Presentation on theme: "The Practicum in Pre-service Teacher Education: A Literature Review Based on Empirical Studies Etty Cohen (Sayag), Ron Hoz & Haya Kaplan Kaye Academic."— Presentation transcript:
The Practicum in Pre-service Teacher Education: A Literature Review Based on Empirical Studies Etty Cohen (Sayag), Ron Hoz & Haya Kaplan Kaye Academic College of Education, Israel Ron Hoz Ben-Gurion University, Israel 35 th Conference, Budapest
What does research on practicum tell us? Why, or What for? The ideological aspects What' there? - institutional, and personal/functional relationships What then? – the outcomes
A. What for? Ideology - 7 Types of Goals of the practicum in 55 articles 1.To direct student teachers to apply specific teaching approaches (19 articles) 2. To better know the school's environment (18 articles) 3. To expand the acquaintance with the teacher’s role (13 articles) 4. To develop student teachers’ didactical knowledge (13 articles)
Ideology- Goals 5.To develop student teacher’s cognitive skills (10 articles) 6.To develop student teacher’s personal identity (9 articles) 7. To impact the school via mentors or student teacher’s teaching / activities (6 articles)
Ideology- Four kinds of rationales of the practice Inferred from the descriptions a.The practicum can reduce the gap between theory and practice (22 articles). b.The practicum is a proper environment for student teachers to develop professionally through reflection on their teaching (16 articles). c. The practicum settings can acquaint student teachers with the realistic settings (10 articles). d. The mentor teacher is important figure in the learning to teach during the practicum (3 articles).
B. Relationships - Four kinds of relationships between teacher education and the practicum inferred from the participants’ activities. 1.Asymmetric: slanted towards teacher education (43 articles) 2.Asymmetric: slanted towards the school (19 articles) 3.Balanced/collaborative (19 articles) 4.Uninstitutionalized and unformalized (8 articles)
1. Asymmetric relation slanted towards teacher education (43 studies) (a) Applying teaching approach which the teacher education program decided on. (19 articles) (Garton & Cano, 1996; Friel & Carboni, 2000; Tillema, 2000; Moore, 2003; Duffy & Atkinson,2005) (b) Complying with state legislated requirements (4 articles) (Blasi, 2002; Montano et al., 2005; Colby & Stapleton, 2006)
1. Asymmetric relation slanted towards teacher education (43 studies) (c) Adopting approaches, or ideas about teacher preparation and development. (7 articles) (Hawkey, 1998; Tsang, 2003; Hudson, 2005; Anderson et al., 2006; Dinsmore& & Wegner, 2006; Weinberger, 2006; Goodnough et al.,2009). (d) Conducting the practicum as a research model (4 articles) (Lake & Jones, 2008; Yayli, 2008; Breidenstein, 2002; Epanchin & Colucci, 2002).
3. Balanced/equivalence relations. (19 studies) (a) The mentor teachers teamed up as equals with their mentees. (b) The mentor teacher helped the student teachers understand the schools' complex and multidimensional realities. (c) The mentor teacher took part in the teacher education program preparation of the mentees for the practicum. (Graham, 1997; Vacc & Bright 1999; Epanchin & Colucci, 2002; Hayes, 2002; Reichel et al. 2002; Dawson, 2006; Perry et al.; 2006; Velez-Rendon, 2006; Yendol-Hoppey, 2007; Scantlebury, Gallo-Fox, & Wassell, 2008; Roger & Quinn, & Morton, 2009).
2. The asymmetric relations is slanted towards the school (19 studies) (a) Get acquaintance with the student populations, curricula, instructional materials and standards. (b) Get acquaintance with the numerous teachers' roles. (c) The teacher education program recognized school autonomy and role in preparing student teachers. (Black, 2005; Santoro & Allard, 2005; Glenn, 2006; Nokes, 2008; Ping &Chunxia, 2006; Doering et al., 2003; Brown & Warschauer, 2006; Gurvitch & Metzler 2009; Penso & Lazarowitz, 1997; Dunn et al., 2000; Chang & Winton, 2005; Skamp & Mueller, 2005)
Un institutionalized relationships (8 studies) The university supervisor was only little involved in the practicum. The university supervisor guidance had been detached from or opposed to the mentors’ guidance (Kahn, 2005; Siebert, 2006; Brown, & Warschauer, 2006 ; Reichenberg,1998; Slick,1998; Doering et al.; 2003)
C. The outcomes of the practicum- student teachers’ perceptions and reflective abilities In the majority of the studies (22/24) practice changed student teachers’ perceptions mainly in multicultural approach. (research tools- students’ self report ) (Vacc & Bright, 1999; Proctor et al., 2001; Almazara, 2005; Abbate-Vaughn, 2006; Fran-Doppen, 2007; Velez-Rendon, 2006; Knutson et al., 2007 Pence & Gillivray, 2008 ; Miller, 2008; Goodnough et al., 2009; Brindley et al., 2009 ).
The outcomes of the practicum- Student Teachers' Efficacy and Self- confidence In 18 /22 studies the desired results obtained in improving student teachers' efficacy and self- confidence. (research tools- students’ self report) (Hawkey, 1998; Brush et al., 2003 ;Hudson, 2005; Colby & Stapleton, 2006; Richard & Brumfield, 2003; Thompson & Smith, 2005; Duffy & Attkinson, 2005; Vuchic & Robb 2006; Anderson et al., 2006;).
The outcomes of the practicum- Applying Specific Teaching Approach In 9/14 studies student teachers did not achieve the desired results in applying specific teaching approach. (research tools- supervisors and mentors’ observations and reports) (Garton & Cano, 1996 ; Tillema & Knoll, 1997; Kowalchuk,1999; Puk & Haines, 1999; Moore, 2003; Montano et al., 2005 ; Burke, 2006; Brown & Warschauer, 2006; Dawson, 2006).
The outcomes of the practicum- applying technology In 6/10 studies student teachers succeeded to apply technology in their instruction at the practicum. (research tools- supervisors and mentors’ reports) (Halpin, 1999 ; Snider, 2002; Pope et al., 2005; Brush et al., 2003; Anderson & Puckett, 2005; Basham & Pianfetti, 2005;),
The outcomes of the practicum- Promoting School Students' Achievements In 5/5 studies the improvement of school students’ achievements was reported. (research tools- school exams) ( Nevin et al., 2002 ; Otaiba, 2005; Lomeli et al., 2006; Lake & Jones, 2008; Nokes et al., 2008 ).
Summary of the outcomes Desired results achieved in: 1. Student teachers' perceptions changed (22/24) 2. Efficacy and self- confidence increased (18/22) 3. Applying instruction and communication technology (ICT) (6/10) 4. School Students' Achievements improved (5/5) Desired results was not achieved : 1. Applying specific teaching approaches (9/14)
Critical Point of view a.Involvement of the researchers to the teacher education program and the practicum. b. Reliability of the instruments was rarely reported. c. The participants were captive audience.