This article was downloaded by: [Selcuk Universitesi]

On: 10 January 2015, At: 02:53

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

European Journal of Teacher Education

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cete20

Research on teachıng practicum – a

systematıc review
a b c a
Tony Lawson , Melek Çakmak , Müge Gündüz & Hugh Busher
a
School of Education, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
b
Faculty of Education, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey
c
Faculty of Education, Middle East Technical University, Ankara,
Turkey
Published online: 09 Jan 2015.

Click for updates

To cite this article: Tony Lawson, Melek Çakmak, Müge Gündüz & Hugh Busher (2015): Research
on teachıng practicum – a systematıc review, European Journal of Teacher Education, DOI:
10.1080/02619768.2014.994060

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2014.994060

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

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

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
 Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 02:53 10 January 2015
 European Journal of Teacher Education, 2015
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2014.994060

Research on teachıng practicum – a systematıc review

Tony Lawsona*, Melek Çakmakb, Müge Gündüzc and Hugh Bushera
a
School of Education, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK; bFaculty of Education,
Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey; cFaculty of Education, Middle East Technical University,
Ankara, Turkey

The aim of the present study is to conduct a systematic review research which
focuses on research studies into the school practicum. In order to identify the
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 02:53 10 January 2015

main issues and also to provide a contemporary picture of practicum, 114 studies
published on the topic are reviewed and analysed in terms of: (i) aims, (ii) main
participants, (iii) methodology used and (iv) the main outcomes emerging. Many
of the reviewed studies take pre-service teachers as their main participants. The
review also shows that many practicum studies are relatively small-scale studies
since they are mainly qualitative focused and findings derived from a relatively
small sample. This suggests that more large-scale studies are needed in the field
in order to provide greater insight into teaching practicum. Finally, this system-
atic review provides some food for thought in the area of practicum research and
promotes further studies in this complex field.
Keywords: teaching practicum; pre-service teachers; systematic review;
mentoring; school-based training

1. Introduction
The processes of school practicum and their contribution to the learning of
pre-service teachers is an area of interest to researchers, teacher educators and teach-
ers. Some studies have focused on mentors and the mentoring provided by experi-
enced teachers in schools, while others have focused on pre-service teachers and
their concerns relating to the practicum process in their school placements. Yet,
other studies have focused on the work of teacher educators in finding ways to help
future teachers – pre-service teachers – develop their knowledge of teaching prior to
actually undertaking teaching experiences (Trumbull and Fluet 2008).
This paper investigates current trends in thinking about school practicum (teach-
ing practice) from the perspectives of the main groups of participants. It aims to pro-
vide a landscape review for teachers, researchers and university-based teacher
educators interested in investigating and understanding practicum, identifying what
can be known from research and to signpost future directions for further work. It is
important to note that the construct of the ‘practicum’ is a contested one. While the
traditional conceptualisation of the ‘teaching practice’ was framed around the idea
that student teachers went into schools to implement their theoretical learning about
teaching in a practical way, there are alternative models of relationships between
schools and higher education institutions, such as internships (Bullough, Young, and
Draper 2004; Hagger et al. 2008). There is, thus, a range of collaborative
*Corresponding author. Email: txl@le.ac.uk

© 2015 Association for Teacher Education in Europe

 2 T. Lawson et al.

arrangements between schools and universities that go beyond the traditional

conceptualisation of a theory/practice dualism (see Williams and Soares 2002, for an
account of the debate about the roles of schools and universities in Initial Teacher
Education). What the different collaborative arrangements have in common is a sus-
tained experience in school as part of the training. The next sections identify briefly
the main actors in the practicum, although school students also play an important
part in this process.

1.1. Pre-service teachers

Pre-service teachers are the people for whom practicum is constructed and
through which they gain experience of the practicalities of teaching in schools.
Although pre-service teachers are not initially clearly aware of the problems that
they can face when teaching in schools (Beeth and Adadan 2006), during the
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 02:53 10 January 2015

practicum, they are expected to deal with such problems as they arise. In dealing
with the unpredictable challenges of teaching in schools during the practicum,
pre-service teachers are usually supported by school-based teacher mentors and
university-based teacher educators. Pre-service teachers’ concerns during their
practicum are important because these help them to develop their understanding
of teachers’ practices (Beeth and Adadan 2006). Poulou (2007) attempted to iden-
tify the pre-service teachers’ concerns, worries, beliefs and feelings about their
teaching practice. In confronting the processes of professional practice with which
teachers live daily, pre-service teachers gain the opportunity to develop the skills
of reflection with the support of mentors and tutors and to (re)construct their
identities as teacher practitioners (Poulou 2007).

1.2. Teacher educators in higher education

Teacher educators play crucial roles in training pre-service teachers. In particular,
they prepare pre-service teachers to teach by developing their knowledge of teaching
(Trumbull and Fluet 2008). Moreover, pre-service teachers’ beliefs and practices can
be shaped and developed during the teacher education process. In a dichotomous
model of teacher education, ‘the university provides the theory, skills, and knowl-
edge about teaching through coursework; the school provides the field setting where
such knowledge is applied and practiced (sic)’ (Wideen, Mayer-Smith, and Moon
1998, 133; cited in Worthy 2005, 380). The field practice of pre-service teachers
complements the university-based aspects, allowing prospective teachers to partici-
pate directly in the actual experience of teaching and face the challenges of the real
classroom environment (Worthy 2005).
Teacher education is changing at a rapid tempo (Ten Dam and Blom 2006). It
is no longer enough for teachers to be ‘technician, consumer, receiver, transmitter,
and implementer of other people’s knowledge’ (Cochran-Smith and Lytle 1999,
16), they now need to be knowers, thinkers, leaders and change agents (Schulz
and Mandzuk 2005). Consequently, teacher educators have to prepare teachers to
recognise and cope with the complexity of teaching, so they can participate in
the educational setting in an increasingly competent way (Ten Dam and Blom
2006). This involves universities working closely with schools in the preparation
of pre-service teachers.
 European Journal of Teacher Education 3

1.3. Mentors
Mentoring is a common element in teacher education programmes to help novices
navigate the transitions between university and school (Stanulis and Ames 2009).
‘Mentors are mainly defined as experienced teachers who support and assess less
experienced colleagues through professional training, supervision, peer teaching,
coaching, guidance, and counselling (Shaw 1992)’. (Yavuz 2011, 44). Ambrosetti
and Dekkers (2010) state that it is evident from the literature that there are various
definitions for mentoring. They also highlight the roles of the mentors from the per-
spective of the mentee, such as provider of support, coaching and modelling. Kwan
and Lopez-Real (2005) suggest that mentoring can be perceived as comprising an
important duality which can be stated as both a relationship and a process. This
duality of relationship and process is similar to what Flaxman, Ascher, and
Harrington (1988) differentiated as ‘natural’ and ‘planned’ mentoring. Natural
mentoring refers to friendship, collegiality and coaching, whereas planned mentoring
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 02:53 10 January 2015

refers to a structured programme in which mentors and pre-service teachers are

selected and matched purposefully through a formal process.
In schools, the mentoring aspect of practicum is handled by teacher mentors.
Alongside the work of school-based teachers in the development of pre-service
teachers, university teacher educators also support pre-service teachers in the
universities and in the school, which may also involve them in adopting the role of
mentor.

1.4. Aim of the study

This systematic review of research into the school practicum (teaching practice)
investigates current thinking about the school practicum to construct a landscape
review for teachers, researchers and university-based teacher educators. The main
aim of the study is to present a systematic review of research studies on school prac-
ticum to identify the main critical points and also provide a wider perspective to the
researchers in the field. To this end, the following questions are addressed in the
study:

(1) What are the main aims of the studies?

(2) Who are the main participants of the research studies reviewed/examined?
(3) What sort of methodology is used in practicum research studies?
(4) What are the main outcomes?
(5) What are the main similarities and differences of the practicum studies
reviewed?
(6) What more needs to be done?

2. Methodology
A systematic review process requires a rigorous comparison of studies according to
explicit criteria, such as the ones in the main research questions above. To construct
this study, 114 research studies on this topic published between the years 2000 and
2012 are selected, reviewed and analysed in terms of the questions presented above.
The full list of articles included in the analysis is available from the corresponding
author. An initial broad search resulted in the collection of over 400 studies obtained
 4 T. Lawson et al.

from journal articles published in Teaching and Teacher Education, Australian

Journal of Teacher Education, ELT Journal, European Journal of Teacher Education,
Teachers and Teaching, Journal of Education for Teaching, Teacher Development,
Teacher Education Quarterly and Teacher Educator. The journals were selected for
the systematic review on the basis that they had a strong focus on initial teacher
education and can be found in three main databases: Australian Education Index,
British Education Index and ERIC. We recognise that the focus on ITT excludes
journals, such as Mentoring and Tutoring and Professional Development in Educa-
tion, that will contain articles of interest, but which are mainly concerned with wider
processes of teacher education than the practicum. We would argue that our
approach to this systematic review could be applied to the issues of mentoring and
professional development to provide a useful landscape review in these areas.
Other type of documents such as dissertations, books, conference papers and
reports are not included in the review process. Research articles in the nine selected
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 02:53 10 January 2015

journals are sampled and selected through consulting among the researchers and
using the criterion that the article was mainly concerned with the practicum, rather
than teacher education generally. The authors also reviewed the quality of the
research presented in terms of the robustness of its methodology to ensure that only
high-quality findings were analysed. The scope of the journal was a very important
criterion in selection of these journals. The initial search term used was ‘teaching
practicum’. During the review process, the researchers realised that the initial term
did not cover all the articles published on this topic. The result was that some stud-
ies which were potentially important for the current research were hidden. Therefore,
subsequent searches were expanded by covering all the alternative terms for ‘teach-
ing practicum’, such as ‘practice teaching’ and ‘teacher education’ and by examining
each volume of the particular journals for the appropriate years. The present study
also covers the main stakeholders (teacher educators, mentors and pre-service
teachers) in teaching practicum.
In summary, the final criteria for this comprehensive literature study were:

 published between 2000 and 2012;

 being concerned with stakeholders of teaching practicum;
 being published in journals on teaching and teacher education; and
 being mainly focused on the practicum in Initial Teacher Training.

3. Findings
The selected articles are analysed using the questions outlined earlier:

3.1. What are the main aims of the studies?

The data analysis illustrates that practicum studies target various issues around
teaching practicum such as, establishing the perspectives (views) (e.g. Caires,
Almeida, and Vieira 2012; Koç 2012), attitudes (Lambe and Bones 2007), experi-
ences (e.g. Boz and Boz 2006; Kwan and Lopez-Real 2010; Loizou 2011; Trent
2010) and concerns of stakeholders (e.g. Hagger and Malmberg 2011; Poulou
2007); discussing the nature of reflection (e.g. White 2009); evaluating the efficacy
of the practicum (e.g. Atay 2007); identifying the problems of the practicum (e.g.
 European Journal of Teacher Education 5

Yan and He 2010); exploring issues such assessment (e.g. Allen 2011; Fransson
2010); professional relationships (e.g. Ferrier-Kerr 2009); the effects of peer-
coaching (e.g. Britton and Anderson 2010); school-based mentor teacher roles (e.g.
Crasborn et al. 2011; Koç 2012), the approach taken to mentoring (e.g. van Velzen
et al. 2012) and mentoring practices (e.g. Sempowicz and Hudson 2011); investigat-
ing beliefs and perceptions of the stakeholders (e.g. Hennissen et al. 2010; Hudson
and Millwater 2008; Ng, Nicholas, and Williams 2010; Özgün-Koca and Şen 2006);
the learning process of pre-service teachers (e.g. Deed, Cox, and Prain 2011; Nilssen
2010; Schepens, Aelterman, and Van Keer 2007); the expectations of prospective
teachers (e.g. Kirbulut, Boz, and Kutucu 2012); and the opportunities and challenges
(e.g. Myles, Cheng, and Wang 2006); assessing the impact of field experience (e.g.
Pence and Macgillivray 2008); international field experience (e.g. Lee 2011); and
carrying out comparative school practicum studies in different educational contexts
(e.g. Tillema, Smith, and Leshem 2011). The studies reviewed can be conceptualised
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 02:53 10 January 2015

as mainly focusing on pre-service teachers’ perspectives on various aspects such as

efficacy, beliefs and their experiences, including challenges and problems during
practicum process. In addition, studies that focus on the mentoring approach and
mentoring process were prominent.
The next section of this paper identifies the stakeholders of practicum and their
distribution in teaching practicum research.

3.2. Who are the main participants of the research studies reviewed?
It is noticeable that practicum research studies show variety in terms of participants
as well as their aims. The main actors of practicum studies were pre-service teach-
ers, school-based mentors, teacher educators and pupils, in a decreasing order of
attention. Therefore, it is important to analyse the research studies regarding the
main participants, and Figure 1 illustrates the distribution of participants in teaching
practicum research.
The study showed that most of the practicum studies focused mainly on pre-
service teachers and then on school-based mentors. In total, 70 out of 114 practicum
studies focus on pre-service teachers (e.g. Caires, Almeida, and Vieira 2012; Lee

Figure 1. The distribution of participants in teaching practicum research (n = 114). PSTs:

Pre-service Teachers-M: Mentors-TE: Teacher Educators-P: Pupils.
 6 T. Lawson et al.

2011; Nilssen 2010; Yilmaz and Sahin 2011), whereas 11 studies investigate
school-based mentors (e.g. Ambrosetti and Dekkers 2010; Hudson 2010; Koç 2012;
Kwan and Lopez-Real 2010; Sempowicz and Hudson 2011) and only two studies
target university-based teacher educators (e.g. Levine 2011). However, there are
other combinations of participants such as pre-service teachers and mentors
(n = 10), pre-service teachers and educators (n = 5), school-based mentors and tea-
cher educators (n = 1), pre-service teachers, school-based mentors and educators
(n = 13) and pre-service teachers, school-based mentors and pupils (n = 2) (e.g.
Allen 2011; Deed, Cox, and Prain 2011; Ferrier-Kerr 2009; Tillema, Smith, and
Leshem 2011; Trent 2010; Goh and Matthews 2011; Hamel and Ryken 2010;
Hudson and Millwater 2008; Loizou 2011; Newhouse, Lane, and Brown 2007;
Scherff and Singer 2012). It is striking that the studies surveyed seemed to focus
strongly on the perspectives of pre-service teachers, with less attention being paid to
the views of teacher educators or school-based teacher mentors. A surprising
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 02:53 10 January 2015

outcome is that even though pupils are an important component of the practicum
process, pupils did not figure in almost all of the studies in our review.

3.3. What sort of methodology is used in practicum research studies?

The studies reviewed for the current study were varied in terms of research design
and rich in terms of data collection tools they deployed. To reflect this richness,
Table 1 shows how the studies vary by focus, research designs and main data collec-
tion tools and provides some examples.
Studies focusing on the practicum used a variety of different approaches, such as
qualitative (e.g. case study and ethnography) and quantitative (e.g. survey) methods,
as illustrated above. However, there is a tendency towards qualitative research
design among the researchers. Table 1 also indicates that, in some studies, more than
one data collection tool (e.g. interview, lesson plan, reflection, mentor report, obser-
vation, etc.) are used. This suggests that researchers choose different research
approaches and a range of data collection tools based on the aims of their studies.
As outlined in Table 1, interviews, reflective journals and observations emerged
as the prominent data collection tools in qualitative-focused research studies. How-
ever, some studies use mixed methods to provide a multi-perspective on the practi-
cum. Using a variety of research approaches and more than one data collection tool
highlights the methodological diversity in the field.

3.4. What are the main outcomes?

This section of the study aims to provide a general view of the main outcomes that
emerged. Since there were a large number of studies reviewed, the main outcomes
of practicum studies will be categorised under major themes and the main partici-
pants in practicum studies (pre-service teachers, school-based mentors and teacher
educators and others). Table 2 shows a general perspective on the main outcomes
emerging from practicum research, by providing some examples for each theme.
The themes largely represent the views of the main stakeholders identified in the
first column.
Since most of practicum studies are centred around PSTs, the main outcomes
generally reflect on PSTs’ beliefs, views, perceptions, applications, problems, needs,
communication process, etc. As can be seen in Table 2, the research outcomes
 European Journal of Teacher Education 7

Table 1. Main features of the methodology used in practicum studies.

Research approach Data collection tools
Qualitative (case study,
ethnography, etc.)
focused research
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 02:53 10 January 2015
Examples
 Open-ended survey Boz and Boz (2006)
 Vignette Clarke and Collins (2007)
 Concept map Özgün-Koca and Şen (2006)
 Interview* Britton and Anderson (2010); Lopez-
Real and Kwan (2005); Levine
(2011); Lishchinsky (2011); Nilssen
(2010); Trent (2010)
 Written reflection Al-Hassan, Al-Barakat, and
and Reflective Al-Hassan (2012); Gao and Benson
Journal* (2012); Goh and Matthews (2011);
Poulou (2007); Tin (2006); Yan and
He (2010)
 Field note Bradbury and Koballa (2008)

 Observation* Levine (2011); Nilssen (2010);

Vacilotto and Cummings (2007)
 Personal diary Leshem and Bar-Hama (2008)
 Portfolio Mansvelder-Langayroux, Beijaard,
and Verloop (2007)
 Video recording Kwan and Lopez-Real (2010)
 Discussion Crasborn et al. (2008, 2011),
(Discourse, dialogue Hennissen et al. (2010)
and seminar)
 Student log Nilssen (2010)
 Mentors’ note Bradbury and Koballa (2008)
 Essay Jyrhämä et al. (2008)

Quantitative (survey)-  Questionnaire Caires and Almeida (2005); Lambe

focused research and Bones (2007); Ng, Nicholas, and
Williams (2010); Tillema, Smith, and
Leshem (2011)
 Inventory Koç (2012); Caires, Almeida, and
Vieira (2012)
 Peer observation Vacilotto and Cummings (2007)

Both qualitative and  Questionnaire, Leshem and Bar-Hama (2008);

quantitative focused interview andwritten Hudson (2010); Hudson and
research responses Millwater (2008)
 Survey and Allen (2011); Allsopp et al. (2006)
Interview
 Questionnaire, Ferrier-Kerr (2009)
Interview,
Observation and
Reflective Journal

Others  Action research White (2009)

 Experimental Crasborn et al. (2008)
 Theoretical or Lu (2010)
Literature Review
*Most frequently used data collection tools are: Interview – Written reflection and reflective journal –
Observation.

highlight the wide range of factors which play a role in the practicum process for
PSTs. However, among the outcomes that emerged, the collaboration between stu-
dent teachers and mentors and also the university–school partnership emerged as
 8 T. Lawson et al.

Table 2. Main outcomes emerged.

Main focus Themes Remarkable outcomes Examples
PSTs Importance of PSTs and mentors need to Bradbury and
communication negotiate to develop an effective Koballa (2008)
collaboration
Good relationship between Hudson and
mentor and mentee assists the Millwater (2008)
mentee’s learning
Developing teaching Develop deeper teaching Allsopp et al.
skills competencies by involvement in (2006)
professional activities
Role of TE Student teachers benefit from Poulou (2007)
teacher educators
Linking between Student teachers are able to Tin (2006)
theory and practice make concrete linkages between
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 02:53 10 January 2015

their course work and their

practicum experiences
Perceptions and There are significant changes Caires and
beliefs of PSTs occurred in student teachers’ Almeida (2005)
 Changing perceptions between the
perceptions beginning and the end of
 Factors affect teaching practice
PSTs’ beliefs Harmony between PST’s Kirbulut, Boz and
 Beliefs about expectations and experiences in Kutucu (2012)
good teaching practicum has an influence on
their own opinions related to
teaching profession
PSTs’ beliefs about good Ng, Nicholas, and
teaching evolved from a belief in Williams (2010)
being in control through
expertise and building
relationship between students
Technology support Student teachers generally value Trent (2010)
technology support for their
learning process
 Student teachers report Pratt (2008)
some difficulties in regard
to using student logs in
their school placements
 Dilemmas faced by
student teachers, mentors
and tutors in trying to
make a use of e-
conferencing for school
experience supervision
Needs on various Student teachers need to be Goh and Matthews
issues assisted to understand better the (2011)
concepts of their discipline
The importance of PSTs value both peer and Anderson,
combination of peer mentor observation Barksdale, and
and mentor Hite (2005)
observation
The importance of Peer coaching appears to possess Lu (2010)
peer coaching unique advantages and have

(Continued)
 European Journal of Teacher Education 9

Table 2. (Continued).
Main focus Themes Remarkable outcomes Examples
much value for pre-service
teacher education
Peer coaching is positively Britton and
viewed by student teachers Anderson (2010)
Teaching approaches Many PSTs described teacher- Özgün-Koca and
centred environment as effective Şen (2006)
Quality of practicum The quality of student teaching Ronfeldt and
has significant and positive Reininger (2012)
effects on teaching outcomes
rather than the duration of
student teaching
Mentors Perception of There are different perceptions Tillema, Smith,
mentoring of good mentoring between pre- and Leshem (2011)
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 02:53 10 January 2015

service teachers and mentors

Mentors’ role in Mentors highlight different Li (2009)
practicum nature of their roles such as
advisor and ‘friend’
More educative dialogues should Smith and
be developed between mentors Avetisian (2011)
and PSTs
Feedback Effective quality feedback White (2009)
should occur between supervisor
and school teachers
Effective co-operation Effective professional Ferrier-Kerr (2009)
relationship between mentors
and student teachers is important
Professional Mentoring process enhanced Lopez-Real and
development mentors’ own professional Kwan (2005)
development
Teacher Perspective of teacher Five features of professional Levine (2011)
educators educators communities that can help
supervisors improve their work
are proposed: norms promoting
collaboration, trust and
familiarity, activities
deprivatising practices, access to
logistical information and shared
expectations about the role of
supervisors and time for
collaboration
Others International field  Positive effects on student Pence and
experience teachers’ professional and Macgillivray
personal development (2008)
 Raising cultural awareness
Help student teachers increase Sahin (2008)
their cultural awareness
Overseas field experiences not Lee (2011)
only enrich PSTs’ cultural
understanding but also enhance
their knowledge skills and
classroom language

(Continued)
 10 T. Lawson et al.

Table 2. (Continued).
Main focus Themes Remarkable outcomes Examples
School–university More coordination between Boz and Boz
partnership university and schools is needed (2006); Yan and
He (2010); Allen
(2011)
School–university partnership Godinho, White,
improves the quality of teacher Hay, and St Leger
educationally (2007)
Effect of tools Different tools, such as journal Al-Hassan,
writing, can be used in teacher Al-Barakat, and
education as a learning tool Al-Hassan (2012)
Supervision and guidance on the Mansvelder-
productions of portfolios seem to Longayroux,
provide a better understanding of Beijaard, and
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 02:53 10 January 2015

situations and developments that Verloop (2007)

occurred

significant aspects for PSTs’ professional and individual development. Another

important finding is that mentoring is another crucial factor in the process of practi-
cum through which PSTs acquire the necessary skills and professional abilities.
Studies on mentoring that were reviewed suggest that feedback is also a crucial
aspect of the mentor-PSTs relationship, from the perspective of PSTs.
This systematic review also highlights that only a few studies have been con-
ducted which investigate the perspectives of university-based teacher educators. The
role of teacher educators is thus more poorly researched than other stakeholders’
roles and this should be addressed by researchers in the field. Likewise, almost none
of the studies showed the perspective of pupils, although the relationship between
PSTs and pupils arguably has a great effect on student teacher development. It is
quite obvious that schools where practicum takes place is a shared environment for
pupils and PSTs, and also it is a place where pupils are exposed to practices of
PSTs. This implies that pupils’ thoughts and attitudes towards the process of practi-
cum, including specifically towards PSTs and mentors/school teachers, demand more
attention from researchers.

4. Conclusion and implications

This intensive literature review has identified some important and crucial points
regarding the teaching practicum. One contribution of this review is that it provides
a descriptive picture of practicum, establishing the important dimensions of the prac-
ticum. The main outcomes of the studies reviewed are analysed on the basis of par-
ticipants namely, PSTs, mentors and teacher educators. From PSTs’ perspective,
collaboration with mentor teachers, factors that affect PSTs’ beliefs, the link between
theory and practice, benefits from teacher educators, changing perceptions during
practicum, technology support, importance of peer and mentor observation and also
peer coaching, and the overall quality of practicum are the issues which stand out.
Regarding mentoring, the main issues that emerged are mentors’ role, perceptions of
good mentoring, effective quality feedback and effective cooperation with PSTs. It
is also important to note that the teacher educators’ role was more ambiguous and
 European Journal of Teacher Education 11

needed to be described in a more detailed way. Other issues were the coordination
between the university and schools, and the use of different tools for assessment,
such as journal writing. Another important aspect revealed by the practicum studies
(e.g. Koç 2012; Leshem and Bar-Hama 2008; McClintock, O’Brien, and Jiang
2005) was that, while mainly based on both elementary and secondary school levels,
they included a range of school subjects, such as science, maths and English. These
findings help us to understand the dynamics of the practicum.
In terms of future research, an important point is that the studies reviewed
focused mainly on pre-service teachers’ thoughts and experiences during the teach-
ing practicum. Very few studies include the perspectives of all the main actors in a
teaching practicum and almost none drew on the perspectives of school students to
provide a fuller account of experiences of pre-service teachers. Even though these
studies contribute to the field, more research studies are needed to see the whole pic-
ture of practicum. The conclusion must be to conduct further research and, in partic-
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 02:53 10 January 2015

ular, to investigate school students’ perspectives, thought or beliefs in practicum

process.
It can also be concluded that teaching practicum research studies have been
undertaken in quite different educational settings (e.g. Australia, Belgium, Finland,
Greece, Hong-Kong, Israel, Jordan, Malaysia, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal,
Scotland, Thailand, the Netherlands, the UK, the USA and Turkey). It is difficult
to discern strong patterns in the outcomes of the studies, as the cultural and edu-
cational contexts in which practicum are undertaken may have had a major impact
on participants’ perceptions of them, and therefore comparative studies might
make an interesting contribution to the literature. Here, it should be noted that
one of the limitations of comparative studies is that it is difficult to compare
education systems since each is unique. For instance, the gap between theory and
practice seems to be highlighted more in one context (e.g. Kirbulut, Boz, and
Kutucu 2012), and mentoring appeared to be more of a concern in another (e.g.
Li 2009).
Regarding the data collection methods, the studies used a variety of different
approaches, but particularly deployed qualitative-focused research. Within this quali-
tative-focused research, different types of data collection were used such as vign-
ettes, concept maps and student logs. Many studies used multiple methods of data
collection to triangulate their findings and to strengthen the trustworthiness of the
outcomes of the studies. The results of these studies can therefore be considered as
suggestive rather than conclusive, since most of them used a qualitative approach
and are derived from relatively small samples. Therefore, generalisability is an issue
and more quantitative research studies should be conducted in order to provide more
insight into the teaching practicum.
In summary, it is difficult to see the whole picture of the practicum and to
develop a rounded conceptualisation of it. The absence of the school students’ per-
spectives is an omission in the literature that needs to be redressed. There appear to
have been very few comparative research studies that have compared practicum in
different contexts. This might indicate that more future comparative research studies
are needed to fill the gap in that area of research. From this point of view, it can be
concluded that there are much more issues yet to be discovered about teaching prac-
ticum using a variety of research designs and data collection tools. The exploration
of the practicum through generating larger data-sets might establish new insights
into the international use and experience of the practicum. It might be concluded
 12 T. Lawson et al.

that no matter which research design is preferred, it is necessary to include all

stakeholders of practicum in the same study in order to reflect upon and to see the
whole picture of practicum in any context.

Notes on contributors
Tony Lawson is the academic director for the College of Social Science at the University of
Leicester. He has been a trainer of social science teachers for over 20 years and has
researched extensively into videoconferencing in schools. His doctorate was concerned with
issues of critical skills and their relationship to issues of empowerment and control. He has
been the principal investigator in a number of research projects into ICT and education. He is
currently working on a capacity development project in teacher training with eight universi-
ties from Egypt, Palestine and Lebanon.

Melek Çakmak is an associate professor at Gazi University, Faculty of Education, Depart-

ment of Educational Sciences. Her specific field is Curriculum Development and Instruction.
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 02:53 10 January 2015

She obtained her doctoral degree in Primary Education from University of Leicester in the
UK. Areas of specialization include teacher education, curriculum development and instruc-
tion. She is currently researching into effective teaching and teacher, pre-service teachers,
qualitative research on teaching, curriculum evaluation and comparative teacher education.
She has publications in those areas.

Müge Gündüz holds a BA in English Language and Literature from Hacettepe University,
Turkey. In 2005, she received her master’s and PhD (in a combined programme) in Applied
Linguistics and TESOL from University of Leicester in the UK. Her major research interests
include Teacher Education, Classroom Research, Oral Interaction and Language and Culture.
She has been working as a lecturer in the Department of Language Education at Middle East
Technical University.

Hugh Busher, a senior lecturer in the School of Education, University of Leicester, has a
PhD in the micro-politics of schools. As well as teaching and supervising masters and doc-
toral students, he has long-standing research interests in: people, power and culture & the
construction of communities in educational institutions; the professional development and
identities of teachers and other staff in schools; the interaction of policy and community con-
texts with the internal processes of educational organisations; the contribution students’ and
teachers’ voices make to the development of educational institutions; and methods of visual
and online researches. Current funded research focuses on marginalised adult students’ shift-
ing learning identities on Access to HE courses. His recent publications focus on: student
perspectives on learning; visual ethnography; teachers’ identities; liminality; and power in
communities.

References
Al-Hassan, O., A. Al-Barakat, and Y. Al-Hassan. 2012. “Pre-service Teachers’ Reflections
during Field Experience.” Journal of Education for Teaching 38 (4): 419–434.
Allen, J. M. 2011. “Stakeholders’ Perspectives of the Nature and Role of Assessment during
Practicum.” Teaching and Teacher Education 27 (4): 742–750.
Allsopp, D. H., D. De Marie, P. Alvarez-McHatton, and E. Doone. 2006. “Bridging the Gap
Between Theory and Practice: Connecting Courses with Field Experiences.” Teacher
Education Quarterly 33 (1): 19–35.
Ambrosetti, A., and J. Dekkers. 2010. “The Interconnectedness of the Roles of Mentors and
Mentees in Pre-service Teacher Education Mentoring Relationships.” Australian Journal
of Teacher Education 35 (6): 42–55.
Anderson, N. A., and M. A., Barksdale, and C. E., Hite. 2005. “Preservice Teachers’
Observation of Cooperating Teachers and Peers While Participating in an Early Field
Experience.” Teacher Education Quarterly 32 (4): 97–117.
 European Journal of Teacher Education 13

Atay, D. 2007. “Beginning Teacher Efficacy and the Practicum in an EFL Context.” Teacher
Development 11 (2): 203–219.
Beeth, M., and E. Adadan. 2006. “The Influences of University-based Coursework on Field
Experience.” Journal of Science Teacher Education 17 (2): 103–120.
Boz, N., and Y. Boz. 2006. “Do Prospective Teachers Get Enough Experience in School
Placements?” Journal of Education for Teaching: International Research and Pedagogy
32 (4): 353–368.
Bradbury, L., and T. R. Koballa. 2008. “Borders to Cross: Identifying Sources of Tension in
Mentor–İntern Relationships.” Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (8): 2132–2145.
Britton, L. R., and K. A. Anderson. 2010. “Peer Coaching and Pre-service Teachers: Examin-
ing an Underutilised Concept.” Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2): 306–314.
Bullough, Jr., R. V., J. Young, and R. J. Draper. 2004. “One-year Teaching İnternships and
the Dimensions of Beginning Teacher Development.” Teachers and Teaching: Theory
and Practice 10 (4): 365–394.
Caires, S., and L. Almeida. 2005. “Teaching Practice in Initial Teacher Education: Its Impact
on Student Teachers’ Professional Skills and Development.” Journal of Education for
Teaching: International Research and Pedagogy 31 (2): 111–120.
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 02:53 10 January 2015

Caires, S., L. Almeida, and D. Vieira. 2012. “Becoming a Teacher: Student Teachers’ Experi-
ences and Perceptions about Teaching Practice.” European Journal of Teacher Education
35 (2): 163–178.
Clarke, A., and S. Collins. 2007. “Complexity Science and Student Teacher Supervision.”
Teaching and Teacher Education 23 (2): 160–172.
Cochran-Smith, M., and S. L. Lytle. 1999. “Relationships of Knowledge and Practice: Tea-
cher Learning in Communities.” Review of Research in Education 24 (1): 249–305.
Crasborn, F., P. Hennissen, N. Brouwer, F. Korthagen, and T. Bergen. 2008. “Promoting Ver-
satility in Mentor Teachers’ Use of Supervisory Skills.” Teaching and Teacher Education
24 (3): 499–514.
Crasborn, F., P. Hennissen, N. Brouwer, F. Korthagen, and T. Bergen. 2011. “Exploring a
Two-dimensional Model of Mentor Teacher Roles in Mentoring Dialogues.” Teaching
and Teacher Education 27 (2): 320–331.
Deed, C., P. Cox, and V. Prain. 2011. “Enablers and Constraints in Achieving Integration in a
Teacher Preparation Program.” Australian Journal of Teacher Education 36 (8): 1–10
and 84–92.
Ferrier-Kerr, J. L. 2009. “Establishing Professional Relationships in Practicum Settings.”
Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (6): 790–797.
Flaxman, E., C. Ascher, and C. Harrington. 1988. Mentoring Programs and Practices: An
Analysis of the Literature. New York: Teachers College Institute for Urban and Minority
Education.
Fransson, G. 2010. “Mentors Assessing Mentees? An Overview and Analyses of the Mentor-
ship Role concerning Newly Qualified Teachers.” European Journal of Teacher Educa-
tion 33 (4): 375–390.
Gao, A., and P. Benson. 2012. “Unruly Pupils’ in Pre-service English Language Teachers’
Teaching Practicum Experiences.” Journal of Education for Teaching 38 (2): 127–140.
Godinho, S., J. White, T. Hay, and P. St Leger. 2007. “Many Treasure Soup: A School-based
Project for Pre-service Teacher Educators.” Australian Journal of Teacher Education 32
(4): 1–18.
Goh, P. S., and B. Matthews. 2011. “Listening to the Concerns of Student Teachers in Malay-
sia during Teaching Practice.” Australian Journal of Teacher Education 36 (3): 92–103.
Hagger, H., K. Burn, T. Mutton, and S. Brindley. 2008. “Practice Makes Perfect? Learning to
Learn as a Teacher.” Oxford Review of Education 34 (2): 159–178.
Hagger, H., and L. Malmberg. 2011. “Pre-service Teachers’ Goals and Future-time Extension,
Concerns, and Well-being.” Teaching and Teacher Education 27 (3): 598–608.
Hamel, F. L., and A. E. Ryken. 2010. “Rehearsing Professional Roles in Community: Tea-
cher Identity Development in a School–university Partnership.” Teacher Development 14
(3): 335–350.
Hennissen, P., F. Crasborn, N. Brouwer, F. Korthagen, and T. Bergen. 2010. “Uncovering
Contents of Mentor Teachers’ Interactive Cognitions during Mentoring Dialogues.”
Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2): 207–214.
 14 T. Lawson et al.

Hudson, P. 2010. “Mentors Report on Their Own Mentoring Practices.” Australian Journal
of Teacher Education 33 (5): 1–13.
Hudson, P., and J. Millwater. 2008. “Mentors’ Views about Developing Effective English
Teaching Practices.” Australian Journal of Teacher Education 35 (7): 29–42.
Jyrhämä, R., H. Kynäslahti, L. Krokfors, R. Byman, K. Maaranen, A. Toom, and P. Kansanen.
2008. “The Appreciation and Realisation of Research‐based Teacher Education: Finnish
Students’ Experiences of Teacher Education.” European Journal of Teacher Education 31
(1): 1–16.
Kirbulut, Z. D., Y. Boz, and E. S. Kutucu. 2012. “Pre-service Chemistry Teachers’ Expecta-
tions and Experiences in the School Experience Course.” Australian Journal of Teacher
Education 37 (2): 40–57.
Koç, I. 2012. “Preservice Science Teachers Reflect on Their Practicum Experiences.” Educa-
tional Studies 38 (1): 31–38.
Kwan, T., and F. Lopez-Real. 2005. “Mentors’ Perceptions of Their Roles in Mentoring Stu-
dent Teachers.” Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education 33 (3): 275–287.
Kwan, T., and F. Lopez-Real. 2010. “Identity Formation of Teacher–Mentors: An Analysis of
Contrasting Experiences Using a Wengerian Matrix Framework.” Teaching and Teacher
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 02:53 10 January 2015

Education 26 (3): 722–731.

Lambe, J., and R. Bones. 2007. “The Effect of School-based Practice on Student Teachers’
Attitudes Towards Inclusive Education in Northern Ireland.” Journal of Education for
Teaching 33 (1): 99–113.
Lee, J. 2011. “International Field Experience – What Do Student Teachers Learn?”
Australian Journal of Teacher Education 36 (10): 1–22.
Leshem, S., and R. Bar-Hama. 2008. “Evaluating Teaching Practice.” ELT Journal 62 (3):
257–265.
Levine, T. H. 2011. “Features and Strategies of Supervisor Professional Community as a
Means of Improving the Supervision of Preservice Teachers.” Teaching and Teacher Edu-
cation 27 (5): 930–941.
Li, Y. 2009. “The Perspectives and Experiences of Hong Kong Preschool Teacher Mentors:
Implications for Mentoring.” Teacher Development 13 (2): 147–158.
Lishchinsky, O. S. 2011. “Teachers’ Critical Incidents: Ethical Dilemmas in Teaching Prac-
tice.” Teaching and Teacher Education 27 (3): 648–656.
Loizou, E. 2011. “The Diverse Facets of Power in Early Childhood Mentor–Student Teacher
Relationships.” European Journal of Teacher Education 34 (4): 373–386.
Lopez-Real, F., and T. Kwan. 2005. “Mentors’ Perceptions of Their Own Professional Devel-
opment during Mentoring.” Journal of Education for Teaching: International Research
and Pedagogy 31 (1): 15–24.
Lu, H.-L. 2010. “Research on Peer Coaching in Preservice Teacher Education – A Review of
Literature.” Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (4): 748–753.
Mansvelder-Longayroux, D. D., D. Beijaard, and N. Verloop. 2007. “The Portfolio as a Tool
for Stimulating Reflection by Student Teachers.” Teaching and Teacher Education 23 (1):
47–62.
McClintock, E., G. O’Brien, and Z. Jiang. 2005. “Assessing Teaching Practices of Secondary
Mathematics Student Teachers: An Exploratory Cross Case Analysis of Voluntary Field
Experiences.” Teacher Education Quarterly 32 (3): 139–151.
Myles, J., L. Cheng, and H. Wang. 2006. “Teaching in Elementary School: Perceptions of
Foreign-trained Teacher Candidates on Their Teaching Practicum.” Teaching and Teacher
Education 22 (2): 233–245.
Newhouse, C. P., J. Lane, and C. Brown. 2007. “Reflecting on Teaching Practices Using
Digital Video Representation in Teacher Education.” Australian Journal of Teacher
Education 32 (3): 1–12.
Ng, W., H. Nicholas, and A. Williams. 2010. “School Experience Influences on Pre-service
Teachers’ Evolving Beliefs about Effective Teaching.” Teaching and Teacher Education
26 (2): 278–289.
Nilssen, V. 2010. “Encouraging the Habit of Seeing in Student Teaching.” Teaching and
Teacher Education 26 (3): 591–598.
 European Journal of Teacher Education 15

Özgün-Koca, S. A., and A. İ. Şen. 2006. “The Beliefs and Perceptions of Pre-service Teach-
ers Enrolled in a Subject-area Dominant Teacher Education Program about ‘Effective
Education’.” Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (7): 946–960.
Pence, H. M., and I. K. Macgillivray. 2008. “The Impact of an International Field Experience
on Preservice Teachers.” Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (1): 14–25.
Poulou, M. 2007. “Student Teachers’ Concerns about Teaching Practice.” European Journal
of Teacher Education 30 (1): 91–110.
Pratt, N. 2008. “Multi-point E-conferencing with Initial Teacher Training Students in
England: Pitfalls and Potential.” Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (6): 1476–1486.
Ronfeldt, M., and M. Reininger. 2012. “More or Better Student Teaching?” Teaching and
Teacher Education 28 (8): 1091–1106.
Sahin, M. 2008. “Cross-cultural Experience in Preservice Teacher Education.” Teaching and
Teacher Education 24 (7): 1777–1790.
Schepens, A., A. Aelterman, and H. Van Keer. 2007. “Studying Learning Processes of
Student Teachers with Stimulated Recall Interviews Through Changes in Interactive
Cognitions.” Teaching and Teacher Education 23 (4): 457–472.
Scherff, L., and N. R. Singer. 2012. “The Preservice Teachers Are Watching: Framing and
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 02:53 10 January 2015

Reframing the Field Experience.” Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2): 263–272.
Schulz, R., and D. Mandzuk. 2005. “Learning to Teach, Learning to Inquire: A 3-year Study
of Teacher Candidates’ Experiences.” Teaching and Teacher Education 21 (3): 315–331.
Sempowicz, T., and P. Hudson. 2011. “Analysing Mentoring Dialogues for Developing a
Preservice Teacher’s Classroom Management Practices.” Australian Journal of Teacher
Education 36 (8): 1–16.
Shaw, R. 1992. Teacher Training in Secondary Schools. London: Kogan Page.
Smith, E. R., and V. Avetisian. 2011. “Learnıng to Teach with Two Mentors: Revısıtıng the
‘Two-worlds Pıtfall’ in Student Teachıng.” The Teacher Educator 46 (4): 335–354.
Stanulis, R. N., and K. T. Ames. 2009. “Learning to Mentor: Evidence and Observation as
Tools in Learning to Teach.” The Professional Educator 33 (1): 28–38.
Ten Dam, G. T. M., and S. Blom. 2006. “Learning Through Participation. The Potential of
School-based Teacher Education for Developing a Professional Identity.” Teaching and
Teacher Education 22 (6): 647–660.
Tillema, H. H., K. Smith, and S. Leshem. 2011. “Dual Roles – Conflicting Purposes: A Com-
parative Study on Perceptions on Assessment in Mentoring Relations during Practicum.”
European Journal of Teacher Education 34 (2): 139–159.
Tin, T. B. 2006. “Looking at Teaching Through Multiple Lenses.” ELT Journal 60 (3): 253–
261.
Trent, J. 2010. “‘My Two Masters’: Conflict, Contestation, and Identity Construction within
a Teaching Practicum.” Australian Journal of Teacher Education 35 (7): 1–15.
Trumbull, D. J., and K. Fluet. 2008. “What Can Be Learned from Writing about Early Field
Experiences?” Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (6): 1672–1685.
Vacilotto, S., and R. Cummings. 2007. “Peer Coaching in TEFL/TESL Programmes.” ELT
Journal 61 (2): 153–160.
van Velzen, C., M. Volman, M. Brekelmans, and S. White. 2012. “Guided Work-based
Learning: Sharing Practical Teaching Knowledge with Student Teachers.” Teaching and
Teacher Education 28 (2): 229–239.
White, S. 2009. “Articulation and Re-articulation: Development of a Model for Providing
Quality Feedback to Pre-service Teachers on Practicum.” Journal of Education for Teach-
ing 35 (2): 123–132.
Wideen, M., J. Mayer-Smith, and B. Moon. 1998. “A Critical Analysis of the Research on
Learning to Teach: Making the Case for an Ecological Perspective on Inquiry.” Review of
Educational Research 68 (2): 130–178.
Williams, A., and A. Soares. 2002. “Sharing Roles and Responsibilities in Initial Teacher
Training: Perceptions of Some Key Players.” Cambridge Journal of Education 32 (1):
91–107.
Worthy, J. 2005. “‘It Didn’t Have to Be So Hard’: The First Years of Teaching in an Urban
School.” International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 18 (3): 379–398.
 16 T. Lawson et al.

Yan, C., and C. He. 2010. “Transforming the Existing Model of Teaching Practicum: A
Study of Chinese EFL Student Teachers’ Perceptions.” Journal of Education for Teaching
36 (1): 57–73.
Yavuz, A. 2011. “The Problematic Context of Mentoring: Evidence from an English
Language Teaching Department at a Turkish University.” European Journal of Teacher
Education 34 (1): 43–59.
Yilmaz, H., and S. Sahin. 2011. “Pre-service Teachers’ Epistemological Beliefs and Concep-
tions of Teaching.” Australian Journal of Teacher Education 36 (1): 73–88.
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 02:53 10 January 2015