Field Experiences in Special Education Teacher Preparation: A Review of the Literature

We conducted an initial database search on October 6, 2020 in EBSCOHost using the following databases: Education Research Complete, Academic Search Complete, ERIC, and Teacher Reference Center. Search terms included: field* OR clinical OR practicum OR applied OR experience OR student teach* [AND] “special ed*” OR disabilit* [AND] “student teach*” OR “teacher candidate*” OR preservice OR pre-service OR trainee OR intern* [AND] “teacher preparation” OR “teacher education.” Manuscripts were limited to those in English published during the years 2013 to 2020 and to peer-reviewed, academic journals. Since Nagro and deBettencourt’s (2017) review included articles through August 2014, we expanded our search to 2013 to ensure that we fully captured any possible articles published during this time that may not have been identified in their review (e.g., online first publications). This initial search resulted in 1,486 articles. After removing duplicates, 901 independent articles remained. It is important to note that this initial database search was conducted as part of a broader project that included international articles and program descriptions, which were excluded at the end of the screening process in the current review due to the focus on empirical studies conducted in the United States. See Figure 1 for the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram of search procedures for the current review.

After the database search, we conducted an initial screening of the title and abstract for the 901 articles. For inclusion during this screening, articles had to meet the following criteria: (a) published between 2013 and 2020; (b) written in English; (c) from a peer-reviewed journal; (d) described or measured any type of field experience, practicum, student teaching, clinical experience, field-based experience, clinical field experience, service learning, or apprentice teaching; and (e) involved special education teacher candidates. Articles that did not specify type of teacher candidates were included during this round of coding and revisited during the full article screening. After double coding all articles, there was 89.90% agreement. Of the 901 articles, 179 met inclusion criteria, including program descriptions and international studies.

Subsequently, we conducted a full article review for the articles that made it past the initial screening. During the full article review, we used the following inclusion criteria: (a) Publication: the article was published in a peer-reviewed journal between 2013 and 2020, and written in English; (b) Setting: the article described or measured the impact of any type of field experience developed and facilitated as part of a teacher preparation program that included special education teacher candidates; (c) Purpose: the article included special education teacher preparation, such as measuring changes within special education teacher candidates populations after participating in field experiences; and (d) Methodology: the article used any type of methodologies. It should be noted that the inclusion criteria around setting specifies that the field experience had to include special education teacher candidates. Thus, articles could have been included if they had participants seeking other licensure areas, as long as they also had special education teacher candidates as participants. We excluded articles if they: (a) targeted community service hours that were not intentionally part of a special education teacher preparation program, (b) included students with disabilities in teacher candidates’ field experiences but focused on teacher preparation programs outside of special education (e.g., elementary education), (c) focused on practice-based activities (e.g., role-play, simulation) that occurred in university-based settings but not in P-12 school settings, (d) examined field experiences as part of courses offered by special education teacher preparation programs but did not clarify if participants were special education teacher candidates, (e) included teacher candidates as participants but did not clearly specify inclusion of special education teacher candidates, (f) studied perceptions of field experiences broadly without focusing on a specific field experience, or (g) focused on professional development.

Using the inclusion and exclusion criteria during the full article review, four trained raters coded an initial 20 articles (95% agreement). The remaining 159 articles were coded by two raters, and discrepancies (n = 8) were discussed with the full research team until we reached consensus, for 94.94% agreement across pairs of raters. After the full review, 63 articles met inclusion criteria. For the purpose of the current review, we excluded studies conducted in international (n = 11) or U.S. and international settings (n = 2), as well as program descriptions (n = 11), for a total of 39 empirically based studies that were conducted in the United States.

To answer our research questions, we coded all included articles for key information. We first met as a team to identify the information that would need to be gathered from each article for each research question. We created coding categories with clear descriptions of what information should be identified. For example, when coding for the number of teacher candidates included in the study, we specified that the coding should include authors’ precise terminology given the variety of ways in which teacher candidates were described (e.g., pre-service teachers, undergraduates, residents, student teachers). In addition, we included definitions within coding categories, such as definitions for coursework-based practicums and student teaching when we coded for the type of field experience. In our coding sheet, we also included examples in some coding descriptions. For example, to answer Research Question 4, we coded field experience activities into various categories which included example activities to ensure team members were coding reliably. Next, using the categories and definitions we created, we developed a coding spreadsheet. We randomly selected four articles to code in pairs. After each pair coded their assigned articles, we met as a team to discuss any discrepancies and questions about the coding definitions. We adjusted definitions as needed. Once we came to consensus on all coding categories and definitions, we coded the 43 articles by splitting up the articles among the last three authors. The first two authors conducted randomized checks of the coding to ensure clarity and accuracy.

Once coding was complete, we organized the studies by field experience type: coursework-based practicums (i.e., teacher candidates engage in a targeted experience that is tied to coursework) and student teaching (i.e., teacher candidates engage in a culminating, supervised experience where they assume the role of the special education teacher in a comprehensive way), given the differences in experience types. We included residency models as a sub-type of student teaching due to the unique nuances of residency student teaching experiences. Thus, when presenting results, we analyze differences by field experience type. As shown in Figures 2 and 3, we also organized data by program level (i.e., undergraduate or graduate teacher candidates). Any identified differences by program level that emerged during data analysis are presented in the results below.

Across all field experiences, there were 805 teacher candidate participants, and most (81.4%; n = 655) were seeking licensure in special education (including early childhood special education, an add-on endorsement in special education, or dual licensure that included special education). Of the remaining participants, 12.0% (n = 97) were seeking licensure in other areas (e.g., elementary education, early childhood), and 6.6% (n = 53) were unspecified (i.e., the authors noted that special education teacher candidates were included but did not specify how many).

Although there were approximately the same number of studies that investigated coursework-based practicums as those that examined student teaching, most of the participants were in coursework-based practicum experiences. Specifically, 67.1% (n = 540) of all teacher candidates were completing coursework-based practicums compared with 32.9% (n = 265) of participants in student teaching experiences. In addition, across all field experiences, participants were more often undergraduate than graduate students, with 62.7% (n = 505) undergraduate and 33.4% (n = 269) graduate and residency teacher candidate participants. Importantly, about one-third (37.7%; n = 100) of teacher candidates in student teaching experiences were in residency models.

In sum, across the 41 field experiences represented by 43 studies identified in our review, a little over 80% of participants were seeking special education licensure. Most of the participants were in coursework-based practicums and most were undergraduate students. Of the teacher candidates in student teaching experiences, a little over one-third were in residency models.

Researchers reported the duration of field experiences in a variety of ways (see Figure 2). The most commonly reported duration of field experiences was in number of weeks, reported in about half of the field experiences (46.3%; n = 19). Researchers in 31.7% of field experiences (n = 13) also reported the length of field experience by semester, while the number of hours of the field experience was less frequently reported (19.5%; n = 8). Yet, coursework-based practicums were more likely to report duration in number of weeks (57.1% of coursework-based practicums; n = 12), while studies of student teaching experiences were more likely to report duration by semester (60% of student teaching experiences; n = 12). Studies of coursework-based practicums were also much more likely to report frequency of the field experience as times, hours, or days per week, while studies of student teaching experiences rarely reported this information.

Across field experiences, duration was more consistent in student teaching experiences than in coursework-based practicums. Most student teaching experiences lasted for one semester, with the number of weeks per semester ranging from 10 to 16 weeks (M: 12.8 weeks). All studies of student teaching residency models reported duration as 1 year. Although duration was reported in many different ways for coursework-based practicums, we calculated descriptive statistics of the most commonly reported duration measures (weeks and hours) to gauge the typical length of coursework-based practicums. On average, coursework-based practicums were 42.1 hours (range: 15-112 hours) in duration and lasted for 8.5 weeks (range: 2-15 weeks). Thus, there was more variability across the duration of coursework-based practicums than the student teaching experiences.

Across all field experiences, researchers most commonly reported the field experience setting as a range of grades (e.g., K-12) or as elementary or secondary school levels. Specifically, in 25% (n = 10) of the field experiences, researchers described a range of P-12 grade levels as the field experience setting, while an additional 17.5% (n = 7) and 15% (n = 6) described settings as elementary or secondary levels, respectively. Similarly, of the 20 student teaching experiences, the most frequent setting was also P-12 settings (30%; n = 6), indicating that teacher candidates in student teaching experiences were in a range of grade-level settings. Coursework-based practicum experiences occurred in a variety of settings, with the most frequent setting as those in elementary levels (19%; n = 4). Compared with the settings of student teaching experiences, coursework-based practicums were more likely to occur in non-traditional P-12 school settings, such as community-based settings, an after-school program, a lab school, or summer school (see Figure 2).

Thus, overall across the 41 field experiences, researchers reported duration in different ways, most often reporting number of weeks or semesters. Coursework-based practicums had greater variety in how duration was reported than student teaching experiences, but on average they lasted 42 hours and for 8.5 weeks. Student teaching experiences typically lasted for one semester, which, on average, lasted a little under 13 weeks. The most consistent duration was for residency models of student teaching, which lasted for 1 year. In terms of field experience settings, researchers tended to report the settings in a range of grade or as school levels (e.g., elementary, secondary), while coursework-based practicums were more likely to occur in non-traditional school settings.

As shown in Figure 2, researchers described the instructional approaches in the field experience in a little under three-fourths of field experiences (73.2%; n = 30), with small group instruction as the most common instructional approach (22%; n = 9). Other instructional approaches frequently described as part of the field experience included co-teaching (20%; n = 8) and one-on-one tutoring (17.1%; n = 7). Of the 21 coursework-based practicums, however, the most common instructional approach described was one-on-one tutoring (33.3%; n = 7), followed by small group instruction (23.8%; n = 5), and co-teaching (23.8%; n = 5). Conversely, no student teaching experiences described one-on-one tutoring as the instructional approach. In fact, almost half of researchers (45%; n = 9) did not report any instructional approaches within the 20 student teaching experiences, and when they did, the most common approach was small group instruction (20%; n = 4).

Although researchers reported instructional content areas in the field experience less often than instructional approaches (i.e., 68.3% or 28 of the 41 field experiences described the instructional content areas), the most common instructional content area included across field experiences was literacy instruction (24.4%; n = 10), followed by behavior or classroom management (14.6%; n = 6). Similarly, literacy instruction was also the most common for coursework-based practicums (38.1%; n = 8). Student teaching experiences, however, most frequently included classroom and behavior management (20%; n = 4), followed by assuming all teaching responsibilities (15%; n = 3). Across all field experiences and regardless of field experience type, around one-fifth of field experiences (22% all field experiences; 23.8% coursework-based practicums; 20% student teaching experiences) included more than one type of instructional content area. Researchers describing student teaching experiences were more likely to report the instructional content areas than those examining coursework-based practicums, with 75% (n = 15) of student teaching experiences compared with 61.9% (n = 13) of coursework-based practicums that described instructional content areas.

To summarize, across field experiences, the most common instructional approach was small group instruction, followed by co-teaching and one-on-one tutoring. While coursework-based practicums most frequently included one-on-one tutoring, none of the student teaching experiences included this approach. Researchers in a little under half of student teaching experiences did not report any instructional approaches, and of those that did report instructional approaches, small group instruction was the most common. Across all field experiences, literacy was the most common content area in the field experience, and about one-fifth of field experiences included more than one type of content area.

To answer Research Question 4, we reviewed the learning activities and feedback opportunities within each field experience to understand common practice as described in this body of research. The common field experience learning activities based on this body of research were broadly categorized as lesson planning, data collection, reflection, and video-recording (see Figure 3), which were common field experience components identified by Nagro and deBettencourt (2017) in their review.

To examine the methodologies used to study special education teacher candidates’ field experiences, we categorized each article’s research methods as quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods. Within the quantitative category, we identified studies as single-case design, pre-experimental group design (i.e., within group analyses), quasi-experimental group design (i.e., non-random sampling with random or non-random group assignment), or true experimental group design. When answering Research Question 5, we included all 43 studies since each study had its own analysis.

Across all 43 studies in our review, researchers equally used quantitative and qualitative methodology, with 17 studies (39.53%) of each, while nine studies (20.93%) used mixed methods. Of the quantitative studies, there were nine (20.93%) single-case design, four (9.30%) pre-experimental group design, and four (9.30%) quasi-experimental group design; no studies used a true experimental group design. Studies of coursework-based practicums most commonly used qualitative methodology (50%; n = 11) while student teaching studies most often used quantitative methodology (47.6%, n = 10), which was primarily single-case design (33.3%, n = 7). Of the four student teaching studies that examined residency models, most (75%; n = 3) used qualitative methodology.

Overall, of the 43 studies included in the review, around 40% used quantitative methods, 40% used qualitative methods, and 20% used mixed methods. Most of the quantitative studies used single-case design, with no studies using a true experimental group design. Most studies of coursework-based practicums used qualitative methodology, student teaching experiences mostly used quantitative methodology, and student reaching residency models tended to use qualitative methods.

It is important to acknowledge limitations of the current literature review that may impact conclusions. First, it is possible that our list of search terms may not have sufficiently captured all possible studies, particularly given the variety of terminology used by researchers to describe field experiences. Second, although we included multiple search methods to conduct a thorough review, we did not conduct a forward search or include any gray literature, which may have resulted in possible studies for inclusion that were missed. Third, we chose to exclude descriptive studies, which were included in Nagro and deBettencourt’s (2017) review; thus, additional insight from descriptive studies may have been missed in the current review. Fourth, the data we gathered and analyzed from each study were our interpretation from the information provided in the article. In some studies, the purpose was not necessarily to describe in detail specific field experience activities. Thus, in these cases, we had to draw conclusions about how to code article information to answer our research questions. Finally, some studies did not disaggregate data for special education teacher candidates from teacher candidates seeking other licensure areas, which may have impacted our findings.

From our review, more empirical research on special education teacher field experiences is needed. We urge researchers to continue using a variety of methodological approaches to not only examine teacher candidate experiences and perceptions, but also continue to seek causal links between field experiences activities and teacher candidate outcomes. Researchers should describe field experiences in detail, so that, clear conclusions can be drawn from a study and to ensure possible replication. In publications of field experience studies, using consistent and clear terminology to describe not only the field experiences but also the teacher candidates will be key, including student level (i.e., graduate, undergraduate) and licensure being sought. Future research will also be needed to examine the methodological rigor of this literature and to determine the evidence base of field experiences in special education teacher preparation. It is through continued empirical investigation of field experiences that we will be able to better determine what activities are critical in preparing special educators and, ultimately, improving outcomes for students with disabilities.

Finally, our review emphasizes the need for teacher educators and researchers to continue to follow the five steps set forth by Nagro and deBettencourt (2017) for designing field experiences and studying their effectiveness, as our review highlights additional considerations within those five steps. First, it is important to set the extent of the field experience, and our review indicates documenting the duration and setting of the field experience will be important. Second, teaching activities are selected, and clarity should be provided around the instructional approaches and content areas, as well as teacher candidates’ practice and feedback opportunities within the field experience. It will be critical that researchers continue to report these details of the field experience being studied, even for student teaching experiences. The findings of our review also highlight that teacher educators should examine field experience activities closely to align with field experience outcomes, especially in student teaching where we found differences between undergraduate and graduate student teaching experiences. Teacher educators will need to examine their program as a whole to determine how coursework-based practicums can be scaffolded over time to create a coherent approach to field experience that prepares teacher candidates to engage in more complex activities during student teaching. Third, the products are determined, which aligns with the practice opportunities teacher candidates have in the field experience. Fourth, teacher candidates are assessed, and fifth, feedback is provided to teacher candidates. It is through persistent efforts in special education teacher preparation and research that we will continue to learn empirically based activities that help to create profession-ready special educators.