Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/csje20

Early Childhood Teacher Education Practicums: A

Literature Review

Marika Matengu , Outi Ylitapio-Mäntylä & Anna-Maija Puroila

To cite this article: Marika Matengu , Outi Ylitapio-Mäntylä & Anna-Maija Puroila (2020):
Early Childhood Teacher Education Practicums: A Literature Review, Scandinavian Journal of
Educational Research, DOI: 10.1080/00313831.2020.1833245

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2020.1833245

Published online: 03 Nov 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 102

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=csje20
SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2020.1833245

Early Childhood Teacher Education Practicums: A Literature

Review
Marika Matengu, Outi Ylitapio-Mäntylä and Anna-Maija Puroila
Faculty of Education, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This study presents a contemporary overview of practicums as a key Received 13 May 2020
element in research on early childhood teacher education (ECTE). Based Accepted 7 September 2020
on a semi-systematic literature review, this study asked what kind of
KEYWORDS
research informs practicums and how. The search identified 81 articles Early childhood teacher
in peer-reviewed journals, which were categorised and thematically education; practicums;
analysed according to focus, countries in which the research was student teacher; supervising
undertaken, methodologies, participants and outcomes. Four major teacher; teacher educator
themes emerged: the position of student teachers, competent and
ethical supervision, teacher educators as practicum designers and the
construction of collective spaces to aid practicum learning and
teaching. This review of practicums in research reveals the dominance
of countries that produce more scientific research and calls for more
scholarship exploring the perspectives of principals and children. This
review offers teacher educators and researchers new insights into
theory-practice complexities in ECTE practicums and argues for a more
democratic enactment of practicum models.

1. Introduction
One of the topical challenges of teacher education is to ensure that practicum equips student tea-
chers to changing working life (Onchwari, 2010). A significant body of literature indicates that
practicums provide a platform to connect theoretical learning to educational praxis (e.g., Alvestad
& Röthle, 2007; Gourgiotou, 2017). However, depending on the kind of collaboration between uni-
versities and practicum placements, practicums can either enhance the theory-practice connections
or further widen the gap between the two (Van Shagen Johnson et al., 2017; Walsh & Elmslie, 2005).
Few studies have brought together the existing research to provide a direction for the future design
of practicum models and collaboration between universities and early childhood education settings.
This literature review is part of a University of Oulu project that aims to develop a network of prac-
ticum settings for early childhood education in Finland. The research question guiding this study
was: what kind of early childhood teacher education (ECTE) research informs practicums and how?
In Scandinavian countries, ECTE reforms have paid special attention to practicums (Mattsson
et al., 2011). Researchers have explored how professional practice knowledge develops and how
these understandings could improve practicum models (Onnismaa et al., 2015). In Finland, these
questions led researchers to embark on a project (of which this article is a part) aimed at renewing
the models of collaboration and practices related to ECTE practicums. This project responds to the
need to have more conducive practicum placements for an increasing number of student teachers
and skilled supervising teachers to guide student learning. To inform ECTE development efforts,
there is a need to know what kind of ECTE research has increased the field’s understanding of

CONTACT Marika Matengu marika.matengu@oulu.fi marika.matengu@gmail.com

© 2020 Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research
2 M. MATENGU ET AL.

practicums and how such an understanding could enhance practicum models. This paper attempts
to fill this gap in the literature by presenting a contemporary review of practicums in ECTE
research. Based on peer-reviewed articles published in international journals between 2005 and
2019, this review adds to the existing research on practicums by presenting an overview of them
as a key element in ECTE. The purpose of this study is to provide a research basis for the future
development of ECTE practicums.
Previous research does not employ a standard terminology in its discussion of practicums.
Researchers have used various terms depending on their context and emphasis, such as “pro-
fessional experience placement” (Weatherby-Fell et al., 2019), “field experience” (Betawi & Jabbar,
2019) and “school-based training” (Ben-Harush & Orland-Barack, 2019), to describe the period
when student teachers are learning in early childhood education settings. In this study, “practicum”
refers to the period when student teachers work with professional colleagues who supervise them
and help shape their abilities into a well-considered practice (Mattsson et al., 2011). Similarly, mul-
tiple terms have been used to describe teachers who supervise students, such as “cooperating tea-
cher” (Ben-Harush & Orland-Barack, 2019), “associate teacher/practitioner” (Gibbons et al., 2018),
“supervising teacher” (Allen, 2011) and “mentor teacher” (Agbenyega, 2012). This paper uses the
term “supervising teacher”. A more consistently used term in the reviewed literature – and one
that is preferred in this paper – is “teacher educator”, which refers to the university personnel
responsible for a teacher education programme. However, even this term has variants, such as “uni-
versity advisor” (Weatherby-Fell et al., 2019) and “lecturer” (Gibbons et al., 2018). This study
adheres to the selected terms despite the diversity of the terms in the reviewed articles.

1.1. The Push and Pull of the Theory-Practice Relationship in Teacher Education
A significant body of research has acknowledged the importance of connecting theoretical and
practical learning in teacher education (Knight, 2015). However, efforts should be made to apply
these studies to existing teacher education models in which the theory-practice gap has existed
for too long (Zeichner et al., 2015). Researchers have explained the divide between the two notions
using Aristotle’s concepts of episteme and phronesis (Cheng et al., 2012; Kessels & Korthagen, 2001;
Onnismaa et al., 2015). Episteme refers to the scientific understanding of a problem, while phronesis
approaches contextual problems by means of practical insights that differ from scientific knowl-
edge. Unlike episteme, which is developed through scientific inquiry, phronesis develops as teachers
assess situations, act and face consequences in their daily encounters. The literature contests the
separate positioning of theory and practice and argues that competent teaching requires both epis-
teme and phronesis (Onnismaa et al., 2015). Some, however, have noted that acknowledging, devel-
oping and drawing from both kinds of knowledge has not been sufficiently explored and
understood in teacher education (Allen, 2009).
Studies agree that teacher education programmes have failed to maintain a connection between
theoretical and practical learning (Knight, 2015; Zeichner et al., 2015). Consequently, teachers have
lacked competencies to meet the demands of workplaces (Allen, 2009; Nuthall, 2004). Some have
criticised teacher education structures and processes for enforcing differences and boundaries
between institutions rather than fostering collaboration and complementarity (Kourti & Androus-
sou, 2013), such as in the form of hierarchical positioning and the quest for academic legitimacy and
supremacy over practice-based knowledge (Zeichner et al., 2015). These differences have been co-
produced and sustained in the perspectives of lecturers, teachers and administrators (Allen, 2009).
The recent literature demands a more democratic ECTE design in order to improve the theory-
practice connection in ECTE programmes. Undemocratically structured teacher education pro-
grammes fail to recognise the expertise and knowledge of early childhood education settings and
communities (Zeichner et al., 2015). By creating opportunities for joint work in conceptualising,
planning, implementing and evaluating all aspects of teacher education, interrogating current chal-
lenges and discovering new solutions in preparing the teachers that societies need can become
 SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 3

easier. Agreeing with this view, Allen (2009) emphasised that joint work should focus on enabling
student teachers to exercise agency and affect change in their own practices. Though this approach
does not mean that a consensus can be reached on all issues, it calls attention to existing power hier-
archies and the inclusion of more and different participant perspectives in decision-making pro-
cesses, what is believed to constitute good teaching and how teachers should learn (Zeichner
et al., 2015).
In this study, we focused on ECTE practicums that open possibilities for collaborations as
described above. Research acknowledges practicums as important to teacher education when stu-
dent teachers travel between theoretical and practical understandings and engage in conversations
with diverse forms of knowledge and experience, which often happens in two distinct settings: the
university and early childhood education settings (Knight, 2015; Tiainen et al., 2018). The impor-
tance of practicums has rested “in the contention that ‘students’ experience practical application of
theory or conceptual knowledge to help them learn how to apply knowledge to real situations, pro-
blems and concerns” (White et al., 2016, p. 284). According to Levin and He (2008), the interaction
and salient features among knowledge, beliefs and practices are critical for the formation of stu-
dents’ practical theory. Practical theories derive from personal theories and beliefs as well as the
practical knowledge gained from experience. Whether held implicitly or stated explicitly, practical
theories influence teachers’ pedagogical decisions and practices and ultimately, the opportunities
for learning. Onnismaa et al. (2015) emphasised that developing one’s practical theory is a demand-
ing and long process during which student teachers need to be connected to an authentic environ-
ment and be given support and input from experienced supervisors. They point out that the
relationships, dialogues and communications between student teachers, supervising teachers and
teacher educators play a critical role in how the student teacher develops practical theory.
Hence, there is a need to bridge the divide between professional knowledge and skilled practice
(Vartuli et al., 2016).

2. Methodology
A semi-systematic literature review was conducted to provide an overview of practicums in ECTE
research. Initially, the plan was to conduct a systematic literature review by synthesising what the
studies showed using strict search-strategy requirements and providing evidence of effects that can
inform policy and practice (Snyder, 2019). However, a fully systematic literature review would not
have aligned with the explorative nature of the research question and the purpose of the study,
which was not to find evidence of effect but rather to study a broader topic and consider a variety
of perspectives (Snyder, 2019). Hence, we used a semi-systematic approach, which has been
acknowledged as a good strategy for the mapping of theoretical approaches or themes and identify-
ing knowledge gaps within the literature (Snyder, 2019; Wong et al., 2013). This study aimed to take
a broader view on practicums by reviewing both quantitative and qualitative research. The aim was
not to discover what works best but rather to illuminate and clarify practicums as a complex ECTE
topic and highlight strengths and limitations in the literature.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria were developed to guide the identification of all articles in the
available databases (Table 1). To be included in the review, article had to be based on an empiri-
cal study where practicum was a central part of the argument and focused on ECTE. The article
had to be published after 2005 in a peer-reviewed journal that are available in databases (SCO-
PUS, ERIC, EBSCO & Open Access) in English or Finnish. Excluded from the review were data-
bases other than mentioned above and other publications (such as reports) than peer-reviewed
scientific articles. Articles were also excluded if practicum was a minor aspect of the study
(e.g., Reed & Walker, 2014), the article was focused on teacher education in primary and second-
ary phase, written in other languages than English or Finnish (e.g., Gökhan, 2018) or published
before 2005. The initial search identified about 50 articles. However, the initial search terms –
“teaching practice” and “student teacher experience” – did not seem to cover much of the
4 M. MATENGU ET AL.

Table 1. Inclusion/exclusion criteria.

Criterion Inclusion Exclusion
Scope of research Empirical studies Other than empirical studies
Type of publication Scientific publications or Other than scientific publications
reviews
Database SCOPUS, ERIC, EBSCO & Open Other databases; not Open Access
Access
Type of documents Peer-reviewed scientific articles Master’s thesis, doctoral dissertations, reports, articles (not scientific),
books, chapters, conference papers
Language English, Finnish Languages other than English and Finnish
Focus on the research Practicums as a central part of Practicums as a minor aspect of the study
study the argument
Educational level Focused on ECTE Teacher education for primary and secondary levels
Publication period After 2005 Before 2005

field, meaning some studies may have gone undetected. Therefore, the search terms were
expanded to cover possible alternative terms for “teaching practice”, such as “practicum studies”
and “early childhood teacher education”. The scope of the studies was expanded from student
teachers to teacher educators and supervising teachers.
All abstracts were read to identify the articles that met the inclusion criteria. Additional articles
were found by reading reference lists and consulting with other researchers. The final selection of
articles can be requested from the authors. The total number of retrieved articles was 81.
Semi-systematic reviews may use a variety of methods to analyse and synthesise findings, but
what is generally identified is regular consistencies and variability in the research material (Sny-
der, 2019; Wong et al., 2013). This study utilised a thematic synthesis in which content across
reviewed articles was analysed to identify a range of factors considered significant in understand-
ing practicums (Booth et al., 2016). These factors were identified by asking the analytical ques-
tions below.

1. What is the study’s focus?

2. What are the main contexts, and who are the main participants?
3. What methodology was used to provide evidence?
4. What are the findings’ major and minor themes?

This study followed Booth et al.’s (2016) description of thematic analysis, which has been used to
address questions about people’s perspectives and experiences, especially in relation to a specific
programme or intervention. The first author read the abstracts of the articles to ensure that they
met the selection criteria. The selected articles were categorised according to aims, participants,
country contexts, methodology, findings and recommendations. The articles were reviewed for
each analytical question. During this process, the corresponding data were identified and organised
according to emerging words and factors in an Excel document. All authors were involved in the
thematic analysis by developing broader themes to answer the research question.

3. Findings of the Literature Review

3.1. The Focus Areas of the Reviewed Studies
The analysis revealed that practicums in ECTE studies were explored from various perspectives:
(1) student teachers’ learning process in their practicums, (2) operational and pedagogical prac-
ticum arrangements and (3) the social and collaborative construction of practicums and
learning.
The first focus aimed at explaining the impact of practicums on student learning (Eckhoff, 2017;
Recchia et al., 2009), student teachers ability to respond to children’s needs (MacFarland et al., 2009;
 SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 5

Onchwari, 2010), the development of a new conceptualisation (Brown et al., 2017; Brownlee &
Chak, 2007; Ihmeideh et al., 2008) and professional development (Beers, 2018). The studies pre-
sented practicums as a unique and individually experienced learning process rooted in student tea-
chers’ practical theories.
The second focus explored the contextual and structural functions and processes within which
practicums take place and how these conditions could be made more conducive to learning.
Researchers explored students’ experiences with different practicum models (Agbenyega, 2012;
Harrison & Joerdens, 2017), how to deepen learning through practicum assignments (Foong
et al., 2018) and how to select practicum placements based on certain characteristics (Atiles
et al., 2012; Campbell-Evans et al., 2014). Within this focus, several studies were based on specific
innovations, including the design of collaborative practicum models (Gourgiotou, 2017), peer-
learning (Joseph & Brennan, 2013) and practicums in international settings (Major & Santoro,
2016) and challenging contexts (McLaren & Rutland, 2013). This focus opened new scenarios
and perspectives to the selection of practicum placements and how practicum conditions influence
learning.
The third focus led to questions concerning practicums as interactive, participatory and enga-
ging components of teacher education. Some studies explored questions at the macro-level by,
for example, focusing on the dialogue between policies and the system of teacher education,
including reforms based on practicum experiences (La Paro et al., 2018; Vartuli et al., 2016),
as well as reforms based on policy changes (Gibbons et al., 2018; Lewis et al., 2006). Another
group of studies aimed at understanding institutional engagement and dialogue in the context
of practicums, such as transitions and connections between study and work life (Onnismaa
et al., 2015; Ukkonen-Mikkonen & Turtiainen, 2016) and partnerships between university and
early childhood education settings (Sanderson, 2016). A number of studies aimed at uncovering
the social processes informing different participant groups and their impact on learning, such as
developing professional identity through practicum interactions (Onnismaa et al., 2017), forms of
supervision (Ben-Harush & Orland-Barack, 2019; Kupila et al., 2017), social aspects of practicum
assessment (Aspden, 2017; Ortlipp & Nuttall, 2011; Zhang et al., 2015), professional growth,
including collaboration with others (Gardiner & Robinson, 2010), and power relationships
(Dvir & Schatz-Oppenheimer, 2017). This body of research contests the historical master-
apprentice model in which a novice teacher learns from someone who has mastered the pro-
fession and knows the tradition (Mattsson et al., 2011). It acknowledges practicums as complex
entities that can be viewed as socially and culturally (institutionally) constructed and mutually
beneficial learning processes.

Figure 1. The main source of data (N = 84). Vertical axis legend: student teachers (ST), teacher education programme (TEP),
supervising teachers (STE), teacher educators (TE), in-service teachers (IST).
6 M. MATENGU ET AL.

3.2. Dominant, Diverse and Absent Research Participants

The studies covered a broad spectrum of perspectives on practicums. This is demonstrated in the
diversity of the main sources of information (Figure 1), which included student teachers, teacher
education programmes and combinations of student teachers, supervising teachers and teacher
educators and in-service teachers. In smaller numbers, there were also studies that focused solely
on teacher educators or supervising teachers.
In total, 43 studies focused on student teachers (e.g., Harrison & Joerdens, 2017; Malm, 2017).
Five of these were implemented in basic teacher education (e.g., Sokal et al., 2013), and one was
implemented in continuous professional development (Recchia & Loizou, 2018). Twelve studies
were based on reviews of teacher education programmes or some of their elements, including prac-
ticums (e.g., Waddell & Vartuli, 2015; Waniganayake & Stipanovic, 2016). Seven studies combined
student teachers, supervising teachers and teacher educators (Alvestad & Röthle, 2007; Brown &
Danaher, 2008), and seven included only supervising teachers and student teachers (e.g., Ihmeideh
et al., 2008; Kroeger et al., 2009). Five studies focused on in-service teachers (e.g., Campbell-Evans
et al., 2014), three studies focused on teacher educators only (e.g., Dayan, 2008), and two focused on
supervising teachers only (e.g., Gibbons et al., 2018). One study was purely philosophical but had a
strong focus on practicums (Naughton, 2016). It is surprising that more than half of the studies had
student teachers as their only source of information, and it is likewise surprising that 15% focused
on teacher education programmes.

3.3. Methodologically Balanced Landscape of Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches

The studies had diverse research designs and employed various data collection tools, which are
listed in Table 2. The five most common data collection tools were interviews (20%), questionnaires
(13%), surveys (13%), reflective journals (10%) and group discussions (8%).

Table 2. Main features of the methodologies.

Research approach Data collection tools
Qualitative (case Interviews (in depth, semi-
study) structured)
Reflective journals
Focus group discussions
Narratives
Observation
Semi-structured questionnaire
Mixed method
Student portfolios
Student assignments
Assessment documentation
Site visits
Video recordings
Quantitative (survey)
Survey, Survey pre- and post-
comparison, inventory
Questionnaire
Qualitative and
Quantitative
Student teacher evaluations
Content analysis
Questionnaire
Conversations
Other Theoretical discussion
Course material
Philosophy of Bakhti
Examples
Kupila (2007); Major and Santoro (2016); Ortlipp and Nuttall
(2011)
Brown et al. (2017); Recchia et al. (2009)
Agbenyega (2012)
Kupila et al. (2017)
Dayan (2008); Dvir and Schatz-Oppenheimer (2017)
Gibbons et al. (2018)
Eckhoff (2017)
Gourgiotou (2017)
Foong et al. (2018); Giovacco-Johnson (2011)
Aspden (2017)
Tate (2016)
Recchia and Loizou (2018)
Arthur-Kelly et al. (2017); Fives et al. (2007); Harrison and
Joerdens (2017); Onnismaa et al. (2017)
Atiles et al. (2012); Hamaidi et al. (2014)
Malm (2017)
Waniganayake and Stipanovic (2016)
Doan (2016)
Ballesteros-Regana et al. (2019)
La Paro et al. (2018)
Kourti and Androussou (2013); McLaren and Rutland (2013);
Vartuli et al. (2016)
Naughton (2016)
 SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 7

There was a nearly even number of studies with qualitative research designs (e.g., case studies or
action research) and quantitative research designs (e.g., surveys and inventory), with a slightly
higher representation of qualitative studies. Some studies chose a mixed-methods approach to
draw a more comprehensive picture of their topic. There were also a few studies that were more
descriptive and primarily used documents as data.

3.4. Dominant, Inaccessible and Absent Contexts in Journals

There are countries whose research dominates the articles in international journals (Open Access).
There are also countries whose publications serve mainly national audiences and remain inaccess-
ible to English-speaking audiences. In addition, there are contexts that were absent from the
reviewed studies.
The studies were reviewed according to where the research was conducted (Figure 2). Most
studies focused on one country, though three covered two countries. Most studies (37%) were
from the United States, while the second largest group of studies focused on Australia (18%), fol-
lowed by New Zealand (9%), Finland (6%) and Israel (5%). The rest were spread across Europe and
Asia.
While studies are widely conducted around the world, countries such as the United States and
Australia dominate publications on ECTE practicums. The literature search also revealed that Scan-
dinavian countries, such as Finland, Norway and Sweden, are the contexts for a significant number
of articles, but these studies do not reach an English-speaking audience due to language barriers.
Furthermore, the absence of African studies in the literature implies a gap in ECTE’s global land-
scape, which requires more attention.

3.5. Outcomes of Reviewed Studies

Four broader categories were identified from the outcomes of the reviewed studies: the role and
learning of student teachers, competent and ethical supervision, teacher educators as practicum
designers and the construction of a collective space to aid practicum learning and teaching.

Figure 2. Countries where studies were set.

8 M. MATENGU ET AL.

3.5.1. The Position of Student Teachers

Most studies had findings concerning the position of student teachers during their practicums. Two
main themes appeared: challenges that hindered learning and recommendations on the role of stu-
dent teachers in the improved design of practicums.
The findings of the studies confirmed that ECTE practicums are critical (Wee et al., 2014). The
studies described practicums as complex processes during which student teachers become aware of
their practical theories, which leads to new beliefs and transformed understandings and practices
(Giovacco-Johnson, 2011; Kim, 2011). The studies also portrayed students’ experiences with prac-
ticums as time consuming and often back-and-forth processes during which safe and nurturing
relationships are needed to unravel fears, challenges and successes in teaching (Recchia et al.,
2018). It is in this relational aspect of practicums in which studies identified the most challenges
experienced by student teachers.
The studies’ findings highlighted the challenges experienced by student teachers, such as being
left alone to survive with little guidance from those around them or support that could have reduced
so-called reality shock following difficulties in connecting university and practicum experiences
(Gardiner & Robinson, 2010; Pendergast et al., 2011). Some studies noted unfair practices in the
way teacher educators compared student teachers to each other (e.g., Lim & Kwon, 2009). Studies
highlighted the difficulty in forming relationships and communicating positively and construc-
tively, especially with supervising teachers (Van Shagen Johnson et al., 2017). Instead of being trea-
ted as colleagues, studies reported that student teachers experienced a lack of respect and were
treated as assistants (Lim & Kwon, 2009) or as an “extra pair of hands” (Kroeger et al., 2009, p.
336). These challenges led to difficulties in practicum relationships, which influenced students’
commitment to the field (O’Connor et al., 2015).
From these findings, it was possible to identify a new way of seeing the position of student tea-
chers to inspire future practicum designs. On one hand, findings from several studies suggested that
practicums do not sufficiently cover the range of role expectations in the realities of practice. The
ability to relate to others, collaborate, lead and take care of one’s own well-being are critical expec-
tations that need to be included in practicums (Kupila et al., 2017; Weatherby-Fell et al., 2019).
Foundational to developing the ability to relate to others is that student teachers get opportunities
for self-reflection and the development of self-awareness (Malm, 2017). Reflection, which has been
used as a vehicle of learning, has been traditionally seen as an individual process. These studies
highlighted reflection as a collective process in which each party remains self-critical and contrib-
utes to mutual learning. On the other hand, in another group of studies, the findings indicated that
student learning is closely tied to relationships and professional interactions, collaborative problem-
solving, reflections and dialogues and resulting actions. Student teachers need to be introduced to
and get opportunities to practice being a member of a network of relationships (Vartuli et al., 2016).
Collegial learning is more effective, leads to deeper understandings, helps in solving contextual pro-
blems and assists in connecting theory to practice (Foong et al., 2018). For this reason, Kroeger et al.
(2009) noted that the practicum design needs to “capitalise upon the reciprocal relationship
between mentor and candidate and build them into interactions, which support shared knowledge
construction” (p. 343).

3.5.2. Competent and Ethical Supervision

Most studies highlighted the input of supervising teachers as critical in the success of practicums,
which has not been sufficiently considered in the development of teacher education programmes
(Gibbons et al., 2018). This study identified two major themes: what it means to be a supervising
teacher and what should characterise practicum supervision.
The findings from the reviewed studies suggested that supervising teachers were largely working
in isolation and the process of supervision itself was taken for granted. Some studies suggested that
expecting the supervision to happen naturally has compromised the quality of practicum experience
(Kupila et al., 2017). For example, Ortlipp and Nuttall (2011) found that without enough guidance
 SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 9

on how to supervise, supervising teachers tend to lack reciprocity in their approach to student tea-
chers. Echoing such findings, several studies suggested that to be a supervising teacher required the
development of a specific set of competencies and a professional identity (e.g., Kupila et al., 2017).
Studies suggested criteria for the selection of supervising teachers and competence requirements,
including a good understanding and ability to discuss both practice- and theory-based teaching,
remain critical and reflective of one’s self and institution and have competence in guiding and pro-
viding feedback to aid the learning of student teachers (Alvestad & Röthle, 2007). Some studies rec-
ommended the development of formal supervision training for those who are assigned to student
teachers (Kupila et al., 2017).
The results of quality supervision were well reported, including improvement in relationships
and student learning. Supervision should be done in a manner that nurtures a safe and supportive
atmosphere for student teachers to increase their efficacy (Fives et al., 2007). Several studies high-
lighted the influential position that a supervising teacher has over student teachers and emphasised
the importance of acting responsibly, ethically and fairly (Walsh & Elmslie, 2005). Responsible and
ethical communication, guidance and feedback combined with hands-on, regular and cumulative
opportunities to learn emerged as preferred forms of supervision in the studies’ findings
(Arthur-Kelly et al., 2017; Joseph & Brennan, 2013). Some studies also suggested peer supervision
as an effective form of support, especially in difficult circumstances. The studies presented the role
of supervising teachers and supervision as an aspect of teacher education that is under development
in many contexts and is leading to a more formalised and sustainable structure for ECTE
programmes.

3.5.3. Teacher Educators as Practicum Designers

Teacher educators were presented as practicum designers in the reviewed studies. The three major
themes were a rethinking of the role of teacher educator, a selection of practicum placements and
assessment practices. A view that teacher educators could remain in the background during the
practicum was challenged by findings from the reviewed studies. The studies highlighted the role
of teacher educators in constructing, initiating and ensuring that teacher education programmes
teach and model collaborative practices (Gourgiotou, 2017). The findings of various studies present
teacher educators as well placed to support, coordinate and act as mediators between campus and
field-based experiences who should support student teachers in becoming resilient and creative
under these tensions (McLaren & Rutland, 2013). It was through these shared spaces and commu-
nities of practice that some studies argued it is possible to find a flexible mix of support and oppor-
tunity for student teachers who are dealing with theory-practice tensions between contexts (Tate,
2016). Instead of shying away from theory-practice tensions, teacher educators could aid conversa-
tions about local context, discuss the necessity of frequent, honest and critical communication and
help student teachers become comfortable with the uncomfortable (Dvir & Schatz-Oppenheimer,
2017).
Another theme highlighted in the findings of several studies was the importance of selecting
practicum placements that offer the best conditions for learning. Studies described a good practi-
cum placement as one where the essence of practicum is understood and there is a commitment to
facilitating practicum. Good placements were described authentic, providing diverse teaching and
learning experiences (social and cultural diversity, special education needs, marginalised contexts
and a variety of age groups) and welcomed a community of practice. Some studies found that pla-
cements that are neatly aligned with programme philosophy are not always the best when it comes
to effective learning (e.g., Gardiner & Robinson, 2010). For example, Recchia and Shin (2010) found
that the initial discomfort students experience in unfamiliar practicum settings influences their
thinking and that of supervising teachers and teacher educators and helps them articulate their
own beliefs and practices. The studies’ findings encouraged teacher educators to get out of their
comfort zones and apply practices to real-life conditions by facing the controversies that student
teachers face in the field (Agbenyega, 2012).
10 M. MATENGU ET AL.

One of the areas in which teacher educators were criticised was assessment. The findings of sev-
eral studies described the practicum assessment as individualised practice, largely summative and
lacking collaboration and transparency (Aspden, 2017). There was a consensus that practicum
assessment must be developed by establishing a closer and more reciprocal collaboration between
all participants involved in the assessment. There is a need to encourage a shared understanding of
goals and methods in formative assessments as well as to increase the status of assessment work and
ensure enough resources go to the teachers involved (Brandvoll Haukenes, 2017). Other studies
added that assessments should aim at strengthening student teachers’ professional autonomy
and teacher efficacy and agency as well as further the learning of everyone involved (Dayan,
2008). For example, visits from teacher educators are opportunities for triadic reflection with an
emphasis on support and coordination rather than judgment (Zhang et al., 2015).

3.5.4. Towards a Practicum Community in Teacher Education

Several studies emphasised the importance of strengthening the interactions and cooperation
between teacher educators, student teachers and supervising teachers in order to create a more
coherent community of practice within which practicums can take place. This kind of dialogue
requires collaboration to be a more systematic and dynamic ingredient in student teachers’ overall
education (Kourti & Androussou, 2013). Reforming certain components is not enough to create
institutional conditions that enable future teachers to act differently with children and respond bet-
ter to societal needs (Waddell & Vartuli, 2015). Agreeing with this, the findings of Campbell-Evans
et al. (2014) suggest that there is a need to strengthen the development of a broader theoretical and
conceptual understanding of leadership, contextual influences and pedagogical content during
practicums.
These findings imply that equipping student teachers with practical theory requires educators to
work as multi-professional teams in theorising and organising practicums. They also reveal that
while the views of student teachers and, to a certain degree, teacher educators and supervising tea-
chers were included in the studies, some perspectives, such as those of principals, children and
parents, were not sufficiently covered. These are gaps in the research literature that, if we consider
practicum placements as holistic communities of practice, should be taken into consideration in
future research.

4. Discussion
The way that ECTE practicums are constructed has been of interest to researchers concerned with
how prepared graduates are to face the realities of working life. In this study, we asked what kind of
ECTE research has informed practicums and how. By exploring the research focus, contexts, par-
ticipants, methodologies and outcomes of the literature, the study established some important
dimensions of ECTE practicums. We did this by presenting a broad overview of what characterised
practicums in recent studies.
Drawing on the concepts of the theory-practice relationship and by reviewing the literature, this
study provided a starting point for the promotion of a more democratic construction of ECTE prac-
ticums for those who have traditionally been considered as either theorists or practitioners. The
review identified the centrality of four major themes: the position of student teachers in a network
of relationships, competent and ethical supervision, teacher educators as practicum designers and
the construction of collective spaces to aid practicum learning and teaching.
This study confirms that practicums are demanding and often stressful for student teachers
who need clarity in their understandings of their roles and expectations and quality supervision
in order to succeed. Issues that stand out include the need to provide student teachers with
enough opportunities for self-discovery in an authentic but supportive environment. By develop-
ing collective reflection and peer support, deeper learning and problem-solving skills can be
developed. Supervising teachers’ role in this process is critical, and therefore, establishing criteria
 SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 11

for the selection of supervising teachers and providing them with more formal training is a
necessity. It is crucial that supervisors, including teacher educators and supervising teachers,
work collaboratively and understand the influence they have on and ethical responsibility they
have for student teachers.
The beginning of this paper discussed the complex relationship between theory and practice in
teacher education by using Aristotle’s notions of episteme and phronesis and explained how both are
needed in developing teaching competence. In the light of the reviewed literature, practicums offer
opportunities to bring these two concepts together. The findings of this study emphasise that the
quality of practicums depends on the collaboration between those whose competence is rooted
in a sturdier scientific understanding of teaching and learning and those with years of practical
experience in decision-making and problem-solving in a specific context. This requires rethinking
on behalf of those involved in the design of teacher education. The new vision of a practicum com-
munity that this paper argues for is one that does not deny the tensions between the two worlds –
university and early childhood education settings – nor does it attempt to dissolve them. What we
suggest is that teaching expertise is distributed in different contexts that need to be brought into
dialogue in teacher education (Zeichner et al., 2015). Using Aristotle’s concepts as lenses to critically
reflect on the existing linkages and dilemmas in connecting and collaborating with each other, we
can get a deeper answer to the question of why theory-practice gaps exist and how we should
approach them.
The tradition of separating episteme and phronesis in ECTE is long standing and questioning
the relations between the two may be difficult. However, a rethinking is needed if we want to
develop student teachers’ preparedness to teacher profession. We agree with others (Gravett &
Ramsaroop, 2015) that engendering professional dialogues is a critical condition for supporting
the development of student teachers’ practical theories and their professional growth. This dia-
logue requires us to develop a collective practicum space where student teachers, teacher educa-
tors, supervising teachers and other stakeholders debate, share experiences and views with the
aim of creating a common understanding of teacher profession in the field of early childhood
education. Creating the collective space requires bringing people concretely together but also cri-
tically reconsidering traditional structures and practices of teacher education. This may facilitate
a beginning in which diversity and difference are not perceived as disturbances but important
characteristics in developing teaching competence in practicums and, ultimately, quality teacher
education.
The reviewed articles presented a diversity of ECTE practicum arrangements in different socio-
cultural contexts. Understanding and sharing ECTE practicum models and processes through
studies such as this one is necessary to inform development efforts. Yet, there is still a need for
local debates that consider the characteristics within which ECTE has evolved and the direction
it should take in the future. While this study attempted to cover research studies throughout the
globe, is it within the limitations of international journals that this aim could be achieved. The
findings raise questions about the overall research arena and accessibility of knowledge as well as
the hidden corners of ECTE research, such as the perspectives of principals and children. There
is a need to address these existing gaps in future research and include the perspectives of those
in the practicum community whose voice has not yet been heard.

Acknowledgements
This study was a part of the HARVE project, funded by the Ministry of Education and Culture.

Disclosure Statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
12 M. MATENGU ET AL.

Funding
This study was a part of the HARVE project, funded by the Ministry of Education and Culture, Finland [Opetus- ja
Kulttuuriministeriö].

References
Agbenyega, J. (2012). How we view our theoretical competency: Early childhood preservice teachers’ self-evaluation
of professional placement experience. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 37(2), 141–147. https://doi.org/10.
1177/183693911203700219
Allen, J. M. (2009). Valuing practice over theory: How beginning teachers re-orient their practice in the transition
from the university to workplace. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(5), 647–654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tate.2008.11.011
Allen, J. M. (2011). Stakeholders’ perspectives of the nature and role of assessment during practicum. Teaching and
Teachers Education, 27(4), 742–750. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.12.004
Alvestad, M., & Röthle, M. (2007). Educational forums: Frames for development of professional learning: A project in
early childhood education in Norway. European Early Childhood Education Research, 15(3), 407–425. https://doi.
org/10.1080/13502930701679692
Arthur-Kelly, M., Farrel, G., De Bortoli, T., Lyons, G., Hinchey, F., Ho, F. C., Watinee, O., Baker, F., & Fairfax, W.
(2017). The reported effects of a systematic professional learning program on the knowledge, skills, and concerns
of Australian early childhood educators who support young children displaying or at risk of challenging behaviors.
International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 64(2), 131–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/
1034912X.2016.1181258
Aspden, K. M. (2017). The complexity of practicum assessment in teacher education: An examination of four New
Zealand case studies. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 42(12), 128–143. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.
2017v42n12.8
Atiles, J. T., Jones, J. L., & Kim, H. (2012). Field experience + inclusive ECE classrooms=increased preservice teacher
efficacy in working with students with developmental delays or disabilities. Educational Research Quarterly, 36(2),
62–85.
Ballesteros-Regana, C., Siles-Rojas, C., Hervas-Gomez, C., & Diaz-Noguera, M. D. (2019). Improving the quality of
teaching internships with the help of the platforms. European Journal of Educational Research, 8(4), 1101–1114.
https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.8.4.1101
Beers, C. (2018). Seven layers of strength in a model early childhood teacher preparation program. Action in Teacher
Education, 40(1), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2018.1424661
Ben-Harush, A., & Orland-Barack, L. (2019). Triadic mentoring in early childhood teacher education: The role of
relational agency. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, 8(3), 182–196. https://doi.org/
10.1108/IJMCE-10-2018-0055
Betawi, A., & Jabbar, S. (2019). Developmentally appropriate or developmentally inappropriate, that’s the question:
Perception of early childhood pre-service teachers at The University of Jordan. International Journal of
Adolescence and Youth, 24(1), 40–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673843.2018.1458633
Booth, A., Sutton, A., & Papaioannou, D. (2016). Systemic approaches to a successful literature review (2nd ed.). Sage.
Brandvoll Haukenes, M. (2017). Feedback and assessment in the new kindergarten teacher education in Norway.
Universal Journal of Educational Research, 5(7), 1201–1214. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2017.050713
Brown, A., & Danaher, P. (2008). Towards collaborative professional learning in the first years early childhood tea-
cher education practicum: Issues in negotiating the multiple interests of stakeholder feedback. Asia-Pacific Journal
of Teacher Education, 36(2), 147–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598660801958879
Brown, C. S., Cheddie, T. N., Horry, L. F., & Monk, J. E. (2017). Training to be an early childhood professional:
Teacher candidates’ perceptions about their education and training. Journal of Education and Training Studies,
5(6), 177–186. https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v5i6.2308
Brownlee, J., & Chak, A. (2007). Hong Kong student teachers’ beliefs about children’s learning: Influences of a cross-cul-
tural early childhood teaching experience. Australian Journal of Educational & Developmental Psychology, 7, 11–21.
Campbell-Evans, G., Stamopoulos, E., & Maloney, C. (2014). Building leadership capacity in early childhood pre-ser-
vice teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 39(5), 42–49. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2014v39n5.3
Cheng, M. M., Tang, S. Y., & Cheng, A. Y. (2012). Practicalising theoretical knowledge in student teachers’ pro-
fessional learning in initial teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(6), 781–790. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.tate.2012.02.008
Dayan, Y. (2008). Towards professionalism in early childhood practicum supervision: A personal journey. European
Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 16(2), 153–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/13502930802141592
Doan, L. K. (2016). The early years: Beginning early childhood educators’ induction experiences and needs in British
Columbia. Journal of Childhood Studies, 41(2), 43–54.
 SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 13

Dvir, N., & Schatz-Oppenheimer, O. (2017). Power relations and caring in early childhood teacher education. Journal
of Education and Human Development, 6(3), 26–37. https://doi.org/10.15640/jehd.v6n3a4
Eckhoff, A. (2017). Partners in inquiry: A collaborative life science investigation with preservice teachers and
kindergarten students. Early Childhood Education Journal, 45(2), 219–227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-015-
0769-3
Fives, H., Hamman, D., & Olivarez, A. (2007). Does burnout begin with student teaching? Analyzing efficacy, burn-
out, and support during the student-teaching semester. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(6), 916–934. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.03.013
Foong, L., Binti, M., Nor, M., & Nolan, A. (2018). Individual and collective reflection: Deepening early childhood
preservice teachers’ reflective thinking during practicum. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 43(1), 43–51.
https://doi.org/10.23965/AJEC.43.1.05
Gardiner, W., & Robinson, K. S. (2010). Promising practice. Partnered field placements: Collaboration in the ‘real
world’. The Teacher Educator, 45(3), 202–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730.2010.487928
Gibbons, A., Tesar, M., Steiner, S., & Chan, S. (2018). Silent policymakers in Aotearoa, New Zealand: Reflections on
research of early childhood teacher views on policy, practicum and partnership. Open Review of Educational
Research, 5(1), 43–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/23265507.2018.1461025
Giovacco-Johnson, T. (2011). Applied ethics as a foundation in early childhood teacher education: Exploring the con-
nections and possibilities. Early Childhood Education Journal, 38(6), 449–456. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-
010-0428-7
Gourgiotou, E. (2017). Trainee teachers’ collaborative and reflective practicum in kindergarten classrooms in Greece:
A case study approach. The Educational Review, 2(1), 117–128. http://dx.doi.org/10.26855/er.2018.01.001
Gökhan, D. (2013). Evaluating practicum experiences of early childhood education program from students’ perspec-
tive. Kastamonu Education Journal, 41(4), 1661–1674.
Gravett, S., & Ramsaroop, S. (2015). Bridging theory and practice in teacher education: Teaching schools – a bridge
too far? Perspectives in Education, 33(1), 131–146.
Hamaidi, D., Al-Shara, I., Arouri, Y. & Awwad, F. A. (2014). Student-teachers’s perspectives of practicum practices
and challenges. European Scientific Journal, 10(13), 191–214.
Harrison, C., & Joerdens, S. H. (2017). The combined bachelor of education early childhood and primary degree:
Student perceptions of value. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 42(1), 4–13. https://doi.org/10.23965/
AJEC.42.1.01
Ihmeideh, F., Al-Basheer, A., & Al-Momani, I. (2008). Jordanian student teachers’ perceptions of teaching writing in
kindergartens during their field training experience. European Journal of Teacher Education, 31(4), 403–417.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02619760802420800
Joseph, G. E., & Brennan, C. (2013). Framing quality: Annotated video-based portfolios of classroom practice by pre-
service teachers. Early Childhood Education Journal, 41(6), 423–430. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-013-0576-7
Kessels, J., & Korthagen, F. (2001). The relationship between theory and practice: Back to the classics. In F.
Korthagen, B. Kessels, B. Koster, B. Lagerwel, & T. Wubbels (Eds.), Linking practice and theory: The pedagogy
of realistic teacher education (pp. 20–31). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kim, H. K. (2011). Developmentally appropriate practice (DAP) as defined and interpreted by early childhood pre-
service teachers: Beliefs about DAP and influences of teacher education and field experience. SRATE Journal, 20
(2), 12–20.
Knight, R. (2015). Postgraduate student teachers’ developing conceptions of the place of theory in learning to teach:
‘more important to me now than when I started’. Journal of Education for Teaching, 41(2), 145–160. https://doi.
org/10.1080/02607476.2015.1010874
Kourti, E., & Androussou, A. (2013). Promoting critical awareness in the initial training of preschool teachers in
Greece: Resistance and perspectives. International Journal of Early Years Education, 21(2-3), 192–206. https://
doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2013.832946
Kroeger, J., Pech, S., & Cope, J. (2009). Investigating change in field sites through mentor and candidate dialogues.
Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 30(4), 328–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/10901020903320536
Kupila, P., Ukkonen-Mikkola, T., & Rantala, K. (2017). Interpretations of Mentoring during early childhood edu-
cation mentor training. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 42(10), 36–49. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.
2017v42n10.3
La Paro, K. M., Van Schagen, A., King, E., & Lippard, C. (2018). A systems perspective on practicum experiences in
early childhood teacher education: Focus on interprofessional relationships. Early Childhood Education Journal,
46(4), 365–375. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-017-0872-8
Levin, B., & He, Y. (2008). Investigating the content and sources of teacher candidates’ personal practical theories
(PPTS). Journal of Teacher Education, 59(1), 55–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487107310749
Lewis, T., Macfarlane, K., Nobel, K., & Stephenson, A. (2006). Crossing borders and blurring boundaries: Early child-
hood practice in a non-Western setting. International Journal of Early Childhood, 38(2), 23–35. https://doi.org/10.
1007/BF03168206
14 M. MATENGU ET AL.

Lim, S.-R., & Kwon, H.-J. (2009). Preservice teachers’ narratives on the experience of early childhood practicum.
Asia-Pacific Journal of Research, 3(1), 87–100.
MacFarland, L., Saunders, R., & Allen, S. (2009). Reflective practice and self-evaluation in learning positive guidance:
Experiences of early childhood practicum students. Early Childhood Education Journal, 36(6), 505–511. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10643-009-0315-2
Major, J., & Santoro, M. (2016). Supervising an international teaching practicum: Building partnerships in postco-
lonial contexts. Oxford Review of Education, 42(4), 460–474. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2016.1195734
Malm, B. (2017). ‘We need to give the profession something that no one else can’: Swedish student teachers percep-
tions and experiences of their preschool teacher training programme. International Journal of Learning, Teaching
and Educational Research, 16(9), 73–87. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.16.9.6
Mattsson, M., Eilertsen, T., & Rorrison, D. (2011). A practicum turn in teacher education (6th ed.). Sense.
McLaren, E., & Rutland, J. H. (2013). Preparing early childhood special educators in Appalachian Kentucky. Rural
Special Education Quarterly, 32(1), 47–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/875687051303200107
Naughton, C. (2016). A reflection on Bakhtin’s ‘Epic and Novel’ in the context of early childhood student teachers’
practicum. Studies in Philosophy of Education, 35(1), 93–101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-015-9469-0
Nuthall, G. (2004). Relating classroom teaching to student learning: A critical analysis of why research has failed to
bridge the theory-practice gap. Harvard Educational Review, 74(3), 273–306. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.74.3.
e08k1276713824u5
O’Connor, D., McGunnigle, C., Treasure, T., & Davie, S. (2015). Educator identities: Emerging issues within personal
and professional identities: Changes experienced by Australian pre-service teachers following professional
exposure to educational practice within childcare settings. Early Child Development and Care, 185(8), 1331–
1342. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2014.993626
Onchwari, J. (2010). Early childhood inservice and preservice teachers’ perceived levels of preparedness to handle
stress in their students. Early Childhood Education Journal, 37(5), 391–400. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-009-
0361-9
Onnismaa, E.-L., Tahkokallio, L., & Kalliala, M. (2015). From university to working life: An analysis of field-based
studies in early childhood teacher education and recently graduated kindergarten teachers’ transition to work.
Early Years, 35(2), 197–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/09575146.2015.1011065
Onnismaa, E.-L., Tahkokallio, L., Reunamo, J., & Lipponen, L. (2017). The induction phase kindergarten teachers’
conceptions of their workprofiles, perceived competences and stress. Journal of Early Childhood Education
Research, 6(2), 188–206.
Ortlipp, M., & Nuttall, J. (2011). Supervision and assessment of the early childhood practicum: Experiences of pre-
service teachers who speak English as a second language and their supervising teachers. Australasian Journal of
Early Childhood, 36, 87–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/183693911103600212
Pendergast, D., Garvis, S., & Keogh, J. (2011). Pre-service student-teacher self-efficacy beliefs: An insight into the
making of teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 36(12), 46–58. http://ro.ecu.edu.au/ajte/vol36/iss12/4
Recchia, S. L., Beck, L., Esposito, A., & Tarrant, K. (2009). Diverse field experiences as a catalyst for preparing high
quality early childhood teachers. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 30(2), 105–122. https://doi.org/10.
1080/10901020902885604
Recchia, S. L., & Shin, M. (2010). ‘Baby teachers’: How pre-service early childhood students transform their con-
ceptions of teaching and learning through an infant practicum. Early Years, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09575141003648357
Recchia, S. L., Shin, M., & Snaider, C. (2018). Where is the love? Developing loving relationships as an essential com-
ponent of professional infant care. International Journal of Early Years Education, 26(2), 142–158. https://doi.org/
10.1080/09669760.2018.1461614
Recchia, S., & Loizou, E. (2018). In-service infant teachers re-envision their practice through a professional develop-
ment program. Early Education and Development, 29(1), 91–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2017.1343561
Reed, M., & Walker, R. (2014). Leading by example: An examination of early education foundation degree students
completing research dissertations. Journal of Early Childhood Education Research, 3(1), 51–64.
Sanderson, D. R. (2016). Working together to strengthen the school community: The restructuring of a university-
school partnership. School Community Journal, 26(1), 183–197.
Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business
Research, 104, 333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039
Sokal, L., Woloshyn, D., & Funk-Unrau, S. (2013). How important is practicum to pre-service teacher development
for inclusive teaching? Effects on efficacy in classroom management. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 59
(2), 285–298.
Tate, A. (2016). Developing identities in the workplace: Students’ experience of distance early childhood teacher edu-
cation. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 44(3), 289–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2015.1084995
Tiainen, O., Korkeamäki, R.-L., & Dreher, M. (2018). Beginning reflective practitioners: A case study of three begin-
ning pre-service teachers. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 62(4), 586–600. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00313831.2016.1258673
 SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 15

Ukkonen-Mikkonen, T., & Turtiainen, H. (2016). On the job learning in the boundary space of study and worklife.
Journal of Early Childhood Education Research, 5(1), 44–68.
Van Shagen Johnson, A., La Paro, K. M., & Crosby, D. A. (2017). Early practicum experiences: Preservice early child-
hood students’ perspectives and sense of efficacy. Early Childhood Education Journal, 45(2), 229–236. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10643-016-0771-4
Vartuli, S., Snider, K., & Holley, M. (2016). Making it real: A practice-based early childhood teacher education pro-
gram. Early Childhood Education Journal, 44, 503–514. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-015-0733-2
Waddell, J., & Vartuli, S. (2015). Moving from traditional teacher education to a field-based urban teacher education
program: One program’s story of reform. Professional Educator, 39(2), 1–24.
Walsh, K., & Elmslie, L. (2005). Practicum pairs: An alternative for first field experience in early childhood teacher
education. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 33(1), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866052000341098
Waniganayake, M., & Stipanovic, S. (2016). Advancing leadership capacity: Preparation of early childhood leaders in
Australia through a coursework master’s degree. Journal of Early Childhood Education Research, 5 (2), 268–288.
Weatherby-Fell, N., Duchesne, S., & Neilsen-Hewett, C. (2019). Preparing and supporting early childhood preservice
teachers in their professional Journey. The Australian Educational Researcher, 46(4), 621–637. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s13384-019-00340-4
Wee, S.-J., Weber, E. K., & Park, S. (2014). Early childhood practicum students’ professional growth in the USA:
Areas of confidence and concern. International Journal of Early Years Education, 22(4), 409–422. https://doi.
org/10.1080/09669760.2014.911644
White, E. J., Peter, M., Sims, M., Rockel, J., & Kumeroa, M. (2016). First-year practicum experiences for preservice
early childhood education teachers working with birth-to-3-year-olds: An Australasian experience. Journal of
Early Childhood Teacher Education, 37(4), 282–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/10901027.2016.1245221
Wong, G., Greenhalgh, T., Westhorp, G., Buckingham, J., & Pawson, R. (2013). RAMASES publication standards:
Meta-narrative reviews. BMC Medicine, 11(20), 1–15.
Zeichner, K., Payne, K., & Brayko, K. (2015). Democratizing teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 66(2),
122–135. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487114560908
Zhang, Q., Cown, P., Hayes, J., Werry, S., Barnes, R., France, L., & TeHau-Grant, R. (2015). Scrutinising the final
judging role in assessment of practicum in early childhood initial teacher education in New Zealand.
Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 40(10), 147–166. http://dx.doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2015v40n10.9