I. Introduction

The disconnect between theory and practice pervades the literature on pre-service teacher education. No place is this more evident than in discussions of the practicum and the articulation of that practicum in the curriculum of pre-service teacher education. This disconnect is widened by the disparity between student perceptions of the practicum and researcher critiques of the same. Although teacher education students consistently describe the practicum as the most valuable element of their teacher preparation, questions concerning the value of the learning from these experiences have been raised (Feiman-Nemser & Buchmann, 1987) with specific attacks focusing on the practicum’s lack of theory and structure and its over dependence on "an outmoded apprenticeship model" (Cooper, 1995, p. 593).

Dove believes that "[t]eaching practice, properly carried out, should provide the context for trainee teachers to begin to integrate theory and practice" (Dove, 1986, p. 252). However, embedded within her language are three problematic, practicum-related issues which I shall begin to address in this paper. The first, perceived from the words, ". . . properly carried out . . ." suggests that, as currently constructed, teaching practice is not properly carried out. The second, stemming from the word, ". . . should . . . " suggests that the integration of theory and practice is a goal that is yet to be achieved. The third, coming out of the words, ". . . to begin to . . ." suggests that the practicum can be a starting point for the integration of theory and practice, but may be only that.

Sections II, III, IV and V of this paper touch on these and other, more specific issues. For purposes of this assignment, I will confine my discussion to four inter-related issues, each considered through the lens of integration: the location of the practicum; the timing of the practicum; the conceptualization of the practicum; and the supervision of practicum participants. In this discussion, I draw from several different contexts to illustrate the problems and to consider specific suggestions for "better practice." Section VI presents an overview of the school-based studies component of Namibia’s BETD program – an option that addresses many of these issues and one that holds great promise for attaining the goal of better integrating theory and practice.

II. The Location of the Practicum

For many student teachers the practicum takes place in a school that is located within the catchment area of the teacher training college or university, regardless of the appropriateness of that setting for the individual student teacher. Since many training institutions are located in relatively urban areas, it is rare for trainees to get the opportunity to practice their teaching skills in locations similar to those in which they may eventually teach (Dove, 1986, p. 247). This is particularly true in countries with predominantly rural populations, such as Malawi. Furthermore, because these schools are often "model" or "demonstration" schools, they may be better resourced than those to which the new teacher will ultimately be assigned, creating unrealistic expectations and providing limited opportunity for easy transfer of skills.

Ghani reports a trend of locating the practicum in schools that have close ties to the teacher training institutions, so that "the practice sessions can be more easily related to the total teacher education experience" (1990, p. 47-8). While this argument may have merit in the best case scenario, in practice, geographic proximity cannot, in and of itself, guarantee the integration of the practicum in any meaningful way. Moreover, the related practicum challenges of timing, conceptualization and supervision combine to exacerbate the problem.

III. The Timing of the Practicum

Some of the tensions related to practicum location can also be detected in practicum timing. Traditionally teaching practice has taken place at the end of pre-service teacher education. Prior to the reforms in Namibia, for example, the two-week practicum occurred at the end of pre-service. In many ways, this positioning of the practicum holds it up as "the jewel in the crown," the capstone of the pre-service teacher preparation. This positioning also implies, albeit inadvertently, that teaching experience is a culminating rather than a starting point of the neophyte teacher’s learning process.

In his review of pre-service teacher education in developing countries, Ghani sets forth some of the arguments for and against positioning the practicum at the end of pre-service teacher education. The proponents of this approach argue that by the end of the pre-service teacher education program, the student will be sufficiently well-versed in educational theory and be sufficiently mature to apply his/her learning effectively (Ghani, 1990, p. 46). However, this view ignores the fact that without a practical or applied setting in which to critically consider the theory on an ongoing basis, students may not incorporate their theoretical learning into their practice teaching. This view also underplays the complex nature of the knowledge learned and the difficulty in applying this knowledge to different teaching settings (Tom, 1997, p. 140). Moreover, in programs of longer duration, the reality is also that students may have forgotten the stockpiled theory by the time they arrive at the practicum! In my opinion, this approach to positioning the practicum only serves to widen the theory/practice disconnect. It is also dependent on a virtually uniform, and by now, outdated understanding of the practicum as little more than an apprenticeship, subtly undermining more recent attempts to reconceptualize the practicum as something much more meaningful.

Ghani’s review also refers to a small number of programs that offer a continuous program of teaching practice and synthesizes the rationale for such an approach as follows: "If teaching practice occurs at the same time that theory is being learned, its relevance may more easily be seen, learned and applied" (1990, p. 46). This approach harmonizes with the notion of holistic learning and offers myriad opportunities for enhancing student teacher learning. Frequently student teachers have little opportunity to make the connections between their practice teaching and their classroom learning or coursework, that is, to increase the relevance of the practice teaching. From a "learning" point of view, this deficit has serious implications. Recent neurological research has demonstrated 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, p. 92).

For these and other reasons, many teacher educator/researchers have argued in favor of a continuous program of teaching practice as a way to more effectively integrate professional knowledge and teaching practice. Tom proposes making [practice] teaching part of the introduction to the professional curriculum (1997, pp. 143-4). This would reposition it in a more integrated way in and throughout pre-service teacher education. Tom’s research also indicates that this repositioning cannot occur in a vacuum. In other words, along with the relocation, there is a need for a broader conceptualization of "practice teaching" and for a more effective system of support and supervision.

IV. The Conceptualization of the Practicum

Closely related to the timing of the practicum is its conceptualization in the curriculum of pre-service teacher education – what is it; what can it be; how can it best be supported? For just as isolating the practicum in terms of timing may have a detrimental and dislocating effect, so too can isolating the practicum in terms of its conceptualization.

In its oldest, most traditional conceptualization, teaching practice is a form of apprenticeship. To continue to view the practicum in such a one-dimension manner ignores the deep-seated problematics of this construction. Insofar as student teachers imitate rather than question the practices of their cooperating teacher the result is, at best, a limited range of teaching strategies and, at worst, an unreconstructed set of bad habits and worst practices (Joyce, 1988). What this model lacks is the development of student teachers’ ability to critically analyze the teaching practices they observe and experience, critically reflect on their practical experience or mindfully connect those experiences with the theories they have learned. Stones confirms this by noting that "many of the problems of practice teaching . . . spring from a lack of a systematic attempt to teach pedagogy that could unite theoretical studies and practical teaching" (1987, p. 684). However, several recent developments, taken together, may make more possible the realization of such a pedagogy.

In synthesizing a significant body of recent research on the curriculum of teacher education programs, Ben-Peretz notes that many educators have been developing curricular approaches that emphasize "the construction of a dialectical relationship between theory and practice, placing theory in its concrete, real-life context" (1995, p. 544). Such curricular approaches find support in Tom’s focus on practice-based studies, and in his quest to replace pedagogical knowledge with pedagogical questions, in effect problematizing teaching and learning by using the realities of the teaching as a starting point for learning. In turn, Putnam and Borko’s work on the implications of new views of cognition on teacher learning lend support to Tom’s proposal, particular with respect to their reconceptualization of the student teaching experience as a "site for learning" (1997, p. 1267). Putnam and Borko also propose several ways to cultivate this reconceptualization. One suggestion is to create more conducive learning environments for teacher education coursework where student teachers would have more authentic opportunities to grapple with substantive problems of teaching and learning. Specifically, they advocate extensive use of simulated field experiences, such as videotaped case studies, through which students can explore problems of pedagogical practice. Another suggestion is to work with educators (cooperating teachers) who will allow student teachers to experiment with their newly learned ideas about teaching and learning. Yet another suggestion is to offer, concurrently with the practicum, seminars designed to help student teachers critically analyze their learning-to-teach experiences (Borko and Putnam, 1997, pp. 1262-1268).

Efforts such as these lend themselves to integration on many different levels. They treat student teachers as agents and as holistic learners. They build relationships between people and between institutions. They consider teaching and learning as a not-unproblematic whole. They consider the school as part of the also-not-unproblematic "system" and they relate subject matter studies to pedagogy. Most importantly, they represent "a systematic attempt to teach pedagogy that could unite theoretical studies and practical teaching" (Stones, 1987, p. 684).

 

V. The Supervision of Practicum Participants

The challenge of reconceptualizing the practicum goes hand in hand with the challenge of reconceptualizing the supervision of student teachers. Dove has stated that ideally the practicum should be an opportunity for teacher educators and experienced school teachers to partner with each other in supporting and supervising student teachers (Dove, 1986, p. 252). In reality, this is seldom the case.

In the 1982 evaluation of Zimbabwe’s Integrated National Teachers Education Course (ZINTEC), most of the student teachers taking part believed that inadequate field supervision was "the most crucial problem" (Chivore, 1992, p. 110). In a follow-up evaluation performed in 1986, field supervision remained a problem. This evaluation also noted that the supervision which did exist seldom involved supervisors helping students make connections between theory and practice.

The situation is even worse in Malawi. Because Malawi’s Integrated In-Service Teacher Education Program (MIITEP) requires a 21-month period of practice teaching, supervision is critical. However, a recent report indicates that supervision is "substandard, if indeed, it takes place at all" (MOESC, 2000, p. 4). Attempts are being made to ameliorate supervision under one of the proposed revisions to MIITEP, the 1+1 program, where, during the first, college-based year, student teachers will have five months of practice teaching. Whereas the existing MIITEP program utilizes only head teachers for supervision, the 1+1 program would utilize headteachers and mentors under the supervision of the teaching training college tutors.

In addition to discussing the level of supervision, Cooper (1995) elaborates on some other problems related to supervision. Consistent with the overarching theme of this paper, he notes that supervision of student teachers often lacks "congruence with the rest of the teacher education program" (Cooper, 1995, p. 593). Just as the geographic proximity of the school cannot provide automatic integration of theory and practice, nor can the co-optive utilization of already overworked teachers provide the recipe for supervisory success. Often the cooperating teacher receives little if any training, and can be resentful toward the student teacher. Tensions also exist between the roles of the cooperating teacher/supervisor and the "faculty" supervisor.

The problems of supervision are compounded by the lack of an effective working partnership between training institutions and schools. This, in turn, may widen the gap between theoretical studies and practical teaching experience (Dove, 1986, p. 246). In considering some alternatives approaches to supervision, Cooper addresses this and other issues. He suggests forging closer linkages between the teacher training institutions and the schools, providing cooperating teachers with additional training and making cooperating teachers "clinical instructors" who participate in student seminars. He also argues in favor of reconceptualizing the roles of the faculty supervisor (who may only observe the student teacher once) and the cooperating teacher. This reconceptualization, first proposed by Emans (1983) would cede to the cooperating teacher, after training, more responsibility for the training of the student teacher. The cooperating teacher in turn would be supported by the faculty supervisor whose role would be focused on providing liaison teacher education between the teacher training institutions and the schools.

 

VI. Recent Trend Toward School-Based Teacher Preparation

The recent trend toward school-based teacher preparation, in Britain, Australia and Namibia offers new opportunities to integrate theory and practice more effectively (Grenfell, 1994) and to address some of the practicum-related issues outlined above. Moreover, by its very nature, school-based teacher preparation underscores the importance of relationships, not only relationships between student teachers, cooperating teachers and faculty supervisors, but also relationships between the training institutions, the schools, and the communities in which they are located. This integrated approach to pre-service teacher education can contribute significantly to the whole learning experience of the student teacher.

A brief description of Namibia’s school-based studies may serve to illustrate the potential of school-based studies. A few years after independence, Namibia introduced the Basic Education Teacher Diploma (BETD) -- radically altering teacher preparation in general and teaching practice in particular (Craig, 1998). The BETD emphasizes the professional aspects of teacher education: it offers Education Theory and Practice as an integrated course of study; it incorporates critical practitioner inquiry as a central program component; and it places at the heart of the three-year course a meaningful program of school-based studies (SBS) that can transform practice teaching.

SBS includes 21 weeks of student-teacher study in schools and communities – three weeks in year one, six weeks in year two, and the entire second term (13 weeks) in the third year of the three year program (Craig, 1998, p. 42). During school-based studies students learn how to plan and implement a research project, critically reflect on and analyze their own teaching and learning, and create an action plan to improve teaching and learning (Mayumbelo & Nyambe, 1999, pp. 67-8). Over the three years, students are exposed to a variety of classroom experiences so that "theory and practice can be more meaningfully integrated for the benefit of the student teacher" (Swarts, 1999, p. 39). These experiences include observations and classroom teaching but also extend to materials development, child study, school administrative assistance, community and school-based project work, remedial teaching and community interaction (Kandjulu, 1997, as cited by Kraft, p. 42).

In terms of supervision and relationships, the situation has also changed radically. At the institutional level, Educational Development Units (advice and support centers for teacher educators and students alike) were established at the teacher training colleges and a network of support schools were developed throughout the country (Dahlstrom, 1999, pp. 58-9). At the individual level, Craig notes (albeit somewhat over-confidently) that "whole schools act as supports for BETD student teachers, with principals and teachers getting very involved in the process" (Craig, 1998, p. 42). What can be said is that more people are working together more often and receiving greater support from the teacher training colleges and the Ministry. Also at the individual level, the role of the teacher trainer/educator has been reconceptualized and greatly expanded. In its post-independence reincarnation, this role includes facilitation, mentoring, tutoring and counseling, in addition to teaching and instructing (Swarts, 1999, p. 40). In addition, students work in school-based studies teams, receiving and providing additional support through peer mentoring. This holistic approach to supervision, with its emphasis on relationships and support has contributed significantly to the initial success of the BETD’s school-based studies program.

VII. Conclusion

"Teaching practice, properly carried out, should provide the context for trainee teachers to begin to integrate theory and practice" (Dove, 1986, p. 252). While by no means a panacea, school-based teacher preparation and programs of school-based studies, such as the BETD in Namibia, do hold great promise – promise for more meaningfully reconceptualizing teaching practice so that it is "properly carried out;" and promise for providing the context within which student teachers can begin to integrate theory and practice. More specifically, school-based studies can, when carefully planned, implemented and supported by all stakeholders, mitigate against many of the problems related to the often-marginalized and much-troubled practicum.

Anderson, L.W. (1997). Teacher preparation for post-modern schools: The necessary integration of training and education. In W.K. Cummings & N.F. McGinn (Eds.), International handbook of education and development: Preparing schools, students and nations for the 21^st century. Oxford: Pergamon.

Ben-Peretz, M. (1995). Curriculum of teacher education programs. In L.W. Anderson (Ed.), International encyclopedia of teaching and teacher education (3^rd ed.). London: Pergamon.

Chivore, B.R.S. (1992). Pre-service education at a distance: The case of Zimbabwe. In P. Murphy and A. Zhiri (Eds.), Distance education in Anglophone Africa: Experience with secondary education and teacher training. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

Cooper, J.M. (1995). Supervision in teacher education. In L.W. Anderson (Ed.), International encyclopedia of teaching and teacher education (2^nd ed.). London: Pergamon.

Craig, H., Kraft, R. & du Plessis, J. (1998). Teacher development: Making an impact. Washinton, D.C.: Academy for Educational Development & The World Bank.

Dahlstrom, L. (1999). Toward learner-centered and democratic teacher education. In K. Zeichner & L. Dahlstrom, Democratic teacher education reform in Africa: The case of Namibia. Boulder: Westview Press.

Dove, L.A. (1986). Teacher and teacher education in developing countries. London: Croom Helm.

Egbert, R. (1985). The practice of preservice teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 36, 16-22.

Feiman-Nemser, S. & Buchmann, M. (1987). When is student teaching teacher education? Teaching and Teacher Education, 3(4): 255-73.

Ghani, Z. (1990). Pre-service teacher education in developing countries. In V. Rust & P. Dalin (Eds.), Teachers and teaching in the developing world. New York: Garland Publishing.

Grenfell, M. (1994). Alternatives to the traditional practicum: The advent of school-based teacher preparation. In B. Driscoll & W. Holloway (Eds.), Building bridges in teacher education. Armidale: University of New England Printery.

Jensen, E. (1998). Teaching with the brain in mind. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Joyce, B.R. (1988). Training research and preservice teacher education: A reconsideration. Journal of Teacher Education, 39(5): 32-36.

Kraft, R. (2000). Primary Teacher Development in Malawi (Draft). Lilongwe: Author.

Ministry of Education, Sports and Culture, Teacher Development Unit (2000). Teacher Education and Development Review (Draft). Lilongwe: GOM.

Morine-Dershimer, G. & Leighfield (1995). Student teaching and field experiences. In L.W. Anderson (Ed.), International encyclopedia of teaching and teacher education (2^nd ed.). London: Pergamon.

Mayumbelo, C. & Nyambe, J. (1999). Critical inquiry into preservice teacher education. In K. Zeichner & L. Dahlstrom, Democratic teacher education reform in Africa: The case of Namibia. Boulder: Westview Press.

Putnam, R.T. & Borko, H. (1997). Teacher learning: Implications of new views of cognition. In B.J. Biddle, T.L. Good & I.F. Goodson (Eds.), International handbook of teachers and teaching. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Stones, E. (1987). Preservice: Student (practice) teaching. In M.J. Dunkin (Ed.), International encyclopedia of teaching and teacher education. Oxford: Pergamon.

Stones, E. & Morris, S. (1972). Teaching practice: Problems and perspectives. London: Methuen.

Swarts, P. (1999).Teacher education reform: Toward reflective practice. In K. Zeichner & L. Dahlstrom, Democratic teacher education reform in Africa: The case of Namibia. Boulder: Westview Press.

Tom, A.R. (1997). Redesigning teacher education. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Tom, A.R. (1987). Replacing pedagogical knowledge with pedagogical questions. In J. Smyth (Ed.), Educating teachers: Changing the nature of pedagogical knowledge. London: Falmer Press.

Zeichner, K. & Dahlstrom, L. (1999). Democratic teacher education reform in Africa: The case of Namibia. Boulder: Westview Press.