Pure



Theory and practice in professional education programs – a systematic reviewWorking paper by Trine Kl?veager Nielsen, PhD Fellow, DPU, Aarhus University.IntroductionA fundamental component in professional education is the link between theory and practice. However, many students in professional education programs experience a lack of coherence between theory and practice which is often described as the theory practice gap. This PhD-project is part of ”Bridging the Gap”, a Danish research project conducted in collaboration between the Danish School of Education, Aarhus University (DPU), Danish Institute of Governmental Research (AKF), University College Capital (UCC) and the Engineering College of Aarhus. The aim of Bridging the Gap is to explore the relationship between theory and practice in 4 professional education programs, specifically teacher, nurse, social educator and engineer education, and to contribute with knowledge about how to bridge the gap between theory and practice in these educations. The purpose of this study is to contribute to Bridging the Gap by conducting a systematic review of the existing international research knowledge of the factors in education affecting the theory practice relationship in professional education programs.BackgroundIt is a goal for the Danish government that 50% of a birth cohort finishes a higher education. The professional bachelor education programmes plays an important role in fulfilling this goal since a third of all students are enrolled in these programmes. In recent years there has been a drop in the number of applicants for the education programmes and at the same time an increase in the drop-out rate. There can be many reasons for this, but one contributing factor appears to be a lack of coherence between theory and practice as experienced by the students. A study from AKF (Pilegaard Jensen et al., 2008) shows that 35% of students who considered to drop out of their professional bachelor education programmes, experience an inadequate relation between theory and practice. For these students, the theory-practice gap manifests itself in different ways such as uncertainty about the goals of the practicum and insufficient supervision and guidance during the practicum. The students find it difficult to use their theoretical knowledge in the practicum and some find that theory takes up too much space in the education compared to practical training.The so-called theory-practice gap appears to be a phenomenon widely recognized in professional education. The term “theory-practice gap” is commonly used and debated within professional education research, yet it is not precisely defined. It is often described as the gap students experience between the academic learning that takes place in the university or college and the realities of the practice students meet during practicum in e.g. schools and hospitals. In this project the aim is to maintain an open approach to various understandings and conceptualizations of the theory-practice relationship in order to include different kinds of research approaching the theory practice relationship from different angles, within different research paradigms and with different kinds of research methodologies. Focus is on the theory practice relationship within the education, i.e. not on the relationship between what is learnt during the education and the realities of the work life that follows after the education has been completed. There are a number of different approaches to the question of theory and practice as well as different views on how to create better coherence between theory and practice in professional education (see for example Carlson, 1999; Korthagen & Kessels, 1999; Kroll, 2004; Leinhardt et al., 1995; Westbury, 2005). The Danish university colleges too have focus on the theory practice relationship, and several strategies have been developed to strengthen it. A working paper from Bridging the Gap (Brok, 2010) reviews current initiatives and efforts in the educations, such as cross-disciplinary collaboration between educators and practicians, educators with practical experience, portfolio, simulation, tutors, mentors and partnerships with institutions and companies just to mention a few.Internationally there is a large body of research regarding the establishment of a fruitful theory practice relationship in the professional education programs. The aim of this study is to identify the most promising strategies for strengthening the connection between theory and practice through conducting a systematic review of the international research based on qualitative and quantitative methods for analyzing which factors influence the relation between theory and practice in professional education programmes. This will be conducted by using the existing international research knowledge concerning the connection between theory and practice in professional education programmes as data and making a synthesis of these data. In this way, the systematic review can both identify the most promising of the strategies already in use, and possibly also suggest new approaches not yet used in Denmark. Thus the study can suggest ways to broaden the scope of action in practice, i.e. the university colleges, as well as point to topics relevant for further research.The review question is:Which factors in education affect the theory practice relation in professional education programs in teaching, nursing, engineering and social work and in other professional bachelor education programs regarding health, teaching and technology, and how? MethodSystematic review The systematic review consists of a research mapping and an evidence based synthesis. The systematic research mapping will identify the empirical research completed so far concerning strategies and factors in the education programs affecting the theory practice relation. The evidence based synthesis will be conducted based on the empirical studies found in the research mapping, which thus make up the empirical foundation of the synthesis. The aim of the synthesis is to answer the review question through analyses and conclusions across the included studies. Literature searchLiterature search and appraisal of sources is an important part of all research and can be viewed as a research method in itself. In evidence based research literature search can be seen as the data collection and should be conducted as a reflected and systematic process. This implies meeting high standards of methodology and transparency in the research process and to be very explicit about the methods used. In this phase searches for primary studies will take place in various databases and research journals. The search method is of vital importance to which empirical studies will be identified and included, and thus also for the findings and conclusions of the systematic review. When conducting the literature search, it is necessary to find a balance between sensitivity and specificity in order to find all studies regarding the review topic without ending up with an immense number of studies. I have chosen to search wide in various databases within educational research, but since professional education research often is cross disciplinary, I have also chosen to search within sociological and psychological databases in order to reflect the width of the research. The chosen databases represent both Scandinavian and international research.The search universe consists of the databases: ERIC, Sociological Abstracts, PsycINFO, Evidensbasen, CBCA-Education, Dansk P?dagogisk Base, FIS-Bildung, NORBOK, Libris, Jykdok, Cedefop Vetbib, AEI og BEI. The search strings are created on basis of the aim of the systematic review and the elements in the review question:The search terms are not necessarily expressed in the same way in all of the databases, thus the search strings must be adjusted to the terminology of each database. In order to do this I have made use of the Thesauri of the databases. Screening and screening criteriaNext step in the review process is the screening of the identified studies according to the defined criteria. The most significant screening criteria deal with the topic of the study. Other criteria regard methodology, educational institution, geography and time of publication.The screening will take place in the EPPI Reviewer, a web based software for conducting systematic reviews. The first part of the screening is based on abstracts, and the studies included in this part will then be full text screened on basis of the whole document. The process is iterative which means that the criteria can be changed dependant on the empirical studies and on how the screening process proceeds. E.g. if there are too many studies the criteria can be narrowed down, and if there are too few studies, the field can be broadened. The screening criteria are:Wrong scopeStudies not dealing with the relation between factors in the education and the theory practice relation. Wrong paperNot a paper with data from empirical research: Book reviews, policy documents, guides, opinion papers, theoretical papers, philosophical papers or methodological papers.Wrong researchPapers not presenting data from original empirical research. Wrong institutionNot an educational institution offering teacher?s, nurse?s, social educator?s or engineer?s education or professional education at bachelor level within the areas health, technology and teaching. Wrong social context of schoolingNot a study from industrialized countries. Wrong time of publicationPublished before 1990Insufficient information at presentNew information is necessary in order to exclude or include.Marker overviewExcluded, but a document that provides a historical or conceptual overview of the review topic. InclusionOriginal empirical research from industrialized countries published after 1990 and dealing with which factors in education affect the theory practice relation in professional education programs in teaching, nursing, engineering and social work and in other professional bachelor education programs regarding health, teaching and technology and how. FindingsThe project is still in the screening process, so there are no results yet. In the following I will describe how the project has proceeded so far. The literature search took place in 13 databases as planned. The searches generated 4657 hits. The references were uploaded and imported in the EPPI Reviewer and duplicates were removed which left a number of 4428 references.After screening the first 3000 references it was clear that the screening criteria needed to be narrowed down. At that point, more than 500 studies were included which were too many given the time frame of the project, but also considered in relation to the possibility of dealing with the research topic in depth. I took this as an indication that I needed to tighten up the criteria and be more specific about the aim of the systematic review. This was after advice from Michael S?gaard Larsen from Danish Clearinghouse for Educational Research, who advised me that this large number of studies at this phase of the project could complicate the next phases of the process and the coming synthesis. My review question is already quite broadly focused compared to systematic reviews about just one intervention in one educational setting, and this means I have to consider the balance between breadth and depth of the review. In this case I deemed the breadth to be too compromising for the possibility of a later in depth synthesis. Consequently, I tightened up the criteria already described and also added new criteria.New screening criteriaWrong scope:The study is not dealing with a specific pedagogy, teaching method or intervention in the educational site investigated from a theory practice perspective. Because: Some studies deal with e.g. portfolio as a tool for reflection while others deal with portfolio as a tool for assessment of the students. The last-mentioned are to be excluded because they are not dealing with the theory practice relation. Studies with a specific focus on ethnicity, racism, teaching in urban schools, inclusion and special educational needs children. Because: These are all specific research areas within educational research and make up a smaller part of the field. Focus in this systematic review is on the general. Wrong study design: Case studies about just one student or autobiographical studies where an educator describes and reflect over her own teaching and its benefits for her students. Because: It is not probable that the results will be generalisable. Evaluation of an educational site or a specific course where it is not possible to determine which elements affect the theory practice relation. Because: In order to generalize the results it is necessary to be able to see which elements in the educational institution or of the course that is important to the results.Studies where students are not part of the sample. Because: The review seeks to investigate the influence of various factors on the theory practice relation for students. Hence, there has to be a ”student outcome”, not necessarily an outcome as understood in quantitative research, e.g. achievement or retention rates, but also as e.g. a change in students reflection or a change in the students perception of the coherence between theory and practice.Wrong time of publication: Studies published before 1995. Because: A 15 year period gives a manageable timeframe for this project given the time, the resources and the fact that just one person is working on it. Setting the time limit at 15 years ensures that the studies describe educational systems not too far from the present educational systems.Wrong social context of schooling: Studies conducted outside Europe, USA, Australia or Canada. Because: According to various EPPI reviews, this criterion ensures a better possibility of achieving consistency in ideology, culture, and practice of the educational systems (see for example Moyles & Stuart, 2003; Moyles & Yates, 2003). Too big differences in the educational systems can make it difficult to compare and apply the results to a Danish educational context.Studies published in another language than English, German, Danish, Swedish or Norwegian. Because: Limitations on language are related to the resources and timeframe of the project.Included studiesAfter screening the first 3273 references, 512 references were included. The refined screening criteria led to the exclusion of additional 256 studies. At present, 264 studies have been included. Most of the exclusions are related to “wrong scope”. When the abstract screening has been completed, the next step will be the full text screening where even more studies will be excluded. During the abstract screening some themes have emerged. It is very important to stress that these are in no way results, but merely hunches of what could be hidden in the material. It is possible to create an overview only when all studies are screened and data have been extracted.The number of studies excluded/included so far, and the criteria for exclusion:Summary Detail ? SCREENED3409UNSCREENED840EXCLUDE Wrong scope2319EXCLUDE Wrong paper291EXCLUDE Wrong research5EXCLUDE Wrong study design25EXCLUDE Wrong institution203EXCLUDE Wrong social context of schooling20EXCLUDE Wrong time of publication273EXCLUDE Insufficient information at present4MARKER Overview7INCLUDE 264Differences between databasesThe studies found in ERIC and PsycINFO mainly deal with teacher education. The Australian and British versions of ERIC, AEI and BEI, seem to contain more studies regarding nurse education. Only a few studies from Sociological Abstracts and CBCA-Education have made it to the full text screening. Most of the references from Sociological Abstracts are not surprisingly about sociological issues and often centered on race and gender. Most are discussion papers analyzing and reflecting on a problem with sociological theories. Also, a considerable proportion of the references from CBCA-Education seem to be discussion papers. Most of the references from Norbok are text books for professional education, only a few are empirical studies.The numbers of included studies from the databases:DatabaseIdentified studiesAbstract screening2. abstract screeningFull text screeningERIC1964360172-Sociological Abstracts8453-PsycINFO3325324-FIS Bildung63-Not yet screened-AEI1111513-BEI5357736-CBCA-Education5642-Norbok5822-Cedefop Vetbib192-8-Jykdok446-Not yet screened-DPB297-Not yet screened-Evidensbasen13355-Libris157-Not yet screened-Educational settingIt appears that the majority of the studies deal with teacher education, including kindergarten teacher education. Very few deal with engineer education, while there seem to be a good deal of studies dealing with nurse education and some with social work education. It seems that the empirical studies mostly deal with students during their practicum, except for the studies about engineer education which seem to deal more with the connection of theory and practice in for instance the lab. Many studies deal with fully-trained teachers taking a master degree or other forms of continuing education or in-service training. These studies are not included with reference to the screening criteria regarding educational institution. Neither is the great deal of studies dealing with newly qualified teachers (or nurses/engineers/social workers) in their first job. Factors/interventionsDuring the first abstract screening it was my impression that many studies deal with portfolio, use of technology such as web based forums for reflection, and the role of the supervisor/mentor/cooperating teacher during practicum. However, this picture seems to have changed as a consequence of the introduction of the new screening criteria. Many of the studies dealing with supervision and mentoring have now been excluded due to the study design criterion because they were designed as case studies with just one student or as autobiographical studies with a supervisor or mentor reflecting on her own experiences with students in practicum. It also seems that some of the studies about technology as a tool for reflection have been excluded as a consequence of the geographic criterion. A good deal of studies from Taiwan and Singapore dealt with web based tools such as online discussion forums. However, studies regarding mentoring and technologies still make up a large part of the included studies.After the second abstract screening, it appears that a great variance of factors/intervention/teaching methods have been investigated in the studies. A considerable proportion of the studies deal with the fieldwork learning environment, e.g. peer teaching, or university/school partnership, while supervision, mentoring, and feedback, still make up a great deal of the total number of studies. Many studies focus on reflection and how to enhance student reflection during practicum. Examples are students as researchers in the field, storytelling, or tools for reflection such as theoretical models aimed at facilitating reflection and discussion. Other tools for reflection investigated are portfolio or journal writing. Some studies deal with various kinds of technologies, e.g. web based discussion forums, videotaped classroom sessions, technology supported supervision, or electronic portfolios. Other studies deal with simulation (especially studies concerned with nurse education) or practical laboratory experiments (especially studies concerned with engineer education). Focus of the studiesIt appears that quite many studies deal with the processes ”inside” the students – e.g. how does learning occur, how do the beliefs of the students change during practicum, or which mental strategies do the students use when reflecting? These studies are very interesting, but have not been included because they do not deal with malleable factors in the education – pedagogies, teaching methods or interventions that can be changed. Many of these studies discuss the implications for educational practice, but since they do not directly investigate the factors in the education, they are out of line with the inclusion criterion of this systematic review. The learning process must be seen in relation to the students? educational context.Other studies investigate if and how the students connect theory and practice – e.g. do the students use the theory in practice, or which theories do they use? Some studies investigate whether the students experience a connection between theory and practice or if one group of students, e.g. older students or students with high self efficacy, experiences a better connection between theory and practice than another. Unless they also investigate which factors in education influences this experience, they are excluded for the same reasons as described above. Next stepsThe process of the systematic review consists of formulation of the review question, identification of primary studies aimed at the review question, critical appraisal of the relevance and quality of the study, and research synthesis of the included studies (Dansk Clearinghouse for Uddannelsesforskning, 2006; Nordenbo et al., 2009; Rieper & Foss Hansen, 2007). In this project, the next step will be the full text screening which probably will lead to the exclusion of more studies. When all studies have been screened, I will extract the data from the data material, i.e. the included studies. Like the screening, this will take place in the EPPI Reviewer with a coding tool. The appraisal of relevance and quality takes place both in the screening process according to the described screening criteria, and during the data extraction. When extracting data from the studies in the coding tool, I will at the same time weight the evidence and relevance of each study. This part of the process is the background for much of the debate regarding evidence in education research.The basis of the evidence movement is that not all forms of knowledge are equally valid. This can be seen in the evidence hierarchy which represents a ranking of knowledge based on the research design of the primary studies. In this hierarchy, randomized controlled trials are seen as ”the golden standard” and considered more valid and reliable than e.g. qualitative studies (Rieper & Foss Hansen, 2007). The coding tools in software for systematic reviews are often aimed at describing and analyzing quantitative studies, and the criteria for appraisal of the research are based on quantitative research traditions (Boaz & Ashby, 2003; Pawson, 2002; Schlosser et al., 2007). Since the systematic review in this project includes research based on both qualitative and quantitative methods, it is necessary to use a guiding tool not based on the evidence hierarchy. The quality of the studies must be appraised on its own conditions and in relation to the studies? relevance, methodologically as well as regarding topic, for the review question. The English EPPI Centre (The Evidence for Policy and Practice Information Coordination Centre) at Institute of Education, London University, produces systematic reviews based on various research designs. This is reflected in the design of the coding tool in the EPPI Reviewer, which is why I have chosen this software for the systematic review. Another reason is that it is possible to edit the coding tool to adjust it to the specific review.In a research synthesis, the conclusions from each of the included studies are processed to an overall conclusion across the primary studies. There are various methods for synthesis, e.g. modelbased synthesis, narrative synthesis, metaanalysis, additive synthesis and combined synthesis to mention a few (Dansk Clearinghouse for Uddannelsesforskning, 2006). A challenge in this project is the decision on how to synthesize the data based on various research methods. I plan on conducting two syntheses with different methods, comparing the results and reflecting upon the differences. The purpose of this is to contribute to methodological development within the evidence research in education, which still faces challenges when it comes to including different kinds of study designs in systematic reviews, especially qualitative studies.ReferencesBoaz, A. & Ashby, D. (2003). Fit for purpose? Assessing research quality for evidence based policy and practice. ESRC UK Centre for Evidence Based Policy and Practice, University of London.Brok, L. S. (2010). Brobygning mellem teori og praksis i professionsbacheloruddannelserne – en udredning af aktuelle igangv?rende fors?g og tiltag i fire professionsbacheloruddannelser. WWW: Carlson, H.L. (1999). From Practice to Theory: a social constructivist approach to teacher education. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1999 (203-218).Dansk Clearinghouse for Uddannelsesforskning (2006). Konceptnotat. WWW: Korthagen, F.A.J. & Kessels, J.P.A.M. (1999). Linking Theory and Practice: Changing the Pedagogy of Teacher Education. Educational Researcher, vol. 28, no. 4. (4-17).Kroll, L.R. (2004). Constructing constructivism: how student-teachers construct ideas of development, knowledge, learning, and teaching. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, Vol. 10, No. 2 (199-220).Leinhardt, G., Young, K.M. & Merriman, J. (1995). Integrating professional knowledge: the theory of practice and the practice of theory. Learning and Instruction, Vol. 5 (401-408).Moyles, J. & Stuart, D. (2003). Which school-based elements of partnership in initial teacher training in the UK support trainee teachers? professional development? Research Evidence in Education Library. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education.Moyles, J. & Yates, R. (2003). What is known about successful models formative assessment for trainee teachers during school experiences and what constitutes effective practice? In: Research Evidence in Education Library. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education.Nordenbo, S.E., Hjort, K., Jensen, B., Johansson, I., S?gaard Larsen, M., Moser, T. & Ploug, N. (2009). Forskningskortl?gning og forskervurdering af skandinavisk forskning i ?ret 2007 i institutioner for de 0-6-?rige. Dansk Clearinghouse for Uddannelsesforskning & Danmarks P?dagogiske Universitetsforlag. Pawson, R. (2002). Evidence-based Policy: A Realist Perspective. SAGE Publications.Pilegaard Jensen, T., Kamstrup, A.K. og Haselmann, S. (2008). Professionsbacheloruddannelserne – De studerendes vurdering af studiemilj?, studieformer og motivation for at gennemf?re. K?benhavn: AKF.Rieper, O. & Foss Hansen, H. (2007). Metodedebatten om evidens. K?benhavn: Akf forlaget.Schlosser, R.W., Wendt, O. & Sigofoss, J. (2007). Not all systematic reviews are created equal: Considerations for appraisal. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention, Vol. 1 (138-150).Westbury, I., Hansén, S-E., Kansanen, P. & Bj?rkvist, O. (2005). Teacher Education for Research-based Practice in Expanded Roles: Finland?s experience. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 49, No. 5 (475-485). ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download