Cohen The Practicum in ITE

This article was downloaded by: [UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich]
On: 20 September 2013, At: 09:28

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Teaching Education
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cted20
The practicum in preservice teacher

education: a review of empirical
☆
studies
a b a
Esther Cohen (Sayag) , Ron Hoz & Haya Kaplan
a
Department of Special Education, Kaye College, Beer-Sheva,
Israel.
b
Department of Education, Ben-Gurion University, Beer-Sheva,
Israel.
Published online: 01 Aug 2013.
To cite this article: Esther Cohen (Sayag), Ron Hoz & Haya Kaplan , Teaching Education (2013): The
☆
practicum in preservice teacher education: a review of empirical studies , Teaching Education,
DOI: 10.1080/10476210.2012.711815
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 to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and 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 Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial 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
Downloaded by [UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich] at 09:28 20 September 2013
Teaching Education, 2013
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2012.711815
The practicum in preservice teacher education: a review of

empirical studies
Esther Cohen (Sayag)a*, Ron Hozb and Haya Kaplana
a
Department of Special Education, Kaye College, Beer-Sheva, Israel; bDepartment of
Education, 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 studies

conducted 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 the
different practicum settings are focused on teaching competencies and acquain-
tance with the pupils’ diversity. The supervisors’ role is focused mainly on the
preservice 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 were
attended by tension and conflicts ensuing from different interests, educational
philosophies, and status differences that were not bridged. Preservice teachers’
acquaintance with staff and principals at the host school were a negligible part
of 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, designing
a 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 of
field experience, student teaching, clinical teaching, or mentoring programs, typi-
cally constitutes the longest and most intensive exposure to the teaching profession
experienced 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 structure
that provides theoretical studies in the teacher education programs and hands-on
experience on the school premises (Graham & Thornley, 2000). The growing
importance of the practicum is evidenced by the increased time and intensity allot-
ted to this component in teacher education programs, and by the increased number
of conference sessions focused on guided or mentored teaching experience for both
*Corresponding author. Emails: eticohen@Kaye.ac.il, coheesther@gmail.com

This article has been updated. Please see Corrigendum (http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
10476210.2013.839373)
Ó 2013 Taylor & Francis

2 E. Cohen (Sayag) et al.
preservice and beginning teachers (Brush & Saye, 2009; Bullough, Young, Erick-
son, Birrell, Clark, & Egan, 2002; Ralph, Walker, & Wimmer, 2008).
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 learned
about 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 compre-
hensive picture of the practicum than presently available in the extant literature, by
focusing on a systematic analysis of empirical studies published over the past decade.
Literature review
In our survey of previous reviews, we noted that literature reviews of the practicum
often focus on very specific aspects. For instance, some center on specific contextual
elements, such as preservice teachers’ use of technology (Kay, 2006; Simpson
2006). Other materials we located were papers or research documents, rather than lit-
erature reviews, which dealt with diverse aspects of the practicum, including subject
matter and pedagogical preparation, clinical training, policy, student teaching, alter-
native certification, and updating the curriculum of teacher education (e.g. Darling-
Hammond, Pacheco, Michelli, LePage, & Hammerness, 2005; Wilson, Floden, &
Ferrini-Mundy, 2001). As we focused our search for published literature reviews, we
realized that reviews of the practicum often focus on two aspects: learning to teach
under mentoring, and learning to teach in a methods course.
Learning to teach under mentoring – Learning to teach under mentoring, or
tutoring in induction programs, mostly in professional development schools. Hob-
son, Ashby, Malderez, and Tomlinson (2009), Ingersoll and Kralik (2004), and
Wang and Odell (2002) reported on the impact of mentoring on the consequent
retention of beginning teachers. In their review of 75 documents and position
papers, Wang and Odell (2002) identified three mentoring models: (1) mentors
imparting knowledge to preservice teachers, (2) mentors and the teacher education
program bridging gaps between theory and practice, mostly by mentors coping with
teaching methods adopted by the teacher education programs, (3) mentors and
supervisors collaborating on the investigation and creation of a mentoring model. In
the reported studies, Ingersoll (2004) found that the practicum has a great impact
on 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 giving
feedback the preservice teachers, and a certain level of autonomy. In their review of
field 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) personal
development that demands self-inquiry and reflective activities as the focus of field
experience; (c) adjustment to school reality as the main focus of field experience
will be the best preparation for their role; and (d) field experience as the arena of
change and innovation in which preservice teachers will collaborate with their
supervisors 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 the
mentors’ role: despite acknowledging the importance of the mentors’ role, there are
neither clear descriptions of their role nor any standards for their functioning or
preparation as a preliminary requirement for role approval.
Teaching Education 3
Learning to teach in a methods course (dealing with didactic knowledge

and teaching strategy of specific subject matter) – As part of clinical teaching
or field experience, a methods course occasionally measures the outcomes of
preservice 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 a
positive connection between teachers’ preparation in their subject matter and
their performance and impact in the classroom. Despite this correlation, they
identified serious problems with the typical subject-matter knowledge of preser-
vice teachers, even among those who majored in academic disciplines. Most of
the studies concluded that background in subject matter alone is not enough to
prepare new teachers for the challenges they face in the classroom and that the
views on teaching subject matter can be realized in classrooms that allow this
to happen.
In their review of methods courses, Cochran-Smith and Fries (2005) concluded
that the aim of the methods course goes further than instructional techniques. Its
aim is to change the preservice teachers’ perceptions. They indicated a similar
shortage of research information, especially that which documents the outcomes of
practicum 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 indicated
that studies on methods courses emphasize coteaching and social relations in the
field experience as an important element that helps change teaching perceptions and
instruction in class.
We noticed that the reviews differed greatly with respect to their methodo-
logical restrictions and requirements on the searched and selected articles, as
evidenced 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 met
their 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 an
increase in the number of studies on methods courses, only few studies docu-
mented outcomes in preservice teachers’ teaching. These researchers also
pointed to the methodology limitations of these studies, which were mainly
case 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 we
can 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 the
individual participants in the practicum)? (c) What are the effects or benefits of
these experiences (its outcomes)?
Method
Selection criteria
The review was based on articles that provide empirically based information on the
practicum during a specific period. The three selection criteria for articles to be
reviewed were set by the institution that commissioned the review: published in a
refereed journal, based or reported on an empirical study and published between
1996 and 2006. Since we completed the review in 2009, a three-year extension of
the search was added to update the data.
The search strategy

The search strategy was based on a computer search for efficiency reasons, but also
in order to avoid bias, such as basing the review mainly on well-known authors or
journals. We began the search by gathering the relevant terms (student teaching,
mentoring, supervision, cooperating teacher, teacher preparation, preservice teacher
education, teacher training, field experience and practicum), conducting independent
searches in each of the keywords using selected search engines (ERIC, Find Arti-
cles [LookSmart], Academic Research Library, and ProQuest) in several electronic
libraries 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, since
they were about education and not teacher education practicum, or about teacher
induction programs and novices and not preservice teachers. This state of affairs led
us to devise a systematic search strategy in which we distinguished between the
framework in which the practicum exists, the practicum itself, and the role of the
participants. Under framework, we had the terms teacher preparation, preservice
teacher 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 a
two 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 the
teacher 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 no
results. 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-part
analysis 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 research
conducted, the research instruments, data collection and analysis methods, and the
variables; (e) relationship of the teacher education programs to the host school; (f)
the participants’ roles, functioning, and activities; and (g) the outcomes of the
practicum events.
An attempt at writing a summary of one article resulted in differences between

the 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 of
reports: 25 joint reports, namely those merged from the independent reports of two
authors; 23 revised reports, namely one author’s revisions of another author’s
reports; 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 research
approach taken, the instrumentation used, and the participants included.
Research methods
The studies we examined often combined several research methodologies, mainly
qualitative, naturalistic, and case study approaches. Since our main interest was in
the descriptive aspects of the practicum, we decided to classify the methodology of
the 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. For
example, one article described two teacher education systems in China and in the
United 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 evaluation
of the activities, relationships, or components of the practicum by means of diverse
techniques, 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 technology
in a laboratory setting through the eyes of preservice teachers who participated in a
technology 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 two
different experiences: one group experienced teaching in a laboratory and the other
in 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 22
2001–2003 9 16 0 25
2004–2006 23 25 1 49
2007–2009 4 9 4 17
Total 51 56 6 113
Table 2. Tools used in the studies.

⁄
Number of
Instrument articles
Document analysis 91
Preservice teachers’ documents and artifacts 46
Preservice teachers’ reflective writing and journals 33
Others 36
Individual interviews 64
Preservice teachers or graduate teachers 44

Teacher education faculty, mentor-teachers, school teachers 20
Questionnaires 47
In qualitative methodologies 22
In integrated methodologies 18
In qualitative methodologies 7
Observations 37
Classrooms 28
Other activities 9
Group interviews with preservice teachers and students, focus groups, 13

and discussions
Examinations and tests 8

⁄
The numbers do not add up to 113 as some studies used several tools.
on preservice teachers’ beliefs. Table 1 shows that the majority of the studies were
descriptive-evaluative and descriptive-neutral, with varying proportions between
them during the four studied periods.
Tools and participants

The tools most frequently used in the research (see Table 2) included document
analyses of rather subjective materials produced by preservice teachers (n = 91). The
second most frequently used tools included individual interviews with preservice
teachers (n = 64). Questionnaires and classroom observations were less frequently
used (n = 47 and 37, respectively). The least used data-gathering tools included
group interviews among preservice teachers and school exams for school students.
The number of participants was reported in most of the studies, some of which
involved more than one group of participants (e.g. preservice teachers and mentor-
teachers or university supervisors). The number of participants ranged from 1 to
nearly 1400, and almost half the studies (46%) employed 9 to 40 participants. Only
a small number (n = 27, nearly 23%) of the articles reported on the size of the target
group 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 3. Goals of the practicum.

Goal 1: Promote the preservice teachers’ professional abilities
Subgoal 1: To apply and integrate particular instructional approaches 19 References: Abbate-Vaughn (2006), Anderson and
12 goals: Puckett (2005), Artiles, Trent, Hoffman-Kipp, and Lopez-
• Implement teaching for self-regulated and constructivist learning; Torres (2000), Basham et al. (2005), Blasi (2002), Brown
• Integrate mathematics and science teaching; and Warschauer (2006), Brush et al. (2003), Dawson
• Emphasize discovery and inquiry of daily phenomena in science classes; (2006), Doering et al. (2003), Edwards, Carr, and Siegel
• Integrate technology in teaching and use it for reflection, the teaching of mathematics, (2006), Frykholm and Glasson (2005), Garton and Cano
science, arts, and reading strategies; (1996), West, Wright, Gabbitas, and Graham (2006), Lee
• Infuse IT technical skills and attitudes into special education preservice teachers; and Wu (2006), Ma, Lai, Williams, Prejean, and Ford
• Develop reflection through technology use aimed at supporting self-evaluation, (2008), Murray and Mandell (2006), Nevin et al. (2002),
Reflection, and feedback; Pope et al. (2005), Snider (2002).
• Write blogs and improve the practicum through participation and management of
forums;
• Develop the understanding of inquiry-based teaching.
Subgoal 1: Teach particular contents by particular methods 6 References: Capraro et al. (2005), Ensor (2001),
4 goals: Graham (1997), Martin (1997), Matus (1999), Richards
• Teach reading and writing, foreign language, and mathematics, either as part of the and Brumfield (2003).
teacher program course or independently of the program;
• Learn to combine art and literacy;
• Apply particular methods of classroom management and teaching in inner city schools;
• Expose the preservice teachers’ instructional difficulties and teach them to shape
appropriate instructional means to overcome these difficulties.
Subgoal 2: To develop the preservice teachers’ domain and didactical knowledge 13 References: Almarza (2005), Anderson et al. (2006),
8 goals: Ariav and Clinard (2001), Beck and Kosnik (2000),
• Promote teaching skills and efficacy in teaching; Dinsmore and Wegner (2006), Doppen (2007), Ewart and
• Develop the preservice teachers’ capabilities to cope with authentic teaching situations; Straw (2005), Goodnough et al. (2009), Hammerness
• Employ practical knowledge; (2006), Hayes (2002), Tang (2003), Lomeli et al. (2006),
• Acquire insights regarding the motives of practicum in education and the social context Weinberger (2006).
of teaching;
Teaching Education
(Continued)
7
Table 3. (Continued)
• Consolidate and increase the coherence of the preservice teachers’ theoretical knowledge
acquired in the teacher education program and link that knowledge to the school
practice;
• Strengthen the relationship between teaching and learning;
• Become researchers of the preservice teachers’ own practices;
• Develop an individual teaching style.
Goal 2: getting to know school environment 18 References: Almarza (2005), Ariav (2001), Bangel
Subgoal 1: Become better acquainted with the school's internal and external environment et al. (2006), Brindley et al. (2009), Chang, Early, and
and to act therein Winton (2005), Doppen (2007), Epanchin and Colucci
E. Cohen (Sayag) et al.
6 goals: (2002), Goodnough et al. (2009), Lomeli et al. (2006),

• Strengthen the student-teachers’ knowledge and understanding of the complex and Malewski and Phillion (2009), Murray and Mandell
multifaceted settings and reality of the school; (2006), Pence and Gillivray (2008), Proctor et al. (2001),
• Expand the student-teachers’ acquaintance with the cultural diversity and prepare them Reichel et al. (2002), Nelson (2008), Santoro and Allard
for dealing with this reality; (2005), Sleeter (2001), Thompson and Smith (2005),
• Get acquainted with various cultures and the families of at risk students and how to Velez-Rendon (2006), Yendol-Hoppey (2007).
deal with them;
• Learn to act in the context of the school community;
• Change their attitudes and adapt the teaching methods that help them cope with
immigrant and inner city's low SES students;
• Develop practical knowledge relevant for the instruction of school students with special
needs.
Subgoal 3: Expand the acquaintance with the teacher’s role 13 References: Ariav (2001), Dinsmore and Wegner
4 goals: (2006), Ewart and Straw (2005), Goodnough et al. (2009),
• Increase the student-teachers’ acquaintance with the teaching profession; Iliyan and Toren (2006), Knoblauch and Hoy (2008),
• Develop their perspectives of school culture and its organization; Knutson, Zuniga, and Gonzalez (2007), Lake and Jones
• Prepare the student-teachers for teamwork; (2008), Nokes et al. (2008), Scantlebury et al. (2008),
• Get acquainted with the community and its link to the school. Slick (1998), Todd and Agnello (2006), Woods and
Weasmer (2003).
Goal 3: Promote the preservice teachers’ personal growth 10 References: Anderson et al. (2006), Dawson (2006),
Subgoal 1: To develop the preservice teachers’ cognitive skills West et al. (2006), Hammerness (2006), Iliyan and Toren
5 goals: (2006), Lee and Wu (2006), Mewborn (1999), Penso
• Develop the preservice teachers’ thinking and problem-solving capabilities; (1997), Reichenberg (1998), Tang (2003).
(Continued)
• Nurture the preservice teachers’ reasoning skills, systematic analytic thinking and
critical reflection;
• Connect the preservice teachers’ knowledge of mathematics theory and research;
• Teach in a professional educational community and enhance the interpersonal
communication capabilities of its members;
• Increase the sensitization and awareness of their responsibilities in teaching, and their
progress and self-evaluation through their personal experiences and perceptions.
Goal 4: Impact the school 3 References: Lomeli et al. (2006), Otaiba (2005),
Subgoal 2: To boost school students’ achievements Thompson and Smith (2005).
2 goals:
• Teach reading to students at risk in a mentoring project for students with reading
problems or immigrant students in order to promote them at school;
• Promote all students’ knowledge and skills and improve their scores in languages, and
nurture some personal characteristics that are specified by state-set standards.
Subgoal 2: To influence the mentor-teachers and the community 3 References: Anderson et al. (2006), Puk and Haines
3 goals: (1999), Thompson and Smith (2005).
• Prepare mentor-teachers to use the inquiry approach and guide their mentees to do so;
• Disseminate messages of conservation and ecology to students and impact the
community in this direction;
• Prepare educational leadership for inner city schools.
Teaching Education
9
would improve their ability to teach and would apply different teaching approaches
and strategies; the second subgoal was to improve their didactical knowledge.
The second group of goals was acquiring a better understanding of the school
environment: Becoming more knowledgeable about the school’s internal and exter-
nal environment (6 goals) and expanding acquaintance with the teacher’s role (4
goals). The third clustering of goals encompassed 7 different goals that focused on
promoting the preservice teachers’ personal abilities, namely cognitive skills and
professional identity. The fourth cluster included two subgoals with the general
goal of impacting the school via the mentors’ or preservice teachers’ activities in
the community and improving school student achievements. These goals appeared
in 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 its
potential 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 future
workplaces for preservice teachers; workplaces that still retained a degree of control
by the preparatory institutions and their agents in the schools. Because of this
degree of control, the practicum was conceived as an external extension of the
teacher 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 experience
involved the application of academic content. Specifically, according to this ratio-
nale, practicums have the potential of reducing the gap between pedagogical
research and theory (e.g. instructional principles and pedagogical ideas) and instruc-
tional practice (i.e. classroom teaching) for preservice teachers. The articles which
conveyed this rationale argued that this is achieved in four ways:
(1) The practicum experiences are to be designed, monitored, and structured by

the teacher education programs, which also aligns with and integrates them
into its courses, or adapts the preservice teachers’ mentoring to the program’s
approach (Hammerness, 2006; Hayes, 2002; Otaiba, 2005; Vacc & Bright,
1999; Vuchic & Robb, 2006).
(2) Preservice teachers are closely supervised/guided, provided with immediate
feedback, 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 the
practicum is exchanged with them (e.g. Breidenstein, 2002; Shen, 2002).
This mentor-teachers model sought or taught instructional modes to be
observed by preservice teachers (e.g. Garton & Cano, 1996; Lunenberg,
1999).
(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 that
would not otherwise be likely, while still providing them with important guidance
and support they may require to function in these more diverse and unfamiliar
settings. These rationales were achieved by the preservice teachers by (a) practicing
in different cultural backgrounds and schools (e.g. Anderson, Lawson, & Mayer-
Smith, 2006); (b) constructing learning environments that propose/provide school

students 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 for
encouraging and supporting preservice teachers in the development of their personal
identity. A rationale such as this argued that this identity development can be
accomplished through preservice teachers’ reflection on their teaching self and
development 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 teaching
certain subjects (Hudson, 2005), and by supporting preservice teachers in shaping
their 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 in
the 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 of
their practicum. We classified these activities into five major groups and nine subcl-
usters. The first cluster, mentored teaching activities, fell within four subclusters
with 11 different activities associated with planning, teaching methods, subject-mat-
ter instruction, and coteaching with mentor-teachers. For example, the preservice
teachers in Doppen’s (2007) study participated in teacher preparation for social
studies and had to practice inquiry-based teaching in learning centers in order to
develop their social perceptions and critical thinking.
In the second cluster of activities, we found a smaller variety of five activities
involving reflection on diverse issues in about 29 articles. These reflection activities
were related to the preservice teachers’ own classes, attitude to and awareness of
learning, individual identity, cultural identity and diversity, philosophy of education
for 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 the
easiest part and the hardest part of your teaching?”
The third group of activities we documented in the studies involved in 20
articles and pertained to four different forms of observations. Specifically, these
Table 4. Preservice teachers’ activities in the practicum.

12
Cluster 1: Mentored teaching

Subcluster 1: Planning and teaching particular subjects 19 References: Bangel et al. (2006), Brush et al. (2003),
4 activities: Conderman et al. (2005), Frykholm and Glasson (2005),
• Planning and teaching in six domains as prescribed by the teacher education Goodnough et al. (2009), Gurvitch and Metzler (2009), Hawkey
program: English, mathematics and science, history, biology, IT application, and (1998), Iliyan and Toren (2006),Knoblauch and Hoy (2008), Miller
foreign language; (2008),Montano et al. (2005), Nokes et al. (2008), Penso (1997),
• Planning and teaching according to the school curriculum. Skamp and Mueller (2001), Slick (1998), Utely and Bryant (2005),
• Planning and teaching instructional units or mini-units; Vuchic and Robb (2006), Yayli (2008).
• Planning and teaching in different schools (urban, rural, suburban schools).
Subcluster 2: Planning and teaching according to particular approaches for whole 14 References: Ajayi and Lee (2005), Brown and Warschauer
class periods (2006), Doering et al. (2003), Doppen (2007), Garton and Cano
One activity: (1996), Puk and Haines (1999), Lee and Wu (2006), Lomeli et al.
Teaching according to nine approaches that have been prescribed by the teacher (2006), Ma et al. (2008), Mewborn (1999), Moore, (2003), Nevin
education program: constructivism, problem solving, inquiry, self-regulation, et al. (2002), Snider (2002), Tillema and Knoll (1997).
mathematical problem solving combined with reflection, effective teaching,
multicultural approach, technology integration and conceptual change methods.
Subcluster 3: Planning and teaching particular subjects in specific student groups 9 References: Anderson and Puckett (2005), Colby and Stapleton
3 activities: (2006), Coulon and Lorenzo (2003), Duffy and Atkinson (2001),
• Designing instructional materials for diverse student and ethnic populations with Lake and Jones (2008), Mewborn (1999), Otaiba (2005), Proctor
specific needs; et al. (2001), Schmidt (2005).
• Enrichment programs for gifted students;
• Instructing particular subjects to individual students.
Subcluster 4: Coteaching with the mentor-teacher 8 References: Brush et al. (2003), Dawson (2006), Duffy and Atkinson
3 activities: (2001), Goodnough et al. (2009), Gurvitch and Metzler (2009),
• Acting as a pair of colleagues with the mentor-teacher in planning and carrying out Scantlebury et al. (2008), Vuchic and Robb (2006), Wang (2001).
activities;
• Cooperating with peer preservice teachers;
• Serving as the mentor-teacher’s aide (in teaching students with reading
difficulties).
(Continued)
Cluster 2: Reflecting
5 activities: Reflecting on 5 entities and issues: 30 References: Almarza (2005), Artiles et al. (2000), Blasi
• Reflecting on the preservice teacher’s own classes, attitude and awareness to (2002), Breidenstein (2002), Brindley et al. (2009), Brush et al.
learning; (2003), Capraro et al. (2005), Colby and Stapleton (2006), Deal
• Reflecting on individual identity, views about cultural identity and diversity; and White (2006), Dinsmore and Wegner (2006), Doering et al.
• Reflecting on philosophy of education for social justice; (2003), Doppen (2007), Ensor (2001), Goodnough et al. (2009),
• Reflecting on self-professional development; Knutson et al. (2007), Kowalchuk (1999), Lake and Jones (2008),
• Team reflection in aquarium team meetings. Ma et al. (2008), Malewski and Phillion (2009), Martin (1997),
Miller (2008), Vacc and Bright (1999), Pence and Gillivray
(2008), Perry et al. (2006), Richards and Brumfield (2003),
Santoro and Allard (2005), Tang (2003), Weaver and Stanulis
(1996), Weinberger (2006), Yendol-Hoppey (2007).
Cluster 3: Observing others’ action

3 activities: 14 References: Blake (2005), Brush et al. (2003), Graham
• Observing mentor-teachers’ or peers’ classes; (1997), Iliyan and Toren (2006), Ma et al. (2008), Malewski and
• Observing certain aspects of the school during the first week of the year; Phillion (2009), Murray and Mandell (2006), Nokes et al. (2008),
• Observing family-focused practices. Pence and Gillivray (2008), Perry et al. (2006), Ping and Chunxia
(2006), Skamp and Mueller (2001), Tang (2003), Yayli (2008).
• Analyzing video recordings and discussing them in electronic forums. 6 References: Martin (1997), Mewborn (1999), Friel and Carboni
(2000), Coulon and Lorenzo (2003), Barnett (2006), Dinsmore
and Wegner (2006).
Cluster 4: Unspecified activities

• Performing teacher’s classroom functions, acting in the classroom 17 References: Anderson et al. (2006), Broemmel (2006), Duffy
(no specific activities were reported). and Atkinson (2001), Ensor (2001), Everhart and Vaugh (2005),
Ewart and Straw (2006), Glenn (2006), Graham (1997), Kahn
(2001), Lunenberg (1999), Vacc and Bright (1999), Ping and
Chunxia (2006), Richards and Brumfield (2003), Siebert et al.
(2006), Tang (2003), Thompson and Smith (2005), Weaver and
Stanulis (1996).
Teaching Education
Cluster 5: School community activities

1 activity:
13
• Attending team or department meetings, and activities outside the classroom in 5 References: Anderson et al. (2006), Blasi (2002), Slick (1998),
the school. Todd and Agnello (2006), Vuchic and Robb (2006).
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 mentors
were asked about the competencies in teaching reading of the preservice teachers
that were practicing in their classrooms. No information was given about their
assignments in teaching reading. Likewise, in Glenn’s study (2006), two mentors
were 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 general
statement that they were teaching.
Finally, the fifth group included one type of activity (in 5 articles) with the
school staff: preservice teachers’ assignments included discussing and interviewing
principals, school staff, and other important persons in the community (Tod &
Angelo, 2006), and meeting with parents and school staff in order to learn about
families at risk (Blasi, 2002).
Mentor-teachers’ activities
In Table 5, we identify four clusters that we further break down into eight subclusters
encompassing 39 different activities of mentor-teachers. The largest mentor-teachers’
activities primarily consisted of helping preservice teachers through assimilation into
school culture; nurturing, supporting, observing, and evaluating them all involved
guidance afforded by the mentor-teachers. The second subcluster included activities
supporting 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 holding
supervisory conferences. In these activities, mentor-teachers demonstrated their
supervisory abilities, while in the previous cluster mentor-teachers helped preservice
teachers to get acquainted with their role.
The third cluster of activities focused on cooperation with the teacher education
program, specifically: (a) acting in accordance with the teacher education program,
(b) assigning classrooms and lessons to the preservice teachers. These activities
aimed to maintain connections with the teacher education program faculty, receiving
information from the teacher education program, participating in a course taken by
their 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’ professional
identity. For instance, developing the preservice teachers’ self-confidence, empathy
and caring, and empowering their self-efficacy.
University supervisors’ activities

Table 6 presents two clusters divided into six subclusters formed from 31 different
activities undertaken by university supervisors in the practicum. Most of the
activities in Cluster 1 were carried out with preservice teachers, while Cluster 2
activities were carried out with mentors. The first subcluster involved 15 activities
Table 5. Mentor-teachers’ activities in the practicum.

Cluster 1: Nurturing preservice teachers and supporting them in becoming teachers
Subcluster 1: Providing preservice teachers with guidance to help them assimilate in the 25 References: Almarza (2005), Beck and Kosnik (2000),
school culture and with students Brindley et al. (2009), Dinsmore and Wegner (2006),
7 activities: Ewart and Straw (2005), Glenn (2006), Hammerness
• Assisting the preservice teacher in instructional design/planning; (2006), Hudson (2005), Iliyan and Toren (2006),
• Giving clear directions regarding DOs and DON’Ts. Knoblauch and Hoy (2008), Lee and Wu (2006), Martin
• Providing feedback on the preservice-teacher’s classes. (1997), Mewborn (1999), Moore (2003), Nokes et al.
• Helping the preservice teacher develop a personal teaching approach and style. (2008), Proctor et al. (2001), Scantlebury et al. (2008),
• Preparing the preservice teacher for the basic teacher’s role of classroom teaching; Shen (2002), Tang (2003), Todd and Agnello (2006),
• Assisting the preservice teacher in getting acquainted with work in the classroom, and Velez-Rendon (2006), Vuchic and Robb (2006), Woods
with the school students’ community; and Weasmer (2003), Yayli (2008), Yendol-Hoppey
• Helping the preservice teachers adapt tasks for individual school students. (2007).
Subcluster 2: Cooperating with preservice teachers and supporting them in integrating 14 References: Abate-Vaughn (2006), Breidenstein (2002),
their activities with teacher education courses Burke (2006), Dawson (2006), Dunn et al. (2000), Ewart
7 activities: and Straw (2005), Goodnough et al. (2009), Hudson
• Guiding the preservice teacher’s teaching as required by the teacher education course; (2005), Perry et al. (2006), Puk and Haines (1999),
• Discussing the preservice teachers’ activities in the technology education course; Richards and Brumfield (2003), Thompson and Smith
• Reviewing and providing feedback on drafts of an inquiry-based teacher education (2005), Tillema (2000), Wang (2001).
assigned project;
• Coconducting inquiry activities with their mentees;
• Coplanning instructional tasks suitable for self-directed learning;
• Creating a cooperative environment to promote a constructivist approach to teaching;
• Encouraging preservice teachers to collaborate among themselves.
Cluster 2: Modeling, evaluating, and observing the preservice teachers

Subcluster 1: Demonstrating, modeling, reflecting, and mirroring 6 References: Blake (2005), Conderman et al. (2005),
3 activities: Ewart and Straw (2005), Garton and Cano (1996), Ma
• Serving as a role model of a good teacher; et al. (2008), Velez-Rendon (2006).
• Modeling self-reflection for teaching in the problem-solving approach;Mirroring the
school students’ perspectives to the student-teacher.
Teaching Education
(Continued)
15
16
Subcluster 2: Evaluating the preservice teachers’ performance 5 References: Beck and Kosnik (2000), Burke (2006),
3 activities: Moore (2003), Schmidt (2005), Vuchic and Robb (2006).
• Evaluating the performance of the preservice teacher on tasks assigned by the mentor-
teacher;
• Evaluating the performance of the preservice teacher on tasks of the teacher education
program or a particular course;
• Evaluating the preservice teacher together with the university supervisor when the
preservice teacher fails.
Subcluster 3: Observing the preservice teachers’ classes and holding supervisory 4 References: Blake (2005), Hawkey (1998), Mewborn
conferences (1999), Tillema (2000).
2 activities:
• Observing the preservice teachers’ classes and giving feedback on their instruction;
• Discussing diverse issues that arose from the observation and pertained to teaching.
Cluster 3: Establishing and maintaining cooperation with teacher education

Subcluster 1: Cooperating and acting with the teacher education program 13 References: Abbate-Vaughn (2006), Beck and Kosnik
10 activities: (2000), Dawson (2006), Doering et al. (2003), Epanchin
• Maintaining contact with the faculty of the teacher education program; and Colucci (2002), Hammerness (2006), Hawkey (1998),
• Abiding by the teacher education requirement and employing IT in classroom teaching; Lee and Wu (2006), Mewborn (1999), Moore (2003),
• Receiving information and course materials from the teacher education program; Perry et al. (2006), Shen (2002), Snider (2002).
• Participating in a course taken by their preservice teachers;
• Participating in the design and implementation of the practicum;
• Supporting and guiding the preservice teachers according to the requirements of the
teacher education program;
• Discussing with the course teacher issues pertinent to the practicum and its concomitant
course;
• Acting in teams comprised of mentor-teachers, university supervisors and methods
course teachers;
• Participating in supervisory conferences of the university supervisor and the preservice
teacher;
• Evaluating the preservice teachers according to the criteria set by the teacher education
program.
(Continued)
Subcluster 2: Assigning classrooms and lessons to the preservice teachers 5 References: Brindley et al. (2009), Dunn et al. (2000),
Iliyan and Toren (2006), Malewski and Phillion (2009),
Pence and Gillivray (2008).
2 activities:
• Placing the preservice teacher in the classrooms;
• Deciding together with the university supervisor and school teachers on the kind of
practicum most appropriate for the preservice teacher.
Cluster 4: Influencing the preservice teachers’ personal-professional identity

5 activities: 2 References: Ewart and Straw (2005), Woods and
• Developing the preservice teachers’ personal teaching style; Weasmer (2003).
• Attempting to empower the preservice teachers’ self-confidence;
• Nurturing or inculcating love for teaching in the preservice teachers;
• Promoting the preservice teachers’ empathy and caring skills for school students.
• Developing the preservice teacher’s adaptive skills to meet the changing needs and
requirements of their school students and the education system.
Teaching Education
17
Table 6. University supervisors’ activities in the practicum.

18
Cluster 1: Acting with the preservice teachers

Subcluster 1: directing preservice teachers to observe, and adjust to the classroom 14 References: Abbate-Vaughn (2006), Ajayi and Lee
16 activities: (2005), Anderson et al. (2006), Ariav (2001), Beck and
• Guiding the preservice teachers in the preparation and performance of lesson plans, and Kosnik (2000), Breidenstein (2002), Burke (2006), Coulon
providing them with feedback; and Lorenzo (2003), Ewart and Straw (2005), Iliyan and
• Explaining to preservice teachers what and how to teach; Toren (2006), Miller (2008), Proctor et al. (2001), Tang
• Providing preservice teachers’ with opportunities to experience teaching; (2003), Thompson and Smith (2005), Wineberger (2006).
• Deciding on the teaching skills that need to be focused on in the next classes;
• Adapting mentoring to the preservice teachers’ capabilities and difficulties;
• Guiding the connecting of theory and practice;
• Guiding the preservice teachers in teamwork;

• Guiding the preservice teachers in observing structured activities;
• Presenting the preservice teachers with their knowledge;
• Guiding the preservice teachers in teaching according to the schools’ approaches;
• Encouraging the preservice teachers to get acquainted with the school community;
• Conversing and corresponding continuously with the preservice teachers about their
work and practicum;
• Attempting to create feelings of ease and security;
• Setting the requirements from the preservice teachers.
• Documenting supervisory conferences;
• Taking and managing field notes.
Subcluster 2: Encouraging preservice teachers to think about and discuss their 10 References: Abbate-Vaughn (2006), Ajayi and Lee
experiences (2005), Basham et al. (2005), Coulon and Lorenzo (2003),
7 activities: Dinsmore and Wegner (2006), Ewart and Straw (2005),
• Directing the preservice teachers in managing and reviewing their portfolios; Iliyan and Toren (2006), Miller (2008), Otaiba (2005),
• Working online and corresponding with the preservice teachers on their journals; White and LeCornu (2002), Wineberger (2006).
• Assisting the preservice teachers to write reflective journals on their practicum;
• Encouraging the preservice teachers to reflect on self-regulated learning, and link the
knowledge they learned in the university courses with their practicum activities;
• Mirroring to the preservice teachers their attitudes and perceptions of multiculturalism;
(Continued)
• Discussing and reflecting with the preservice teachers on their learning, development as
teachers, and the personal and professional challenges of teaching in diverse
environments;
• Overseeing and supporting the preservice teachers to design an inquiry project.
Subcluster 3: Observing the preservice teachers’ classes and feed-backing them 5 References: Ariav (2001), Coulon and Lorenzo (2003),
One activity: Hammerness (2006), Iliyan and Toren (2006), Moore
• Observing the preservice teachers’ classes and feed-backing them on standard (2003).
observation forms.
Subcluster 4: Placing the preservice teachers in classrooms 5 References: Ajayi and Lee (2005), Dunn et al. (2000),
2 activities: Ewart and Straw (2005), Reichenberg (1998), Shen
• Connecting the preservice teachers with the mentor–teachers; (2002).
• Placing the preservice teachers in classrooms according to the mentor-teachers’
priorities.
Cluster 2: Working with the mentor-teachers and their mentees

Subcluster 1: Guidance activities with the mentor-teachers 10 References: Abbate-Vaughn (2006), Ajayi and Lee
2 activities: (2005), Basham et al. (2005), Burke (2006), Conderman
• Codesigning the practicum with the mentor-teachers and the methods course teachers; et al. (2005), Doppen (2007), Ewart and Straw (2005),
• Directing the preservice teachers and their mentors to use the strategies presented in the Gurvitch and Metzler (2009), Iliyan and Toren (2006),
methods course. Moore (2003).
Subcluster 2: Promoting cooperation between mentor-teachers and their mentees 7 References: Epanchin and Colluci (2002), Hammerness
4 activities: (2006), Perry et al. (2006), Shen (2002), Tang (2003),
• Encouraging the preservice teachers’ discussions with their mentor-teachers; Todd and Agnello (2006), Yendol-Hoppey (2007).
• Convening with the preservice teachers and their mentor-teachers at regular intervals to
discuss the responsibilities and the formers’ progress;
• Encouraging teamwork with the mentor-teacher;
• Assisting in mentoring individual school students.
Teaching Education
19
of helping preservice teachers to get to know the school, but moreover, to get to
know themselves, their abilities, knowledge, skills, and feelings. Only a minority
(4/15) of these acts focused on how to teach in class. The second subcluster
included 7 activities of encouraging preservice teachers to reflect on their
experiences and discuss them (in 10 articles). To a lesser extent was one activity of
observing and giving feedback preservice teachers’ classes, which occurred in only
5 articles, and placing preservice teachers in their classes which was described in
only 5 articles. The second cluster of university supervisors’ activities (reported in
17 articles) described their work with the mentors. These activities involved two
subclusters: 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 on
teaching and acquaintance with the pupils, while supervisors focused on preservice
teachers 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 them
addressed 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 the
articles. The practicum was a complex endeavor that did not go smoothly or peace-
fully; indeed, all the participants experienced individual tensions. We found seven
sources 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 preservice
teachers and their supervisors were only visitors who therefore lacked the time, the
authority, 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 three
undesirable results. Both the mentor-teachers and the university supervisors had
only short periods for supervisory meetings. Consequently, these meetings were
superficial, lacking significant reflective activity. This in turn limited and diminished
the 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 clash
between the mentor-teacher’s need to maintain territorial borderlines and control in
the 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 hampered
genuine sharing of ideas and cooperation (Graham, 1997; Weaver & Stanulis,
1996).
Different obligations – The university supervisors and mentor-teachers had
different obligations, responsibilities, and interests. The mentor-teachers’ highest
priority was that the preservice teachers work according to the school’s or their
own curricula and achieve satisfactory academic results, an interest which led to
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 ways
outlined by the program; the top priority of the university supervisors was to
address the preservice teachers’ needs and respond appropriately to their confusion
and 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 alienation
of 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 no
use of technology in teaching, greatly limited the preservice teachers’ possibilities
of 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 partly
determined 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 altogether
absent. This lack of confidence was communicated to the preservice teachers and
impaired their willingness to teach (Hudson, 2005).
Critical attitude of preservice teachers toward their mentors – Tensions were
reported between substantial portions of the preservice teachers and their mentor-
teachers due to the latter’s inability to bridge the dichotomy between theory and
practice (Yayli, 2008), or because of the preservice teachers’ conflicts with their
mentor-teachers which resulted in rejection of the mentor-teachers’ actions and
expressed unwillingness to work with such teachers in the future (Doppen, 2007;
Kahn, 2001). Mentors were sometimes too demanding: planning, teaching, getting
feedback, reflecting on the practicum, modifying and revising their plans, all in a
rather short period and sometimes without breaks.
The “dual” mentor role – The mentor-teachers and university supervisors were
inevitably in conflict because of the dual nature of their roles, which on the one
hand required guidance, tutoring and support for their mentees, while on the other
they were at least moderately critical of the mentees’ practice (Siebert et al., 2006).
Differences in educational perceptions – Individual differences in educational
perceptions and experiences, personal background, and style differences, created
tensions 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, mostly
with more than one outcome in each study. It should be borne in mind that these
are 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 unfavorable
outcomes 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
Table 7. Outcomes of the practicum.

22
Cluster 1: Cognitive and emotional development

Subcluster 1: Perceptions, ideas, beliefs, understandings, and appreciation 17 References: Abbate-Vaughn (2006), Almarza (2005),
6 favorable outcomes: Anderson et al. (2006), Brindley et al. (2009), Ewart and
• Preservice teachers’ appreciation of the diversity of their students’ community improved Straw (2005), Hudson (2005), Miller (2008), Nevin et al.
following an internship program abroad, as did their confidence in their teaching (2002), Pence and Gillivray (2008), Perry et al. (2006),
ability; Proctor et al. (2001), Scantlebury et al. (2008), Skamp and
• Preservice teachers’ views about multiculturalism became more favorable, their Mueller (2001), Todd and Agnello (2006), Vacc and
prejudices about ethnic differences were reduced, and their willingness to teach in low- Bright (1999), Woods and Weasmer (2003), Yayli (2008).
SES schools increased;
• Preservice teachers’ acquaintance with inner city, rural and suburban schools made their
opinion about these schools more positive and some of them could even see
themselves working in such schools
• Preservice teachers’ overall ability to identify and describe community services
improved following work with the school students’ communities.
• Preservice teachers’ observational capability increased and they became more teacher-
researchers;
• Preservice teachers’ ability to analyze their teaching situations increased.
2 unfavorable outcomes: 3 References: Coulon and Lorenzo (2003), Doppen

• A small proportion of preservice teachers expressed their intention to engage in school (2007), Velez-Rendon (2006).
students’ critical thinking, most of them had neither changed their perceptions and
reasons for choosing teaching, nor gained new insights in teaching social studies;
• Preservice teachers’ personal teaching style has not changed in a short practicum.
Subcluster 2: Efficacy and self-confidence in teaching, views, opinions, and appreciation 9 References: Anderson et al. (2006), Brush et al. (2003),
2 favorable outcomes: Colby and Stapleton (2006), Duffy and Atkinson (2001),
• Enhancement was attained of preservice teachers’ self-efficacy and self-confidence in Hawkey (1998), Hudson (2005), Richard and Brumfield
their ability to teach science, history, and language in elementary and high schools; (2003), Thompson and Smith (2005), Vuchic and Robb
• Preservice teachers’ efficacy to teach in inner city schools increased. (2006).
2 unfavorable outcomes: 3 References: Dinsmore and Wegner (2006), Gurvitch and
• Enhancement was not attained in the efficacy of preservice teachers following rural and Metzler (2009), Knoblauch and Hoy (2008).
suburban schools practicum and peer-teaching;
• Preservice teachers’ teaching efficacy following a practicum at the classroom was small
relative to that in lab teaching.
(Continued)
Subcluster 3: Reflective Abilities 5 References: Frykholm and Glasson (2005), Lee and Wu
2 favorable outcomes: (2006), Miller (2008),Skamp and Mueller (2001), Yayli
• Preservice teachers made their reflection on teaching more meaningful; (2008).
• Preservice teachers improved the quality of their reflections in a web-based practicum.
Cluster 2: Improvement of instruction competences and skills

Subcluster 2: Teaching Practices/Activities
5 favorable outcomes: 11 References: Anderson and Puckett (2005), Barnett
• Expanded preservice teachers’ repertoire of teaching methods in mathematics and (2006), Basham et al. (2005), Brown and Warschauer
science; (2006), Brush et al. (2003), Dawson (2006), Deal and
• Increased number of teaching strategies in teaching reading; White (2006), Frykholm and Glasson (2005), Halpin
• Increased mathematics and science preservice teachers’ flexibility and responsiveness to (1999), Pope et al. (2005), Snider (2002).
the learning environment;
• Increased web-based instruction of preservice teachers as well as their use of technology
tools and technology instruction in class;
• Preservice teachers’ understanding of inquiry teaching approach developed via video
recorded observations.
1 unfavorable outcome: 2 References: Brown and Warschauer (2006), Dawson
• No change in preservice teachers’ integration of technology in their teaching. (2006).
Subcluster 2: Professionalism: Implementation of teaching approaches 7 References: Burke (2006), Garton and Cano (1996),
3 unfavorable outcomes: Kang (2008), Kowalchuk (1999), Montano, et al. (2005),
• Preservice teachers failed to fully adopt the constructivist problem-solving and inquiry Moore (2003), Puk and Haines (1999), Tillema and Knoll
approaches in their practice, although most of their mentor-teachers practiced and (1997).
demonstrated inquiry in their classes;
• Preservice teachers failed to integrate English and native language in their lessons while
acting according to bilingual cross-cultural language approaches;
• Preservice art teachers did not apply the classroom management methods they were
taught and only few changed their personal beliefs in teaching science.
Cluster 3: School Students’ Achievements

Teaching Education
1 favorable outcome: 4 References: Lomeli et al. (2006), Nevin et al. (2002),

• Preservice teachers’ involvement increased school students’ scores in different skills, Nokes et al. (2008), Otaiba (2005).
mathematics and reading comprehension.
23
of efficacy (reported in 37 articles). These are presented in three subclusters: Six

different 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 (5
articles). 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 their
mentors or supervisors were added or compared. Examples of favorable outcomes:
(1) When the views that preservice teachers had about multiculturalism became more
favorable, their prejudices about ethnic differences were reduced. Their willingness
to teach in low-SES schools increased, and the number of their insights about the
instructional processes increased (Abbate-Vaughn, 2006; Almarza, 2005; Proctor
et al., 2001; Weinberger, 2006). (2) All the preservice mathematics and science
teachers who applied an integrated approach to mathematics and science teaching
adopted the view that it is not only possible but also important to teach the two
together, whereas before the practicum they believed that these domains are best
taught separately (Frykholm & Glasson, 2005). (3) The preservice teachers’ under-
standing of the links between theory and practice, and their knowledge of learning
theories and teaching skills increased following a practicum using an aquarium as an
informal environment for learning biology in high school (Anderson et al., 2006).
Example of unfavorable outcomes: The preservice teachers failed to reflect or
take note of IT-based classes and elementary school students learning. They per-
ceived IT instruction as detached from the learning of elementary school topics and
maintained 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 the
improvement of preservice teachers’ instructional competences and skills. This clus-
ter lists five different favorable outcomes and four unfavorable ones. Examples of
favorable outcomes: (1) Preservice teachers and their mentors worked within the
self-regulated learning environment which integrated self-regulated activities into
their daily classroom routines with special needs-school students. Their classroom
tasks 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, and
they applied more strategies than at the beginning of the practicum (Deal & White,
2006). (3) In science instruction, preservice teachers who practiced teaching biology
using an aquarium as a natural environment for learning, reinforced/strengthened
their science teaching skills, they gained new insights of instructional design and
classroom management, and increased their flexibility and responsiveness to the
learning environment (Anderson et al., 2006).
Examples of unfavorable outcomes: (1) The majority of preservice teachers who
learned in conceptual change learning, or were prepared to use constructivist or
inquiry approaches, faced difficulties in using the first approach, and failed to adopt
the constructivist and inquiry approaches in their practicum, even though nearly
two-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 focus
on communication rather than grammar in their lessons (Burke, 2006; Montano,
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 their
practicum (Garton & Cano, 1996),
(c) The smallest class (four articles) of outcomes included improvements in the
school 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 to
immigrant 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 in
regular or standard practicums that did not require special arrangements and relied
on the preservice teachers’ tasks. A minority (8%) of the researches was executed
in specially designed practice. These natural settings constitute the strength of the
review, since it renders a real picture of the practicum.
Summary
The following section will summarize the findings according to the three questions
and add one methodology conclusion.
Goals and rationales: The two largest classes of goals included getting to know
what 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 better
acquaintance with the teacher’s real role, the school’s environment, and its students’
cultural diversity. More modest goals included empowerment of other actors in the
practicum environment, namely the mentor-teachers, the students’ communities, and
improving academic achievements.
The rationales for the practicum mostly included the preservice teachers’
expected application of their instructional skills in mentored settings while attending
the teacher education program. The second rationale was reducing the gap between
theory and practice. The third rationale was enabling close acquaintance with the
diversified, realistic settings of the preservice teachers’ future workplaces, and the
fourth rationale referred to the personal identity of preservice teachers.
Activities and relations of the participants: The largest proportion of preservice
teachers’ activities were planning and teaching particular subjects to whole class-
rooms for whole class periods, and reflecting on diverse aspects of the practicum or
personal issues. The mentor-teachers’ and university supervisors’ activities provided
preservice teachers with individual, standard, or common guidance to help them
integrate into school culture. To a lesser extent, there were different activities such
as observations and school community activities. The mentor-teachers’ activities
consisted 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’ professional
identity. Thirty-one different activities undertaken by university supervisors focused
mostly on encouraging the preservice teachers to reflect and discuss their experi-
ences, and 24 different activities of observing and giving feedback the preservice
teachers’ classes. It can be concluded that the mentors’ role is more about teaching
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 supervisors
and preservice teachers were attended by tensions and conflicts which ensued from
the different interests, educational perceptions, intentions, and status of the three
parties. These diverse and extensive disparities were not bridged due to lack of
planned 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 were
perceptions, reflective abilities, efficacy, and self-confidence in teaching in standard

and nonstandard settings. Most of these outcomes were favorable and support the
importance of “positive feelings” for the practicum. The outcomes of the preservice
teachers’ reflective thinking were mostly favorable and were derived from their
reports and the researchers’ analyses of these documents. The second group of out-
comes referred to preservice teachers’ mentored teaching, and focused on preservice
teachers' perceptions of their experiences of teaching. The outcomes of the practi-
cum were mostly favorable, but in the implementation of teaching approaches the
outcomes were unfavorable.
In concluding these results, it seems that the rationales, goals, and activities of
the practicum in the different settings are focused mainly on teaching competencies
and acquaintance with the students’ diversity. The evidence of the outcomes of
these 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 notion
that what is important is the way preservice teachers see themselves as prospective
teachers and succeed in changing their views and expanding their insights while
teaching. 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) Two
different approaches in the practicum exhibited simultaneously by the mentor and
the supervisor; (2) Three types of institutional relationships emerged from the
descriptions. We will conclude with implications for teacher education programs.
(1) Mentors and supervisors – two approaches in the practicum
In 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 between
expected and realized behaviors, observing and assessing performance based on
modeling, repeated behaviors, and external criteria, as well as the practice in action.
The personal growth approach is characterized as based on mentees’ understanding
and 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 as
their weaknesses and strengths. Although in our data teaching competencies are
ranked at the top of the goals and rationales (the first goal in our data), it seems that
supervisors’ attention lies in a different field altogether. In the studies reviewed
supervisors’ actions were mostly to reflect on preservice teachers’ experiences and
discuss them. The supervisors/researchers’ main interest was in the preservice teach-
ers’ beliefs, personal identity, self-efficacy, perceptions, opinions, and feelings. At
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 exposed
the preservice teachers’ difficulties, presented curriculum and goals, and demon-
strated teaching. Whereas supervisors focused on the preservice teachers’ inner
world, 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. The
mentors focused on teaching and on coping with school reality, they felt very much
responsible for the preservice teachers’ preparation in instructional abilities, but they
felt unprepared for their consultation competencies role, namely the need to deal
with their mentees’ emotional state. Supervisors, on the other hand, perceive their
role as less responsible for instructional guidance and more for the professional
growth of their students.
Several studies documented supervisors’ thoughts, realizing that their consulting
abilities were inappropriate to the preservice teachers’ practicum context (Hawkey,
1998; Ewart & Straw, 2005; Woods & Weasmer, 2003). This focus on the inner
world 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 framework
used: preservice teachers’ reflections were predominantly descriptive in character,
focusing on the self and on concrete, day-to-day developments” (p. 233). In the
present 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 of
institutional relationship can we draw from the rationale, goals, activities and out-
comes?
(2) Three pictures of institutional relations
A comprehensive examination of the descriptions of the goals and rationales,
activities, arrangements, and work relations revealed three kinds of relationships
between 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 school
adopted 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 teacher
education program to enable and facilitate the preservice teachers’ actions according
to the teacher education program’s policies, guidelines and prescriptions. These
were realized in four ways:
(1) Applying differential instruction, problem-based instruction, constructivist

teaching, self-regulated learning, and individualized reading and writing
instruction (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 as
assignments of the practicum (e.g. Anderson & Puckett, 2005; Barnett,
2006; Basham, Palla, & Pianfetti, 2005; Brown & Warschauer, 2006 Brush
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 the
practicum, and mentors had to help preservice teachers develop their own
style 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 and
development and beliefs and myths about education and teaching (Breiden-
stein, 2002; Epanchin & Colucci, 2002), fostering a lifelong perspective of
love 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 to
create 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 adapted
to the school’s needs, policies and practices in diverse ways and customized and
shaped 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 preservice
teachers 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 preservice
teachers (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 teacher
education program was not involved in the preservice teachers’ activities or their
mentoring, 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 and
preservice 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;
Scantlebury, Gallo-Fox, & Wassell, 2008; Thompson & Smith, 2005; Velez-Rendon,
2006; Vacc & Bright 1999; Yendol-Hoppey, 2007). We concluded that these
descriptions are symmetric relations. These relations were realized when the men-
tor-teachers teamed up with their mentees as equals in instructional design and
classroom 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 practicum
according to the teacher education program.
It should be noted that these relationships are not mutually exclusive; it could
well be that the same teacher education program unconsciously conducts several
relationship 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, the
preservice teachers’ activities were not directed to acquaintance with the administra-
tion or any institutional relationships in the practicum. Thus, acquaintance with the
school environment was limited to the scope of the classroom. Varrati and Smith’s
study (2010) shows that around 10–20% of the preservice teachers talked or met
with principals during their practices. Most of them reported that the introductions
were brief, they rarely had any significant contact with the principals and never had
a full conversation with them. This study confirms our results which point to the
lack of involvement on the part of the principals or other institutional officials
involved in the practicum.
In conclusion, the complete picture points to conflicts and gaps between goals
and actions, between the practicum triad, and between the two systems involved in
the practicum: supervisors and mentors acting in different directions at the same
time, ignoring school student achievements and administration, namely a lack of
any meaningful connection with principals. Supervisors favor their own students
over those with whom preservice teachers work in their practicum experiences.
They were more interested in preservice teachers' personal growth than in the
school students’ achievements. Supervisors and mentors have different interests in
the 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 from
mentor-teachers.
Implications
The descriptions of the individual and institutional relations revealed a problematic
picture which could prove useful not only for the individuals involved in teacher
education and the practicum and their institutes, but also for additional audiences,
such as policymakers, local and national education boards, and school principals
who train preservice teachers. A search for a more coherent practicum can begin
inside teacher education programs by coordinating goals, acting with schools, and
defining the supervisors’ role. We suggest a broader context of teacher education
programs 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 theory
and practice alike. Preservice teachers would learn how legislation and district
rules dominate school culture, how exams and achievements are determined and
accepted by the school community, and how to establish relationships with parents
and professional staff and to act as part of school organizational culture. We
suggest that principals and other school staff members meet regularly, present their
way of thinking about teaching and education, and discuss cases and events with
the preservice teachers and college/university staff. Entrusting preservice teachers
in the hands of mentor-teachers is not the answer to proper preparation in the
practicum, nor is imposing ideas on mentors or schools (the two popular relation-
ships we found in the studies reviewed). The symmetric relations, which are meant
to be the desirable practicum, were still very much focused on the inner world of
the preservice teachers and ignored the organizational aspects of the school. We
need a comprehensive view of teacher education programs merging practicums
into school reality, translating theory into practice in cooperation with the mentor-
school. This can be accomplished when teacher education programs and school
staff build a new program as a realization of their vision in education and teacher
education as well.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to Harm Tillema, Patricia A. Alexander, Stephen Koziol and Dita
Fischl, for reading and commenting on earlier versions of the paper. Thanks to
Olzan Goldstein for developing a system of web search and data gathering. This
review was funded by the MOFET Institute, Tel-Aviv, Israel.
Notes
1. 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 selection
did not lead to further data sources regarding this practicum model.
References
Abbate-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 case
study 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 literacy
field experiences: Four lessons learned. Literacy Reading Research and Instruction, 44,
22–46.
Ariav, T., & Clinard, V. (2001). From a mentor school to a professional developmental
school. Dapim, 31, 148–178. [Hebrew].
Artiles, A. J., Trent, S. C., Hoffman-Kipp, P., & Lopez-Torres, L. (2000). From individual
acquisition to cultural historical practices in multicultural teacher education. Remedial
and 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 the
Education 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 support
preservice teachers in examining authentic classroom practice. Journal of Technology
and Teacher Education, 14, 701–729.
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 and
enhancing their role. Journal of Education for Teaching, 26, 207–224.
Blake, E. P. (2005). Student teaching in Japan: The lesson. Journal of Mathematics Teacher
Education, 8, 61–74.
Blasi, M. W. (2002). An asset model: Preparing preservice teachers to work with children
and families “of Promise”. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 17, 106–122.
Breidenstein, A. (2002). Researching teaching, researching self: Qualitative research and
beginning teacher development. The Clearing House, 75, 314–318.
Brindley, R. R., Quinn, S., & Morton, M. L. (2009). Consonance and dissonance in a study
abroad 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-based
teacher training program: The PT3@ASU project. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 51, 57–72.
Brush, T., & Saye, J. W. (2009). Strategies for preparing preservice social studies teachers to
integrate 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 language
teachers 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 content
knowledge. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 20, 102–118.
Chang, F., Early, D. M., & Winton, P. (2005). Early childhood teacher preparation in special
education 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 the
AERA panel on research and teacher education (pp. 309–424). Mahwah, NJ: American
Educational 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 Teacher
Education (pp. 37–68). Washington, D.C.: AERA, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Pub-
lishers.
Colby, S. A., & Stapleton, J. N. (2006). Preservice teachers teach writing: Implications for
teacher 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 a
Changing World (pp. 442–479). San-Francisco: Wiley.
Dawson, K. (2006). Teacher inquiry: A vehicle to merge prospective teachers’ experience
and reflection during curriculum-based, technology-enhanced field experiences. Journal
of Research on Technology in Education, 38, 265–292.
Deal, D., & White, C. S. (2006). Voices from the classroom: Literacy beliefs and practices
of two novice elementary teachers. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 20,
313–329.
Dinsmore, J., & Wegner, K. (2006). Relationships in teacher education preparation: From
cohorts to community. Teacher Education Quarterly, 33, 54–74.
Doering, A., Hughes, J., & Huffman, D. (2003). Preservice teachers: Are we thinking with
technology? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35, 342–361.
Doppen, F. (2007). The influence of a teacher education program on preservice social studies
teachers’ 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. Reading
Research and Instruction, 41, 83–102.
Dunn, S. V., Ehrich, L., Mylonas, A., & Hansford, B. C. (2000). Students’ perceptions of
field experience in professional development: A comparative study. Journal of Nursing
Education, 39, 393–400.
Edwards, C. J., Carr, S., & Siegel, W. (2006). Influences of experiences and training on
effective 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: A
study 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 teachers
and experienced teachers in three distinct settings: Implications for preparing teachers for
all 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 Early
Childhood, 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 student
teachers’ 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 effective
cooperating teacher. Teacher Education Quarterly, 33, 85–96.
Goodnough, K., Osmond, P., Dibbon, D., Glassman, M., & Stevens, K. (2009). Exploring a
triad 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 Research
on Computing in Education, 32, 128–138.
Hammerness, K. (2006). From coherence in theory to coherence in practice. Teacher College
Record, 108, 1241–1265.
Hastings, W. (2004). Emotions and the practicum: The cooperating teachers’ perspective.
Teachers and Teaching, 10, 135–148.
Hawkey, K. (1998). Mentor pedagogy and student teaching professional development: A

study of two mentoring relationships. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14, 657–670.
Hayes, M. T. (2002). Assessment of a field-based teacher education program: Implications
for 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 science
teaching. 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: What
the 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, and
practices 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 context
factors 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 for
teacher candidates. The School Community Journal, 17, 111–121.
Kowalchuk, E. A. (1999). Perceptions of practice: What art student teachers say they learn
and need to know. Studies in Art Education, 41, 71–91.
Lake, E. V., & Jones, I. (2008). Service-learning in early childhood teacher education: Using
service 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 through
the use of videos in web-based computer mediated communities. (CMC). Innovations in
Education and Teaching International, 43, 369–380.
Lomeli, J., Parks, J., Basurto, L., & Padilla, F. (2006). California mini-corps: Developing
quality teaching for 40 years. Education, 127, 100–108.
Lunenberg, M. (1999). New qualifying requirements of the mentoring of student teachers in
the Netherlands. European Journal of Teacher Education, 22, 159–171.
Ma, Y., Lai, G., Williams, D., Prejean, L., & Ford, M. J. (2008). Exploring the effectiveness
of a field experience program in a pedagogical laboratory: The experience of teacher
candidates. 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 and
Teacher 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 secondary

schools. 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 a
mechanism 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 Science
Module, 32, 103–121.
Moore, R. (2003). Reexamining the field experiments of preservice teachers. Journal of

Teacher Education, 54, 31–42.
Murray, M. M., & Mandell, C. J. (2006). On-the-job practices of early childhood special
education 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. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 24, 1729–1738.
Nevin, A., Malian, I., & Williams, L. (2002). Perspectives on self-determination across the
curriculum: 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 secondary
schools. 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 English
learners 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: How
they design content representation for instruction. Studies in Education, 2, 99–119.
[Hebrew].
Perry, N. E., Phillips, L., & Hutchinson, L. (2006). Mentoring student teachers to support
self-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: A
case 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 to
reconceptualize 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 ongoing
model of practicum at Ohalo College of Education. Dapim, 34, 191–220. [Hebrew].
Reichenberg, R. (1998). Interaction between mentor-teacher and student-teacher in field
experience 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 preservice
teachers learn to teach in consecutive, field-based literacy courses. Reading Research
and Instruction, 42, 63–84.
Santoro, N., & Allard, A. (2005). (Re)examining identities: Working with diversity in the
preservice teaching experience. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 863–873.
Scantlebury, K., Gallo-Fox, J., & Wassell, B. (2008). Co- teaching as a model for preservice
secondary science teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 967–981.
Schmidt, M. (2005). Preservice string teachers’ lesson-planning processes: An exploratory
study. Journal of Research in Music Education, 53, 6–25.
Shen, J. (2002). Student teaching in the context of a school-university partnership: A case
study of a student-teacher. Education, 122, 564–579.
Siebert, C. J., Clark, A., Kilbridge, A., & Peterson, H. (2006). When preservice teachers
struggle or fail: Mentor-teachers’ perspectives. Education, 126, 409–422.
Simpson, M. (2006). Field experience in distance delivered initial teacher education
programmes. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14, 241–254.
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 primary
science practice. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 227–245.
Sleeter, C. E. (2001). Preparing teachers for culturally diverse schools. Journal of Teacher
Education, 52, 94–106.
Slick, S. (1998). A university supervisor negotiates territory and status. Journal of Teacher
Education, 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’ professional
learning 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 efficacy
of preservice elementary teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 105, 82–87.
Vacc, N. N., & Bright, G. W. (1999). Elementary preservice teachers’ changing beliefs and
instructional 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 preservice
teachers’ 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: The
Delaware 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-based
reform: A critical review. Review of Educational Research, 72, 481–546.
Weaver, D. W., & Stanulis, R. N. (1996). Negotiating preparation and practice: Student
teaching in the middle. Journal of Teacher Education, 47, 27–36.
Weinberger, Y. (2006). Professional development in teacher education: Use of portfolios in
the pedagogical instruction setting. Dapim, 41, 170–196. [Hebrew].
West, R. E., Wright, B. G., Gabbitas, B., & Graham, C. R. (2006). Reflections from the
introduction of the blogs and RSS feeds into a preservice instructional technology
course. TechTrends, 50, 54–60.
White, B., & Le Cornu, R. (2002). Email reducing stress for student teachers. Education
and 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 of
Washington.
Woods, A. M., & Weasmer, J. W. (2003). Great expectations for student teachers: Explicit
and 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 newly
formed professional development school: two illustrations. Teacher College Record, 109,
669–698.

Cohen The Practicum in ITE

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cohen The Practicum in ITE

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich]

On: 20 September 2013, At: 09:28

The practicum in preservice teacher

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

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

The practicum in preservice teacher education: a review of

This literature review presents a systematic analysis of 113 empirical studies

*Corresponding author. Emails: eticohen@Kaye.ac.il, coheesther@gmail.com

Ó 2013 Taylor & Francis

Learning to teach in a methods course (dealing with didactic knowledge

The search strategy

Construction of the database

An attempt at writing a summary of one article resulted in differences between

General characteristics of the reviewed studies

Table 1. Research methodologies by period of publication.

Period Descriptive-neutral Descriptive-evaluative Theoretical Total

Table 2. Tools used in the studies.

Preservice teachers or graduate teachers 44

Group interviews with preservice teachers and students, focus groups, 13

Examinations and tests 8

Tools and participants

Table 3. Goals of the practicum.

6 goals: (2002), Goodnough et al. (2009), Lomeli et al. (2006),

(1) The practicum experiences are to be designed, monitored, and structured by

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

Smith, 2006); (b) constructing learning environments that propose/provide school

Preservice teachers’ activities

Table 4. Preservice teachers’ activities in the practicum.

Cluster 1: Mentored teaching

Cluster 3: Observing others’ action

Cluster 4: Unspeciﬁed activities

Cluster 5: School community activities

observations focused on mentors’ teaching, the whole school’s activities, family-

University supervisors’ activities

Table 5. Mentor-teachers’ activities in the practicum.

Cluster 2: Modeling, evaluating, and observing the preservice teachers

Cluster 3: Establishing and maintaining cooperation with teacher education

Cluster 4: Inﬂuencing the preservice teachers’ personal-professional identity

Table 6. University supervisors’ activities in the practicum.

Cluster 1: Acting with the preservice teachers

• Guiding the preservice teachers in teamwork;

Cluster 2: Working with the mentor-teachers and their mentees

subclusters: guidance activities with the mentor-teachers, and encouraging coopera-

Work relations in the practicum

frequent interventions on behalf of the mentor-teachers in the preservice teachers’

Outcomes of the practicum

Table 7. Outcomes of the practicum.

Cluster 1: Cognitive and emotional development

2 unfavorable outcomes: 3 References: Coulon and Lorenzo (2003), Doppen

Cluster 2: Improvement of instruction competences and skills

Cluster 3: School Students’ Achievements

1 favorable outcome: 4 References: Lomeli et al. (2006), Nevin et al. (2002),

of efﬁcacy (reported in 37 articles). These are presented in three subclusters: Six

Parks, Basurto, & Padilla, 2006; Otaiba, 2005).

perceptions, reflective abilities, efficacy, and self-confidence in teaching in standard

(1) Applying differential instruction, problem-based instruction, constructivist

Hawkey, K. (1998). Mentor pedagogy and student teaching professional development: A

Matus, D. E. (1999). An innovative strategy supports student teachers in urban secondary

Moore, R. (2003). Reexamining the ﬁeld experiments of preservice teachers. Journal of

You might also like