Conference Agenda

Across European teacher education systems, preparing pre-service teachers for increasingly complex, diverse, and technology-mediated classrooms has become a central concern. Although school-based practicum remains a cornerstone of initial teacher education, research has consistently shown that traditional practicum structures often provide uneven learning opportunities due to limited mentoring capacity, restricted exposure to diverse classroom scenarios, and insufficient opportunities for repeated instructional rehearsal (Darling-Hammond et al., 2002; Girod & Girod, 2008; Stronge et al., 2011). These limitations are particularly consequential for the development of teacher self-efficacy, a construct closely associated with instructional effectiveness, persistence, and professional resilience (Bandura, 1994; Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001).

Grounded in Social Cognitive Theory, teacher self-efficacy develops primarily through mastery experiences, vicarious learning, social persuasion, and affective regulation (Bandura, 1977, 1994). However, conventional teaching practice often offers few low-risk opportunities for iterative practice and reflection, especially in contexts shaped by institutional constraints and crisis-related disruptions to schooling (Wilke, 2004). In response, simulation-based learning has gained increasing attention as a means of extending practicum experiences beyond the constraints of time, place, and school availability. Digital teaching simulations provide controlled environments in which pre-service teachers can rehearse instructional strategies, respond to student behaviour, and receive immediate feedback—conditions aligned with established sources of self-efficacy development (Dieker et al., 2014; Michael & Gilad, 2015).

While international research indicates that simulations can positively contribute to pre-service teachers’ professional learning when integrated alongside authentic teaching experiences, findings remain mixed and highly dependent on program design (Gundel et al., 2019; Samuelsson et al., 2022; Schreiber, 2022). In particular, there is limited empirical guidance on the design conditions under which simulations function effectively as a complement to school-based practicum—such as coherence with practicum objectives, structured scaffolding, sustained engagement, and feedback mechanisms—rather than as a stand-alone or replacement activity (Bradley & Kendall, 2014).

This gap is especially evident in European contexts such as Türkiye, where teacher education programs are navigating curricular reform, digitalisation, and the long-term effects of global and national crises (MoNE, 2018). Positioned within ECER’s focus on teacher education research, the present study examines simulation-enhanced teaching practice as a structured complement to practicum, with particular attention to its role in supporting pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy and informing evidence-based teacher education design.

To this end, the study addresses the following research questions:

1. What are the impacts of complementing the teaching practice experience with a virtual simulation program on student teachers' sense of self-efficacy?

• How does participation in the traditional teaching practice course impact student teachers' sense of self-efficacy?
• How does participation in teaching practice with the use of a simulation program impact student teachers' sense of self-efficacy?
• Is there a significant difference regarding the sense of self-efficacy between the student teachers who only attend the traditional teaching practice course and who attend both the traditional teaching practice course and the teaching simulation?

2. What are the underlying experiences of student teachers who participate in a traditional teaching practice course and who attend the traditional teaching practice course complemented with teaching simulation?

• What are the underlying experiences of student teachers who participate in a traditional teaching practice course?
• What are the underlying experiences of student teachers who attend a teaching practice course complemented with teaching simulation?
• How do the experiences of student teachers whose experience is enriched with simulations differ from the ones who only attend the teaching practice course?

This study forms part of a three-year institutional initiative aimed at integrating Lesson Study (LS) into an initial teacher education (ITE) university in Kazakhstan. Adopting an institutional case study design, the research examines (1) teacher educators’ and student-teachers’ perceptions of LS, (2) institutional practices supporting its implementation, and (3) implications for the sustainable institutionalisation of LS within ITE.

Globally, the teaching profession is experiencing increasing complexity as a result of education reforms, accountability pressures, and demands for improved learning outcomes. Across European and international contexts, these challenges have prompted a re-examination of ITE programmes and a call for stronger practice-oriented, inquiry-based approaches that connect theory with authentic classroom experience (OECD, 2011; Darling-Hammond, 2014; Helgevold & Wilkins, 2020). However, international scholarship cautions against reducing practice-based education to technical apprenticeship models, which risk weakening teachers’ critical agency and professional learning capacity (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Beauchamp, 2015; Fullan, 2016). Instead, practice-based inquiry is increasingly viewed as a means of rebalancing the theory–practice relationship in ITE while fostering reflective, research-informed professionalism (Willemse et al., 2015; Frost, 2006).

Within this global shift, LS has gained prominence as a collaborative, inquiry-oriented model of teacher professional learning in ITE (Lamb & Aldous, 2016; Wood et al., 2019). Originating in Japan, LS has been widely adapted across Europe, Asia, and other regions to support teachers’ reflective practice, pedagogical reasoning, and professional dialogue (Cajkler & Wood, 2019; Schipper et al., 2020; Beckmann & Ehmke, 2023). The LS cycle typically involves goal setting, collaborative planning, observation of research lessons, structured reflection, and dissemination of learning (Dudley, 2014). International research demonstrates that LS enhances pre-service and in-service teachers’ pedagogical skills, content knowledge, and instructional decision-making (Cajkler & Wood, 2016; Coenders & Verhoef, 2019).

For teacher educators, LS also provides a platform for modelling inquiry-based professional learning and reshaping traditional hierarchical relationships in ITE toward co-construction of knowledge (Lewis et al., 2009; Dudley, 2014). Consequently, LS has been conceptualised not only as a pedagogical strategy, but as an organisational and cultural innovation capable of addressing the persistent disconnection between university coursework and school practice.

Despite this international interest, research on the institutionalisation of LS within ITE remains limited (Wood et al., 2019). European studies reveal that embedding LS requires attention to organisational conditions such as time allocation, scheduling, leadership support, and recognition of LS as legitimate professional learning (Schipper et al., 2020; Vermunt et al., 2019). UK research demonstrates that when LS is positioned as a structured and coherent element of ITE, it can strengthen university–school partnerships and deepen student-teachers’ pedagogical learning (Cajkler et al., 2013; Cajkler & Wood, 2016). However, international reviews caution that many LS initiatives remain fragmented and dependent on individual enthusiasm rather than systemic institutional commitment (Baumfield et al., 2022).

These international insights are particularly relevant for Kazakhstan, whose teacher education system remains highly centralised and theory-oriented (Sarmurzin et al., 2021; Urkunova et al., 2025). In such contexts, institutionalising LS requires not only pedagogical adaptation but also structural and cultural transformation. Sustainability depends on how effectively LS is embedded within institutional policies, leadership practices, curriculum design, and professional norms (Ni Shuilleabhain & Bjuland, 2019; Wood & Cajkler, 2020).

By situating the Kazakhstan case within European and international scholarship, this study contributes to global debates on how collaborative inquiry models can be adapted across diverse governance and policy environments. The findings offer insights into how LS can function as a bridge between global educational reforms and local institutional realities, and how ITE institutions in centralised systems can move toward more reflective, research-informed, and practice-connected models of teacher education.

Topic

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

Aim and Research Question

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

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

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

Conceptual Framework

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

• Stage 1: Identifying the research question

• Stage 2: Identifying relevant studies

• Stage 3: Study selection

• Stage 4: Charting the data

• Stage 5: Collating, summarising and reporting the results

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

There is an ongoing international trend to reform teacher education (Wang et al., 2010). Although the reforms have similarities, there are also clear differences between different countries and contexts (Darling-Hammond & Lieberman, 2013). In Europe, teacher training reforms can be seen in the light of the Bologna process, which contributed to the standardization of higher education (Borgen & Prøitz, 2023). Bologna process thus included structural convergence and dissolution of the binary higher education system which was the traditional structure in many of the EU countries (Evetts, 2013; Fägerlind & Strömqvist, 2004). The Norwegian university sector has been special, in that there traditionally has been flexibility with regard to opportunities to combine different teacher education cultures. Especially school subjects without a traditional "mother" discipline at the university, such as physical education (PE), have had multiple paths to becoming certified as a teacher.

These traits have been reinforced through system changes that have taken place from 2000 onwards, including the introduction of master’s degrees in all teacher education programs in Norway from 2017. Teacher education in Norway is regulated by national framework plans amended by the government. The teacher education programme plans at the higher education institutions are formally required to build on these national framework regulations.

The framework plan for five-year teacher training in PE and other school subjects categorised as “practical and aesthetic” subjects was established in 2020 and introduced gradually at universities from 2022. PE is among the practical aesthetic school subject (PAS) together with arts and crafts, music, and food and health school subjects. Practicum is an integral part of the study program throughout all five years. Yet, in the fifth year, students will complete a master's thesis and can choose institutional context for their practicum.

The practicum in teacher education is often seen as a context where student teachers can explore the theory-practice relationship under guidance from practice teachers and teacher educators (Ball, 2000; Standal et al., 2014).

Physical education teacher education (PETE) is often practiced based on certain traditions of what it means to be a "good" teacher and keeping students active rather than to further develop their learning, movement skills and reflection (Annerstedt, 2008; Hodge et al., 2003; Standal et al., 2013; Quennerstedt, 2019). Teacher educators are reported to view learning to teach PE as a practical process revolving around the teaching and coaching of sports skills, thus, to a small extent engaged in the students' development as reflexive practitioners in school (Mordal-Moen & Green, 2014). We currently know little about how PE is taught in teacher education and how student teachers develop their professional role in interaction with practicum (Gulliksen & Hjardemaal, 2011).

The study explores how practicum is experienced and enacted as an integrated part of the PETE programme. Building on student teachers’ and teacher educators’ experiences from eight semesters, the study addresses the following research questions:

How do student teachers’ four years with practicum experiences within a five-year PETE program contribute to their professional development as physical education teachers?

To analyse and understand how practicum is integrated in teacher educators’ teaching within PETE, the study draws on social practice theory (Reckwitz, 2002) and, more specifically, the theory of practice architectures (Kemmis et al., 2014; Kemmis, 2022). From this perspective, educational practices are understood as socially organised and historically formed arrangements constituted through sayings, doings, and relatings, and enabled and constrained by cultural-discursive, material-economic, and social-political conditions. This framework provides an analytical lens for examining practicum not merely as an individual learning activity, but as part of an ecological whole that connects teacher educators’ practices with student teachers’ experiences and professional development.