Keywords

Introduction

The “practicum” or “in-school experience” (Crocker and Dibbon 2008, p. 32) component of initial teacher education (ITE) programs plays a critical role in the learning-to-teach process of teacher candidates. This in-school experience component usually includes opportunities for teacher candidates to become part of a classroom and school community where they “typically engage in observation and teaching under the guidance and supervision of the classroom teacher, the associate teacher” (Petrarca 2010, p. 31). We realize these initial and rudimentary descriptions of the practicum within ITE programs are quite simplistic; however, they are used merely to establish, in basic terms, a common language as we begin the chapter. As the chapter progresses, we unpack the practicum by providing a deeper description of various models, as well as an overview of the goals and desired elements of practicum experiences. Throughout, we acknowledge the complexities and challenges, along with the potential of the practicum to shape teacher candidate learning both positively and negatively. We accept the premise that in general self-study of teacher education practices (S-STEP) terms, “The potential of the self-study of teacher education has been recognized in the literature over the last decade, pointing to its key role in understanding and challenging teacher education programs, processes and practices” (Flores 2016, p. 215) including its role in enhancing practicum experiences as teacher candidates learn to teach.

This chapter builds upon the work of Beck et al. (2004) from the International Handbook of Self-Study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices (2004). In The Preservice Practicum: Learning Through Self-Study in a Professional Setting, they argued that “a self-study approach has the potential to significantly enhance the preservice practicum” (p. 1259). They suggested that a self-study approach to practicum could cultivate a learning environment for all individuals involved in the practicum, including associate teachers (also referred to as mentor, host, or cooperating teachers in the literature), university faculty, practicum supervisors, staff, and teacher candidates.

Upon examining Beck et al.’s (2004) arguments via post-2004 literature related to S-STEP and practica, we realized immediately that there still exists a lack of self-study of teacher educators within the practicum context. For example, up until a special issue of Studying Teacher Education edited by Thomas (2017a), Thomas (2017a) found that very few studies in the S-STEP literature focused upon teacher educators learning in practicum. Educators recognize that the practicum is integral to teacher education; it has been studied from the perspectives of “teacher candidates, associate or cooperating teachers and supervisors. However, few self-studies have focused on teacher educator learning from examining the practicum experience, apart from Bullock (2012) and Cuenca (2010)” (Thomas 2017a, p. 123).

We also realized that certain factors identified by Beck et al. as challenges to preventing S-STEP from occurring within the practicum still exist despite the potential of self-study to be “the single most significant development ever in the field of teacher education research” (Zeichner 1999, p. 8). Given the immense potential of self-study (Zeichner 2007; Flores 2016), we explore in this chapter why there is still a lack of S-STEP on practicum.

The underlying questions guiding this exploration and analysis of the literature for this chapter, then, are twofold:

  1. 1.

    Given the potential of self-study to enhance teacher education, why is the practicum still a less explored area in the S-STEP community?

  2. 2.

    How can we, as teacher educators/researchers, facilitate an S-STEP approach to practicum?

We explore these questions by first providing a brief and broad overview of the dimensions of self-study, followed by a description of constructivist position of learning. Next, the challenges identified by Beck et al. (2004) 15 years ago that hinder the implementation of S-STEP in practica, as well as the conditions necessary for taking a self-study approach within the practicum, are revisited. Finally, recent examples from the S-STEP and other literature on teacher education regarding how to support and augment S-STEP are considered.

Part 1: Why Self-Study in Teacher Education?

What Is Self-Study?

Pithouse et al. (2009) noted that defining self-study in teacher education is not an easy task. Self-study has been explained as a “study of the self and [a] study by the self” (Beck et al. 2004 p. 1250) and “the object and instrument of research” (Mena and Russell 2017, p. 107), to understand practice and to develop greater perceptions and improvements (Mena and Russell 2017). While approaches to self-study diverge (Berry and Loughran 2002; Tidwell 2002; Bass et al. 2002; Vanassche and Kelchertmans 2015), one constant remains: “the emphasis is on placing teacher educators’ knowledge and practice at the center of their academic work” (Loughran and Russell 2002, p. i).

In their systematic review of the self-study literature between 1990 and 2012, Vanassche and Kelchtermans (2015) found that research methods applied in the field of self-study vary broadly. For example, research methods within an S-STEP framework may include interviewing, personal experiences, participatory approach, communities of practice, arts-based inquiry, and co/autoethnography (Lassonde et al. 2009) to name a few. The underlying purpose of self-study, however, centers on “articulating and refining one’s professional expertise and understanding of teacher education practices” (Vanassche and Kelchertmans 2015, p. 516).

Loughran (2004), a long-time proponent of self-study, succinctly captures the potential opportunities of engaging in self-study:

… [it] allows teachers and teacher educators to maintain a focus on their teaching and their students’ learning – both high priorities. At the same time, self-study also offers opportunities to improve teacher education through an application of the learning about teaching practice. (p. 31)

Research characteristics include the use of qualitative methods, the use of collaborative interactions as central role, and an authentication “based on trustworthiness” (Vanassche and Kelchertmans 2015, p. 508). They support Clandinin and Connelly (2004) in that self-study research results in changes in the self “where change is least likely, but most apt to occur” (p. 520) and a further result of “having an impact on the field of teacher education practice and scholarship” (p. 520). Vanassche and Kelchtermans (2015) continue that, additionally, researchers must show how their self-study findings connect with public issues and concerns.

Beck et al. (2004) identified the five main components of self-study as (1) personal involvement, personal narrative, and building on the past; (2) inquiry, critical, and constructivist; (3) inclusive and equitable; (4) collaborative and communal; and (5) experiential and practical (pp. 1261–1264). The work of Samaras and Freese (2006) have determined five “central characteristics of self-study: 1) situated inquiry; 2) process; 3) knowledge; 4) multiple in theoretical stance, method and purpose; and 5) paradoxical individual and collective, personal and interpersonal, and private and public” (Samaras 2010, p. 70). Mena and Russell (2017) identified five commonalities for self-study approaches not unlike those noted by Beck et al. (2004): “1) initiated and focused by the individual studying personal practice; 2) aimed at improvement and development of new knowledge of practice; 3) undertaken interactively and in collaboration with others; 4) using multiple research methods; and 5) demonstrating methodological rigor and trustworthiness” (p. 107). As seen in the varying characteristics outlined above by different authors, there still exists cohesion within each grouping and among the three examples.

Why Take a Self-Study Approach to Practicum?

Given the objectives of self-study as described above, perhaps we need to reframe the question as, why would we not take a self-study approach to practicum? As the emphasis of self-study is on understanding the self and practice, for improvement and development purposes (Mena and Russell 2017), the practicum – a complex and multifaceted element of ITE programs – seems like a ripe breeding ground for self-study to flourish. To set the stage to investigate this question, we now explore the complexity of the practicum in greater detail by first reviewing a constructivist perspective on learning and the “learning-to-teach” process in order to contextualize the learning in practicum.

Part 2: What Is Learning in Teacher Education?

What Is Learning?

Beck et al. (2004) positioned their chapter within a “personal-constructivist-collaborative” (p. 1261) perspective, rejecting the “technical-transmission” approach, whereby individuals merely apply knowledge cultivated in university to a professional context. We too position ourselves and this chapter within the constructivist learning perspective, described by Jonassen et al. (2000), as “an ontology, epistemology, and phenomenology that is built on a sense of individual and social responsibility, a recognition of the variety and dynamic nature of beliefs, a commitment to self-determination, and the perspective that understanding is what learners seek” (p. 107). Knowledge is seen as complex, dynamic, and not an entity to be transmitted but, rather, as constructed and enhanced when constructed with others. Jonassen et al.’s (2000) description of learning as “meaning making (i.e., meaningful learning) involves willful, intentional, active, conscious, constructive practice that includes reciprocal intention—action—reflection cycles” (Jonassen et al. 2000, p. 111) aligns well with a self-study approach to practicum.

While self-study as a distinct research field evolved from teacher inquiry, reflective practice, and action research, it is unique due its emphasis on the self, which differentiates S-STEP from these related yet distinct research methodologies (Samaras and Freese 2009). Samaras and Freese (2009) eloquently describe the subtleties of a self-study approach that differentiate it from other methodologies and connect to constructivist principles:

Another important difference is that self-study focuses on improvement on both the personal and professional levels. Self-study builds on the personal processes of reflection and inquiry, and takes these processes and makes them open to public critique. Self-study is not done in isolation, but rather requires collaboration for building new understandings through dialogue and validation of findings. Self-study research requires openness and vulnerability since the focus is on the self. And finally, self-study is designed to lead to the reframing and reconceptualizing of the role of the teacher. (p. 5)

Jonassen et al. (2000) show that interconnectedness of intentional and active reflective practice is required for learning to occur. When coupled with revisiting and reframing perceptions from previous experiences, prominent learning occurs. These features, intentional and active reflective, are found in the self-study process (as illustrated in Fig. 1). Figure 1 also reflects how Martin and Russell (forthcoming) describe S-STEP in an earlier chapter of this volume. They suggest that S-STEP is a “metacognitive and reflective practice conducted by teacher educators learning from experience” (p. unknown). The metacognitive and reflective process implies intentional and cyclical actions by teacher educators participating in self-study, to think about their own thinking or awareness. From a constructivist perspective, the ultimate and underlying goal of intentional reflective practice is meaning making (Jonassen et al. 2000), and within a self-study approach to practicum, the ultimate and underlying goal of the cyclical and intentional reflective practice is meaning making within the practicum – critical for teacher candidate growth. These features are found in the self-study process.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Learning processes and interactions from a constructivist perspective. (Reproduced from Jonassen et al. 2000, p. 112)

Full size image

Russell (2017) stresses the importance of taking a metacognitive approach within the professional learning context: “Without metacognitive supports, there is a danger that practice could plateau as candidates continue to work within familiar and unexamined frames of understanding” (p. 197). The considerable overlap of a constructivist perspective on learning processes with an S-STEP approach to practicum furthers the argument that a self-study approach to practicum enhances the learning process within the practicum experience for everyone involved. This is not easy, however, as we will demonstrate in subsequent sections of this chapter. To situate S-STEP and learning within the practicum, we now describe the learning-to-teach process to appreciate fully the complexity and multifaceted nature of practicum, which contribute to the challenges related to taking a self-study approach to practicum.

Learning-to-Teach Process

Teaching is often regarded as less-than-complex or as a simple transfer of knowledge from an expert to a novice (Labaree 2000); however, the process of learning to teach begins when prospective teachers enter schools and classrooms as young students and remains a complex and lifelong endeavor.

The learning-to-teach process begins at the onset of one’s formal schooling experiences (Lortie 1975). Teacher candidates who enter ITE programs bring with them thousands of hours observing their teachers from the student perspective, a phenomenon coined by Lortie (1975) as the “apprenticeship of observation” (p. 69). This apprenticeship, however, is not truly an apprenticeship, as:

Teachers are not explicitly trying to teach students how to be teachers. Teachers try to teach a curriculum that may include both subject-matter content and cultural socialization skills, but they are unlikely to include any explicit lessons about pedagogy. Thus the effects of the apprenticeship of observation are an unintentional yet powerful by-product of mass schooling. (Bullock 2011, p. 16)

For example, students may not be aware of the hours teachers spend in planning instructional experiences or assessing student work behind the scenes. Students are not privy to the numerous decisions teachers make on a daily and ongoing basis ranging from how to frame particular questions or how to prevent or manage disruptions or any of the other many, tacit decisions teachers make routinely (Lortie 1975).

Initial Teacher Education Programs

Much has been written about the “best” ways in which prospective teachers are educated to teach ranging from programs with a high practice orientation to more theoretical (Kitchen and Petrarca 2016). Feiman-Nemser (2001) identified “central tasks of learning to teach” (p. 1050) at various stages of the formal teacher career trajectory, including initial teacher education, induction for new teachers, and professional development. Along this continuum, Feiman-Nemser (2001) identified several tasks as central to the learning-to-teach process within the ITE program stage of journey. She suggested that during ITE programs, teacher candidates should have opportunities to:

  • Examine their personal beliefs about visions of teaching and learning.

  • Develop an understanding of content areas (in subjects), learners, learning, and diversity-related issues.

  • Develop a “beginning repertoire” (p. 1018) specific to teaching and learning.

  • Develop “the tools and dispositions to study teaching” (p. 1050).

Darling-Hammond and Baratz-Snowden (2007) summarize the complexities of the learning-to-teach process, in their framework for learning to teach:

…new teachers learn best in a community which enables them to develop a vision for their practice; knowledge about teaching, learning, and children; dispositions about how to use this knowledge; practices that allow them to act on their intentions and beliefs; and tools that support their efforts. (p. 120)

As highlighted by both Feiman-Nemser (2001) and Darling-Hammond (2006), learning about teaching is an ongoing and complex process that requires both the disposition and the means to examine personal practices, understandings, and beliefs. These are all key facets of self-study (Loughran and Russell 2002), in which knowledge and practice sit at the center of our academic work.

Practicum

While we began the chapter by describing practicum as the “in-school experience” (Crocker and Dibbon 2008, p. 32), we realize this is a simple and one-dimensional portrayal of what is truly a critical, complex, and multifaceted component of ITE programs.

The concept of an ITE practicum may seem straightforward to an outsider; teacher educators recognize that it is fraught with complexities and conundrums that have the potential to shape teacher candidate learning both positively and negatively. Berry (2007) acknowledges that “teacher educators who engage in the self-study of their practices recognize teacher education as an enterprise that is fundamentally problematic by virtue of the complexity and ambiguity of its various demands” (p. 15). Some of these complexities and demands of ITE programs weave through the challenges identified to suggest that it hampers a self-study approach in the practicum (Beck et al. 2004). In theory, the practicum experience might typically provide opportunities for teacher candidates to continue to broaden their learning about planning, instruction, assessment, learners, learning, being part of a school community, professionalism, and reflective practice within a classroom and school environment. The diverse manner in which these practicum opportunities are organized, valued, and implemented around the globe contributes to the complexity of practicum and to the conduciveness of taking an S-STEP approach. In their examination of international teacher education programs, Kitchen and Petrarca (2016) positioned approaches to teacher education along a three-pronged continuum of theory, reflection, and practice, noting how depending on the orientation of the ITE program, practicum goals, requirements, and structure will vary greatly:

Theoretical and behavioural oriented teacher educators may envision the practicum as a laboratory in which one can apply facts, rules, theory, and procedures. Others may view practicum settings as dynamic and presume that facts, rules, and procedures cannot be applied without the development of phronesis. (p. 143)

Such disparity in practica contributes to the multifaceted and complex nature of practicum, which may or may not support the essence of S-STEP – an analysis of self and personal practice (Kitchen and Russell 2012). The diversity in practicum goals found in ITE programs may contribute to the multifaceted and complex nature of practicum which may or may not support the essence of S-STEP – analysis of self and personal practice (Kitchen and Russell 2012).

For example, in a literature review of empirical studies focused on practicum within initial teacher education programs, Cohen et al. (2013) identified 4 broad goals of the practicum within the 113 studies analyzed. They found that the largest grouping of practicum goals in the literature related to the development of teacher candidates’ professional abilities (i.e., developing specific instructional strategies and content and pedagogical knowledge), followed by learning about the school environment. The third broad cluster of goals of practicum related to learning about the role of the teacher and learning in general. It is ironic, in that in an era where education systems around the globe are called upon to build “21st century skills” (Milton 2015) such as creativity and innovation, critical thinking and problem-solving, communication, and collaboration, this was not highly reflected in the literature review. For instance, Cohen et al. (2013) found only 10 studies of the 113 examined that described the goal of practicum as fostering personal growth of the teacher candidate, referencing goals related to critical thinking, problem-solving, interpersonal communication, and self-assessment. The final broad cluster of practicum goals centered on having a positive impact on the school, whereby six of the studies within their literature review identified goals such as providing leadership in particular areas or enhancing student achievement.

Lastly, we cannot ignore the situational influences on ITE programs. “Different educational arrangements for practicum learning are formed by different historical, political and organizational processes in different national settings” (Mattsson et al. 2011, p. 1), and as such, Mattsson et al. (2011) suggest that various models of organizing the practicum learning exist. They also submit that “practicum is often left to chance and that there is a need for improved models, principles and practices to ensure that preservice teacher learning during practicum is supported” (p. x).

By focusing on the notion of learning within the practicum, Mattsson et al. (2011) differentiate between models on how practica are organized and models for “certain ways of organizing practicum learning” (p. 9). They identified nine general models to organize practicum learning but stress that these models could also be combined in a variety of ways beyond what is stated below:

  1. 1)

    Master-apprentice model (novice learning from a master).

  2. 2)

    Laboratory model (practicum occurs in a university-created school where teacher candidates work with excellent teachers).

  3. 3)

    Partnership model (careful selection of partner schools/teachers).

  4. 4)

    Community development model (rural settings where teacher candidates help improve schools/teachers by contributing new ideas and pedagogies).

  5. 5)

    Integrated model (shared responsibility by university and communities for teacher education).

  6. 6)

    Case-based model (similar to practices within field of medicine, teacher candidates experience and analyze authentic cases via research, theory, experience).

  7. 7)

    Platform model (flexible framework based on teacher candidates’ needs and interest).

  8. 8)

    Community of practice model (teacher candidates work within a “culture of inquiry” and “social praxis”).

  9. 9)

    Research and development model (collaborations between universities and communities to enhance research and school improvement) (p. 8–9).

Rorrison (2008), however, argues that while the practicum holds potential for learning, “many learning opportunities are wasted. It seems evident that the practicum is often a time of tension, frustration, misinformation, confrontation, acquiescence and poor communication” (p. 10). Self-study, by its very nature, could be another model for organizing practicum learning, and by framing the practicum in this manner, the self-study approach supports understanding the self and practice, for improvement and development purposes (Mena and Russell 2017), part of which is the intent of the practicum experience.

This approach, however, is demanding as we illustrate in the next section. Before we explore the challenges to implementing a self-study approach in the practicum, we believe it is first necessary to consider the general problems of the “learning-to-teach” process from a broader perspective, some of which may also contribute to and are consistent with general problems of implementing self-study.

Problems of Learning to Teach

Unfortunately, perhaps due to the power of the apprenticeship of observation (Lortie 1975), teaching is often regarded as an easy profession. After decades of working as educators, teacher educators, and researchers, we agree with Darling-Hammond’s (2006) position regarding the complexity of teaching:

Teaching may be even more complex than law, medicine, or engineering. Rather than serving one client at a time, teachers work with groups of twenty-five to thirty at once, each with unique needs and proclivities. Teachers must balance these variables, along with a multitude of sometimes competing goals, and negotiate the demands of the content matter along with individual and group needs. They must draw on many kinds of knowledge – of learning and development, social contexts and culture, language and expression, curriculum and teaching – and integrate what they know to create engaging tasks and solve learning problems for a range of students who learn differently. (pp. 34–35)

Teacher candidates enter ITE programs with their own conceptions of teaching and learning, and suddenly, they are confronted with ideas that do not conform to their conceptions of what teaching is. Many of their ideas (and resultant misconceptions) come from early school experiences where they may have idealized a teacher who may have been attentive to them or guided them at a critical time in their lives, which focused more on teacher personality (Darling-Hammond and Baratz-Snowden 2007). While these experiences are real to their memories, curricular changes, societal changes, and governmental demands have moved beyond their memories which challenge their conceptions. In addition, these teacher candidates may be influenced by teacher parents or immediate circle of seasoned teachers who developed their ideas and received their teacher education a generation or two earlier, when the demands of teaching were different. Teacher candidates, listening to “teaching stories” in their developmental years, are influenced by these and believe these experiences to be true and factual to them in their current teacher education. These preconceptions need to be challenged.

Darling-Hammond and Baratz-Snowden (2007) identified three problems associated with learning to teach: misconceptions about teaching, the problem of enactment, and the problem of complexity. Misconceptions about teaching came into being due to some experiences teacher candidates had as students: some never experienced “purposefully organized experiences with carefully staged supports” (Darling-Hammond and Baratz-Snowden 2007) so critical to student learning. Others are not aware of the important role of home and community in the lives of students. They believe that a teacher transmits the knowledge and acts as a cheerleader for students, rather than guiding student learning. Unless these misconceptions are dispatched, teacher candidates will carry out these unproductive teaching practices without learning and adopting more beneficial methods. The professional role of a teacher requires a wide variety of skills and an array of strategies to put teaching into action many of which must be used concurrently. This “problem of enactment” (Darling-Hammond and Baratz-Snowden 2007, p. 117) can be addressed “when well-supervised practicum and student-teaching experiences precede or are conducted jointly with coursework” (p. 117), so that teacher candidates “are better able to connect theoretical learning to practice,” are “more comfortable and confident in learning to teach, and more able to enact what they are learning in ways that are effective for students” (p. 118). To ensure effective enactment, teacher candidates must see teaching practices modeled to analyze “how, when, and why they work” (p. 118). Skillful coaching from more expert practitioners, experimenting, and reflecting on practice are strongly supported by Darling-Hammond and Baratz-Snowden (2007).

Teaching is complex. Long gone are the days when teachers expounded on a topic. Now, student success occurs when “teachers develop the diagnostic and instructional skills … for students who require different approaches or additional supports” (p. 119). With the multiple goals of teachers, the many diverse students, and the required integration of knowledge, “teachers need to learn to analyze what is going on in the classroom and to make sound decisions about curriculum, instruction, assessment, and classroom management in light of the particular students they teach” (p. 119). This is not an easy task especially when one considers today’s students and teaching requirements. We next consider the challenges related to not only implementing a self-study approach within the practicum but also to the practicum in general.

Part 3: Self-Study and Practicum

What Are the Challenges to a Self-Study Approach in Practicum?

In their systematic review of the S-STEP literature, Vanassche and Kelchtermans (2015) identified four broad themes that teacher educators typically explored within the self-study literature: (1) pedagogical interventions; (2) disparities between their beliefs about and actual teaching practices; (3) instructional practices related to social justice; and (4) practice within theoretical or philosophical context. There appears to be a distinct absence of a self-study approach within a practicum perspective. Since the practicum plays such a critical role in teacher candidate learning within ITE programs, we are obligated to our teacher candidates – and to their future students – to learn more about how to optimize their practicum learning experience. Self-study is a logical way to do this, although it also complicated and challenging at the same time.

Beck et al. (2004) suggested the traditional nature of practicum and university settings, the pressure to please associate teachers, the absence of university course instructors from the practicum, the pressure of a climate of criticism and control, and the lack of support for preservice education within the university as key challenges thwarting a self-study approach to practicum. We revisit and reframe these challenges within today’s context.

Traditional Nature of Practicum and University Settings

Russell (2017) stresses the centrality of the theory/practice divide as a challenge within the practicum, “The tension between the traditional epistemology of the university and the epistemology of learning from practicum experience seems to come to the forefront in every teacher education program and is a particularly significant issue for the faculty supervisor” (p. 201). Beck et al. (2004) also suggested that ITE-on-campus programs usually reflect a technical-transmission approach where “theory is to be learned on the university campus and then applied during the practicum” (p. 1264). Within the practicum setting context, Beck et al. (2004) also describe the traditional nature of practicum settings specific to the selection and preparation of associate teachers. The selection process is often centralized within school boards; universities have little access to reaching out to or inviting and/or selecting associate teachers who model exemplary practices. Typically, associate teachers are selected on availability rather than skill as teachers and mentors. Although the selection process varies among school boards and universities, for the most part, the selection process described in 2004 is typically still the case, almost 15 years later.

After her review of a series of S-STEP papers focusing on S-STEP and the practicum, Pinnegar (2017) captures the messiness of the technical-transmission approach, stressing the complexity and multifaceted nature of the learning-to-teach process, including practicum we described earlier in the chapter:

My fundamental learning from reading these articles focused on the intractable conundrums (intricate and difficult problems) of teacher education and teacher educators. The fundamental conundrum is navigating the theory/practice divide. This conundrum is made more difficult when we recognize the other conundrums uncovered as one reads across the set of articles. These include the problematics of structure, the press of experience, the knowledge dilemma, and the complexities of relationship. (p. 211)

Such problematics, specifically the complexities of relationship, feature prominently in the subsequent challenge regarding teacher candidate positioning.

Teacher Candidate Positioning

In 2004, Beck et al. suggested that “student teachers are under considerable pressure to satisfy their mentor teachers, who may be practicing a technical-transmission approach” (p. 1265). Where these associate or mentor teachers conduct, “part or all of the practicum evaluation … [they] strongly influence the future employment prospects of student teachers” (p. 1265).

Fast-forward almost 15 years and what Beck et al. (2004) described as the pressure to please associate teachers above still exists. We agree that while teacher candidates do feel compelled to please their associate teachers, the challenge to taking a self-study approach in the practicum encompasses a wider scope of which the pressure to please associate teachers is just one element. We believe such pressure is a portion of the teacher candidates’ broader positioning with the practicum. Teacher candidates are often parachuted into a classroom that is ultimately under the associate teachers’ control. Mackinnon (2017) reminds us of the “perennial issues associated with learning in a practice environment where teacher candidates can experience vulnerability and uncertainty, where they can be subject to an unequal distribution of power from many sides” (p. 232). Depending on the associate teachers’ practices and beliefs, teacher candidates may feel obliged to implement their associate teachers’ classroom routines and instructional practices, which at times may not be aligned with the on-campus course work.

In her practicum-based self-study, Thomas (2017b) found, “The Mentor teachers are not always well-informed about current university programs, and not always respectful of what student teachers are taught there, which puts these students in awkward positions sometimes of having to take sides” (p. 173). Mackinnon (2017) echoes this sentiment in describing how teacher candidates “may feel caught between the schools that support their practicums and the universities where most of their courses and seminars are held” (p. 232). Both researchers determined that teacher candidates may experience less-than-ideal positioning.

Bullock (2017) refers to “the tensions teacher candidates feel in experiencing the practicum as a site of performance rather than a site of learning” (p. 179) as power and performance. He discovered in his self-study that even in situations where teacher candidates experienced a successful practicum, teacher candidates considered the practicum more of an opportunity to impress the associate teacher who usually provides a final report or job reference given the power differential between associate teacher and teacher candidate.

Lack of Support for Preservice Education within the University

We now examine specific examples within the overarching challenge of lack of support for preservice teacher education within the university. Specifically, we consider traditional workload models for faculty, the misunderstood nature of ITE programs, lack of faculty in the practicum, and resource deficiencies.

Typically university systems value impact factors, publishing in top-tier journals, obtaining funding, and citations more than teaching and service, which are often inextricably linked in ITE programs. As a result, professional programs such as ITE programs do not fit neatly within the university priorities. Most comprehensive universities hold tightly to the 40% teaching, 40% research, and 20% service expectations of tenured and tenure-track faculty. Given the oftentimes, inseparable teaching/service/research work of ITE program faculty, the deeply embedded university models for faculty expectations do not usually support or benefit ITE program faculty and the teacher candidates with whom such faculty work. We now provide specific examples of the general lack of support for preservice teacher education programs within the university.

Similar to Beck et al.’s (2004) observations, tenured and tenure-track professors who teach and research teacher education still typically do not supervise teacher candidates in the practicum for various reasons but usually due to limitations related to the workload. For example, some universities might consider practicum supervision as a form of “service” within a faculty member’s teaching, research, and service requirements rather than part of teaching workload. This could also mean that the faculty member would still be required to teach a full complement of courses, conduct research, and supervise teacher candidates in the field – in addition to other service components that other faculties/schools within the university may not require. It is not uncommon for ITE programs to liaison with organizations external to the university such as ministries of education, teacher federations, accreditation bodies, and other local teacher stakeholder groups. Teacher candidate supervision is extremely time intensive requiring the supervisor to communicate with teacher candidates, the practicum coordinator/director, and associate teachers on a regular basis. In addition, the university supervisor must visit school sites, observe lessons, provide teacher candidates with feedback, write reports, and follow up as necessary. If a teacher candidate is struggling, then the time commitment increases significantly. Based on traditional distributions of workload, the university values service to the university much less than teaching and learning as seen in the 40%, 40%, and 20% allocations to teaching, research, and service, respectively. In some instances, depending on the university, supervision of teacher candidates might be considered part of the “teaching” allocation of workload; however, this supervision is usually not the norm.

The resulting shortage of university course instructors who actually spend time in the practicum with the teacher candidates discourages S-STEP from occurring in the practicum. Beck et al. (2004) noted that ITE programs typically rely on retired school administrators or teachers to serve as faculty advisors to teacher candidates while in the field. This limits an S-STEP approach to practicum from occurring since many of these part-time or nontenured/tenure-track course instructors do not participate in research activities. In addition this practice (hiring these course instructors) often prevents the cohesion and coherence needed within the ITE program. For example, in our own ITE program experiences, we have observed the model of teacher candidate supervision where there were not enough faculty-based program instructors either willing or available for field supervision, and external retired school administrators and teachers filled this necessary gap. Although attempts were made by the ITE program coordinators to share course and program philosophies and content with the hired university supervisors, year after year, we would hear some frustrations from our teacher candidates regarding the inconsistencies regarding the activities and the expectations from the field supervisors. While some supervisors would make concerted efforts to understand the underlying constructs that guided the ITE program course work, others did not, and in a few instances, the occasional rogue university supervisor would make demands on the teacher candidates that did not reflect the pedagogies, foci, and underlying vision of the ITE program. In such instances the university supervisors lacked clarity of the ITE program on-campus courses; however, ITE program instructors might also lack clarity regarding the practicum learning experiences.

Since the 2004 edition of this handbook on self-study, few studies within the S-STEP body of research focus on teacher educator learning within the practicum context (Thomas 2017a; Vanassche and Kelchertmans 2015). For various reasons as described in the previous section, the lack of support for preservice teacher education within the university may be one reason for the noticeable absence of tenured/tenure-track faculty in the practicum. In other instances, faculty roles and responsibilities within the university shift. For example, Bullock (2017) describes, “Although I once had considerable involvement in the practicum as a doctoral student with responsibilities for practicum supervision, each of my subsequent academic positions have found me further and further removed from the complexities of practicum supervision” (p. 181). As a result what could be strong contributions to the body of teacher education literature made by the self-study community are lacking.

A reduction of resources is another example of the lack of support for preservice teacher education, as seen in the targeted cuts affecting Ontario’s ITE programs. The majority of the authors in Initial Teacher Education in Ontario: The First Year of Four-Semester Teacher Education Programs (Petrarca and Kitchen 2017) stated that a key challenge in implementing the new Bachelor of Education program in Ontario, Canada, in 2015 was financial in nature. With reduced provincial funding and with student admissions, financial constraints often prevented release time for associate teachers to work with universities in order to foster collaborative partnerships. Associate teachers may have varying levels of commitment or experience in implementing their role, and the ITE program must provide supports in this case for university partners. Petrarca (2014) noted that this is not always an easy task. Although the literature has documented the benefits of providing informal and formal supports for associate teachers (Broad and Tessaro 2010; Beck and Kosnik 2000; Darling-Hammond 2006; Levine 2006), “a lack of resources, including time, finances, willingness, and human capacity often prevent pre-service teacher educators from providing these critical partners with support and opportunities to learn about the important associate teacher role (Beck and Kosnik 2000; Coulon 2000; Hastings and Squires 2002; Kahn 2001; Kent 2001; Ramanathan and Wilkins-Canter 1997; Veenman et al. 2001)” (Petrarca 2014, p. 2).

Pressure in a Climate of Criticism and Conflicting Demands

Implementing self-study within practicum is challenging in a climate of criticism and conflicting demands by government and the general public. In 2004, Beck et al. described the pressures teachers and schools face in general resulting in more of a technical-transmission approach to teaching and learning. To this day teachers and schools still face criticism since generally the public wants ways of teaching that are familiar to them. Although the government and public want problem-solving, critical thinking, and twenty-first century skills “taught” in schools, they still demand higher scores on standardized tests; these tests often reflect a technical-transmission approach to teaching. The multiple and oftentimes conflicting demands placed on classroom teachers create additional tensions within their own practice. Alice Pitt (2011) summarized such challenges for initial teacher programs and teacher candidates:

21st-century teaching means pressing even harder against the strong tides of tradition that painstakingly built the schools where our future teachers formed their own understanding of what school is like. The dilemma for pre-service programs is to prepare future teachers for schools as they currently exist while also enlarging their vision about what schools and public education might, should, or will become. (para. 2 & 3)

Thomas (2017b) found that classroom teachers are “already very busy and stressed” (p. 173) and ultimately “responsible for the pupils in the class and answerable to parents and the administration, so they get frustrated with student teachers who struggle” (p. 173). Ideally, we would want associate teachers to participate in S-STEP activities in the practicum; however, is it a realistic consideration given the busyness of classroom teachers?

We have identified some of the challenges to implementing a self-study approach to practicum and now revisit some conditions identified by Beck et al. (2004) to support an S-STEP approach to practicum.

What Is Necessary for Fostering a Self-Study Approach in the Practicum?

Beck et al. (2004) identified the importance of the following four conditions for a self-study approach within the practicum to occur: (1) practicum and campus program integration, (2) satisfactory practicum settings, (3) appropriate practicum activities, and (4) support for teacher candidates (Beck et al. 2004, p. 1266) which will be considered with conditions and examples from the S-STEP and non-S-STEP literature post-2004 that support our colleagues’ arguments.

Integration of the Campus Program and Practicum

Beck et al. (2004) recommended several approaches as potentially helpful in facilitating the integration of campus programs and practica. Such approaches included building strong school/university partnerships; assignments that connect course work and practicum; university instructors engaged within the practicum; a cohort and faculty team structure; having the practicum spread throughout the program; and an overarching philosophy of teaching and learning that underpins the program including the practicum. We believe that if several key conditions are in place, the other elements that facilitate the integration of the on-campus and practicum settings will follow. We specifically focus then on an overarching philosophy of teaching and learning, building partnerships, and having university instructors involved in the practicum.

Beck et al. (2004) suggested that ITE programs with an overarching philosophy of teaching and learning that serves as the foundation for ITE program activities could also contribute to enhance integration of the on-campus and practicum programs. Consistent with findings of exemplary ITE programs that have a strong vision of teaching and learning that grounds all aspects of their work (Darling-Hammond and Baratz-Snowden 2007), Petrarca and Kitchen (2017) note:

A vision, a description of how an organization envisions “its ideal future goal” (Kopaneva and Sias 2015, p. 359), plays a crucial role in guiding the actions of an organization towards its desired goal. Feiman-Nemser (2001) asserts that “a guiding vision of the kind of teacher the program is trying to prepare” (p. 1023) is the foundation for coherent ITE programs. According to Darling-Hammond (2006), in her study of exemplary ITE programs, a characteristic of effective ITE programs is a “clear vision of good teaching [that] permeates all course-work and clinical experience.” (Darling-Hammond 2006, p. 46) (p. 23)

Leslie et al. (2017) described their attempts at increasing coherence and integration between courses and practicum settings by cultivating a “cohesive vision of teaching across faculty, teacher candidates and associate teachers” (p. 100) via an associate teacher professional development project. The project enhanced relationships between the university and school partners and provided support and opportunities for associate teachers to reflect on their role in working with teacher candidates. One associate teacher from this projected commented:

When we take the time to step back and really think about what we’re doing and to offer some strategies and some tools and things like we’re doing in the workshops, I think it gives associates some time to really reflect on how they’re doing in their role. They wouldn’t be able to do that otherwise. Nobody has time to do that in their daily lives and jobs. I think it really attaches an importance to the role that it deserves and that would otherwise maybe go unnoticed. (p. 101)

An overarching vision that includes elements of self-study in teacher education such as those described by LaBoskey (2004) – improvement, reframing thinking, transformation, and collaborative interactions with colleagues to further knowledge and research – might promote an S-STEP mindset among teacher educators, teacher candidates, and school partners. The previous comment from the associate teacher demonstrates that by making a focused and concerted effort at fostering a cohesive vision throughout the ITE program including school partners, there exists greater potential for building strong school/university partnerships.

Building strong school/university partnerships is one foundational element that contributes to the development of other facets of integration of campus programs and practica, as suggested by Beck et al. (2004). In exemplary ITE programs, Darling-Hammond (2006) also found tight connections between courses and between course and practicum experiences, much like Beck et al. (2004) described as circumstances that would contribute to the integration of on-campus and practicum, thereby enhancing an S-STEP approach to the practicum. While there are several strategies for building strong school/university partnerships, we believe this condition hinges upon the active participation of university instructors in the practicum.

To build close collaborations between the university and school partners, it is necessary that university instructors [are] engaged within the practicum setting. In his examination and analysis of university-based ITE programs in the United States, Levine (2006) identified that within exemplary ITE programs, each established “a close connection between the teacher education program and the schools in which students teach, including ongoing collaboration between academic and clinical faculties” (p. 81) even though the “model” programs varied in structure, size, funding, and location. For the tight connections between courses and practicum experiences to flourish, we believe it is essential to have instructors who actually instruct the courses engage in the practicum experience to facilitate the partnership building, integration, and coherence.

Beck et al. (2004) further suggested that assignments connecting course work and practicum, having a cohort and faculty team structure, and having the practicum spread throughout the program could contribute to a more integrated ITE program in general. These activities are easier to achieve if university instructors are engaged with the practicum; these instructors can help teacher candidates make explicit connections to course work and also provide associate teachers with support and information regarding the on-campus component of the program. University instructors involved in practicum would provide more program coherence within ITE as compared to hiring retired school administrators, teachers, or graduate students who only supervise teacher candidates in the field.

The following realization by Thomas (2017b) regarding her previous assumptions about teacher candidate learning brings to light the challenges preventing a self-study approach from occurring in the practicum, as well as the need for more integrated partnerships and involvement by university faculty in the practicum:

My initial assumption was that students would be able to make links on their own between the theories that we teach in university classrooms and the real-life situations that they would find while on practicum. I assumed that it would be clear to them what they should do in order to facilitate learning and also what to do when things did not work out as expected, based on the information I provided in my classes. I also assumed that mentor teachers and supervisors understood what university-based teacher educators were attempting to explain to student teachers and that they would be able to magically make the links between the two realities. In laying bare these assumptions, I have come to realise that I have understood little about how student teachers actually learn to teach within our programs. I have discovered that much about what has been frustrating to me in the past, such as students claiming that university courses are irrelevant, that they do not learn anything useful when taking them, and that university professors are not connected to reality, can be explained by my lack of understanding about the way student teachers experienced the practicum. (p. 170-171)

One example of increasing supports for teacher candidates and enhancing communication with associate teachers is Brock University’s coupling of a foundational education course with the practicum:

Being able to refer to what [teacher candidates] had learned in the course aided faculty advisors in helping teacher candidates reflect on their challenges during the internship. This faculty advisor model, also employed in the elementary program, facilitates a trust and growth model of learning for teacher candidate. (Kitchen and Sharma 2017, p. 84)

Over several years of collecting case study data via his collaborative self-study, Bullock (2017) and his team posited that a difficult practicum is sometimes framed as something to survive rather than a situation that can be remedied; that teacher candidates prefer to have frequent, actionable feedback on lessons that they had a significant role in creating and enacting; and that candidates need to feel that their practicum experience has an appropriate amount of autonomy (p. 190). Based on the above hypotheses, Bullock (2017) suggests that the quality of teacher candidate learning within the practicum context is largely dependent on the quality of the relationship with the associate teacher. This stresses both the importance of the practicum setting and the activities that occur within the practicum experience. Bullock (2017) astutely notes, “Given the importance of the practicum for teacher candidates; I ignore – even tacitly – action-at-at-distance forces such as the relationship with cooperating teachers at my own peril” (p. 190).

In their meta-analysis of 2001 to 2013 literature related to teacher candidate supervision, Burns et al. (2016) identify a framework of tasks and practices for consideration when supervising teacher candidates to enhance their learning within the practicum. One of the five key tasks emerging through the meta-analysis focused on the need for “engaging in inquiry or self-study and innovation to enhance supervision” (p. 419). The authors’ analysis reveals that self-study (using various methods) within the practicum context supports the growth and learning of the university supervisor and thereby their students’ learning:

Within self-study, supervisors ask questions about practice, engage in reflective writing, audiotaping/videotaping and transcribing conferences with PSTs [Preservice Teachers], write cases, highlight tensions between espoused platform and platform in use, reflect on personal biography (i.e., past experiences, culture, etc.), identify patterns in supervisory beliefs and practices, and present self-study findings with other supervisors. Engaging in self-study can strengthen supervisory practices. Supervisors can grow in their ability to attend to ethical dilemmas related to their supervisory practice, coach PST reflectivity (Montecinos et al. 2002) and address issues of coherence. (Beck and Kosnik 2002) (Burns et al. 2016, p. 419)

The integration of the on-campus and practicum components of initial teacher education is complex and, we believe, the cornerstone to achieving an S-STEP approach to practicum. If, for example, the strategies discussed in this section were applied to the practicum, then the additional conditions such as satisfactory practicum settings, appropriate practicum activities, and support for teacher candidates (Beck et al. 2004) would more than likely emerge as a result of the tight coherence and integration between the on-campus program and the practicum settings. In order for this integration to occur, all teacher educators must commit the time and energy to the demands of the practicum and the connections with schools, to increase the likelihood of self-study to occur in this under-investigated area of research.

While these integrated components are needed to achieve S-STEP, they are not sufficient. In the next section, we identify additional conditions necessary for fostering a self-study approach in the practicum.

Satisfactory Practicum Settings

Dillon’s (2017) integrated practice-and-theory approach to teacher candidates’ learning processes, described in his self-study, placed his teacher candidates’ experiences at the “centre of the curriculum by focusing on their developing questions, challenges and issues through socio-constructivist discussions of their emerging practices” (p. 145). He concluded that associate teachers have much more influence over teacher candidate learning than his course. “I learned that the greatest influence on candidates’ development by far – and virtually the sole influence – is their mentor teacher. This influence is for better or for worse” (p. 158). Echoing this sentiment, Bullock (2017) admits: “It has taken me an embarrassingly long time to realize that, although I am no longer at the forefront of candidates’ practicum learning, the spectre of candidates’ relationships with their cooperating teachers looms large in my course” (p. 190). This response is not surprising since teacher candidates regard the practicum as the most important component of initial teacher education programs (e.g., Darling-Hammond and Baratz-Snowden 2007; Wideen and Holborn 1990; Wilen and Hawthorne 1975; Russell 2017; Martin 2017). Kitchen and Petrarca (2016) suggest:

This is a testament to “the apprenticeship of observation” (Lortie 1975), the notion that individuals enter teaching after thousands of hours as students observing teachers. At the same time, as Lortie (1975) also noted, practice without propositional knowledge and deep understanding also leads to misconceptions, most notably of teachers as performers and experts. From this narrow “observational and non-analytical perspective view of practice” teaching falsely “appears to be simple action, guided either by custom (this is the way teaching is done) or by nature (this is the kind of person I am).” (Labaree 2000, p. 232) (p. 144)

Given the overwhelming influence the associate teacher has over the teacher candidate, it is imperative to provide satisfactory practicum settings for teacher candidates. Beck et al. (2004) suggest that satisfactory practicum settings are also a condition that would enhance an S-STEP approach to practicum. Satisfactory practicum settings involve the careful selection and professional development of partnered schools and associate teachers to optimize the learning environment for all involved in the practicum. Again, on the surface, this may seem simple enough, however, developing these settings can be extremely challenging, as described by Darling-Hammond (2006) in her examination of exemplary ITE programs:

Developing sites where state-of-the-art practice is the norm is a critical element of strong teacher education, and it has been one of most difficult. Quite often, if novices are to see and emulate high-quality practice, especially in schools serving the neediest students, it is necessary not only to seek out individual cooperating teachers but also to develop the quality of the schools so that prospective teachers can learn productively. Such school development is also needed to create settings where advances in knowledge and practice can occur. (p. 309)

Seeking out preferred and suitable associate teachers and schools can be demanding for several reasons. Depending on the school boards, various processes are in place that sometimes prevent ITE programs from reaching out directly to potential schools and associate teachers. In some instances, the selection process is centralized, whereby rather than requesting individual schools for associate teachers and partnerships, the sometimes competing ITE programs must make such requests through the local district school board. This process certainly makes developing and sustaining strong partnerships between ITE programs and local schools time-consuming and taxing.

In their report for the National Academy of Education, Darling-Hammond and Baratz-Snowden (2007) captured the disparities regarding the role of the associate teacher within practicum settings:

But the student-teaching or internship experience varies dramatically both within and across programs, depending on how cooperating teachers are recruited and what the expectations are for both the novice and cooperating teacher. The length varies from less than eight weeks to more than thirty weeks, the extent and quality of modeling and guidance from minimal to extensive, and the clarity regarding practices desired from obscure to well defined. (p.123)

In her self-study, Thomas (2017b) confronted her assumptions about what her teacher candidates learned during practicum and discovered that, according to her students, “not all mentor teachers are positive and encouraging” (p.173). The university-based supervisors she interviewed had visited many schools and had seen many practices; they agreed that some practicum settings did not necessarily reflect an environment conducive to teacher candidate learning. Thomas (2017b) summarized the university-based supervisors’ comments on settings that were “not necessarily professional. The learning that takes place on practicum is very dependent on the context, and there are many different contexts, some of which are not conducive to learning to be a professional” (p.173).

While these environments are not always conducive to a positive growth in teacher candidates, they are valuable to these future teachers in demonstrating what behaviors and attitudes are not desirable in teachers. A self-study approach to practicum with this experience of teacher candidates, while difficult for teacher educators, would be possible and especially warranted. Examining one’s response to the discussion that occurs with the topic of “learning to be a professional” can be telling. If anything, what Thomas’s experiences demonstrate is the need for this practice and the need for research on practice.

Appropriate Practicum Activities

Closely related to having satisfactory practicum settings in which an S-STEP approach can occur is what actually happens during the practicum itself. As noted above, teacher candidates need to be exposed to exemplary practice by teachers who can articulate their practice in their classrooms and schools and successfully help the neediest students (Darling-Hammond 2006). As suggested in the previous section, the practicum is largely under the associate teacher’s control. Although associate teachers are typically provided with guidelines and suggestions for implementing their role, they may or may not adhere to the suggestions, underscoring the importance of the school/associate teacher selection process discussed. The role of the associate teacher is multifaceted, however, as described by the types of activities that ideally occur within a practicum setting:

Typically, the ideal has been a placement in which student teachers are supported by purposeful coaching from an expert cooperating teacher in the same teaching field who offers modeling, co-planning, frequent feedback, repeated opportunities to practice, and reflection upon practice while the student teacher gradually takes on more responsibility. (Darling-Hammond et al. 2005, p. 409)

This type of placement reflects the “extensive and intensely supervised clinical work” (Darling-Hammond 2006, p. 300) found in exemplary ITE programs, which also included “tight coherence and integration among courses and between course work and clinical work in schools” (p. 300).

Dillon (2017) observed that university supervisors had little influence on teacher candidates’ teaching development as noted in this passage:

In addition, candidates report that university supervisors do not influence the development of their practice (too few visits, too narrow a focus when visiting). However, candidates want to impress the supervisors – who submit final grades for practicum – in order to get a good evaluation. So they work hard to develop special lessons for the occasional supervisor visits, lessons that are far from their typical teaching. When I did my unofficial observation visits with research participants, i.e. with no official evaluation report, I often saw very ordinary and uninspiring lessons for which candidates usually apologized by saying that that was how much teaching had to be. (p. 158)

Dillon’s observation demonstrates the need for helping teacher candidates in reframing their learning and teaching approaches and reinforces the need for careful selection and development of associate teachers and partnered schools so that all parties involved in the practicum experiences can facilitate such framing and reframing discussions – clearly an important practicum activity that is often absent from practicum experiences.

Dillon (2017) also found that in order for teacher candidates to reframe their teaching, they required explicit assistance to make connections between course topics/discussions and their practice. This occurred as a result of the debriefing process after observing teacher candidates teach lessons during practicum, they tended to experience difficulty in analyzing the rationale for successful implementation of a lesson. Dillon (2017) found that at times, there was little carry-over from previous course work or class discussions.

We emphasize again the integration of the practicum, and on-campus program serves as the cornerstone for strengthening an S-STEP approach to practicum. For example, if an integrated approach existed, the enormous value teacher candidates place on the practicum (over course work) (Dillon 2017; Russell 2017) might shift to a more holistic appreciation of the learning-to-teach process. Rather than seeing the tacit (or not so tacit) divide of the perceived theory-on-campus-and-practice-in-practicum ideas, approach, and conceptions, perhaps a more fluid interplay of practice and theory could develop, potentially fostering a newfound appreciation for both.

Teacher Candidate Support

Beck et al. (2004) stressed the importance of teacher candidate support within the practicum especially within an S-STEP approach. They suggested multiple forms coming from fellow students, associate teachers, university staff, and formative assessments. “Support of student teachers in the practicum and their growth as reflective practitioners are best served by an approach to student teacher evaluation that involves collaboration between university faculty and mentor teachers” (p. 1286).

In his informal and formal experiences working with and observing teacher candidates as a practicum supervisor, Russell (2017) provides personal insights specific to supporting teacher candidates, including the importance of developing individual relationships with his teacher candidates prior to the actual practicum experience:

Having increased my attention to developing one-on-one relationships before the practicum begins, I was struck by the powerful payoff in terms of candidates’ seeing value in my supervisory visits and in the trust they show in their messages to me about their practicum experiences. Insights gained during practicum supervision have been extended by invitations in the following year to observe students informally in local practicum placements. Focusing on improving the quality of professional learning in the practicum and on the possibilities of developing an epistemology of practice has the potential to generate a new set of goals for both formal and informal practicum supervision. (p. 207)

Later he questions a faculty supervisor’s major challenges: “Can the teacher candidate who is just beginning to acquire firsthand experiences of teaching be supported in learning to identify, evaluate and ultimately trust what is being learned from experience?” (p. 295). The answer may lie in the support that teacher candidates receive from one another. After encouraging his supervisees to observe one another teach lessons for the purpose of follow-up discussion, Russell (2017) noted that peers provided one another with “a different type of feedback at the right level” (p. 196). By observing one another, teacher candidates also reviewed their own practices, stressing the benefits of support from fellow students as suggested by Beck et al. (2004).

Similarly, in her exploration of how incorporating a listening perspective might improve practicum learning, Martin (2017) highlighted the importance of relationship building with teacher candidates as seen in the following excerpt:

As I worked through the “take-aways” after reexamining my journal entries and other data sources, I began to see where I could actively construct spaces and push harder at ensuring that candidates’ voices were authorized, that their pedagogical voice was heard, and that caring and trusting relationships received the attention they merited and were allowed to flourish. I have also recognized the importance of explicitly modeling relationship-building and explicitly deconstructing what it entails, not taking for granted that candidates will “see it and get it.” (p. 140)

This addresses two pieces – the explicitness needed to help teacher candidates make connections and the need for that type of listening to happen in the practicum either by university supervisors, university members who engage in practicum, or associate teachers. Dillon (2017) also discovered in his self-study that teacher candidates required help connecting the dots.

Thomas (2017b) not only learned more about how teacher candidates learn within the practicum experience but also realized the complexities, limitations, and opportunities embedded within the practicum, which ultimately helped her reframe her instructional role in helping her students “examine and interpret their practicum as a learning experience” (p. 165). By engaging in the practicum via a self-study approach, Thomas (2017b) discovered a greater appreciation of the practicum from a whole program perspective and examined her own relationship with the practicum to best help her students learn from their experiences. She further discovered that teacher candidates required additional time and explicit support to analyze and fully understand their learning.

Conclusion and Next Steps

At the beginning of this chapter, we wondered:

  1. 1.

    Given the potential of self-study to enhance teacher education, why is the practicum still a less explored area in the S-STEP community?

  2. 2.

    How can we, as teacher educators/researchers, facilitate an S-STEP approach to practicum?

Although we are still pondering these questions, we have also gained some insights and additional questions regarding our wonderings. We now summarize our conclusions, ruminations, and queries.

Why Is the Practicum Still a less Explored Area in the S-STEP Community?

Using Beck et al.’s (2004) practicum-focused chapter from the first volume of this international handbook as a guide, we explored our guiding questions by (1) examining the challenges of using S-STEP; (2) reviewing the conditions necessary to facilitate S-STEP in practicum settings; and (3) providing arguments that these conditions are difficult to achieve by ITE programs in general. The traditional nature of practicum and university settings, the general lack of support for initial teacher education programs within universities, the absence of the university instructor, and the pressure of a climate of criticism and conflicting demands that schools face all contribute to the challenges related to conducting S-STEP in a practicum setting. From a conceptual position, Pinnegar (2017) identified the theory/practice divide as the fundamental conundrum to an S-STEP approach to practicum; however, she acknowledged the related challenges such as “structure, the press of experience, the knowledge dilemma, and the complexities of relationship” (p.215) that add to the complexity of the broader problem.

We wonder, however, if the theory/practice conundrum reflects a “chicken and egg” scenario where the “divide” is really the result of the most prominent issue to the scarcity of self-study within the practicum – the lack of teacher educators working in practicum settings. Is it the theory/practice divide that contributes to the lack of teacher educators working with teacher candidates in the practicum, or does the lack of teacher educator presence contribute to the theory/practice divide? Could the other identified necessary elements such as appropriate practicum activities, teacher candidate supports, and even satisfactory practicum settings flourish by increasing the presence of the university instructors within the practicum and by conducting self-studies in the practicum settings?

Earlier we suggested that the integration of the campus and practicum programs served as the cornerstone to achieving an S-STEP approach to practicum and that if such integration existed, the other necessary conditions for an S-STEP approach might have a greater opportunity to develop. We realize now that any attempt at successful integration truly hinges on the university instructors taking an active role in practicum. By taking an active role in practicum, there exists a greater likelihood of establishing the cohesion and coherence among courses and practicum – a common component shared among exemplary teacher education programs (Beck et al. 2004; Darling-Hammond 2006; Levine 2006). Cohesion and coherence are also paramount for approaching a practicum via a self-study approach. Relationship building between universities and school partners is critical as is cultivating a relationship between university supervisors and teacher candidates (Dillon 2017; Russell 2017). This, however, requires a commitment on the part of teacher educators to undertake a role to foster such relationships. By not being a part of practicum, are teacher educators reinforcing the notion of a theory/practice divide? What is holding teacher educators back from exploring a hotbed for integrated learning opportunities?

Self-study opportunities within practicum exist; however, many tenure-track and tenured faculty members devote the weeks when teacher candidates are off campus and in practicum to work on other research projects. Do these faculty members choose not to work with teacher candidates in the field because of the organizational constraints described earlier? Do these faculty members see their research and instruction as isolated events from the practicum experience? Dillon (2017) suggests “Indeed, it would be rare to find a teacher education instructor who has any awareness of what candidates actually do with the content of his or her course during practicum” (p.161). Alternatively, perhaps university instructors see the practicum as a never-ending complex phenomenon where they exert little influence. Given the incredible importance and value teacher candidates ascribe to practicum, it does not benefit teacher candidate learning for teacher educators to overlook its existence. As Bullock (2017) astutely notes, “Given the importance of the practicum for teacher candidates; I ignore – even tacitly – action-at-a-distance forces such as the relationship with cooperating teachers at my own peril” (p. 190). Investigating potential self-study opportunities within practicum may be an interesting research problem to consider for S-STEP researchers.

Another interesting and potential S-STEP research question related to practicum is the theory/practice conundrum: do initial teacher education programs by virtue of their structure and organization foster and promote the theory/practice divide? In their literature review of 113 empirical studies focused on practicum within initial teacher education programs, Cohen et al. (2013) grouped various functions of practicum into 4 broad rationales for practicum. The authors identified the largest grouping of practicum rationales as reflecting a “professional training ground” (Cohen et al. 2013, p. 354), where the practicum served as “a reasonable proxy of future workplaces for preservice teachers” (p. 354) and an extension of ITE programs but within the field where prospective teachers would eventually enter. The practicum provides opportunities for teacher candidates to apply research and theory to practice (Cohen et al. 2013) perhaps reinforcing implicit beliefs about the theory/practice divide underlying initial teacher education programs.

We hope this chapter demonstrates that practicum is not a simple construct. Knowledge building is also complex (Jonassen et al. 2000); and coupled, meaning making within the practicum is multifarious; however, self-study helps teacher educators navigate their learning so that in turn, they are better equipped to help their students navigate their own learning. We now consider how teacher educators/researchers might facilitate an S-STEP approach to practicum.

Where Do we Go from Here?

If the fundamental purpose of S-STEP is for “individuals to study and better understand their practice” (Loughran 2004, p. 9), then it seems logical that the practicum would serve as an excellent environment for all individuals involved in the experience. Nevertheless, as seen in this chapter, the conditions that would enhance such an approach can be challenging to achieve. A key player in fostering an S-STEP approach to practicum is the university instructor. How might the S-STEP community further expand its breadth and depth within a practicum context? As seen by our colleagues in this chapter, there exist many opportunities for greater understanding of how we might help our students navigate their learning while in our programs. Our suggested next steps include additional queries that teacher educators engaging in S-STEP (or not) might consider for future research.

So why is there still a gap in S-STEP literature specific to practicum? By not focusing or even possibly considering the practicum as a space for S-STEP, do some teacher educators/researchers tacitly (or not so tacitly) subscribe to the theory/practice divide? Do the topics that teacher educators research lend themselves to the practicum experience? Given the tremendous value teacher candidates place on the practicum (often over the course work), we wonder why we would not consider the space where our students extend their learning with their associate teachers. How might teacher educators begin to integrate their specific areas of research within the practicum context? How might the topics identified as the key areas of exploration within S-STEP literature as identified by Vanassche and Kletchtermans (2015) extend into the practicum for additional exploration?

For example, how might a teacher educator exploring a pedagogical intervention via S-STEP expand the intervention into the practicum experience? How might teacher educators studying mathematics instructional practice via self-study enhance their learning and their students’ learning by inching into the practicum context? How might instructional practices related to social justice trickle into the practicum context? We intentionally used words such as “inch” and “trickle” to denote the small steps that can be taken to situate S-STEP within the practicum – a context teacher candidates value tremendously and at times at odds with what we do on campus. Even if we are unable to enter the practicum space directly, perhaps we might explore like Bullock (2017) the “the presence of unseen cooperating teachers” (p.181) in our courses.

Darling-Hammond and Baratz-Snowden (2007) suggested elements of successful practica identified in exemplary ITE programs include clear goals and standards that guide teacher candidate practice; repeated opportunities for teacher candidates to practice and make connections between course work and practicum experiences; ongoing formative feedback; modeling of sound practice where expert “teachers make their thinking visible” (p. 124); ongoing coaching; a gradual increase in responsibility for classroom life; and “structured opportunities to reflect on practice with an eye toward improving it” (p. 124). This is certainly a tall order for classroom teachers who host teacher candidates in their classrooms and who are already extremely busy individuals with increasing responsibilities and pressures from governing bodies, their administration, their parents, their students, and the public. Nonetheless, the associate teacher holds a tremendous power in the associate teacher/teacher candidate relationship, and as such, we need to consider ways to capitalize on the classroom teacher’s influence, by perhaps reframing their roles as teacher educators in the field or as Forgasz (2017) suggests school-based teacher educators. Clift (2017) also strongly advocates for our field-based colleagues – our associate teachers – to be part of the S-STEP process, as their voices are “noticeably absent” (p. 225) in the limited number of studies that focus on practicum. An integrated approach where university-based and school-based teacher educators (Forgasz 2017) work alongside teacher candidates might facilitate the development of practicum settings that optimize teacher candidate learning. By participating in practicum activities, faculty members not only work with teacher candidates but they work also with classroom teachers who host their students. This creates a space for discussion, learning, and sharing among the triad. In order for this to occur, however, we must consider the organizational constraints preventing teacher educators from working with the practicum.

To establish, grow, and maintain partnerships between practicum and university settings, we require supports from the university. It is easy to attribute the traditional nature of university settings and the lack of support for preservice teacher education programs within the university as reasons for not participating in S-STEP research in practicum. It is much more challenging and exhausting to engage in workload negotiations with administrators or defend the categories (i.e., service, teaching, research, or all of the above) within which working in a practicum setting with associate teachers and teacher candidates sits. In our busy lives as academics, it is certainly easy to toss our hands up in the air and continue to not explore S-STEP within the practicum. How might we resist complacency with the status quo? Depending on the level of faculty member’s experience and rank, resisting and taking on the organizational constraints preventing access to practicum may not always be possible. Small and persistent attempts to explore approaches to work around the limiting factors specific to our higher education institutions might eventually result in changes in how we “do” teacher education. How do we explore approaches to navigate the omnipresent systems preventing easier access to practicum?

By engaging in self-study, teacher educators are able to focus on both their teaching practice and teacher candidate learning (Loughran 2004). By engaging in self-study in the practicum, as seen in examples throughout this chapter, teacher educators gain a deeper understanding of the complexities teacher candidates face within a practicum setting. By gaining a deeper understanding of the complexities teacher candidates face within a practicum setting, teacher educators engage in willful and intentional meaning making (Jonassen et al.’s 2000) via what Kitchen and Russell (2012) described as the essence of S-STEP – analysis of self and personal practice. Outcomes of such analyses of self and personal practice yield contributions not only to the teacher educator researcher’s practice but also to the S-STEP community and to the broader teacher education research. We conclude by once again reframing our initial question regarding the noticeable absence of S-STEP research within the practicum context: why would we not take a self-study approach to practicum?