Metasynthesis of Preservice Professional Preparation and Teacher Education Research Studies

Abstract

Results from a metasynthesis of the relationships between 14 different types of preservice teacher preparation practices and teaching quality, preschool to university student performance, and university student and beginning teacher belief appraisals are reported. Each type of preservice practice (e.g., course-based student learning) included different kinds of instructional methods (e.g., problem-based learning, inquiry-based learning, and project-based learning). The metasynthesis included 118 meta-analyses and 12 surveys of more than three million study participants. Findings clearly indicated that active university student and beginning teacher involvement in mastering the use of instructional practices and both knowledge and skill acquisition by far stood out as the most important preservice teacher preparation practices. These included extended student teaching experiences, simulated instructional practices and microteaching, faculty coaching and mentoring, clinical supervision, different types of cooperative learning practices, and course-based active student learning methods. The pattern of results helped identify high leverage and high impact teacher preparation practices. Implications for future research and improving teacher preparation are described.

Research Synthesis of Meta-Analyses of Preservice Teacher Preparation Practices in Higher Education

“…The research synthesis included 118 meta-analyses and 12 other research studies of preservice practices-preservice student and beginning teacher outcomes. The meta-analyses and research studies are listed in Dunst et al (2019aDunst et al ( , 2019b. The 130 meta-analyses and research studies included between 5000 and 6000 studies and an estimated 2.5 to 3 million study participants.…”

“…High leverage practices were defined in terms of the sizes of effects between the preservice practices and preservice student and beginning teacher outcomes and the confidence intervals for the effect sizes. Detailed descriptions of the research methodology and results are described in Dunst et al (2019aDunst et al ( , 2019b. The Dunst et al (2019b) supplemental report includes 23 data tables of the results from each of the meta-analyses and studies in the research synthesis.…”

“…Detailed descriptions of the research methodology and results are described in Dunst et al (2019aDunst et al ( , 2019b. The Dunst et al (2019b) supplemental report includes 23 data tables of the results from each of the meta-analyses and studies in the research synthesis. The Dunst et al (2019a) paper includes 15 data tables of the aggregated results from the data tables in Dunst et al (2019b).…”

“…These are listed in the right-handed column of Table 1. The operational definitions of each of the practices are included in (Dunst et al, 2019b(Dunst et al, ) (2019b. The nomenclature used by the investigators of the meta-analyses and research studies were retained for readers to be able to locate the original sources of evidence.…”

“…According to this framework, variables in adjoining cells would be expected to be more highly related than those in the cells not directly connected. This would explain, for example, why inputs are not related to preservice student outcomes (Smith, Wageman, Anderson, Duffield, & Nyachwaya, 2019), and why preservice teacher preparation practices are only minimally related to pre-K to high school student outcomes (Dunst, Hamby, Howse, Wilkie, & Annas, 2019a). According to Goe (2006), this is the case because the types of linkages in Figure 1 have not been clearly articulated and investigated in teacher preparation research.…”