School-based experiences

Traditionally, the practicum is described as the clinical, field or school-based experience. The time spent in schools is when pre-service teachers experience being a teacher first-hand. However, there are other teaching/learning experiences, such as

teaching roles in museums and discovery centres. Sometimes referred to as situated cognition or cognitive apprenticeship, the practicum is the more explicit model of classroom-based instruction (Feiman-Nemser & Remillard, 1994), involving field-based practitioners/co-operating/associate teachers or mentor teachers, and to varying degrees university/campus-based supervisors as the support or connection to university.

Practicum or field experiences vary enormously (Allen & Wright, 2014; Beck & Kosnik, 2002a; Graham, 2006). The degree of variance involves: the amount and type of practicum; the placement within the course; the degree to which the practicum is related or connected with the coursework (Darling-Hammond, 2006; Wilson, Floden, & Ferrini-Mundy, 2002); how practicum experiences build on prior practicums (Brouwer & Korthagen, 2005) and issues related to who supervises or takes responsibility for organising the practicum (Beck & Kosnik, 2002b).

With the exception of Queensland, most states in Australia do not have a consensus over how much practicum is appropriate. For most states and territories, practicum experiences range from 45 to 100 days (nine to 20 weeks) in undergraduate programs, and 20 to 45 days (four to nine weeks) in postgraduate programs

(Commonwealth of Australia, 2007). However, AITSL (2011) stipulates that undergraduate programs should have a minimum of 80 days (16 weeks) and

postgraduates programs should have 60 days (12 weeks). Darling-Hammond (2006) argued that practicum experiences should be a minimum of 150 days (30 weeks). My study in interested in the extent to which pre-service teachers describe the amount of practicum and how this may be similar or different.

Typically, the practicum may include micro-teaching, distributed practicum (one full day per week, of varying durations) and a block practicum (between two and 12 weeks). More recently, teacher education programs have adopted internship and residency models (full time in schools, for six months to a full academic year) (Grima-

Farrell et al., 2014), team teaching approaches (Baeten & Simons, 2014) and PDS and laboratory schools (Beare et al., 2012). They may also have a campus-based component facilitating integration of relevant coursework, such as action research/inquiry, and may involve community-based placements (Brayko, 2012). The implications for my study are the degree to which pre-service teachers report similar or different experiences to those described above.

There are also inconsistencies in terms of when practicums start, with some universities placing them in the first year of pre-service teacher education to help pre- service teachers decide if teaching is the right vocation for them, while others believed pre-service teachers needed some theoretical grounding for the practicum to be

rewarding (Commonwealth of Australia, 2007). My study will investigate the provision of practicum experiences, their congruence or differences with the research and as described by the pre-service teachers in my study.

The practicum’s purpose is to develop best educational practices that positively affect students. This means the practicum provides opportunities to integrate and apply pedagogical knowledge and theory to practice (Allen & Wright, 2014). The practicum should be developmentally sequenced and integrated with the university-based

curriculum, while also remaining flexible to adapt to the pre-service teachers’ needs and differences (Darling-Hammond, 2006; Wilson et al., 2002). It should provide diverse experiences with a variety of schools and students. Ideally, practicum experiences should be school and university partnerships, whereby the practicum’s purpose is clearly and explicitly explained and mutually supported by schools and mentor teachers (Allen & Wright, 2014; Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005). Further, pre-service teachers advocate for embedded coursework assessment while on the practicum—such as an action research project—to bridge the theory and practice ‘gap’ (Allen et al., 2013; Allen & Wright, 2014). School contexts should be conducive to collegial relationships,

strong leadership, access to materials and resources, with opportunities to engage in professional and educational dialogue (Zeichner & Conklin, 2008). Additionally, mentor teachers should be exemplary role models who contribute professionally to the preparation of pre-service teachers, and also see the opportunity as professional development (Beck & Kosnik, 2002b). There should be regular self-reflection, evaluation and feedback, that not only ensures student outcomes are met but that pre- service teachers are developing appropriate analysis and evidence-based professional standards (Allen & Wright, 2014; Chung & van Es, 2014 ; Liakopoulou, 2012). The attributes of the practicum identified above provide some basis for analysis of the practicum experiences that the pre-service teachers in my study have experienced and can describe.

Many teachers and pre-service teachers believe the time on practicum and in schools and classrooms is where they learn the most about teaching; therefore, the practicum experiences are more highly valued (Allen, 2009; Grootenhoer, 2006; White, Bloomfield, & Le Cornu, 2012; Wilson et al., 2001). The authentic, realistic context for teaching and being a teacher is valued. Beck and Kosnik (2002a) conducted a study in which they asked pre-service teachers about ‘what constitutes a good practicum

placement’ (p. 84). The results yielded seven themes including: emotional support from mentors, peer relationships with mentor, collaboration with mentor (planning and content), flexibility to experiment, feedback on performance in an appropriate manner, exemplary mentor teachers and a heavy, but not excessive, workload. Pre-service teachers in my study will also be asked about their practicum experiences in terms of what was significant or insignificant about the experience.

Darling-Hammond (2006) argued that pre-service teacher education programs with well-constructed, collaborative and effectively-coordinated field experiences made significant contributions to pre-service teachers’ essential knowledge and skills, to serve

diverse learners and to learn continuously from their practice. Similarly, Lacina and Collins Block’s (2011) review of the most effective (literacy) teacher preparation programs found that the most successful had ‘consistent, carefully selected and relevant field experiences’ (pp. 334–335). That is, there was a shared ‘vision’ about what

constitutes effective teaching.

In contrast to the perceived benefits of situated cognition in practicum experience are some consistent drawbacks. While universities produce practicum booklets explaining the purpose of the practicum, and occasionally hold meetings with principals and mentor teachers, the reality is that these rarely takes place, so mentor teachers’ interpretations of the purpose of the practicum and their role with pre-service teachers vary. This variance can involve mentor teachers’ foci on subject knowledge, classroom management, teaching strategies, varying degrees of advice and support, a view that the purpose of the practicum is to socialise pre-service teachers into the status quo of the school or the practices of the mentor teacher, or a way of testing innovative teaching ideas (Wilson et al., 2001).

While universities organise the practicum component, university supervision is often minimal, further reinforcing the university’s disconnection with practice and leaving pre-service teachers in tenuous positions. Once the pre-service teacher is in a practicum school, the role and communication between the university and mentor teachers tends to become less clear, which can impede pre-service teachers’ ability to make theory-to-practice links (Allen & Wright, 2014; Graham, 2006). The practicum can be perceived as the place in which the theory and practice gap connects (Allen, 2009), or it can emphasise the disparity between the university and the school’s espoused theory and practice. The distinction is described as the traditional,

transmission, bureaucratic teaching model in schools, in conflict with the more learner- centred, democratic model of university (Capraro, Capraro, & Helfedt, 2010). In the

absence of university supervisors, pre-service teachers often revere their mentor teachers’ ways of teaching because they are classroom-based, tried and tested methods (Zeichner & Tabachnick, 1981). Pre-service teachers often follow their mentor teacher’s lead, which tends to reinforce prior schooling experiences (Grootenhoer, 2006).

Moreover, the mimicked behaviour is likely to be adopted without the critical reflection, analysis and dialogue that might otherwise occur in universities or in partnership

schools (Hodson, Smith, & Brown, 2012).

Practicum placements are increasingly difficult to find due to an increasing number of pre-service teachers and little obligation on the part of schools to take on pre- service teachers. This compromises universities’ choice and quality control over the schools/classes and teachers/supervisors that pre-service teachers experience (Adoniou, 2013; Commonwealth of Australia, 2007). A successful practicum is highly context dependent, with the quality of the placement, relationships between pre-service teachers, mentor teachers, schools and university, school and classroom dynamics and systemic policies and practices all playing a part (Adoniou, 2013; Allen, 2009; Capraro et al., 2010; Grootenhoer, 2006).

This review highlights many of the conditions enhancing or inhibiting the practicum experience for pre-service teachers. My study is interested in the school- based conditions that pre-service teachers identify as influencing learning to teach and reasons behind their perceived impact. The aspects identified involve: the amount and type of practicum experiences; roles and responsibilities of mentor teachers and pre- service teachers; visions about the purpose of practicum; degree to which pedagogy, content knowledge, classroom management were the focus; and university’s role and responsibility.