Topic

The ‘practicum experience’ is widely recognised internationally as a crucial part of initial teacher education (ITE) programmes (Aras, 2021, p.158) and in the formation of teachers more generally (Archambault et al., 2016). While practicum takes on various forms depending on the context, fundamentally it is the field-based, clinical aspect of ITE, characterised by direct engagement with learners, usually in schools (Bentley et al., 2017). Its putative purpose is to function as a bridge between education theory and professional classroom practice (Grudnoff and Williams, 2010). There is evidence to suggest that practicum experiences have evolved in recent times (Grudnoff, 2011), and the impact of the COVID-19 global pandemic as a catalyst in driving practicum experiences towards the online space cannot be underestimated (Moraru et al., 2024). This study utilises a scoping review spanning fifteen years to map the evolution of practicum architectures. It captures recent pandemic-mediated adaptations, without limiting the research focus to the disruption caused by the pandemic. To that end, this topic aligns strongly with the conference theme by mapping the organisational structures of ITE practicums to close the gap between knowing and acting on the evolving needs of student teachers (STs) and how ITE providers might respond to them via practicums.

Aim and Research Question

While various studies have examined isolated practicum structures, this scoping review aimed to map and consolidate existing evidence to provide a comprehensive taxonomy of how these clinical experiences are organised. The overarching research question was:

• What is known about how practicum or placement experiences are organised in ITE?

Through addressing this question, the intention was also to identify thematic gaps in relation to the organisational features of practicum that would signpost areas for more targeted systematic reviews thereafter.

Conceptual Framework

The study employed Arksey and O’Malley’s (2005) widely-used framework for scoping reviews, as the overarching heuristic device guiding the structure of the research. This approach was adopted because of its well-established utility for providing a preliminary overview of the research available on given topics and for mapping key concepts / gaps (Grant and Booth, 2009). It also accommodated the inclusion of a more diverse evidence base (e.g. quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods studies) to support a comprehensive landscape analysis - although some limiters were employed as part of the exclusion criteria to enhance rigour (e.g. only empirical peer-reviewed studies were considered). The framework incorporated five stages (Arksey and O’Malley, 2005, p.22):

• Stage 1: Identifying the research question

• Stage 2: Identifying relevant studies

• Stage 3: Study selection

• Stage 4: Charting the data

• Stage 5: Collating, summarising and reporting the results

The framework was supplemented by The PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) (Tricco et al., 2018) to ensure that the methodological elements of the search, screening and reporting were robust - this is overviewed in detail in the Methods section below. While the search was not bounded by a settled conceptual or theoretical framework for how practicum was or should be organised (this was to ensure that the mapping of practicum concepts remained inductive and uninfluenced by predetermined constraints), some preliminary hypotheses were established to focus the review. For example, it was assumed that practicum experiences typically took place in physical school buildings but that this approach had likely evolved in response to the COVID-19 global pandemic. Similarly, it was assumed that an online component may form part of more recent practicum experiences or that there were some other technological elements to how practicum was organised. The methodological approach was designed to address these key issues and surface tensions that may have existed in relation to organisational considerations.

The PRISMA-ScR was used to structure the literature search, across nine research databases widely used in education research. To ensure an exhaustive retrieval of relevant studies, the project adhered to a documented search strategy. This involved the application of Boolean search strings tailored to each database’s syntax. Both Zotero and Covidence were used throughout the search, screening and selection processes. Thorough inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied. For example, studies before 2009 were excluded, in favour of the fifteen-year window from then up to 2024. Only peer-reviewed, empirical studies were eligible for inclusion The application of the search string across databases produced five-hundred and seventy-one (n=571) articles. Following deduplication four-hundred and seven (n=407) articles were removed, leaving one-hundred and sixty-four (n=164) articles for title and abstract review. The high deduplication rate here can be attributed to the higher-than-usual number of databases consulted for the review. Following the removal of a further one-hundred and seven (n=107) articles during the title and abstract screening phase, fifty-seven (n=57) articles remained for full-text review. A further twenty-six (n=26) articles were removed after this, leaving thirty-one (n=31) eligible studies. To ensure exhaustiveness, a supplementary, single-pass, backward citation search of the reference lists of these eligible studies was undertaken and this produced a further four studies (n=4) that met the inclusion criteria. This resulted in a final article yield for review of thirty-five (n=35). Rigorous protocols were implemented throughout to ensure reproducibility, consistency and transparency. First, all three authors were involved in devising the research question and subsequent search string - this was subject to trials before being calibrated and finalised. Second, a pilot was undertaken by all three authors on 10% (n=17) of the initial set of deduplicated articles (n=164) for title and abstract review. This pilot determined the effectiveness of the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and refinements were made thereafter. For each stage of the screening process, all articles were reviewed separately by the first and third author. Where there was an inclusion/exclusion discrepancy, this was resolved first by discussion and then by consultation with the second author. The interrater reliability between the first and third author was calculated at 86%, with a Cohen’s Kappa of K=0.69 (well within the range of 0.61-0.80 for substantial agreement). The analytical procedure incorporated descriptive charting and thematic synthesis.

The research findings reveal key insights on practicum experiences in ITE and where the preponderance of data concerning the organisational elements emanates from. Almost half of the studies (n=16) were undertaken in the United States of America, with a much smaller proportion undertaken in Europe (n=6). This highlights a significant research deficit on the organisational logics of European ITE practicum experiences and positions this review as an important resource in mapping the potential for future development on the continent. The review identified ten organisational approaches to practicum, undertaken across three different spaces (1. traditional, in-school setting; 2. online setting; 3. emergent, hybrid setting). Nine overarching practicum pedagogies were identified and four supervision models extrapolated. A five-category, structural typology of possible practicum options was deduced from the data, which can be granularised further depending on the organisational approaches, pedagogies and supervision models employed by ITE providers. The results show that the processes for assessing STs on practicum encapsulate a number of different avenues, including the use of observation, checklists, rubrics, submission of portfolios / artefacts / reflective journals, the completion of surveys / questionnaires and the creation of presentations. However, it is notable that many of the studies did not indicate whether STs were assessed and even where there was positive indication of assessment, details on the grading scheme (e.g. binary pass / fail or multi-level categorical grading) were sparse. While COVID-19 accelerated a move to online practicum approaches, this rapid pandemic shift has yet to evolve into a refined, deliberate e-practicum model. This research will appeal to delegates involved with the design of practicum experiences in ITE. It aligns with the conference theme by providing signposts for future research on how clinical experiences in teacher education could evolve, to meet changing conditions and priorities for new teachers, in post-pandemic Europe.

Aras, S. (2021). Action research as an inquiry-based teaching practice model for teacher education programs. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 34, 153–168. Archambault, L., Kennedy, K., Shelton, C., Dalal, M., McAllister, L., and Huyett, S. (2016). Incremental progress: Re-examining field experiences in K-12 online learning contexts in the United States. Journal of Online Learning Research, 2(3), 303-326. Arksey, H., and O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. Bentley, E., Workman, M., and Overby, A. (2017). Being “adopted” into a teaching community: Exploring mentoring relationships in a yearlong field placement. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, 6(3), 228-241. Grant, M. and Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91-108. Grudnoff, L. (2011). Rethinking the practicum: Limitations and possibilities. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 39(3), 223–234. Grudnoff, L., and Williams, R. (2010). Pushing boundaries: Reworking university–school practicum relationships. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 45(2), 33–45. Moraru, M., Monasterio López, D., Ramírez Moya, E. V., & Marty Cárcamo, J. I. (2023). Learning to teach online during the pandemic: Chilean EFL pre-service teachers’ experiences during their first online practicum. Perspectiva Educacional, 64(4), 55-79. Tricco, A., Lillie, E., Zari,n W., O'Brien, K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Moher, D., Peters, M., Horsley, T., Weeks, L., Hempel, S., Akl, E., Chang, C., McGowan, J., Stewart, L., Hartling, L., Aldcroft, A., Wilson, M., Garritty, C., Lewin, S., Godfrey, C., Macdonald, M., Langlois, E., Soares-Weiser, K., Moriarty, J., Clifford, T., Tunçalp, Ö. and Straus, S. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Annals of Internal Medecine, 169(2), 467-473.