This article was downloaded by: [Temple University Libraries]

On: 12 November 2014, At: 03:01

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Teachers and Teaching: theory and

practice
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ctat20

Integrating theory and practice in

the pre-service teacher education
practicum
a a
Jeanne Maree Allen & Suzie Elizabeth Wright
a
Faculty of Education, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia
Published online: 16 Oct 2013.

To cite this article: Jeanne Maree Allen & Suzie Elizabeth Wright (2014) Integrating theory and
practice in the pre-service teacher education practicum, Teachers and Teaching: theory and
practice, 20:2, 136-151, DOI: 10.1080/13540602.2013.848568

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2013.848568

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
 Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 2014
Vol. 20, No. 2, 136–151, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2013.848568

Integrating theory and practice in the pre-service teacher

education practicum
Jeanne Maree Allen* and Suzie Elizabeth Wright

Faculty of Education, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia

(Received 10 January 2013; final version received 14 January 2013)
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 03:01 12 November 2014

This article reports on a study into student teachers’ perceptions about their
professional development during practicum. Framed within a symbolic interac-
tionist perspective, the study examined to what extent, and how effectively, one
group of student teachers was able to integrate theory and practice during a
three-week practicum in the first year of their degree. The context for this mixed
methods study was a Master of Teaching, graduate-level entry programme in the
Faculty of Education at an urban Australian university. Although there is a strong
field of literature around the practicum in pre-service teacher education, there has
been a limited focus on how student teachers themselves perceive their develop-
ment during this learning period. Further, despite widespread and longstanding
acknowledgement of the ‘gap’ between theory and practice in teacher education,
there is still more to learn about how well the practicum enables an integration of
these two dimensions of teacher preparation. In presenting three major findings
of the study, this paper goes some way in addressing these shortcomings in the
literature. First, participants in this study largely valued both the theoretical
and practical components of their programme, which stands in contrast to the
commonly identified tendency of the student teacher to privilege practice over
theory. Second, opportunities to integrate theory and practice were varied, with
many participants reporting the detrimental impact of an apparent lack of
clarity around stakeholders’ roles and responsibilities. Third, participants over-
whelmingly supported the notion of linking university coursework assessment to
the practicum as a means of bridging the gap between, on the one hand, the
university and the school and, on the other hand, theory and practice.
Keywords: pre-service teacher education practicum; school–university
partnership; student teacher; stakeholder role and responsibilities; theory-practice

Introduction and background

An assumption implicit in pre-service programmes across a variety of contexts is
that the knowledge and practices taught within them will enable professional
practice in the workplace. However, a widely discerned problem lies in the fact that
there is often a huge disparity between the types of skills and knowledge taught in
pre-service programmes and the realities of workplace practice (Meijer, de Graaf, &
Meirink, 2011; Yayli, 2008). A number of studies spanning the decades since the
professionalisation of teaching in the 1960s have attested to this disparity in teacher
education (Cochran-Smith, 2005; Korthagen, 2010; Roness, 2011). According to
Skilbeck and Connell (2004, p. 12):
*Corresponding author. Email: Jeanne.Allen@utas.edu.au

© 2013 Taylor & Francis

 Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 137

There is widespread criticism of educational theory courses, notably by students in

training, beginning teachers, and school principals. Teachers in their initial years in
the profession express frustration over coursework for which they generally perceive
little value intellectually or practically. Most find considerable difficulty in explaining
the relevance of educational research and theory to their teaching.

Levine (2006) echoes these concerns in arguing that we are in danger of preparing
teachers who know much about theory and little about practice. In fact, the schism
between theory and practice seems almost synonymous with teacher education
programmes, with Dewey noting the issue as far back as the early 1900s (Dewey,
1904). Professional or workplace experience, referred to in this paper as practicum,
is one of the time-honoured approaches to mitigate against the theory-practice ‘gap’
in teacher education.
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 03:01 12 November 2014

The practicum, although varied in intent and approach, has always been integral
to teacher education programmes (Vick, 2006) and represents the time during which
students are ideally provided opportunities to integrate theory and practice in the
workplace. Linking carefully constructed practicum experiences with on-campus
courses has been highlighted as one of the most powerful and effective ways of
supporting student teacher learning (Darling-Hammond, 2006; Tatto, 1996). In one
of the most in-depth national studies of teacher education in the USA, Darling-
Hammond (2006) identified a number of ways in which best practice can be
achieved in linking theory and practice in the practicum. These ways include strong
involvement from school and university staff and well designed in-field experiences
that make explicit links between theory and practice through, for example, action
research and performance assessments.
Integral to these types of practices proposed by Darling-Hammond (2006) and
others (e.g. Allen, 2011; Patrick, Peach, & Pocknee, 2008; Smedley, 2001) is the
establishment of strong school–university partnerships. However, there are a number
of constraints associated with forging and sustaining such partnerships, which have
been broadly acknowledged in the literature (Bloomfield, 2009; Imig & Imig, 2006;
Yayli, 2008). Bloomfield (2009), for example, argues that there is a range of time
and resource pressures experienced by staff in both sectors and she joins other
commentators (e.g. Ganser, 1996; Trent & Lim, 2010) in highlighting the
importance of common understandings between key stakeholders in the practicum,
particularly as such understandings relate to their roles and responsibilities.
Allen and Peach (2007) note that there is typically very limited ongoing
communication between stakeholders and this can increase the disjuncture that
student teachers face between the in-field and on-campus components of their
course. In advancing a similar argument, Driscoll, Benson and Livneh (1994)
suggest that a number of the perceived shortcomings in many on-campus teacher
education programmes both result in and are maintained by inadequate collaboration
between the partners. Such limited communication channels have been shown to
result in poorly defined stakeholder roles and responsibilities, such that practicum
supervising staff members in schools and universities are often unsure of the ways
in which they should both support student teachers (Allen, 2011) and also interact
with each other in doing so (Ganser, 1996; Yayli, 2008).
Over 20 years ago, Calderhead and Robson (1991, p. 1) observed that the
expectation of practicum is that student teachers’ exposure to and participation in
the two environments of the teacher education programme and the practicum school
 138 J.M. Allen and S.E. Wright

will enable them to ‘build a coherent, enlightened, integrated body of knowledge

that will inform, and in turn be informed by, classroom practice.’ Nevertheless,
although this expectation has long been clear, the literature suggests that there is
only, at best, a tenuous relationship between the theoretical knowledge of teachers
and their developing practice during their pre-service and initial teaching years
(Allen, 2009; Darling-Hammond, 2000).
The study reported in this paper contributes specifically to an understanding of
how students perceive the practicum as enabling an integration of theory and
practice and some of the issues that they view as impeding and supporting such inte-
gration. In doing so, the paper adds to emerging literature in authorising the much
neglected ‘student voice’ in teacher education. As noted by others (Cochran-Smith,
2005; Korthagen, Loughran, & Russell, 2006), there is insufficient empirical
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 03:01 12 November 2014

research associated with the experiences and perceptions of students themselves as

they transition through the pre-service programme and into the workplace.

Interpretive approach
An interpretive approach was adopted for the purposes of this research because we
ascribe to the view that all human practices are developed and transmitted in a social
context and that meaning is constructed. Different individuals may construct
different meanings in relation to the same phenomenon (Crotty, 1998). Within the
interpretive approach, we used a symbolic interactionist perspective because it
provided us with a mechanism to uncover the meanings of the social reality of a
group of student teachers, based upon understanding the lived experience of that
social reality from the point of view of the participants.
The notion of symbolic interactionism is generally seen to comprise three major
premises. The first of these is that human beings experience reality through their
definitions of it and that they ‘act towards things on the basis of the meanings that
the things have for them’ (Blumer, 1969, p. 2). Second, this attribution of meaning
to objects through symbols is a continuous process. Meanings are assigned and
modified through an interpretive process that is ever changing and that is subject to
redefinition, relocation and realignments (Blumer, 1969). Third, this process takes
place in a social context as meaning arises in the process of interaction among
individuals (Blumer, 1969).
Central to the symbolic interactionist perspective are emphases on subjectivity
and interpretation in the creation of meaning (Blumer, 1969). Therefore, the partici-
pants’ own understandings, viewed from their own experience of social realities,
become the subject matter for research. In our study, we sought to explore how some
student teachers constructed, perceived and interpreted the social reality of integrating
theory and practice during practicum. Their perceptions of the meanings they attached
to their experiences are central to this research. The particular social context in which
student teachers interacted was informed by a traditional and ‘historically dominant
“application of theory” model of preservice teacher education’ in which prospective
teachers are expected to ‘learn theories at the university then go to schools to practice
or apply what they learned on campus’ (Zeichner, 2010, pp. 90–91).

Method and analysis

The mixed methods study that this paper reports was conducted in late 2010 in an
urban Australian university and was framed by the central research question: In the
 Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 139

view of participating student teachers, what factors enable and hinder the
integration of theory and practice during practicum? Once Ethical Clearance
(University of Tasmania, 2011) was approved, purposive sampling (Patton, 2002)
was used to select all first-year students of the Faculty of Education’s graduate-level
entry Master of Teaching (MTeach) programme. The MTeach is a two-year
programme, offered in both on-campus (two sites) and Distance (online) modes and
students in the sample were drawn from both. Students were contacted during the
middle of Semester 2 of their first academic year when most MTeach students had
completed the second of four professional experience placements. Due to personal
study preferences, such as part-time study and Semester 2 enrolment, some students
within the target cohort had completed less than two practicum placements. Table 1
provides a summary of the practicum arrangements for the MTeach programme and
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 03:01 12 November 2014

Table 2 a summary of the practicum completion status of the study respondents.

Data were collected by way of a survey and follow-up interviews (Cohen, Manion,
& Morrison, 2011).
In the first instance, an online survey, comprising a five-point Likert scale
questionnaire of 30 closed questions and a set of six open questions was distributed
to the entire cohort. Qualtrics software (Qualtrics Labs, 2011) was used to generate
and distribute the survey. A reminder email was sent two weeks after the initial mail
out. The closed questions were designed to gauge student teachers’ perceptions of
how the work they do on campus is integrated into the work they do in schools. The
open questions were less specific and aimed to provide a way to further understand
student teachers’ experiences as they relate to the theory and practice of teaching
during the practicum. Of 265 students emailed the survey, 67 responses were
received, representing a 25% response rate. This rate was slightly higher than the
typical response rate for online surveys suggested by Georgina and Hosford (2009)
of between 20.5 and 21%, which could be attributed to the use of personalised email
(students were addressed by name), a follow-up reminder and a simple survey
format (Solomon, 2001).
All those who completed the survey were invited to participate in a follow-up
individual interview. Almost half of the survey respondents (29 of 67) initially
expressed interest but, when subsequently contacted by email and phone to arrange
a suitable time for interview, less than half (11 of 29) participated, representing an

Table 1. Practicum requirements of the MTeach programme.

Practicum placement Year/semester Number of days/weeks
1 1/1 10 days/2 weeks
2 1/2 15 days/3 weeks
3 2/1 20 days/4 weeks
4 2/2 25 days/5 weeks

Table 2. Practicum placements completed by study respondents.

Response (n = 67) Percentage
No practicum 1 1
First practicum only 10 15
First and Second practicum 56 84
 140 J.M. Allen and S.E. Wright

interview participation rate of 16% (11 of 67) of those surveyed. Reasons provided
for not continuing onto interview included family and work commitments and a lack
of time. The interviews were semi-structured to facilitate the free expression of the
participants’ thoughts (Cohen et al., 2011) and were conducted by phone due to the
broad geographical spread of participants (Fenwick, 2011). Notes taken during
interviews identified participants by code (e.g. ID01) and included both verbatim
and paraphrased recordings of their responses.
Analysis of the data occurred in three phases. First, survey data were analysed in
order to help inform the creation of the interview schedule (Patton, 2002). In the first
instance, we analysed each individual item of the Likert scale survey to generate
descriptive statistics about participants’ perceptions of theory and practice in the
practicum (Clason & Dormody, 1994). Results are means based on a scale from 1
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 03:01 12 November 2014

(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Of the 30 Likert scale items, five were
negatively worded. For consistency, the scoring of these items was reversed before
analysis, allowing a higher value (1–5) to reflect a more positive response.
Second, responses to open-ended survey questions were categorically analysed, a
process which involved both researchers each separately reading through the data to
assign both in vivo and abstract codes to significant words, phrases and ideas. We
then compared and contrasted our individual codes in order to develop broad
categories and then identify a number of themes in and between the categories
(Coffey & Atkinson, 1996). The same method of analysis was later used with the
written recordings of participants’ responses during interview. During the third phase
of analysis, we looked for similarities between the themes generated from the two
sets of qualitative data and then again scanned the whole data-set to ensure that we
had effectively identified commonalities between themes and relationships among
these themes (Coffey & Atkinson, 1996).
As with all research involving voluntary participation, a limitation of the study is
the possibility of bias in which participants willing to be involved in the interview
and/or survey might have presented a more biased view of what they value from the
MTeach programme. Some might have participated on the one hand out of a
perceived sense of duty or, on the other, out of appreciation that the opportunity to
have their voice heard was provided to them. Some wished to express concerns
while others praised the programme. Overall, the results and findings reflect a
balance of positive and negative responses about how effectively participants were
able to integrate theory and practice during their three-week practicum.

Results and findings

While a number of themes emerged, our focus in the following sections is those that
most directly inform a response to the central research question, namely:

In the view of participating student teachers, what factors enable and hinder the
integration of theory and practice during practicum?

Framed within the interpretive perspective of symbolic interactionism, the research

question was created to elicit responses from a group of student teachers about ways
in which they created meaning around their lived experiences during practicum. The
results and findings therefore reflect participants’ reported perceptions of how they
constructed, perceived and interpreted the social reality of integrating theory and
practice during their three-week practicum experience.
 Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 141

Throughout our discussion, we align our use of the term ‘theory’ with that of
Zeichner’s (2010) to represent the broad range of concepts and skills associated with
the declarative and procedural knowledge taught to student teachers on campus, and
the term ‘practice’ to refer to the classroom pedagogy and activities of the teacher.
In doing so, we do not mean to imply that all campus activities are theoretical,
which they are not (Carr, 1987), or that all classroom activities represent practice
only, which they do not (Carr, 1987). Rather, we acknowledge that the theory-prac-
tice binary is complex, with some commentators believing that one is inseparable
from the other (Carr, 1987; Lenz Taguchi, 2007; Schön, 2003), and theories and
beliefs about how theoretical knowledge is applied in practice are diverse and often
conflicting (Connelly & Clandinin, 1995). Our reasons for using these terms in this
way are twofold: first, this is how they are commonly used and understood in the
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 03:01 12 November 2014

context of teacher education and in the literature (Kessels & Korthagen, 1996;
Zeichner, 2010) and, second, as evident below, this is how they were understood by
a number of our student teacher participants.

Survey
The survey consisted of two parts: participant ratings of their beliefs and experiences
related to theory and practice in the practicum and a set of six open questions. The
30 closed questions were divided into three equal sets in order to gauge an
understanding about (a) participants’ beliefs and attitudes about practicum; (b) their
practicum experiences to date; and (c) and their perceptions about stakeholders’
roles and responsibilities. The mean ratings of the first part of the survey are
outlined in Table 3.
The first set of items (S3.1_a to S3.1_ j) reveal that participants’ beliefs and
attitudes about practicum align with commonly understood notions of ‘best practice’
as it relates to theory and practice in the practicum (Allen, 2011; Darling-Hammond,
2006, 2010; Patrick et al., 2008; Smedley, 2001), such as strong involvement from
school and university staff and well designed in-field experiences that make explicit
links between theory and practice. The mean response by participants to this set of
items was 3.74; when ‘misfit’ items S3.1_h and 3.1_i are removed, the mean rises
to 3.9. The mean response to the second set of items, relating to the student experi-
ence of practicum, was 3.09, which suggests that, in the view of at least some of the
student teachers, the integration of theory and practice did not occur to the degree
that they had expected and hoped. The third set of items, relating to participants’
views of stakeholders’ roles and responsibilities, drew a mean response rate of 2.96,
which points to some perceived shortcomings in this area.
Responses to open questions and in follow-up interviews provided further insight
into participants’ beliefs and attitudes about practicum, their practicum experiences
to date and their perceptions about stakeholders’ roles and responsibilities. Findings
generated through data analysis can be categorised into three salient themes. First,
participants in this study largely valued both the theoretical and practical compo-
nents of their programme, which stands in contrast to the commonly identified
tendency of the student teacher to privilege practice over theory. Second, opportuni-
ties to integrate theory and practice were varied, with many participants reporting
the detrimental impact of an apparent lack of clarity around stakeholders’ roles and
responsibilities. Third, participants overwhelmingly supported the notion of linking
university coursework assessment to the practicum as a means of bridging the gap
 142 J.M. Allen and S.E. Wright

Table 3. Mean score of all Likert scale items of the student teacher survey (n = 57).
Negatively worded items reversed for analysis are presented in italics in the Table.
Item Mean
no. Item description score
S3.1. We are interested in the beliefs and attitudes you have about practicum. Please respond
to the statements below by selecting an option from ‘Strongly Disagree’ to ‘Strongly
Agree.’
S3.1_a Practicum placements should provide me with the opportunity to 4.53
observe the integration of theory and practice.
S3.1_b Practicum placements should provide me with the opportunity to 4.42
integrate theory and practice in my teaching.
S3.1_c Practicum placements should teach me about professional practice. 4.60
S3.1_d Practicum placements should teach me about the theory of teaching. 3.32
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 03:01 12 November 2014

S3.1_e I should take responsibility for integrating theory and practice in 3.93
practicum placements.
S3.1_f My university teachers should be responsible for helping me integrate 3.60
theory and practice during practicum placements.
S3.1_g My colleague teacher/s should be responsible for helping me integrate 3.77
theory and practice during practicum placements.
S3.1_h Work done in practicum placements does not need to be linked to 3.49
university work.
S3.1_i Theory is learned at university and practice is learned in schools. 2.70
S3.1_j University staff should take a supervisory role only during practicum 3.05
placements.
S4.1. We are interested in the experiences you have had during practicum placements so far.
Please respond to the statements below by selecting an option from ‘Strongly Disagree’ to
‘Strongly Agree.’
S4.1_a Practicum placements provided me with the opportunity to observe the 3.56
integration of theory and practice.
S4.1_b Practicum placements provided me with the opportunity to integrate 3.47
theory and practice in my teaching.
S4.1_c Practicum placements taught me about professional practice. 4.05
S4.1_d Practicum placements taught me about the theory of teaching. 2.77
S4.1_e I could relate the work done in practicum placements to university work. 3.28
S4.1_f My practicum experience was practical, with few links made to theory. 2.11
S4.1_g I learned more about teaching during practicum than at university. 1.67
S4.1_h My practicum placements lived up to my expectations in linking theory 3.12
and practice.
S4.1_i University work has become more meaningful since completing 3.46
practicum placements.
S4.1_j Practicum placements have helped me understand the links between 3.44
theory and practice.
S5.1. We are interested in how you experienced the roles of three sets of stakeholders during
practicum: yourself, university staff and school (colleague) teachers. Please respond to the
statements below by selecting an option from ‘Strongly Disagree’ to ‘Strongly Agree.’
S5.1_a I felt able to observe/make links between theory and practice in 3.37
practicum placement/s.
S5.1_b The work I had done at university enabled me to make links between 3.40
theory and practice.
S5.1_c University staff played an important role in helping me link theory and 2.86
practice.
S5.1_d My colleague teacher/s played an important role in helping me link 3.11
theory and practice.
S5.1_e I was unable to discern/make links between theory and practice. 3.23

(Continued)
 Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 143

Table 3. (Continued).
Item Mean
no. Item description score
S5.1_f University staff and colleague teacher/s delivered the same types of 2.33
messages about theory and practice.
S5.1_g University staff were interested in the practice I experienced during 2.89
practicum placement/s.
S5.1_h Colleague teacher/s were interested in the theory I had learned at 2.70
university.
S5.1_i University staff and colleague teacher/s seemed to have a clear 2.28
understanding of each other’s roles in assisting me in my practicum
placement/s.
S5.1_j The teaching I observed/did in schools enabled me to make links 3.40
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 03:01 12 November 2014

between theory and practice.

between, on the one hand, the university and the school and, on the other hand,
theory and practice.

Discussion
The aim of this section is to discuss some of the factors that, in the view of student
teachers, enable and hinder the integration of theory and practice during practicum.
Written comments from the survey and transcribed spoken interview comments are
included. The first key finding of this study was how the beliefs that students upheld
about ‘theory’ and ‘practice’ impacted on their practicum experience.

Perceptions of theory and practice

All interviewed participants (n = 11) commented that the MTeach programme would
be ‘useless’ or ‘worthless’ if the programme did not include practicum placements.
However, findings across the whole data-set also show that student teachers in this
study regarded ‘theory’ and ‘practice’ in different ways. On the one hand, there were
some who clearly valued practice over theory, as evidenced in the following:

Theory is everything we do at uni – the subjects, the course work, the assignments. …
I believe that the real learning occurs when we are on [practicum].

If I’m honest, I’ve learned more in the 3 week prac than all the subjects combined.

On the other hand, the majority of participants, while highly valuing practical
experience, also acknowledged the importance of theory:

I don’t think you can do one or the other, I think they go together.

I think you also need the theory part as well – e.g. the lesson planning and the theory
are useful and you only really get these at uni.

Previous studies have shown that student teachers often privilege the practical side
of their pre-service programme over theoretical knowledge (Allen, 2009), with
some students advocating a return to an apprenticeship model of preparation
 144 J.M. Allen and S.E. Wright

(Allen, 2009). While there was some evidence in this study of a student preference
for practice, this was not to the exclusion of theory. This student’s comments
epitomise those of others:

It’s really important to have both – my feelings about that haven’t changed. You need
to have a conceptual basis and then put them into place, and prac is a great way to do
this. Prac is a great place to find out, ‘Does your conceptual understanding fit with the
way you actually teach?’

Further, several participants spoke out against wholly practice-based training, as in

the apprenticeship model:

I’m a great believer in linking theory and practice. It’s important to have a conceptual
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 03:01 12 November 2014

and theoretical framework to work around. It doesn’t always work but it’s important to
understand the conceptual understanding – I don’t think this would happen in an
apprenticeship model.

While the literature is largely critical of current models of teacher preparation

(Skilbeck & Connell, 2004; Valencia, Martin, Place, & Grossman, 2009; Zeichner,
2010), the emphasis lies in calling on the profession to improve current program-
ming content and delivery arrangements (Darling-Hammond, 2010; Grossman,
Hammerness, & McDonald, 2009; Korthagen et al., 2006) rather than in returning to
practice-based learning. The student voice emerging from this study would seem to
support this call. Indeed, there is evidence that the lived experience during practicum
is enriched when students have a more balanced approach to the links between
theory and practice. These comments are indicative:

You can’t just learn from a classroom. You need to do the readings and hear
professionals talk about certain situations and also you need the knowledge of the
subject matter knowledge.

The two are circular – you do the theory and put them into practice and then apply
back to the theory with evidence from practice and modify.

Data presented in Table 1 also provide evidence of this, with high levels of
agreement shown for Items S3.1_a (Practicum placements should provide me with
the opportunity to observe the integration of theory and practice) and S3.1_b
(Practicum placements should provide me with the opportunity to integrate theory
and practice in my teaching); mean scores of 4.53 and 4.42, respectively.
There is an alignment here with Schön’s (2003) and Lenz Taguchi’s (2007)
notion of the inseparability of theory and practice and their claim that it is not possi-
ble to determine where one ends and the other begins. However, this particular find-
ing stands in contrast to those of a number of previous studies where student
teachers have been shown to demonstrably privilege practice over theory (see, e.g.
Allen, 2009; Hartocollis, 2005). Reasons for this contrasting finding remain at the
level of conjecture and will provide the focus of further study. However, it is plausi-
ble that the student teacher view described above stems from the tertiary experience
and maturity of students undertaking the MTeach programme. Specifically, this grad-
uate-level entry programme has a pre-requisite entry requirement of a previous
degree in any discipline. Most students have previously completed a non-
professional degree, such as a Bachelor of Arts or a Bachelor of Science. Their
 Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 145

foundational tertiary studies in these degree programmes might well have led to their
stronger appreciation of the mastery of theory. Further, the MTeach programme
emphasises and encourages staff and peer feedback processes around practicum,
which arguably enable a more developed understanding of the links between theory
and practice. These processes include the systematic collection of online student
feedback data, facilitated student debriefing sessions and university and school
teaching staff appraisals of each practicum. In any case, from the teacher educator
perspective, the student view of theory and practice discerned in this study can be
considered quite promising, particularly in terms of student transition through the
pre-service programme and into the workforce.
Conversely, the delineation and fulfilment of stakeholder roles and responsibili-
ties were considered largely inadequate by participants in this study, as discussed in
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 03:01 12 November 2014

the following section.

Stakeholders’ roles and responsibilities

Participants were concerned about what they perceived to be a lack of clarity among
university supervisors and colleague teachers about their supervisory roles during
practicum. Many suggested that colleague teachers had received insufficient guid-
ance from the university, resulting in the student teachers themselves being forced to
assume responsibility for clarifying the goals and nature of their placement. This
comment typifies the frustration expressed in this regard:

More practical info needs to be provided. The colleague teacher really had little idea of
what is going on – no idea what to do with the student. [The colleague teacher]
couldn’t access the guidelines and how to use them. There needs to be more
information for the colleague teacher. At the moment I had to do all the contacting, tell
the teacher what I had to do and organise them.

According to some participants, this state of events also exasperated the staff they
were working with in schools:

The school couldn’t understand why the uni couldn’t tell them more in advance who
they were placing and give the package of what to do sooner.

The ‘package’ referred to by this student teacher comprises information about the
student/s allocated to the school and a 34-page information booklet which sets out
the expectations of the practicum and the developmental indicators of success for
each of the four practicum placements. Although all this information is sent to the
school as soon as a placement is confirmed, student comments in this study suggest
that colleague teachers often do not receive and/or do not read the booklet before
the student begins the placement. A number of factors could be at play here, such as
late or changed placement of the student teacher by the university, delayed allocation
of a colleague teacher to a student, the business of school life impeding on the
colleague teacher’s available time and/or inclination to access the information pack-
age, and the like. Of interest to this study is the fact that participants identified this
perceived breakdown in communication as impacting negatively on their ability to
effectively enact theory into practice.
A related issue was the preparedness of colleague teachers. On the one hand, in
those cases where colleague teachers were seemingly well briefed in advance of the
 146 J.M. Allen and S.E. Wright

placement and aware of relevant requirements and expectations, student teachers

reported positive placement experiences, as indicated by this participant:

[My colleague teachers] had obviously done a lot of prep before I turned up, they were
very concerned that I got out of it what I wanted and what they wanted, and they were
both very collaborative and supportive.

On the other hand, students were critical of those colleague teachers whom they
believed failed to support them in fulfilling their university requirements. One
commented that his colleague teachers ‘asked what they are meant to be doing with
me’ and that:

[It] is very unprofessional to start at a school and the colleague teacher not knowing
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 03:01 12 November 2014

what you are supposed to be doing. If you started a new job you wouldn’t expect your
employer/supervisor to say ‘I don’t really know what to do with you. I don’t know
why we hired you,’ etc.

The degree to which participants equated their ability to meaningfully enact theory
in practice with the level of support from others extended also to university
supervisors. The practicum placement that was the focus of this study (the second of
four) requires the university supervisor to make contact, generally via email, with
the student before the practicum. A school visit is not required unless the student
encounters difficulties and/or is at risk of failure. This process is outlined to students
during their initial programme orientation and then before the practicum. However,
many in this study deemed the engagement of the university supervisor as too
limited and suggested a greater involvement would assist them in their work:

I never had any [personal] contact with the supervisor myself. Maybe more contact
with the supervisors would be handy … Getting the right kind of support is good –
you need feedback and without support from the uni it can be difficult.

Apart from [an] introductory email from my 2nd uni supervisor I haven’t had any
contact with the uni supervisor.

Results of the survey data shown in Table 1 seem to support the feelings expressed
in the interviews, with the mean score of only 2.86 for Item S5.1_c (University staff
played an important role in helping me link theory and practice) indicating that
students disagreed with the statement, with the inference being that more contact
with the university supervisor during this practicum might have led to a higher level
of agreement for this item.
Interestingly, a study currently underway1 shows that many university staff
members echo these concerns, believing students to be ill-served by such limited
supervisor contact. There is a point worthy of note here. The Faculty’s current policy
is that school visits only take place during the third and fourth placements. The
decision to alter a previous model where visits took place in all placements was
predominantly driven by financial considerations. Despite the teacher practicum
funding provided by the Australian federal government, ongoing financial cutbacks
in the university sector mean that budgets are stretched and cutbacks are
commonplace (Marginson, 2006), including the decision in this Faculty to limit the
academic workload ramifications of providing routine school visits for all
placements.
 Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 147

Our findings suggest that this decision would not have been supported by
students. Notwithstanding that in this study we actively sought to understand percep-
tions of the role of stakeholders, it is pertinent to note how strongly participants
believed the involvement of colleague teachers and university supervisors to be in
facilitating the integration of theory and practice. In a sense, this could be
considered a ‘low level’ issue when compared with previously identified hurdles in
this area, such as workplace socialisation and the complex nature of teaching
(Korthagen, 2010), yet it is a factor of the student learning experience that clearly
cannot be overlooked. Data from the survey clearly indicate that students feel
university staff and colleague teachers lack a clear understanding of the roles and
responsibilities of each other in assisting students during their practicum (refer to
Item S5.1_i in Table 1, with a mean score of 2.28). As one participant succinctly
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 03:01 12 November 2014

pointed out:

If the university and school are confused … what hope do we have? We’re the
novitiates [and] we need support every step of the way.

The third key finding of this study was students’ discontent about current
arrangements around assessment practices during the MTeach practicum.

Assessment and the practicum

During practicum, MTeach students are assessed on a number of performance
indicators in the areas of professional knowledge, professional relationships and
professional practice. Higher levels of classroom engagement and achievement are
expected as students progress through the programme. Colleague teachers are
responsible for awarding a Pass (ungraded) or Fail. While performance indicators
stem from work done on campus, Faculty policy stipulates that students should not
be required to perform any assessable coursework during practicum. However,
findings in this study suggest this policy principle is strongly contested by students.
Those interviewed (n = 11) resoundingly supported the notion of linking some
form of assessment to each practicum placement and some commented that they
could not understand why this was not happening already. Statements by these
participants typify others’ responses:

If [practicum] is so important in the eyes of the uni, it should be assessed. Surely it is

worth more than an essay.

They’re trying to teach us that we should link the students’ learning in everyday life
and make it relevant, and [linked assessment] would do that with us. We’re students
too and we need to have our learning relevant and in context as well.

Across the entire set of qualitative data, many referred to the benefit of linking
assessment to practicum as a means of bridging theory and practice; for example:

It would create a more positive situation and make practice more relevant. Theoretical
units would have made more sense if assessed in practice.

It makes really good sense because you can develop it with your university people and
take it in the class and the colleague teacher can tell you if it would work in reality.
Then you go away and work on it, come back, do it in the class and get your grade.
 148 J.M. Allen and S.E. Wright

Further, participants expressed strong support for using assessment as a vehicle for
generating higher levels of understanding between university and school staff, as
succinctly argued by this student:

Perhaps if our colleague teachers and uni supervisors worked together on our
assessment, they’d get more of an idea of what each other does. I don’t think they have
any idea [and] that really doesn’t help us.

Linking coursework assessment with practicum is commonplace in many pre-service

teacher education programmes (Darling-Hammond, 2006) and, in some, is a key
feature of the practicum work (see, e.g. Smith & Moore, 2006). However, embedded
assessment of this nature can be problematic. In particular, with the exception of
some observational activities, linked assessment usually requires the support and, if
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 03:01 12 November 2014

not collaboration, then at least the cooperation of the colleague teacher. Numerous
studies have shown that this is not always achievable due to some colleague teach-
ers’ unwillingness and/or inability to become involved (Allen, 2011; Bullough &
Draper, 2004; Yayli, 2008). A lack of colleague teacher involvement has been
attributed to a range of reasons, including misunderstandings between stakeholders
about the purpose and nature of student assessment, crowded curricula and the
general business of school daily life (Allen, 2011).
According to the feedback provided in this study, however, students find
themselves impeded in their ability to integrate theory into practice when there is a
clear demarcation between coursework and practicum assessment. An embedded
assessment approach, albeit flawed, might well have been welcomed by this cohort
of students.

Summary and conclusion

The aim of the study reported in this paper is to respond to the central research
question, In the view of participating student teachers, what factors enable and
hinder the integration of theory and practice during practicum? The research
question, results and findings were framed within the interpretive perspective of
symbolic interactionism and, as such, we contribute an understanding of how one
group of student teachers constructed, perceived and interpreted the social reality of
integrating theory and practice during a three-week practicum.
Three key findings emerged from the analysis of the quantitative and qualitative
data. First, students in this study value both the potential to enact theory and the
opportunity to be involved in practice during their practicum experience. This find-
ing can be contrasted with those of many other studies where students have been
shown to privilege practice over theory (Allen, 2009). Although still at the level of
conjecture, it is plausible that, as graduate-level entry students, participants’ more
balanced view of theory and practice stems from their previous tertiary experience,
generally in non-professional degrees, and the emphasis placed in the MTeach
programme on staff and peer feedback processes around practicum. Second, accord-
ing to participant responses, the optimum practicum environment in which students
believe they can enact theory is one in which there are clear and transparent
understandings between stakeholders. Where there is confusion around the roles and
responsibilities of university and school staff, students report feeling stymied in their
attempts to make links between campus and classroom work. Of particular
 Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 149

importance are the provision of clear and timely advice to schools, the preparedness
of colleague teachers and engagement by university supervisors. Third, students
strongly advocate embedding coursework assessment in practicum and question why
this is not included in current practicum arrangements. Unlike many other
pre-service programmes, the MTeach that provides the context for this study
precludes university staff from linking course assessment to practicum.
These findings point to, on the one hand, the need for teacher educators to be
both vigilant about the type of learning and assessment that is prescribed for
practicum, and also to closely oversee how learning and assessment are enacted.
Embedding coursework assessment in practicum would arguably ensure that the
student experience of integrating theory and practice is enhanced. On the other hand,
colleague teachers need to support students as they strive to implement meaningful,
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 03:01 12 November 2014

course-related teacher practices. Neither of these outcomes will occur without the
establishment of strong school–university relationships, which provide the most
proven vehicle for establishing and maintaining environments in which pre-
novitiates can develop essential professional knowledge and skills.

Use of terms
‘Colleague teacher’ refers to the school teacher responsible for supervising and
assessing the student teacher during practicum.
‘Practicum’ refers to student teachers’ professional or field experience.
‘Student teacher’ refers to the pre-service teacher.
‘University supervisor’ refers to the academic staff member responsible for
monitoring the student teacher’s progress during practicum.

Note
1. Findings of this follow-up study will inform a later paper.

References
Allen, J. M. (2009). Valuing practice over theory: How beginning teachers re-orient their
practice in the transition from the university to the workplace. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 25, 647–654.
Allen, J. M. (2011). Stakeholders’ perspectives of the nature and role of assessment during
practicum. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 742–750.
Allen, J. M., & Peach, D. (2007). Exploring connections between the in-field and on-campus
components of a preservice teacher education program: A student perspective.
Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 8, 23–36.
Bloomfield, D. (2009). Working within and against neoliberal accreditation agendas:
Opportunities for Professional Experience. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education,
37, 27–44.
Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Bullough, R. V., Jr, & Draper, R. J. (2004). Making sense of a failed triad: Mentors, univer-
sity supervisors, and positioning theory. Journal of Teacher Education, 55, 407–420.
Calderhead, J., & Robson, M. (1991). Images of teaching: Student teachers’ early
conceptions of classroom practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 7, 1–8.
Carr, W. (1987). What is an educational practice? Journal of the Philosophy of Education,
21, 163–175.
Clason, D. L., & Dormody, T. J. (1994). Analyzing data by individual Likert-type items.
Journal of Agricultural Education, 35, 31–35.
 150 J.M. Allen and S.E. Wright

Cochran-Smith, M. (2005). Studying teacher education: What we know and need to know.
Journal of Teacher Education, 56, 301–307.
Coffey, A., & Atkinson, P. (1996). Making sense of qualitative data: Complementary
research strategies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education (7th ed.).
New York, NY: Routledge.
Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1995). Teachers’ professional knowledge landscapes:
Secret, sacred, and cover stories. In D. J. Clandinin & F. M. Connelly (Eds.), Teachers’
professional knowledge landscapes (pp. 3–15). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Crotty, M. J. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the
research project. London: Sage.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). How teacher education matters. Journal of Teacher Education,
51, 166–173.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Powerful teacher education: Lessons from exemplary
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 03:01 12 November 2014

programs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). Teacher education and the American future. Journal of
Teacher Education, 61, 35–47.
Dewey, J. (1904). The relation of theory to practice in education. In C. A. McMurry (Ed.),
The relation between theory and practice in the education of teachers: Third Yearbook of
the National Society for the Scientific Study of Education, part 1 (pp. 9–30). Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press.
Driscoll, A., Benson, N., & Livneh, C. (1994). University/school district collaboration in
teacher education: Outcomes and insights. Teacher Education Quarterly, 21, 59–68.
Fenwick, A. (2011). The first three years: Experiences of early career teachers. Teachers and
Teaching: Theory and Practice, 17, 325–343.
Ganser, T. (1996). The cooperating teacher role. The Teacher Educator, 31, 283–291.
Georgina, D. A., & Hosford, C. C. (2009). Higher education faculty perceptions on
technology integration and training. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 690–696.
Grossman, P., Hammerness, K., & McDonald, M. (2009). Redefining teaching, re-imagining
teacher education. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 15, 273–289.
Hartocollis, A. (2005, July 31). Who needs education schools? What colleges teach. What
teachers need to know. And why they’re not the same. New York Times Education
Supplement, pp. 1–6.
Imig, D. G., & Imig, S. R. (2006). What do beginning teachers need to know? An essay.
Journal of Teacher Education, 57, 286–291.
Kessels, J. P. A. M., & Korthagen, F. A. J. (1996). The relationship between theory and
practice: Back to the classics. Educational Researcher, 25, 17–22.
Korthagen, F. A. J. (2010). How teacher education can make a difference. Journal of
Education for Teaching, 36, 407–423.
Korthagen, F. A. J., Loughran, J. J., & Russell, T. (2006). Developing fundamental principles
for teacher education programs and practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22,
1020–1041.
Lenz Taguchi, H. (2007). Deconstructing and transgressing the theory-practice dichotomy in
early childhood education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 39, 276–290.
Levine, A. (2006). Educating school teachers. Princeton, NJ: The Education Schools Project.
Marginson, S. (2006). Australian universities in a global context. Melbourne: Monash
University. Retrieved from https://www.bhert.com/activities-archives/2006-06-07/
Marginson.pdf
Meijer, P. C., de Graaf, G., & Meirink, J. (2011). Key experiences in student teachers’
development. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 17, 115–129.
Patrick, C.-J., Peach, D., & Pocknee, C. (2008). The WIL [Work Integrated Learning] report:
A national scoping study [Australian Learning and Teaching Council (ALTC) Final
Report]. Brisbane: Queensland University of Technology.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Qualtrics Labs, Inc. (2011). Qualtrics software (Version 22, 814). Provo, UT: Author.
Roness, D. (2011). Still motivated? The motivation for teaching during the second year in
the profession. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 628–638.
 Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 151

Schön, D. A. (2003). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action.

Aldershot: Ashgate.
Skilbeck, M., & Connell, H. (2004). Teachers for the future: The changing nature of society
and related issues for the teaching workforce. Canberra: MCEETYA.
Smedley, L. (2001). Impediments to partnership: A literature review of school-university
links. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 7, 189–209.
Smith, R. A., & Moore, T. (2006). The learning management concept. In R. A. Smith &
D. E. Lynch (Eds.), The rise of the learning manager: Changing teacher education
(pp. 9–23). Frenchs Forest: Pearson Education.
Solomon, D. J. (2001). Conducting web-based surveys. Practical Assessment, Research &
Evaluation, 7. Retrieved July 14, 2011, from http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?
v=2017&n=2019
Tatto, T. (1996). Examining the values and beliefs about teaching diverse students:
Understanding the challenges for teacher education. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 03:01 12 November 2014

Analysis, 18, 155–180.

Trent, J., & Lim, J. (2010). Teacher identity construction in school-university partnerships:
Discourse and practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 1609–1618.
University of Tasmania. (2011). Social Sciences HREC. Hobart: University of Tasmania.
Valencia, S., Martin, S., Place, N., & Grossman, P. (2009). Complex interactions in student
teaching: Lost opportunities for learning. Journal of Teacher Education, 60, 304–322.
Vick, M. (2006). It’s a difficult matter: Historical perspectives on the enduring problem of
the practicum in teacher preparation. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 34,
181–198.
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.
Zeichner, K. (2010). Rethinking the connections between campus courses and field
experiences in college- and university-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher
Education, 61, 89–99.