Field experiences of student teachers have been regarded as the most favourably viewed component of initial teacher education in contributing to student teachers’ professional development (Ben-Peretz, 1995). Zeichner (1996) highlighted the importance of having what he calls an ‘educative practicum’. There have been suggestions that it is vital to have good teaching placements for student teachers (Bech and Kosnik, 2002; Burstein, 1992; Clark, 2002; Potthoff and Alley, 1995). This suggests that teaching practice takes into consideration more than the act of carrying out lessons. Consideration is also given to other concerns such as, the community, the school, colleagues, and resources and the whole school system as best captured in the activity system’s model of Engeström (1987). Teaching practice poses a number of issues for student teachers. These may relate to developing an identity as a teacher (Britzman, l991), developing a conception of the subject matter and how to teach it (Grossman and Stodolsky, 1994), developing a conception of teaching and learning and the role of a teacher (Grossman, 1990), learning to manage pupil behaviour (Bullough, 1989), learning to teach bored pupils (Kennedy, 1998), and learning to work with colleagues (Smylie, 1994; Spindler and Biott, 2000).
Morvant et al., (1995) offered a broad theoretical perspective of teaching practice. According to Morvant et al., (1995) teaching practice serves as a function within the teacher education programme that may hinder or support the achievement of its goals. They suggested that when teaching practice is designed, attention should be given to the manner in which it is structured with particular attention given to the way it is scheduled and organized. A poorly designed teaching practice might lead to frustration and stress. According to Gipe and Richard (1992) an overly threatening field placement may promote a great deal of negativism and stagnation in student teachers. On the other hand, a well designed teaching practice may be a source of motivation and professional development for student teachers. Field teaching practice is also a major vehicle for providing practical experience in any teacher education programme. Teacher education students may consistently describe their teaching practice as the most valuable element of their teacher preparation, however, questions concerning the value of the learning from these experiences have been raised (Feiman-Nemser and Buchmann, 1987) with specific attacks focusing on the teaching practice’s lack of clear theory and structure and its over dependence on ‘an outmoded apprenticeship model’ (Cooper, 1995).
Student teachers may often encounter tensions associated with their initial field teaching practice. These challenges include disparities between theory and practice, planned activities and pupils' resistance to those activities, mandated curriculum, school policies, student teachers’ own beliefs about those policies, and their idealized commitment to school change and the political realities of the school (Driscoll and Negel, 1993; Furlong and Maynard, 1995; Johnston, 1994). Student teachers are said to receive contradictory messages from different sources (Clift et al., 1994), for example, that they need to succeed on their own, while, at the same time, they are taught the value of cooperative learning. Student teachers are also told to be in control of their classrooms, while being taught to serve as classroom facilitators (Britzman, 1991). Student teachers continually receive mixed messages regarding their performance and expectations from tertiary supervisors and cooperating teachers in the schools. If they attempt to make changes, they may experience resistance from more traditional teachers or administrators in the schools (Vinz, 1995). They may experience political resistance from veteran teachers as they struggle with their idealized sense of mission to change a school (Schempp et al., 1993) or, they may experience pressures to conform to established school practices in order to gain a positive teaching evaluation (Bullough and Gitlin, 1996). This may contrast sharply with what they learn in teacher education institutions that they are supposed to be change agents.
In addition, the issue of how teaching practice is scheduled has raised some debates. For some teacher education programmes, teaching practice takes place at the end of pre-service teacher education. Positioning of teaching practice at the end of the programme holds it up as the capstone of the pre-service teacher preparation (Lugton, 2000). It implies, albeit unintentionally, that teaching practice is a culminating rather than a starting point of the student teacher’s professional development (Lugton, 2000). This ignores the fact that without a practical or applied setting in which to critically consider the theory on an ongoing basis, student teachers may not incorporate their theoretical learning into teaching practice (Ghani, 1990). According to Tom (1997) the location of teaching practice towards the end of the programme has also been blamed for ‘underplaying the complex nature of the knowledge learned and the difficulty in applying this knowledge to different actual teaching contexts’ (p. 140). In longer teacher education programmes, the location of teaching practice at the end has also received condemnation. Tom (1997) argued that student teachers may have forgotten the stockpiled theory by the time they arrive at the teaching practice in longer duration programmes in the sense that, to some extent, the location of the teaching practice only widens the theory and practice gap.
Ghani (1990) applauded programmes that offer a continuous teaching practice by noting that: ‘if teaching practice occurs at the same time that theory is being learned, its relevance may more easily be seen, learned and applied’ (p. 46). This approach has been supported by neurological research which shows that the more links and associations one’s brain creates, through connected and relevant learning, the more neural territories involved and the more firmly the information is integrated (Jensen, 1998: 92). Tom (1997) proposes making teaching practice part of the introduction to the professional curriculum. This repositions it in a more integrated way throughout pre-service teacher education along with more effective systems of support and supervision. This underscores the need for better support and well- managed supervision for student teachers while conducting teaching practice.