program.

(Contin

ued)


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

94.1

59.1

62.7

0] a

t 10:

56 0

1 A

ugus

t 201

3

Table

5.(Contin

ued)

Subcluster

2:Assigning

classroomsandlessonsto

thepreservice

teachers

5References:Brindleyet

al.(2009),Dunnet

al.(2000),

Iliyan

andTo

ren(2006),Malew

skiandPhillion

(2009),

Pence

andGillivray(2008).

2activities:

•Placing

thepreservice

teacherin

theclassrooms;

•Decidingtogether

with

theuniversity

supervisor

andschool

teachers

onthekind

ofpracticum

mostappropriateforthepreservice

teacher.

Cluster

4:Influencingthepreservice

teachers’personal-professionalidentity

5activities:

2References:EwartandStraw

(2005),Woods

and

Weasm

er(2003).

•Developingthepreservice

teachers’personal

teaching

style;

•Attemptingto

empower

thepreservice

teachers’self-con

fidence;

•Nurturing

orinculcatinglove

forteaching

inthepreservice

teachers;

•Promotingthepreservice

teachers’em

pathyandcaring

skillsforschool

students.

•Developingthepreservice

teacher’sadaptiv

eskillsto

meetthechanging

needsand

requirem

entsof

theirschool

studentsandtheeducationsystem

.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

94.1

59.1

62.7

0] a

t 10:

56 0

1 A

ugus

t 201

3

Table6.

University

supervisors’

activ

ities

inthepracticum

.

Cluster

1:Actingwith

thepreservice

teachers

Subcluster

1:directingpreservice

teachers

toobserve,

andadjustto

theclassroom

14References:

Abbate-Vaughn(2006),Ajayi

andLee

(2005),Andersonet

al.(2006),Ariav

(2001),Beckand

Kosnik(2000),Breidenstein(2002),Burke

(2006),Coulon

andLorenzo

(2003),EwartandStraw

(2005),Iliyan

and

Toren

(2006),Miller

(2008),Proctor

etal.(2001),Tang

(2003),Thompson

andSmith

(2005),Wineberger(2006).

16activities:

•Guiding

thepreservice

teachers

inthepreparationandperformance

oflesson

plans,and

providingthem

with

feedback;

•Explainingto

preservice

teachers

whatandhow

toteach;

•Providing

preservice

teachers’with

opportunities

toexperience

teaching;

•Decidingon

theteaching

skillsthat

need

tobe

focusedon

inthenext

classes;

•Adaptingmentoring

tothepreservice

teachers’capabilitiesanddifficulties;

•Guiding

theconnectin

gof

theory

andpractice;

•Guiding

thepreservice

teachers

inteam

work;

•Guiding

thepreservice

teachers

inobservingstructured

activ

ities;

•Presentingthepreservice

teachers

with

theirknow

ledge;

•Guiding

thepreservice

teachers

inteaching

accordingto

theschools’

approaches;

•Encouraging

thepreservice

teachers

togetacquainted

with

theschool

community

;•Conversingandcorrespondingcontinuously

with

thepreservice

teachers

abouttheir

workandpracticum

;•Attemptingto

create

feelings

ofease

andsecurity;

•Settin

gtherequirem

entsfrom

thepreservice

teachers.

•Docum

entin

gsupervisoryconferences;

•Taking

andmanagingfieldnotes.

Subcluster

2:Encouraging

preservice

teachers

tothinkaboutanddiscusstheir

experiences

10References:


andLee

(2005),Basham

etal.(2005),CoulonandLorenzo

(2003),

Dinsm

oreandWegner(2006),EwartandStraw

(2005),

Iliyan

andToren

(2006),Miller

(2008),Otaiba(2005),

White

andLeC

ornu

(2002),Wineberger(2006).

7activities:

•Directin

gthepreservice

teachers

inmanagingandreview

ingtheirportfolio

s;•Working

onlin

eandcorrespondingwith

thepreservice

teachers

ontheirjournals;

•Assistin

gthepreservice

teachers

towrite

reflectiv

ejournalson

theirpracticum

;•Encouraging

thepreservice

teachers

toreflecton

self-regulated

learning,andlin

kthe

know

ledgethey

learnedin

theuniversity

courseswith

theirpracticum

activ

ities;

•Mirroring

tothepreservice

teachers

theirattitudes

andperceptio

nsof

multiculturalism;

(Contin

ued)


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

94.1

59.1

62.7

0] a

t 10:

56 0

1 A

ugus

t 201

3

Table6.

(Contin

ued)

•Discussingandreflectin

gwith

thepreservice

teachers

ontheirlearning,developm

entas

teachers,andthepersonal

andprofessional

challenges

ofteaching

indiverse

environm

ents;

•Overseeingandsupportin

gthepreservice

teachers

todesign

aninquiryproject.

Subcluster

3:Observing

thepreservice

teachers’classesandfeed-backing

them

5References:

Ariav

(2001),CoulonandLorenzo

(2003),

Ham

merness

(2006),Iliyan

andTo

ren(2006),Moore

(2003).

Oneactivity:

•Observing

thepreservice

teachers’classesandfeed-backing

them

onstandard

observationform

s.

Subcluster

4:Placing

thepreservice

teachers

inclassrooms

5References:

Ajayi

andLee

(2005),Dunnet

al.(2000),

EwartandStraw

(2005),Reichenberg

(1998),Shen

(2002).

2activities:

•Connectingthepreservice

teachers

with

thementor–teachers;

•Placing

thepreservice

teachers

inclassroomsaccordingto

thementor-teachers’

priorities.

Cluster

2:Working

with

thementor-teachers

andtheirmentees

Subcluster

1:Guidanceactiv

ities

with

thementor-teachers

10References:


andLee

(2005),Basham

etal.(2005),Burke

(2006),Conderm

anet

al.(2005),Doppen(2007),EwartandStraw

(2005),

GurvitchandMetzler

(2009),Iliyan

andToren

(2006),

Moore

(2003).

2activities:

•Codesigning

thepracticum

with

thementor-teachers

andthemethods

course

teachers;

•Directin

gthepreservice

teachers

andtheirmentors

tousethestrategies

presentedin

the

methods

course.

Subcluster

2:Promotingcooperationbetweenmentor-teachers

andtheirmentees

7References:

EpanchinandColluci

(2002),Ham

merness

(2006),Perry

etal.(2006),Shen(2002),Tang

(2003),

ToddandAgnello

(2006),Yendol-Hoppey(2007).

4activities:

•Encouraging

thepreservice

teachers’discussionswith

theirmentor-teachers;

•Convening

with

thepreservice

teachers

andtheirmentor-teachers

atregularintervalsto

discusstheresponsibilitiesandtheform

ers’

progress;

•Encouraging

team

workwith

thementor-teacher;

•Assistin

gin

mentoring

individual

school

students.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

94.1

59.1

62.7

0] a

t 10:

56 0

1 A

ugus

t 201

3

of helping preservice teachers to get to know the school, but moreover, to get toknow themselves, their abilities, knowledge, skills, and feelings. Only a minority(4/15) of these acts focused on how to teach in class. The second subclusterincluded 7 activities of encouraging preservice teachers to reflect on theirexperiences and discuss them (in 10 articles). To a lesser extent was one activity ofobserving and giving feedback preservice teachers’ classes, which occurred in only5 articles, and placing preservice teachers in their classes which was described inonly 5 articles. The second cluster of university supervisors’ activities (reported in17 articles) described their work with the mentors. These activities involved twosubclusters: guidance activities with the mentor-teachers, and encouraging coopera-tion between preservice teachers and their mentors.

It can be concluded that mentors’ activities differed greatly from the supervi-sors’ role, mainly due to their focus on mentoring: mentor–teachers focused onteaching and acquaintance with the pupils, while supervisors focused on preserviceteachers reflecting on their experiences and getting to know their abilities as pro-spective teachers. Surprisingly, only five articles reported on supervisors’ observa-tions in the classroom. Many goals addressed teaching, and only few of themaddressed school student achievements.

Work relations in the practicum

The work of the three parties in the practicum triad, namely the preservice teacher,the university supervisor, and the mentor-teacher, was described in 18% (20) of thearticles. The practicum was a complex endeavor that did not go smoothly or peace-fully; indeed, all the participants experienced individual tensions. We found sevensources of tension in the reviewed studies:

Time – The theatre of the practicum is the school, which is clearly the mentor-teacher’s territory in which he or she was the sole authority, and the preserviceteachers and their supervisors were only visitors who therefore lacked the time, theauthority, or the need to adapt to the classroom and establish their own place (Slick,1998). The unequal status and differences in educational perceptions and experi-ences, personal background, and style of the three players unavoidably led to threeundesirable results. Both the mentor-teachers and the university supervisors hadonly short periods for supervisory meetings. Consequently, these meetings weresuperficial, lacking significant reflective activity. This in turn limited and diminishedthe required coordination of guidance, supervision, and student teaching (Hastings,2004; Lunenberg, 1999; Reichenberg, 1998; Siebert, Clark, Kilbridge, & Peterson,2006; Wang, 2001; Woods & Weasmer, 2003).

Power struggle – A power struggle often evolved as a result of the clashbetween the mentor-teacher’s need to maintain territorial borderlines and control inthe classroom, and the preservice teacher’s desire for some degree of independence.At the same time, the university supervisor had to exert her academic responsibili-ties as an institutional delegate. The unequal status of the three players hamperedgenuine sharing of ideas and cooperation (Graham, 1997; Weaver & Stanulis,1996).

Different obligations – The university supervisors and mentor-teachers haddifferent obligations, responsibilities, and interests. The mentor-teachers’ highestpriority was that the preservice teachers work according to the school’s or theirown curricula and achieve satisfactory academic results, an interest which led to


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

94.1

59.1

62.7

0] a

t 10:

56 0

1 A

ugus

t 201

3

frequent interventions on behalf of the mentor-teachers in the preservice teachers’planning and classroom teaching (Ewart & Straw, 2005). The interest of the univer-sity supervisor was that the mentor-teachers guide the preservice teachers in waysoutlined by the program; the top priority of the university supervisors was toaddress the preservice teachers’ needs and respond appropriately to their confusionand concerns in the practicum (Richards & Brumfield, 2003; Siebert et al., 2006).Some of the mentors refused to take part in the preparatory program for mentors(Beck & Kosnik, 2000). In extreme cases, these mismatches resulted in alienationof the mentor-teachers and in their objection to the preservice teachers’ tasks as pre-scribed by the program. The preservice teachers’ options were constrained (Ajayi &Lee, 2005; Dunn et al., 2000). For example, the fact that mentor-teachers made nouse of technology in teaching, greatly limited the preservice teachers’ possibilitiesof integrating technology into teaching as envisaged by teacher education programs(Brown & Warschauer, 2006; Doering, Hughes, & Huffman, 2003).

Mentors’ mentoring efficacy – Mentor-teachers’ professional confidence is partlydetermined by their mentoring efficacy, which was not strong since they were usu-ally selected according to their availability and were not prepared for their role.This feeling of insecurity was amplified as they could not mentor or guide the pre-service teachers in domains in which their own knowledge was limited or altogetherabsent. This lack of confidence was communicated to the preservice teachers andimpaired their willingness to teach (Hudson, 2005).

Critical attitude of preservice teachers toward their mentors – Tensions werereported between substantial portions of the preservice teachers and their mentor-teachers due to the latter’s inability to bridge the dichotomy between theory andpractice (Yayli, 2008), or because of the preservice teachers’ conflicts with theirmentor-teachers which resulted in rejection of the mentor-teachers’ actions andexpressed unwillingness to work with such teachers in the future (Doppen, 2007;Kahn, 2001). Mentors were sometimes too demanding: planning, teaching, gettingfeedback, reflecting on the practicum, modifying and revising their plans, all in arather short period and sometimes without breaks.

The “dual” mentor role – The mentor-teachers and university supervisors wereinevitably in conflict because of the dual nature of their roles, which on the onehand required guidance, tutoring and support for their mentees, while on the otherthey were at least moderately critical of the mentees’ practice (Siebert et al., 2006).

Differences in educational perceptions – Individual differences in educationalperceptions and experiences, personal background, and style differences, createdtensions within the practicum triad. Since the status of the parties was unequal,sharing and cooperation were difficult to achieve (Graham, 1997; Maskit & Wein-stein, 2001; Weaver & Stanulis, 1996).

Outcomes of the practicum

The outcomes of studies on the practicum were presented in only 51 articles, mostlywith more than one outcome in each study. It should be borne in mind that theseare not the outcomes of the practicum itself but of the events examined in the stud-ies. Still, they provide important information about the favorable and unfavorableoutcomes of the practicum events that were examined.

There are three major outcome clusters (Table 7): (a) The largest class of out-comes encompasses the preservice teachers’ personal perceptions, beliefs and sense


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

94.1

59.1

62.7

0] a

t 10:

56 0

1 A

ugus

t 201

3

Table

7.Outcomes

ofthepracticum

.

Cluster

1:Cognitiveandem

otionaldevelopm

ent

Subcluster

1:Perceptions,ideas,beliefs,understandings,andappreciatio

n17

References:

Abbate-Vaughn(2006),Alm

arza

(2005),

Andersonet

al.(2006),Brindleyet

al.(2009),Ewartand

Straw

(2005),Hudson(2005),Miller

(2008),Nevin

etal.

(2002),Pence

andGillivray(2008),Perry

etal.(2006),

Proctor


etal.(2008),Skampand

Mueller(2001),ToddandAgnello

(2006),Vaccand

Bright(1999),Woods

andWeasm

er(2003),Yayli(2008).

6favorable

outcom

es:

•Preserviceteachers’appreciatio

nof

thediversity

oftheirstudents’community

improved

follo

wingan

internship

program

abroad,as

didtheirconfi

dencein

theirteaching

ability;

•Preserviceteachers’view

saboutmulticulturalism

becamemorefavorable,

their

prejudices

aboutethnic

differenceswerereduced,

andtheirwillingnessto

teachin

low-

SESschoolsincreased;

•Preserviceteachers’acquaintance

with

innercity,ruralandsuburban

schoolsmadetheir

opinionabouttheseschoolsmorepositiv

eandsomeof

them

couldeven

see

them

selves

working

insuch

schools

•Preserviceteachers’overallability

toidentifyanddescribe

community

services

improved

follo

wingworkwith

theschool

students’communities.

•Preserviceteachers’observationalcapabilityincreasedandthey

becamemoreteacher-

researchers;

•Preserviceteachers’ability

toanalyzetheirteaching

situations

increased.

2unfavorable

outcom

es:

3References:

CoulonandLorenzo

(2003),Doppen

(2007),Velez-Rendon(2006).

•A

smallproportio

nof

preservice

teachers

expressedtheirintentionto

engage

inschool

students’criticalthinking,mostof

them

hadneith

erchangedtheirperceptio

nsand

reasonsforchoosing

teaching,norgained

new

insightsin

teaching

social

studies;

•Preserviceteachers’personal

teaching

stylehasnotchangedin

ashortpracticum

.

Subcluster

2:Efficacy

andself-con

fidencein

teaching,view

s,opinions,andappreciatio

n9References:

Andersonet

al.(2006),Brush

etal.(2003),

Colby

andStapleton

(2006),Duffy

andAtkinson(2001),

Haw

key(1998),Hudson(2005),Richard

andBrumfield

(2003),Thompson

andSmith

(2005),VuchicandRobb

(2006).

2favorable

outcom

es:

•Enhancementwas

attained

ofpreservice

teachers’self-efficacy

andself-con

fidencein

theirability

toteachscience,

history,

andlanguage

inelem

entary

andhigh

schools;

•Preserviceteachers’efficacy

toteachin

innercity

schoolsincreased.

2unfavorable

outcom

es:

3References:Dinsm

oreandWegner(2006),Gurvitchand

Metzler

(2009),Knoblauch

andHoy

(2008).

•Enhancementwas

notattained

intheefficacy

ofpreservice

teachers

follo

wingruraland

suburban

schoolspracticum

andpeer-teaching;

•Preserviceteachers’teaching

efficacy

follo

wingapracticum

attheclassroom

was

small

relativ

eto

that

inlabteaching.

(Contin

ued)


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

94.1

59.1

62.7

0] a

t 10:

56 0

1 A

ugus

t 201

3

Table

7.(Contin

ued)

Subcluster

3:Reflectiv

eAbilities

5References:

Frykholm

andGlasson

(2005),Lee

andWu

(2006),Miller

(2008),SkampandMueller(2001),Yayli

(2008).

2favorable

outcom

es:

•Preserviceteachers

madetheirreflectio

non

teaching

moremeaningful;


improved

thequality

oftheirreflectio

nsin

aweb-based

practicum

.

Cluster

2:Im

provem

entof

instructioncompetences

andskills

Subcluster

2:TeachingPractices/Activities

5favorable

outcom

es:

11References:

AndersonandPuckett(2005),Barnett

(2006),Basham

etal.(2005),BrownandWarschauer

(2006),Brush

etal.(2003),Daw

son(2006),Dealand

White

(2006),Frykholm

andGlasson

(2005),Halpin

(1999),Popeet

al.(2005),Snider(2002).

•Expandedpreservice

teachers’repertoire

ofteaching

methods

inmathematicsand

science;

•Increasednumberof

teaching

strategies

inteaching

reading;

•Increasedmathematicsandsciencepreservice

teachers’flexibility

andresponsiveness

tothelearning

environm

ent;

•Increasedweb-based

instructionof

preservice

teachers

aswellas

theiruseof

technology

toolsandtechnology

instructionin

class;

•Preserviceteachers’understandingof

inquiryteaching

approach

developedviavideo

recorded

observations.

1unfavorable

outcom

e:2References:

BrownandWarschauer(2006),Daw

son

(2006).

•Nochange

inpreservice

teachers’integrationof

technology

intheirteaching.

Subcluster

2:Professionalism:Im

plem

entatio

nof

teaching

approaches

7References:

Burke

(2006),GartonandCano(1996),

Kang(2008),Kow

alchuk

(1999),Montano,et

al.(2005),

Moore

(2003),Puk

andHaines(1999),Tillem

aandKnoll

(1997).

3unfavorable

outcom

es:


failedto

fully

adopttheconstructiv

istproblem-solving

andinquiry

approaches

intheirpractice,

although

mostof

theirmentor-teachers

practiced

and

demonstratedinquiryin

theirclasses;


failedto

integrateEnglishandnativ

elanguage

intheirlessonswhile

actin

gaccordingto

bilin

gual

cross-cultu

rallanguage

approaches;

•Preserviceartteachers

didnotapplytheclassroom

managem

entmethods

they

were

taught

andonly

few

changedtheirpersonal

beliefs

inteaching

science.

Cluster

3:School

Students’Achievements

1favorable

outcom

e:4References:

Lom

eliet

al.(2006),Nevin

etal.(2002),

Nokes

etal.(2008),Otaiba(2005).

•Preserviceteachers’involvem

entincreasedschool

students’scores

indifferentskills,

mathematicsandreadingcomprehension.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

94.1

59.1

62.7

0] a

t 10:

56 0

1 A

ugus

t 201

3

of efficacy (reported in 37 articles). These are presented in three subclusters: Sixdifferent outcomes of perceptions, ideas, beliefs, understandings, views, opinions,and appreciation (16 articles), three different outcomes of efficacy and self-confi-dence in teaching (12 articles), and two different outcomes of reflective abilities (5articles). The outcomes in this class are generally favorable and the data were col-lected from preservice teachers’ opinions, and in some cases, the opinions of theirmentors or supervisors were added or compared. Examples of favorable outcomes:(1) When the views that preservice teachers had about multiculturalism became morefavorable, their prejudices about ethnic differences were reduced. Their willingnessto teach in low-SES schools increased, and the number of their insights about theinstructional processes increased (Abbate-Vaughn, 2006; Almarza, 2005; Proctoret al., 2001; Weinberger, 2006). (2) All the preservice mathematics and scienceteachers who applied an integrated approach to mathematics and science teachingadopted the view that it is not only possible but also important to teach the twotogether, whereas before the practicum they believed that these domains are besttaught separately (Frykholm & Glasson, 2005). (3) The preservice teachers’ under-standing of the links between theory and practice, and their knowledge of learningtheories and teaching skills increased following a practicum using an aquarium as aninformal environment for learning biology in high school (Anderson et al., 2006).

Example of unfavorable outcomes: The preservice teachers failed to reflect ortake note of IT-based classes and elementary school students learning. They per-ceived IT instruction as detached from the learning of elementary school topics andmaintained their view that students learn only by direct instruction, whereas IT-based classes are just another name for games and play (Brush, Glazewski, &Rutowski, 2003; Dawson, 2006). (b) The second cluster (20 articles) is theimprovement of preservice teachers’ instructional competences and skills. This clus-ter lists five different favorable outcomes and four unfavorable ones. Examples offavorable outcomes: (1) Preservice teachers and their mentors worked within theself-regulated learning environment which integrated self-regulated activities intotheir daily classroom routines with special needs-school students. Their classroomtasks were more complex and posed higher self-reflection demands (Nevin, Malian,& Williams, 2002; Perry, Phillips, & Hutchinson, 2006). (2) In a practicum charac-terized by a balanced approach of teaching reading to first grade pupils, the preser-vice teachers’ teaching flexibility increased, they listened more to the children, andthey applied more strategies than at the beginning of the practicum (Deal & White,2006). (3) In science instruction, preservice teachers who practiced teaching biologyusing an aquarium as a natural environment for learning, reinforced/strengthenedtheir science teaching skills, they gained new insights of instructional design andclassroom management, and increased their flexibility and responsiveness to thelearning environment (Anderson et al., 2006).

Examples of unfavorable outcomes: (1) The majority of preservice teachers wholearned in conceptual change learning, or were prepared to use constructivist orinquiry approaches, faced difficulties in using the first approach, and failed to adoptthe constructivist and inquiry approaches in their practicum, even though nearlytwo-thirds of the mentor-teachers practiced and demonstrated inquiry in their classes(Moore, 2003; Puk & Haines, 1999; Tillema & Knoll, 1997). (2) In practice, preser-vice teachers engaged in teaching different languages who tried to apply Communi-cative Languages Teaching-CLT, failed to implement the approach, namely to focuson communication rather than grammar in their lessons (Burke, 2006; Montano,


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

94.1

59.1

62.7

0] a

t 10:

56 0

1 A

ugus

t 201

3

Ulanoff, Quintantar-Sarellana, & Aoki, 2005). (3) In a practicum where the preser-vice teachers and their mentor-teachers were prepared to teach employing a prob-lem-solving approach, they used few components of the strategies in theirpracticum (Garton & Cano, 1996),

(c) The smallest class (four articles) of outcomes included improvements in theschool students’ academic achievements in reading comprehension, mathematics,and additional subjects. Example of favorable outcomes: In a practicum where pre-service teachers’ focused on teaching reading comprehension and mathematics toimmigrant students, grades in the standard tests increased significantly (Lomeli,Parks, Basurto, & Padilla, 2006; Otaiba, 2005).

It is worthy of note that most of the studies reviewed (60%) were carried out inregular or standard practicums that did not require special arrangements and reliedon the preservice teachers’ tasks. A minority (8%) of the researches was executedin specially designed practice. These natural settings constitute the strength of thereview, since it renders a real picture of the practicum.

Summary

The following section will summarize the findings according to the three questionsand add one methodology conclusion.

Goals and rationales: The two largest classes of goals included getting to knowwhat being a teacher involves (teaching), and promoting the preservice teachers’professional development (knowledge, skills, and identity). Thus, most of the practi-cums’ goals were related to the preservice teachers’ professional growth and betteracquaintance with the teacher’s real role, the school’s environment, and its students’cultural diversity. More modest goals included empowerment of other actors in thepracticum environment, namely the mentor-teachers, the students’ communities, andimproving academic achievements.

The rationales for the practicum mostly included the preservice teachers’expected application of their instructional skills in mentored settings while attendingthe teacher education program. The second rationale was reducing the gap betweentheory and practice. The third rationale was enabling close acquaintance with thediversified, realistic settings of the preservice teachers’ future workplaces, and thefourth rationale referred to the personal identity of preservice teachers.

Activities and relations of the participants: The largest proportion of preserviceteachers’ activities were planning and teaching particular subjects to whole class-rooms for whole class periods, and reflecting on diverse aspects of the practicum orpersonal issues. The mentor-teachers’ and university supervisors’ activities providedpreservice teachers with individual, standard, or common guidance to help themintegrate into school culture. To a lesser extent, there were different activities suchas observations and school community activities. The mentor-teachers’ activitiesconsisted primarily of helping the preservice teachers by nurturing, supporting,observing, and evaluating them. A negligible part of the mentors’ activities,reported in only two articles, was targeted at the preservice teachers’ professionalidentity. Thirty-one different activities undertaken by university supervisors focusedmostly on encouraging the preservice teachers to reflect and discuss their experi-ences, and 24 different activities of observing and giving feedback the preserviceteachers’ classes. It can be concluded that the mentors’ role is more about teaching


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

94.1

59.1

62.7

0] a

t 10:

56 0

1 A

ugus

t 201

3

and becoming acquainted with the teacher’s role, while supervisors are more inter-ested in the preservice teachers’ personal development.

The personal/functional relationships between mentors and university supervisorsand preservice teachers were attended by tensions and conflicts which ensued fromthe different interests, educational perceptions, intentions, and status of the threeparties. These diverse and extensive disparities were not bridged due to lack ofplanned coordination in the teacher education program, too little time being allo-cated, or the absence of preparation of the mentor-teachers.

Outcomes of the events in the practicum: The largest classes of outcomes wereperceptions, reflective abilities, efficacy, and self-confidence in teaching in standardand nonstandard settings. Most of these outcomes were favorable and support theimportance of “positive feelings” for the practicum. The outcomes of the preserviceteachers’ reflective thinking were mostly favorable and were derived from theirreports and the researchers’ analyses of these documents. The second group of out-comes referred to preservice teachers’ mentored teaching, and focused on preserviceteachers' perceptions of their experiences of teaching. The outcomes of the practi-cum were mostly favorable, but in the implementation of teaching approaches theoutcomes were unfavorable.

In concluding these results, it seems that the rationales, goals, and activities ofthe practicum in the different settings are focused mainly on teaching competenciesand acquaintance with the students’ diversity. The evidence of the outcomes ofthese actions and events is preservice teachers’ opinions and self-reporting (i.e. pre-service teachers’ report on their sense of efficacy). This picture reflects the notionthat what is important is the way preservice teachers see themselves as prospectiveteachers and succeed in changing their views and expanding their insights whileteaching. This picture also shows that there is no “typical,” “common,” or “stan-dard” practicum and that practicum diversity is the quality that stands out the most.

Discussion

The discussion will present the main pictures emerging from the results: (1) Twodifferent approaches in the practicum exhibited simultaneously by the mentor andthe supervisor; (2) Three types of institutional relationships emerged from thedescriptions. We will conclude with implications for teacher education programs.

(1) Mentors and supervisors – two approaches in the practicumIn this data, we found that in many cases the practicum fluctuates between two

approaches: the apprenticeship and personal growth approaches. Orland-Barak(2010) describes apprenticeship as acted out by the idea of identifying gaps betweenexpected and realized behaviors, observing and assessing performance based onmodeling, repeated behaviors, and external criteria, as well as the practice in action.The personal growth approach is characterized as based on mentees’ understandingand interpretation of the practice. The mediation of practices is carried out by stim-ulating their awareness, and identifying their personal beliefs and values, as well astheir weaknesses and strengths. Although in our data teaching competencies areranked at the top of the goals and rationales (the first goal in our data), it seems thatsupervisors’ attention lies in a different field altogether. In the studies reviewedsupervisors’ actions were mostly to reflect on preservice teachers’ experiences anddiscuss them. The supervisors/researchers’ main interest was in the preservice teach-ers’ beliefs, personal identity, self-efficacy, perceptions, opinions, and feelings. At


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

94.1

59.1

62.7

0] a

t 10:

56 0

1 A

ugus

t 201

3

the same time, the mentors focused on instructional skills, realizing the apprentice-ship approach in their activities. They are focused on the preservice teachers’adjustment to the school and on their role as prospective teachers. They exposedthe preservice teachers’ difficulties, presented curriculum and goals, and demon-strated teaching. Whereas supervisors focused on the preservice teachers’ innerworld, mentors focused on instructional skills and acquaintance with school reality.Lunenberg’s study (1999) supports our conclusion: Lunenberg examined role per-ceptions among 127 mentors and 17 supervisors and found a similar result. Thementors focused on teaching and on coping with school reality, they felt very muchresponsible for the preservice teachers’ preparation in instructional abilities, but theyfelt unprepared for their consultation competencies role, namely the need to dealwith their mentees’ emotional state. Supervisors, on the other hand, perceive theirrole as less responsible for instructional guidance and more for the professionalgrowth of their students.

Several studies documented supervisors’ thoughts, realizing that their consultingabilities were inappropriate to the preservice teachers’ practicum context (Hawkey,1998; Ewart & Straw, 2005; Woods & Weasmer, 2003). This focus on the innerworld was also found in the review of Murray et al. (2008), saying that “One find-ing emerged consistently across a number of studies, regardless of the frameworkused: preservice teachers’ reflections were predominantly descriptive in character,focusing on the self and on concrete, day-to-day developments” (p. 233). In thepresent review, we found that the focus was not only at the center of the supervi-sors’ actions, but also at the focus of the research on the inquiries of the practicum,on thoughts, beliefs, and sense of efficacy.

In our effort to portray a complete picture, we asked ourselves, what kind ofinstitutional relationship can we draw from the rationale, goals, activities and out-comes?

(2) Three pictures of institutional relationsA comprehensive examination of the descriptions of the goals and rationales,

activities, arrangements, and work relations revealed three kinds of relationshipsbetween the host schools and the teacher education programs, two kinds of asym-metric relations, and one symmetric:

A. Relations slanted toward the teacher education program – The schooladopted the educational/instructional approach and the conceptual framework of tea-cher preparation and professional development held by the teacher education pro-gram (in 30 articles). The mentor-teachers functioned as proxies of the teachereducation program to enable and facilitate the preservice teachers’ actions accordingto the teacher education program’s policies, guidelines and prescriptions. Thesewere realized in four ways:

(1) Applying differential instruction, problem-based instruction, constructivistteaching, self-regulated learning, and individualized reading and writinginstruction (e.g. Colby & Stapleton, 2006; Doppen, 2007; Duffy & Atkin-son, 2001; Friel & Carboni, 2000; Garton & Cano, 1996; Montano et al.,2005; Moore, 2003; Otaiba, 2005; Perry et al., 2006; Tillema, 2000; Vuchic& Robb, 2006). ICT training of the preservice teachers was implemented asassignments of the practicum (e.g. Anderson & Puckett, 2005; Barnett,2006; Basham, Palla, & Pianfetti, 2005; Brown & Warschauer, 2006 Brush


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

94.1

59.1

62.7

0] a

t 10:

56 0

1 A

ugus

t 201

3

et al., 2003; Doering et al., 2003; Frykholm & Glasson, 2005; Snider,2002).

(2) Compliance with state-legislated requirements in the U.S.A. was part of prac-ticum assignments in bilingual teaching using a multicultural approach,teaching writing competencies according to new standards described in 2004,and interacting with children at risk according to the recommendations of the“Families of Promise” program (Blasi, 2002; Colby & Stapleton, 2006;Hayes, 2002; Montano et al., 2005).

(3) Adopting conceptual frameworks, approaches, principles, or ideas about tea-cher preparation and development turned out to be the main focus of thepracticum, and mentors had to help preservice teachers develop their ownstyle and educational perspectives (Anderson et al., 2006; Dinsmore & Weg-ner, 2006; Goodnough et al., 2009; Hawkey, 1998; Hudson, 2005; Weinber-ger, 2006; Tsang, 2003).

(4) Conducting the practicum as a research model (Lake & Jones, 2008; Yayli,2008), integrating preservice teacher’s examination of their learning anddevelopment and beliefs and myths about education and teaching (Breiden-stein, 2002; Epanchin & Colucci, 2002), fostering a lifelong perspective oflove of teaching, and nurturing professionally related characteristics (Ewart& Straw, 2005; Mewborn, 1999; Woods & Weasmer, 2003).

These descriptions point to field experience as the arena of change and innova-tion in which preservice teachers will work with their supervisors and teachers tocreate a new reality in the classroom. This conclusion was also reported in Darling-Hammond et al. (2005).

B. Relations slanted toward the school – The teacher education program adaptedto the school’s needs, policies and practices in diverse ways and customized andshaped the practicum mainly by placing requirements and constraints on the school(in 16 articles). In relations of this kind, the school required that (1) the preserviceteachers become acquainted with the school reality: student populations, curricula,instructional materials, the many and varied teachers’ roles, and the teacher educa-tion program, recognize the school’s autonomy and role in preparing preserviceteachers (Blake, 2005; Glenn, 2006; Gurvitch & Metzler 2009; Nokes, Bullough,Egan, Birrell, & Merrell, 2008; Ping & Chunxia, 2006; Santoro & Allard, 2005),and become acquainted with and accommodate the cultural environment (Knutson,Dunlap, & Gonzalez, 2007; Knoblauch & Hoy, 2008; Malewski & Phillion 2009;Pence & Gillivray 2008). (2) The university supervisor adopts the school’s bench-mark for preservice teachers’ adaptation to the professional environment (Chang,Early, & Winton, 2005; Conderman, Morin, & Stephens, 2005; Dunn et al., 2000;Penso & Lazarowitz, 1997; Skamp & Mueller, 2001). In extreme cases, the teachereducation program was not involved in the preservice teachers’ activities or theirmentoring, since these duties had been conferred upon an external practicum coun-selor whose sole role was to assist in the success of the individual preservice tea-cher’s experience (Matus, 1999).

C. Symmetric relations – 10 descriptions2 in which the mentor-supervisors andpreservice teachers discussed tensions and engaged in joint construction of the con-vergence and divergence of the practicum triad, mainly in Professional Develop-mental Schools (PDS) (Brindley, Quinn, & Morton, 2009; Dawson, 2006; Epanchin& Colucci, 2002; Hayes, 2002; Perry et al., 2006; Reichel, Iltov, & Mor, 2002;


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

94.1

59.1

62.7

0] a

t 10:

56 0

1 A

ugus

t 201

3

Scantlebury, Gallo-Fox, & Wassell, 2008; Thompson & Smith, 2005; Velez-Rendon,2006; Vacc & Bright 1999; Yendol-Hoppey, 2007). We concluded that thesedescriptions are symmetric relations. These relations were realized when the men-tor-teachers teamed up with their mentees as equals in instructional design andclassroom teaching, applying particular approaches from the teacher education pro-gram, helping preservice teachers understand the schools’ complex and multidimen-sional realities, or participating in the preparation of the mentees for the practicumaccording to the teacher education program.

It should be noted that these relationships are not mutually exclusive; it couldwell be that the same teacher education program unconsciously conducts severalrelationship systems with different staff members, but the three institutional relation-ships are the implicit force affecting the practicum.

Although one of the main goals of the practicum was to become more knowl-edgeable about the schools’ internal and external environment and act in them, thepreservice teachers’ activities were not directed to acquaintance with the administra-tion or any institutional relationships in the practicum. Thus, acquaintance with theschool environment was limited to the scope of the classroom. Varrati and Smith’sstudy (2010) shows that around 10–20% of the preservice teachers talked or metwith principals during their practices. Most of them reported that the introductionswere brief, they rarely had any significant contact with the principals and never hada full conversation with them. This study confirms our results which point to thelack of involvement on the part of the principals or other institutional officialsinvolved in the practicum.

In conclusion, the complete picture points to conflicts and gaps between goalsand actions, between the practicum triad, and between the two systems involved inthe practicum: supervisors and mentors acting in different directions at the sametime, ignoring school student achievements and administration, namely a lack ofany meaningful connection with principals. Supervisors favor their own studentsover those with whom preservice teachers work in their practicum experiences.They were more interested in preservice teachers' personal growth than in theschool students’ achievements. Supervisors and mentors have different interests inthe school setting, as we described in the individual relationship, and teacher educa-tion programs impose ideas on the mentors or send their students to learn frommentor-teachers.

Implications

The descriptions of the individual and institutional relations revealed a problematicpicture which could prove useful not only for the individuals involved in teachereducation and the practicum and their institutes, but also for additional audiences,such as policymakers, local and national education boards, and school principalswho train preservice teachers. A search for a more coherent practicum can begininside teacher education programs by coordinating goals, acting with schools, anddefining the supervisors’ role. We suggest a broader context of teacher educationprograms that prepare teachers for the reality of the school as an organization,namely to make them aware of various factors such as hierarchy, policy, coordina-tion with staff, and administration. This organizational aspect should be in theoryand practice alike. Preservice teachers would learn how legislation and districtrules dominate school culture, how exams and achievements are determined and


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

94.1

59.1

62.7

0] a

t 10:

56 0

1 A

ugus

t 201

3

accepted by the school community, and how to establish relationships with parentsand professional staff and to act as part of school organizational culture. Wesuggest that principals and other school staff members meet regularly, present theirway of thinking about teaching and education, and discuss cases and events withthe preservice teachers and college/university staff. Entrusting preservice teachersin the hands of mentor-teachers is not the answer to proper preparation in thepracticum, nor is imposing ideas on mentors or schools (the two popular relation-ships we found in the studies reviewed). The symmetric relations, which are meantto be the desirable practicum, were still very much focused on the inner world ofthe preservice teachers and ignored the organizational aspects of the school. Weneed a comprehensive view of teacher education programs merging practicumsinto school reality, translating theory into practice in cooperation with the mentor-school. This can be accomplished when teacher education programs and schoolstaff build a new program as a realization of their vision in education and teachereducation as well.

Notes1. This high rate of reduction according to search criteria was also found in other reviews,

which are reported in the literature review above.2. The few studies presenting Professional Developmental Schools surprised us, since we

thought this model was popular in teacher education programs, but our search selectiondid not lead to further data sources regarding this practicum model.

ReferencesAbbate-Vaughn, J. (2006). “Not writing it out but writing it off”: Preparing multicultural

teachers for urban classrooms. Multicultural Education, 13, 41–48.Ajayi, L. J., & Lee, S. K. (2005). Perceptual difference between intern teachers and univer-

sity supervisors on the expectations and preferences for the field work program. Educa-tion, 126, 259–274.

Almarza, D. J. (2005). Connecting multicultural education theories with practice: A casestudy of an intervention course using the realistic approach in teacher education. Bilin-gual Research Journal, 29, 527–539.

Anderson, D., Lawson, B., & Mayer-Smith, J. (2006). Investigating the impact of a practi-cum experience in an aquarium on preservice teachers. Teaching Education, 17, 341–353.

Anderson, R., & Puckett, J. (2005). The usefulness of an online platform capturing literacyfield experiences: Four lessons learned. Literacy Reading Research and Instruction, 44,22–46.

Ariav, T., & Clinard, V. (2001). From a mentor school to a professional developmentalschool. Dapim, 31, 148–178. [Hebrew].

Artiles, A. J., Trent, S. C., Hoffman-Kipp, P., & Lopez-Torres, L. (2000). From individualacquisition to cultural historical practices in multicultural teacher education. Remedialand Special Education, 21, 79–120.

Bangel, N. J., Enersen, D., Capobianco, B., & Moon, S. M. (2006). Professional develop-ment of preservice teachers: Teaching in the super saturday program. Journal for theEducation of the Gifted, 29, 339–363.

Banville, D. (2002). Literature review of best practices of cooperating teachers in the U.S.A.paper presented at the China-U.S. Conference on Physical Education, Beijing, China,July 16–19.

Barnett, M. (2006). Using a web-based professional development system to supportpreservice teachers in examining authentic classroom practice. Journal of Technologyand Teacher Education, 14, 701–729.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

94.1

59.1

62.7

0] a

t 10:

56 0

1 A

ugus

t 201

3

Basham, J., Palla, A., & Pianfetti, E. (2005). An integrated framework used to increase pre-service teacher NETS-T ability. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13, 257–276.

Beck, C., & Kosnik, C. (2000). Associate teachers in preservice education: Clarifying andenhancing their role. Journal of Education for Teaching, 26, 207–224.

Blake, E. P. (2005). Student teaching in Japan: The lesson. Journal of Mathematics TeacherEducation, 8, 61–74.

Blasi, M. W. (2002). An asset model: Preparing preservice teachers to work with childrenand families “of Promise”. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 17, 106–122.

Breidenstein, A. (2002). Researching teaching, researching self: Qualitative research andbeginning teacher development. The Clearing House, 75, 314–318.

Brindley, R. R., Quinn, S., & Morton, M. L. (2009). Consonance and dissonance in a studyabroad program as a catalyst for professional development of preservice teachers. Teach-ing and Teacher Education, 25, 525–532.

Broemmel, A. D. (2006). No teacher left behind: Valuing teacher voice in elementary read-ing teacher education. Reading Research and Instruction, 46, 53–71.

Brown, D., & Warschauer, M. (2006). From the university to the elementary classroom: Stu-dents’ experiences in learning to integrate technology in instruction. Journal of Technol-ogy and Teacher Education, 14, 599–621.

Brush, T., Glazewski, K., & Rutowski, K. (2003). Integrating technology in a field-basedteacher training program: The PT3@ASU project. Educational Technology Research andDevelopment, 51, 57–72.

Brush, T., & Saye, J. W. (2009). Strategies for preparing preservice social studies teachers tointegrate technology effectively: Models and practices. Contemporary Issues in Technol-ogy and Teacher Education, 9, 46–59.

Bullough, R. V. Jr., Young, J., Erickson, L., Birrell, J. R., Clark, D. C., & Egan, M. W.(2002). Rethinking field experiences: Partnership teaching versus single-placement teach-ing. Journal of Teacher Education, 53, 68–80.

Burke, B. M. (2006). Theory meets practice: A case study of preservice world languageteachers in U.S. secondary schools. Foreign Language Annals, 39, 148–166.

Capraro, R. M., Capraro, M. M., Parker, D., Kulm, G., & Raulerson, T. (2005). The mathe-matics content knowledge role in developing preservice teachers’ pedagogical contentknowledge. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 20, 102–118.

Chang, F., Early, D. M., & Winton, P. (2005). Early childhood teacher preparation in specialeducation at 2 and 4 year institutions of higher education. Journal of Early Intervention,27, 110–124.

Clift, R., & Brady, P. (2005). Research on methods courses and field experiences. In M.Cochran-Smith & K. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of theAERA panel on research and teacher education (pp. 309–424). Mahwah, NJ: AmericanEducational Research Association and Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cochran-Smith, M., & Fries, K. (2005). The AERA panel on research and teacher education:Context and goals. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. M. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying TeacherEducation (pp. 37–68). Washington, D.C.: AERA, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Pub-lishers.

Colby, S. A., & Stapleton, J. N. (2006). Preservice teachers teach writing: Implications forteacher education. Reading Research and Instruction, 45, 353–376.

Conderman, G., Morin, J., & Stephens, J. T. (2005). Special education student teaching prac-tices. Preventing School Failure, 49, 5–10.

Coulon, S. C., & Lorenzo, D. C. (2003). The effects of supervisory task statements on pre-service teachers’ instructional behaviors during re-taught lessons. Education, 124, 181–193.

Darling-Hammond, L., Pacheco, A., Michelli, N., LePage, P., & Hammerness, K. (2005).Implementing curriculum renewal in teacher education: Managing organization and pol-icy change. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing Teachers for aChanging World (pp. 442–479). San-Francisco: Wiley.

Dawson, K. (2006). Teacher inquiry: A vehicle to merge prospective teachers’ experienceand reflection during curriculum-based, technology-enhanced field experiences. Journalof Research on Technology in Education, 38, 265–292.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

94.1

59.1

62.7

0] a

t 10:

56 0

1 A

ugus

t 201

3

Deal, D., & White, C. S. (2006). Voices from the classroom: Literacy beliefs and practicesof two novice elementary teachers. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 20,313–329.

Dinsmore, J., & Wegner, K. (2006). Relationships in teacher education preparation: Fromcohorts to community. Teacher Education Quarterly, 33, 54–74.

Doering, A., Hughes, J., & Huffman, D. (2003). Preservice teachers: Are we thinking withtechnology? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35, 342–361.

Doppen, F. (2007). The influence of a teacher education program on preservice social studiesteachers’ beliefs: A case study. Journal of Social Studies Research, 31, 54–64.

Duffy, M. A., & Atkinson, T. S. (2001). Learning to teach struggling (and non-struggling)elementary school readers: An analysis of preservice teachers’ knowledge. ReadingResearch and Instruction, 41, 83–102.

Dunn, S. V., Ehrich, L., Mylonas, A., & Hansford, B. C. (2000). Students’ perceptions offield experience in professional development: A comparative study. Journal of NursingEducation, 39, 393–400.

Edwards, C. J., Carr, S., & Siegel, W. (2006). Influences of experiences and training oneffective teaching practices to meet the needs of diverse learners in schools. Education,126, 580–592.

Ensor, P. (2001). From preservice mathematics teacher education to beginning teaching: Astudy in recontextualizing. Journal for Research in Mathematics, 32, 296–321.

Epanchin, B. C., & Colucci, K. (2002). The professional development school without walls:A partnership between university and two school districts. Remedial and Special Educa-tion, 23, 349–358.

Everhart, B., & Vaugh, M. (2005). A comparison of teaching patterns of student teachersand experienced teachers in three distinct settings: Implications for preparing teachers forall settings. Education, 126, 221–239.

Ewart, G., & Straw, S. B. (2005). A seven-month practicum: Collaborating teachers’response. Canadian Journal of Education, 28, 185–202.

Farrell, M. A., Walker, S., Bower, A., & Gahan, D. (2000). Researching early childhood stu-dent teachers: Life histories and course experiences. International Journal of EarlyChildhood, 32, 34–40.

Friel, S. N., & Carboni, L. W. (2000). Using video-based pedagogy in an elementary mathe-matics methods course. School Science and Mathematics, 100, 118–127.

Frykholm, J., & Glasson, G. (2005). Connecting science and mathematics instruction: Peda-gogical context knowledge for teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 105, 127–141.

Garton, B. L., & Cano, J. (1996). The relationship between cooperating teachers and studentteachers’ use of the problem-solving approach to teaching. Journal of Agriculture Educa-tion, 37, 48–55.

Glenn, W. J. (2006). Model versus mentor: Defining the necessary qualities of the effectivecooperating teacher. Teacher Education Quarterly, 33, 85–96.

Goodnough, K., Osmond, P., Dibbon, D., Glassman, M., & Stevens, K. (2009). Exploring atriad model of student teaching: Preservice teacher and cooperating teacher perceptions.Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 285–296.

Graham, P. (1997). Tensions in the mentor-teacher-student-teacher relationship: Creating pro-ductive sites for learning within a high school English teacher education program. Teach-ing and Teacher Education, 3, 513–527.

Graham, S., & Thornley, C. (2000). Connecting classrooms in preservice teacher education:Conversations for learning. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 28, 235–245.

Gurvitch, R., & Metzler, M. W. (2009). The effect of laboratory based and field based practi-cum experience on preservice teachers’ self efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education,25, 437–443.

Halpin, R. F. (1999). A model of constructivist learning in practice: Computer literacy inte-grated into elementary mathematics and science teacher education. Journal of Researchon Computing in Education, 32, 128–138.

Hammerness, K. (2006). From coherence in theory to coherence in practice. Teacher CollegeRecord, 108, 1241–1265.

Hastings, W. (2004). Emotions and the practicum: The cooperating teachers’ perspective.Teachers and Teaching, 10, 135–148.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

94.1

59.1

62.7

0] a

t 10:

56 0

1 A

ugus

t 201

3

Hawkey, K. (1998). Mentor pedagogy and student teaching professional development: Astudy of two mentoring relationships. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14, 657–670.

Hayes, M. T. (2002). Assessment of a field-based teacher education program: Implicationsfor practice. Education, 122, 581, 700–705.

Hobson, A. J., Ashby, P., Malderez, A., & Tomlinson, P. D. (2009). Mentoring beginning teach-ers: What we know and what we don’t. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 207–216.

Hudson, P. (2005). Mentors’ personal attributes for enhancing their mentees’ primary scienceteaching. Teaching Science, 51, 31–34.

Iliyan, S., & Toren, Z. (2006). The time dimension in practical training. Dapim, 41, 197–229. [Hebrew].

Ingersoll, R., & Kralik, J. M. (2004). The impact of mentoring on teacher retention: Whatthe research says. (pp. 1–24) Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.Retrieved from http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/50/36/5036.htm

Kahn, B. (2001). Portrait of success: Cooperating teachers and the student teaching experi-ence. Action in Teacher Education, 22, 48–58.

Kang, H.-H. (2008). Learning to teach science: Personal epistemologies, personal goals, andpractices of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 478–498.

Kay, R. H. (2006). Evaluating strategies used to incorporate technology into preservice edu-cation: A review of the literature. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38,383–408.

Knoblauch, D., & Hoy, W. (2008). “Maybe I can teach those kids”: The influence of contextfactors on student teachers’ efficacy beliefs. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 166–179.

Knutson, M. K., Zuniga, D. C., & Gonzalez, A. (2007). The impact of a freshman year com-munity-based service-learning experience on the achievement of standards articulated forteacher candidates. The School Community Journal, 17, 111–121.

Kowalchuk, E. A. (1999). Perceptions of practice: What art student teachers say they learnand need to know. Studies in Art Education, 41, 71–91.

Lake, E. V., & Jones, I. (2008). Service-learning in early childhood teacher education: Usingservice to put meaning back into learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 2146–2156.

Lee, G., & Wu, C. (2006). Enhancing the teaching experience of preservice teachers throughthe use of videos in web-based computer mediated communities. (CMC). Innovations inEducation and Teaching International, 43, 369–380.

Lomeli, J., Parks, J., Basurto, L., & Padilla, F. (2006). California mini-corps: Developingquality teaching for 40 years. Education, 127, 100–108.

Lunenberg, M. (1999). New qualifying requirements of the mentoring of student teachers inthe Netherlands. European Journal of Teacher Education, 22, 159–171.

Ma, Y., Lai, G., Williams, D., Prejean, L., & Ford, M. J. (2008). Exploring the effectivenessof a field experience program in a pedagogical laboratory: The experience of teachercandidates. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 16, 411–433.

Malewski, E., & Phillion, J. (2009). International field experiences: The impact of class, gen-der and race on the perceptions and experiences of preservice teachers. Teaching andTeacher Education, 25, 52–60.

Martin, D. (1997). Mentoring in one’s own classroom: An exploratory study of contexts.Teaching and Teacher Education, 13, 183–197.

Maskit, D., & Weinstein N. (2001). Student teachers and the mentor-teacher during the prac-ticum: An encounter between autonomy and involvement. Dapim, 33, 10–42. [Hebrew].

Matus, D. E. (1999). An innovative strategy supports student teachers in urban secondaryschools. Education Module, 73, 37–41.

Mewborn, D. S. (1999). Reflective thinking among preservice elementary mathematics teach-ers. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30, 316–341.

Miller, M. (2008). Problem-based conversations using preservice teachers’ problems as amechanism for their professional development. Teacher Education Quarterly, 35, 77–100.

Montano, T., Ulanoff, S. H., Quintantar-Sarellana, R., & Aoki, L. (2005). The debilingual-ization of California’s prospective bilingual teachers. Social Justice-Social ScienceModule, 32, 103–121.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

94.1

59.1

62.7

0] a

t 10:

56 0

1 A

ugus

t 201

3

http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/50/36/5036.htm

Moore, R. (2003). Reexamining the field experiments of preservice teachers. Journal ofTeacher Education, 54, 31–42.

Murray, M. M., & Mandell, C. J. (2006). On-the-job practices of early childhood specialeducation providers trained in family-centered practices. Journal of Early Intervention,28, 125–134.

Murray, S., Nuttall, J., & Mitchell, J. (2008). Research into initial teacher education in Aus-tralia: A survey of the literature 1995–2004. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 225–239.

Nelson, J. (2008). Exploring diversity through ethos in initial teacher education. Teachingand Teacher Education, 24, 1729–1738.

Nevin, A., Malian, I., & Williams, L. (2002). Perspectives on self-determination across thecurriculum: Report of a preservice special education teacher preparation program. Reme-dial and Special Education, 23, 75–81.

Nokes, J. D., Bullough, R. V., Egan, W. M., Birrell, J. R., & Merrell, J. (2008). The paired-placement of student teachers: An alternative to traditional placements in secondaryschools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 2168–2177.

Orland-Barak, L. (2010). Introduction: Learning to mentor as Praxis: Foundations for a cur-riculum in teacher education. New York, NY, Springer. (pp. 1–12).

Otaiba, S. Al. (2005). How effective is code-based reading tutoring in English for Englishlearners and preservice teacher-tutors? Remedial and Special Education, 26, 245–254.

Pence, H. M., & Gillivray, K. (2008). The impact of an international field experience on pre-service teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 14–25.

Penso, S., & Lazarowitz, R. (1997). Student teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge: Howthey design content representation for instruction. Studies in Education, 2, 99–119.[Hebrew].

Perry, N. E., Phillips, L., & Hutchinson, L. (2006). Mentoring student teachers to supportself-regulated learning. The Elementary School Journal, 106, 237–254.

Ping, L., & Chunxia, Q. (2006). Examining teacher preparation in P.R. China and the U.S:A preliminary comparative study. International Education, 35, 5–23.

Pope, M., Hare, D., & Howard, E. (2005). Enhancing technology use in student teaching: Acase study. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13, 573–618.

Proctor, T. J., Rentz, N. L., & Jackson, M. W. (2001). Preparing teachers for urban schools:The role of field experience. Western Journal of Black Studies, 25, 219–227.

Puk, T. J., & Haines, J. M. (1999). Are schools prepared to allow beginning teachers toreconceptualize instruction? Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, 541–553.

Ralph, E. G., Walker, K., & Wimmer, R. (2008). The clinical/practicum experience in pro-fessional preparation: Preliminary findings. McGill Journal of Education, 43, 157–172.

Reichel, N., Iltov, Z., & Mor, E. (2002). New thoughts about practicum work: An ongoingmodel of practicum at Ohalo College of Education. Dapim, 34, 191–220. [Hebrew].

Reichenberg, R. (1998). Interaction between mentor-teacher and student-teacher in fieldexperience and its relation to reflective ability development. Dapim, 26, 30–52.[Hebrew].

Richards, J. C., & Brumfield, D. (2003). Three steps forward one step back: Two preserviceteachers learn to teach in consecutive, field-based literacy courses. Reading Researchand Instruction, 42, 63–84.

Santoro, N., & Allard, A. (2005). (Re)examining identities: Working with diversity in thepreservice teaching experience. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 863–873.

Scantlebury, K., Gallo-Fox, J., & Wassell, B. (2008). Co- teaching as a model for preservicesecondary science teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 967–981.

Schmidt, M. (2005). Preservice string teachers’ lesson-planning processes: An exploratorystudy. Journal of Research in Music Education, 53, 6–25.

Shen, J. (2002). Student teaching in the context of a school-university partnership: A casestudy of a student-teacher. Education, 122, 564–579.

Siebert, C. J., Clark, A., Kilbridge, A., & Peterson, H. (2006). When preservice teachersstruggle or fail: Mentor-teachers’ perspectives. Education, 126, 409–422.

Simpson, M. (2006). Field experience in distance delivered initial teacher educationprogrammes. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14, 241–254.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

94.1

59.1

62.7

0] a

t 10:

56 0

1 A

ugus

t 201

3

Skamp, K., & Mueller, A. (2001). A longitudinal study of the influences of primary and sec-ondary school, university and practicum on student teachers’ images of effective primaryscience practice. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 227–245.

Sleeter, C. E. (2001). Preparing teachers for culturally diverse schools. Journal of TeacherEducation, 52, 94–106.

Slick, S. (1998). A university supervisor negotiates territory and status. Journal of TeacherEducation, 49, 306–315.

Snider, S. L. (2002). Exploring technology integration in a field-based teacher education pro-gram: Implementation efforts and findings. Journal of Research on Technology in Educa-tion, 34, 230–249.

Tang, S. Y. F. (2003). Challenge and support: The dynamics of student teachers’ professionallearning in the field experience. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 483–498.

Thompson, S., & Smith, D. (2005). Creating highly qualified teachers for urban schools.The Professional Educator, 1&2, 73–88.

Tillema, H. H. (2000). Belief change towards self-directed learning in student teachers: immer-sion in practice or reflection on action. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 575–591.

Tillema, H. H., & Knoll, W. E. (1997). Promoting student-teacher learning through concep-tual change or direct instruction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13, 579–595.

Todd, R. H., & Agnello, M. F. (2006). Looking at rural communities in teacher preparation:Insights into a P-12 schoolhouse. The Social Studies, 97, 178–184.

Tsang, W. K. (2003). Journaling From Internship to Practice Teaching. Reflective Practice,4, 221–240.

Utley, J., & Bryant, R. (2005). Relation between science and mathematics teaching efficacyof preservice elementary teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 105, 82–87.

Vacc, N. N., & Bright, G. W. (1999). Elementary preservice teachers’ changing beliefs andinstructional use of children’s mathematical thinking. Journal for Research in Mathemat-ics Education, 30, 89–110.

Varrati, A., & Smith, A. (2010). Principals as mentors in teacher education: How preserviceteachers’ voices informed practice. Academic Leadership – The Online Journal, 8.http://www.academicleadership.org/article/principals-as-mentors-in-teacher-education

Velez-Rendon, G. (2006). From student to teacher: A successful transition. Foreign Lan-guage Annals, 39, 320–333.

Vuchic, R., & Robb, B. A. (2006). An integrative approach to FLES teacher training: TheDelaware model. Foreign Language Annals, 39, 334–346.

Wang, J. (2001). Contexts of mentoring and opportunities for learning to teach: A compara-tive study of mentoring practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 51–73.

Wang, J., & Odell, S. J. (2002). Mentored learning to teach according to standards-basedreform: A critical review. Review of Educational Research, 72, 481–546.

Weaver, D. W., & Stanulis, R. N. (1996). Negotiating preparation and practice: Studentteaching in the middle. Journal of Teacher Education, 47, 27–36.

Weinberger, Y. (2006). Professional development in teacher education: Use of portfolios inthe pedagogical instruction setting. Dapim, 41, 170–196. [Hebrew].

West, R. E., Wright, B. G., Gabbitas, B., & Graham, C. R. (2006). Reflections from theintroduction of the blogs and RSS feeds into a preservice instructional technologycourse. TechTrends, 50, 54–60.

White, B., & Le Cornu, R. (2002). Email reducing stress for student teachers. Educationand Information Technologies, 7, 351–357.

Wilson, S. M., Floden, R. E., & Ferrini-Mundy, J. (2001). Teacher Preparation Research:Current Knowledge, Gaps, and Recommendations (pp. 1–83). Seattle, WA: University ofWashington.

Woods, A. M., & Weasmer, J. W. (2003). Great expectations for student teachers: Explicitand implied. Education, 123, 681–688.

Yayli, D. (2008). Theory-Practice Dichotomy in Inquiry: Meanings and preservice teacher-mentor-teacher tension in Turkish literacy classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education,24, 889–900.

Yendol-Hoppey, D. (2007). Mentor-teachers’ work with prospective teachers in a newlyformed professional development school: two illustrations. Teacher College Record, 109,669–698.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

94.1

59.1

62.7

0] a

t 10:

56 0

1 A

ugus

t 201

3

http://www.academicleadership.org/article/principals-as-mentors-in-teacher-education

http://www.academicleadership.org/article/principals-as-mentors-in-teacher-education

The Practicum in Teacher Eduaction

Documents