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

Abstract

Findings from a meta-analysis of meta-analyses of 14 different types of preservice student and beginning teacher preparation practices are described. The research synthesis included 118 meta-analyses and 12 other research studies of preservice practices-preservice student and beginning teacher outcomes. The research reports included between 5000 and 6000 studies and an estimated 2.5 to 3 million study participants. The outcomes included two different teacher quality measures and two different preservice student and beginning teacher measures. Mean difference effect sizes, confidence intervals for the average effect sizes, and generalized patterns of results were used to identify very high impact, high impact, medium impact, low impact, and no impact preservice practices. Results showed that clinically rich field experiences (extended and limited student teaching), learning experiences that included multiple opportunities for deliberate practice, faculty and school-based coaching, clinical supervision and performance feedback, different types of experiences and opportunities to learn to teach, course-based experiential learning experiences, and cooperative learning opportunities stood out as especially important practices that were related to optimal preservice and beginning teacher outcomes. The patterns of results are consistent with a practice-based approach to teacher preparation where the focus of preservice and beginning teacher education is the learning experiences and opportunities to learn and use optimal effective teaching practices.

Full text

Higher Education Studies; Vol. 10, No. 1; 2020
ISSN 1925-4741 E-ISSN 1925-475X
Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education
29
Research Synthesis of Meta-Analyses of Preservice Teacher
Preparation Practices in Higher Education
Carl J. Dunst1, Deborah W. Hamby1, Robin B. Howse1, Helen Wilkie1 & Kimberly Annas1
1Orelena Hawks Puckett Institute, Asheville and Morganton, North Carolina, USA
Correspondence: Carl J. Dunst, Orelena Hawks Puckett Institute, Asheville and Morganton, North Carolina,
USA. E-mail: cdunst@puckett.org
Received: October 24, 2019 Accepted: November 16, 2019 Online Published: November 27, 2019
doi:10.5539/hes.v10n1p29 URL: https://doi.org/10.5539/hes.v10n1p29
Abstract
Findings from a meta-analysis of meta-analyses of 14 different types of preservice student and beginning teacher
preparation practices are described. The research synthesis included 118 meta-analyses and 12 other research
studies of preservice practices-preservice student and beginning teacher outcomes. The research reports included
between 5000 and 6000 studies and an estimated 2.5 to 3 million study participants. The outcomes included two
different teacher quality measures and two different preservice student and beginning teacher measures. Mean
difference effect sizes, confidence intervals for the average effect sizes, and generalized patterns of results were
used to identify very high impact, high impact, medium impact, low impact, and no impact preservice practices.
Results showed that clinically rich field experiences (extended and limited student teaching), learning
experiences that included multiple opportunities for deliberate practice, faculty and school-based coaching,
clinical supervision and performance feedback, different types of experiences and opportunities to learn to teach,
course-based experiential learning experiences, and cooperative learning opportunities stood out as especially
important practices that were related to optimal preservice and beginning teacher outcomes. The patterns of
results are consistent with a practice-based approach to teacher preparation where the focus of preservice and
beginning teacher education is the learning experiences and opportunities to learn and use optimal effective
teaching practices.
Keywords: teacher preparation, preservice practices, preservice teacher outcomes, beginning teacher outcomes,
meta-analyses, high impact preservice practices
1. Introduction
The search for the holy grail of effective preservice higher education teacher preparation practices has persisted
for nearly four decades (Korthagen, 2016; Lehr, 1981). The search has shifted back-and-forth from a focus on
candidate and program inputs (Gitomer, Latham, & Ziomek, 1999) to program completer teacher competencies
(Gossman, 2018; O'Flaherty & Beal, 2018) to preservice student performance (Macfarlane, 2015) to preservice
teacher preparation practices (Hattie, 2011) to preschool to high school student academic achievement (Hattie,
2012).
Candidate inputs include such things as SAT and ACT scores, high school and undergraduate GPA, and other
admission requirements (Casey & Childs, 2017). Program inputs include such things as standards for
accreditation, an approved course of studies, and other teacher preparation program requirements
(Cochran-Smith et al., 2016). Preservice teacher preparation program practices include such things as faculty
mentoring and coaching (Campbell & Campbell, 1997), types of coursework (Clift & Brady, 2005),
course-based preservice student learning methods (Levin, 1995), field experiences (Hollins, 2015), and clinical
supervision (Burns, Jacobs, & Yendol-Hoppey, 2016b). The inputs and practices, taken together, constitute what
Darling-Hammond (2006) contends are the “make-up” of teacher preparation programs that graduate
well-prepared teachers.
The outputs (i.e., outcomes) that have been the focus of the search for measures of preservice teacher program
effectiveness include preservice student performance and achievement (York, Gibson, & Rankin, 2015),
preservice student and beginning teacher teaching quality (Lewis et al., 1999), preservice and beginning teacher
belief appraisals (Isikoglu, 2008), and the academic achievement of pre-K to high school students (Goldhaber &
Liddle, 2012). An emphasis on these different types of outputs and outcomes is part of outcomes-based and

http://hes.ccsenet.org Higher Education Studies Vol. 10, No. 1; 2020
30
results-oriented approaches to evaluating teacher preparation program effectiveness (Henry, Kershaw, Zulli, &
Smith, 2012).
Teacher preparation research has focused on the relationships between different types of preservice inputs or
practices and different kinds of student outputs or outcomes (Zeichner, 2005). Most reviews of teacher
preparation practices have been narrative or summative reviews (Cochran-Smith & Zeichner, 2006; Gitomer &
Bell, 2016; Wilson, Floden, & Ferrini-Mundy, 2001) where the relationships between inputs and outputs, and
practices and outcomes, are often confounded and open to different and often conflicting interpretations (Zientek,
Capraro, & Capraro, 2008; Zientek, Ozel, Ozel, & Allen, 2012). This is the case primarily because the
independent and dependent variables in most reviews have not been operationally defined, and the nature of the
relationships between inputs and outputs, and practices and outcomes, have not been evaluated using an
objective metric (e.g., effect sizes).
1.1 Analytic Framework
Figure 1 shows a framework for how inputs and outputs, and practices and outcomes, would be expected to be
related. 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.
Mitchell and King (2016) noted that teacher preparation program research should focus on the identification of
“high impact teacher practices [that] lead to higher student achievement” (p. 16). This is depicted in Figure 1 in
terms of the relationship between core teacher competencies and preschool to high school student academic
achievement. Hauser and Kavanagh (2019) stated that developing preservice students’ ability to learn to use core
teaching practices is dependent upon the use of effective preservice teacher preparation practices. This is shown
in Figure 1 in terms of the relationship between preservice teacher preparation practices and both preservice
teacher outcomes and core teacher competencies. These particular relationships were the focus of investigation
in the research synthesis described in this paper.
Figure 1. Relationships between teacher preparation program inputs and practices and different types of
preservice student, beginning teacher, and K-12 student outputs and outcomes
1.2 Purpose of the Research Synthesis
The research synthesis of preservice teacher preparation practices described in this paper was a meta-analysis of
meta-analyses (Cooper & Koenka, 2012; Schmidt & Oh, 2013) of teacher preparation program practices research
studies. The research synthesis both builds and expands upon existing meta-analyses of higher education studies
(Ahn, Ames, & Myers, 2012; Hattie, 2009; Tight, 2018) by focusing specifically on the identification of high
leverage preservice teacher preparation practices and their relationships with preservice student and beginning
teacher outcomes. 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. (2019a, 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).

http://hes.ccsenet.org Higher Education Studies Vol. 10, No. 1; 2020
31
This paper includes additional findings to further highlight the particular preservice practices that emerged as
high impact practices. The rank-order results of the sizes of effects for the relationships between different
preservice teacher preparation program practices and different preservice student and beginning teacher
outcomes are the focus of analysis. Patterns of results are used to identify very high impact, high impact,
medium impact, and low or no impact preservice practices.
2. Method
2.1 Search Strategy
A multi-tiered search strategy was used to locate meta-analyses of preservice teacher preparation practices.
Searches of four electronic databases (e.g., ERIC, PsychInfo, ProQuest Central), four open-access search engines
(e.g., Directory of Open Access Journals, Bielefeld Academic Search Engine), more than 100 journals, the
reference sections of all retrieved papers and research reports, and the publications of noted teacher preparation
program experts were conducted to locate preservice practice-preservice student and beginning teacher outcome
meta-analyses. Research reports were included only if a preservice practice (e.g., inquiry-based learning) was
compared to a control or comparative group (e.g., traditional classroom instruction) of study participants.
One-group pretest-posttest meta-analyses were excluded from the research synthesis to avoid criticisms levied
against previously completed research syntheses of meta-analyses of both preservice and in-service teacher
training and preparation studies (Bergeron & Rivard, 2017; Myburgh, 2016).
Four types of research reports were included. The first were meta-analyses of preservice teacher preparation
practices where effect sizes between the preservice practices and study outcomes were reported by the study
investigators. The second were research syntheses of preservice teacher preparation practices where effect sizes
were reported for individual studies but which needed to be meta-analyzed for this research synthesis (e.g.,
Alfieri, Brooks, Aldrich, & Tenenbaum, 2011). Third, in cases where no meta-analyses of particular types of
preservice teacher preparation practices could be located (e.g., student teaching clinical supervision),
meta-analyses of related practices in other disciplines were included in the research synthesis (e.g., Whittaker,
2004). Fourth, in instances were no higher education meta-analyses of particular types of preservice practices
could be located, we included nationally representative studies of preservice teacher preparation practices where
the results in those studies were meta-analyzed for the research synthesis (e.g., Early et al., 2007). The latter
permitted a more comprehensive coverage of preservice preparation practices.
2.2 Search Results
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. (2019a, 2019b). The 130 meta-analyses and research studies included between 5000 and 6000
studies and an estimated 2.5 to 3 million study participants. (Some meta-analyses and research studies did not
include either or both the number of studies or number of participants where the totals were estimated based on
the research reports that did include the number of studies and number of participants.) The majority of research
reports were located in journal articles (81%). Other research reports were located in dissertations and theses
(12%), conference presentations (6%), and unpublished papers (1%).
2.3 Teacher Preparation Practices
An iterative process was used to both identify the preservice practices that have been the focus of investigation
and to classify the practices into subtypes of preservice teacher preparation practices. This was accomplished by
two authors (CJD & RBH) with extensive experience in teacher preparation research and practice. The goal was
to categorize the practices into functionally similar preservice student and beginning teacher preparation methods
and procedures. The iterative process was repeated more than 10 times until internally consistent subsets of
practices were identified.
Fourteen (14) different types of practices were found to be the focus of different meta-analyses or research
investigations. These practices are shown in Table 1. The particular practices for each type of practice are the
ones for which meta-analyses or research studies were located and included in the research synthesis. Research
reports of more than 60 different preservice practices were examined in the research synthesis. 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) (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.

http://hes.ccsenet.org Higher Education Studies Vol. 10, No. 1; 2020
32
Table 1. Teacher and preservice professional preparation practices that were the focus of the research synthesis
Teacher preparation practices/variables
Types of practices
Teacher degree
High school degree, associate’s degree, child development
associate’s degree, bachelor’s degree, master’s degree
Teacher preparation program
Extended teacher preparation degree programs, traditional four year
bachelor’s degree program
Teacher certification
Traditional teacher certification, National Board Certification, Teach
for America Certification, alternative teacher certification
In-field degree/certification
In-field certification or degree; out-of-field certification or degree
Coursework
General education courses, subject matter courses, methods courses,
first year seminars, course attendance
Methods of course delivery
Distance education courses, blended courses, personalized system of
instruction courses, audio tutorial courses
Web- and
technology-based instruction
Virtual reality instruction, computer-assisted instruction, information
and communication technology instruction, internet-based
instruction, technology-assisted instruction, intelligent tutoring
instruction
Course-based student
learning methods
Inquiry-based learning, problem-based learning, self-directed
learning, note taking practices, visually-based learning,
explanation-based learning
Cooperative learning practices
Small group learning, peer tutoring, peer instruction
Faculty instructional practices
Faculty coaching, faculty mentoring, faculty instructional practices,
faculty feedback on student performance, student feedback on
faculty instruction, consultative feedback on student ratings of
faculty performance
Teaching method instruction
Simulation-based instruction, critical thinking instruction, teaching
methods instruction, peer-facilitated teaching, microteaching,
modeling teaching practices, mini-courses
Field experiences
Extended student teaching (10+ weeks), limited student teaching
(5-9 weeks), course-based field experiences, service learning
Field experience supervision
Clinical supervision, performance feedback
Induction and school-based
mentoring
School-based induction programs, school-based mentoring,
workplace mentoring, workplace coaching
2.4 Preservice Student and Beginning Teacher Outcomes
A similar iterative process was used to categorize the outcome measures in the meta-analyses and research
studies. The outcomes in each meta-synthesis and research study were content analyzed to identify the dependent
variables that were the focus of investigation and to categorize the outcomes as either teaching quality measures
or study participant outcomes other than teaching quality. Table 2 shows the categorization of the outcomes.
The teaching quality measures included both teaching behavior and preservice student and beginning teacher
belief appraisals. The teaching behavior outcomes included measures of different types of instructional practices
and classroom practices. Instructional practices were measured in terms of preservice student, student teacher,
and beginning teacher teaching practices, teacher performance, and teacher-student interactions. The belief
appraisal outcomes included preservice student and beginning teacher assessments of their abilities to enact
teaching behavior and practices. These included preservice and beginning teacher self-efficacy beliefs (Arsal,
2014), preparedness beliefs (Ingvarson, Beavis, & Kleinhenz, 2007), and commitment to teaching beliefs (Heinz,
2015).
The preservice and beginning teacher participant outcome measures were subdivided into two types of outcomes:
Performance measures and belief appraisals. The preservice student and beginning teacher performance
outcomes included, but were not limited to, academic achievement, student teaching and job-related performance,
knowledge acquisition, skill development, course grades, final exam scores, and GPA. The belief appraisal
outcomes included judgments of either satisfaction with or attitudes toward faculty instruction, learning methods,
course delivery, performance feedback, and other preservice practices. These types of belief appraisals all
involved judgments of “others” behavior and practices in contrast to the teaching quality belief appraisals that all

http://hes.ccsenet.org Higher Education Studies Vol. 10, No. 1; 2020
33
involved preservice and beginning teacher judgments of their own behavior and practices.
Table 2. Categorization of the outcome measures for performing the research synthesis
Outcome categories
Types of study outcomes
Teaching quality outcomes
Teaching behavior
Classroom quality, teaching practices, teacher performance, instructional
practices, classroom management
Belief appraisals
Teacher self-efficacy beliefs, teacher preparedness, commitment to teaching
Participant outcomes
Performance measures
Achievement, academic performance, knowledge acquisition, skill acquisition,
course grades, grade point average
Belief appraisals
Satisfaction with and attitudes towards course quality, faculty instructional
practices, coaching and mentoring, methods of learning, etc.
2.5 Data Preparation and Analysis
The metrics for evaluating the relationships between the preservice teacher preparation practices and both
preservice student and beginning teacher outcomes were mean difference effect sizes and the 95% confidence
intervals for the average effect sizes (Cumming, 2012; Zientek et al., 2012). Most meta-analyses included the
mean difference effect sizes for the relationships between one or more preservice practices and preservice
student or beginning teacher outcomes. In cases where results were expressed in terms of other metrics or indices,
these were converted to mean difference effect sizes using generally accepted methods (Borenstein, Hedges,
Higgins, & Rothstein, 2009). In other cases, the mean difference effect sizes were computed from information
available in individual research reports.
2.6 Data Interpretation
The effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals for each preservice practice-outcome measure relationship in each
of the different meta-analyses and research studies were averaged using the weighted mean of means procedure
in SPSS (IBM Corp, 2016). This permitted determination of the aggregated effects of each preservice practice
for each of the different outcomes that were the focus of investigation in the meta-analyses and studies in the
research synthesis and the range of effects as determined by the aggregated 95% confidence intervals. A 95%
confidence interval not including zero indicates that an average effect size differs significantly from zero at p
< .05 (Hedges, 1994).
Empirically derived effect size ranges were used for interpreting the strength of the relationships between the
preservice and beginning teacher practices and the study outcomes for establishing insignificant, small, medium,
large, and very large sizes of effects. Findings from meta-analyses of higher education studies of the same or
similar types of practices examined in the present research synthesis were used to construct effect size ranges
(Schneider & Preckel, 2017; Tomcho & Foels, 2008). The effect size parameters used for data interpretation
were < .10 (no effect), .10 to .35 (small effect), .36 to .65 (medium effect), .66 to .90 (large effect), and > .90
(very large effect).
The extent to which the mean difference effect sizes were reasonable estimates for the relationships between the
preservice and beginning teacher practices and study outcomes was assessed using the 95% confidence intervals
for the point estimates (Cumming, 2012; Thompson, 2008; Wiernik, Kostal, Wilmot, Dilchert, & Ones, 2017).
Average effect sizes with small confidence intervals indicate that a practice had similar effects on an outcome in
different meta-analyses and research studies. Average effect sizes with large confidence intervals indicate a
differential effect of a practice on an outcome of interest. In the latter case, individual meta-analyses were
examined to determine if an effect size estimate was influenced by another variable.
The practical significance (Bakker, Cai, Kaiser, Mesa, & Van Dooren, 2019) and practical benefits (Pogrow,
2019) of the results was determined by looking for generalized patterns of findings between the preservice and
beginning teacher practices and study outcomes (Rossman, Yore, Hand, & Shelley, 2009). Results were
examined to determine if the same or similar classes of preservice practices (e.g., field experiences) were related
to the same or similar classes of outcome measures (e.g., teaching quality).
3. Results and Discussion
The results are organized according to three sets of outcomes: Teaching quality, preservice student and beginning
teacher performance, and preservice student and beginning teacher beliefs. The teaching quality outcomes

http://hes.ccsenet.org Higher Education Studies Vol. 10, No. 1; 2020
34
included measures of different types of teaching practices and preservice and beginning teacher competencies.
The performance outcomes included measures of knowledge, skills, and academic achievement. The belief
outcomes included preservice student and beginning teacher attitudes toward and satisfaction with different types
of preservice practices.
3.1 Teaching Quality
Table 3 shows the rank-ordering for the relationships between the teacher preparation practices and the teaching
quality outcome measures. Thirty-two of the 40 preservice and beginning teacher practices (80%) were
associated with positive teaching quality outcomes as evidenced by the sizes of effects and confidence intervals
not including zero. The sizes of effects, however, differed considerably as a function of the type of preservice
practice and teaching quality outcome. Five different patterns of relationships were evident in the findings from
the research synthesis where internally consistent sets of practices were related to the teaching quality outcome
measures.
3.1.1 Very Large Sizes of Effect
Three of the four teacher preparation practices that were associated with very large effect sizes involved active
preservice student engagement in learning to use different types of teaching and clinical practices. The sizes of
effects for extended student teaching (10+ weeks) are especially relevant to the purposes of this research
synthesis since this practice was associated with both better classroom quality and better teaching practices. The
confidence interval for extended student teaching was, however, quite large. Close inspection of the
practice-outcome relationships for these practices indicated that the confidence intervals for extended student
teaching were due, in part, to differences in the use of classroom management practices by regular education
student teachers (ES = 1.32) compared to special education student teachers (ES = .59). The large confidence
interval for simulation-based instruction with deliberate practices appears related to the complexity of the
clinical practice that was the focus of investigation (McGaghie, Issenberg, Cohen, Barsuk, & Wayne, 2011). The
more complex the clinical practice, the smaller the size of effect. The results, taken together, nonetheless point to
the importance of ongoing authentic learning opportunities to acquire the skills needed to engage in specific
types of classroom and clinical practices (Bransford et al., 2003; Bronkhorst, Meijer, Koster, & Vermunt, 2011;
Ericsson, 2006).
3.1.2 Large Sizes of Effect
Twelve of the preservice teacher preparation practices were associated with large effect sizes. Half of the
practices involved activities to promote preservice student acquisition of teaching and instructional practices
(e.g., teaching practices instruction, microteaching). Limited student teaching was also associated with student
teacher use of teaching and classroom quality practices. The confidence intervals for the seven practices, except
for the effects for peer instruction and limited student teaching, were reasonably small. The large confidence
interval for the relationship between peer instruction and teaching practices is due to one study in the
meta-analysis with an effect size that was an extreme outlier (Metcalf, 1995). The large confidence interval for
the relationship between limited student teaching and classroom quality was due to the differences between
general education and special education students in terms of their differential use of behavior management
practices. The findings for practices having large effect sizes, taken together, indicate the importance of
deliberate efforts to promote preservice and beginning teacher acquisition of core teaching practices as evidenced
by the sizes of effects between practices emphasizing active preservice student and beginning teacher
involvement in learning core teaching practices (Gossman, 2018; O'Flaherty & Beal, 2018).
Two of the preservice and beginning teacher practices associated with large effect sizes were related to belief
appraisals. Teacher degree was associated with teacher beliefs about the effectiveness of teaching practices
(Moulding, Stewart, & Dunmeyer, 2014) and workplace coaching was associated with a stronger sense of career
commitment (Kinlaw, 1999). These types of belief appraisals are indicators of an intent to engage in optimal job
performance (Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998).
3.1.3 Medium Sizes of Effect
Seven of the preservice teacher preparation practices were associated with medium effect sizes. Four of the
seven practices involved some type of faculty or clinical supervisor feedback and guidance. Feedback and
guidance had positive effects on teaching and clinical practices, self-efficacy beliefs, and university
faculty-student interactions. The confidence intervals for these practices were all reasonably small except for
supervisor feedback on preservice student clinical performance where the lower bound included zero (Kluger &
DeNisi, 1996). The meta-analysts conducted extensive moderator analyses and found that positive performance

http://hes.ccsenet.org Higher Education Studies Vol. 10, No. 1; 2020
35
feedback on student task completion was associated with larger sizes of effects compared to feedback that caused
students to focus attention to themselves rather than on the clinical practice that was the target of feedback. That
is, performance feedback was
Table 3. Mean effect sizes (ES) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the relationships between the preservice
and beginning teacher preparation practices and the teaching quality outcome measures
Rank
Preservice practices
Teaching quality measures
ES
95% CI
1
Faculty coaching
Instructor teaching practices
2.30
---
2
Simulated instruction with deliberate practice
Clinical practice/teaching
1.67
.90, 2.58
3
Extended student teaching (10+ weeks)
Classroom quality
1.59
.81, 2.34
4
Extended student teaching (10+ weeks)
Teaching practices
1.52
1.02, 2.00
5
Critical thinking instruction
High level questioning skills
0.89
.87, .91
6
Teaching practices instruction
High level questioning skills
0.79
.58, 1.01
7
Peer instruction
Teaching practices
0.78
.12, 1.44
8
Limited student teaching (5-9 weeks)
Teaching practices
0.77
.49, 1.06
9
BA vs. HS
Teacher beliefs
0.77
.57, .97
10
Microteaching
Teaching practices
0.76
.71, .81
11
Workplace coaching
Career commitment
0.74
.42, 1.06
12
Limited student teaching (5-9 weeks)
Classroom quality
0.73
.25, 1.20
13
Inquiry-based learning
Teaching practices
0.72
.69, .74
14
Mini-courses
Teaching practices
0.70
.60, .80
15
Consultative feedback on student ratings
Instructor teaching practices
0.69
.43, .95
16
Clinical supervision
Self-efficacy beliefs
0.66
.23, 1.08
17
Modeling teaching practices
Teaching practices
0.59
.45, .74
18
BA vs. HS
Teaching practices
0.52
.50, .53
19
School-based mentoring
Teaching practices
0.49
.38, .60
20
Student feedback on instructor practices
Instructor teaching practices
0.42
.41, .43
21
Clinical supervisor performance feedback
Clinical practices
0.41
-18, 1.00
22
Faculty feedback on student performance
Faculty-student interactions
0.40
.26, .54
23
Simulated student teaching practices
Teaching/clinical practices
0.34
.31, .38
24
BA vs. HS
Classroom quality
0.33
.27, .40
25
Workplace mentoring
Career commitment
0.32
.19, .44
26
BA vs. AA
Teaching practices
0.28
.21, .34
27
Field experiences
Teaching practices
0.25
-06, .44
28
Number of education courses
Teaching practices
0.25
-.13, .63
29
MA vs. HS
Classroom quality
0.23
.10, .36
30
MA vs. AA/CDA
Classroom quality
0.21
.12, .29
31
BA vs. AA/CDA
Classroom quality
0.16
.08, .24
32
MA vs. BA
Classroom quality
0.16
.05, .26
33
School-based mentoring
Teacher preparedness
0.12
-.05, .29
34
In-field certification
Teaching practices
0.05
-.03, .13
35
AA/CDA vs. HS
Classroom quality
0.04
-.04, .11
36
Number of education classes
Teacher preparedness
0.03
-.05, .10
37
Extended teacher preparation program
Self-efficacy beliefs
0.02
-.06, .10
38
In-field certification
Classroom quality
-0.03
-.19, .14
39
School-based mentoring program
Teacher preparedness
-0.06
-.42, .31
40
Extended teacher preparation program
Teaching practices
-0.07
-.18, .03
most effective when the focus of the feedback was on what a preservice student or beginning teacher did well
and what was the consequence of his or her use of a practice. The results point to the importance of university
faculty and clinical supervisor feedback and guidance as a factor influencing preservice student and beginning
teacher use of effective teaching practices (Anderson & Radencich, 2001; Burns, Jacobs, & Yendol-Hoppey,
2016a; Vertemara & Flushman, 2017).
Two of the preservice practices (modeling teaching practices and simulated student teaching practices) were also
associated with medium effect sizes. Both of the practices were related to preservice student and beginning
teacher use of the instructional practices that were the focus of preservice preparation. The practice-outcome

http://hes.ccsenet.org Higher Education Studies Vol. 10, No. 1; 2020
36
relationships for these preservice practices emphasize the importance of different types of preservice and
beginning teacher learning experiences and opportunities as factors promoting the acquisition of core teaching
competencies (Hauser & Kavanagh, 2019; Hollins, 2011).
3.1.4 Medium Sizes of Effect
Seven of the preservice teacher preparation practices were associated with medium effect sizes. Four of the
seven practices involved some type of faculty or clinical supervisor feedback and guidance. Feedback and
guidance had positive effects on teaching and clinical practices, self-efficacy beliefs, and university
faculty-student interactions. The confidence intervals for these practices were all reasonably small except for
supervisor feedback on preservice student clinical performance where the lower bound included zero (Kluger &
DeNisi, 1996). The meta-analysts conducted extensive moderator analyses and found that positive performance
feedback on student task completion was associated with larger sizes of effects compared to feedback that caused
students to focus attention to themselves rather than on the clinical practice that was the target of feedback. That
is, performance feedback was most effective when the focus of the feedback was on what a preservice student or
beginning teacher did well and what was the consequence of his or her use of a practice. The results point to the
importance of university faculty and clinical supervisor feedback and guidance as a factor influencing preservice
student and beginning teacher use of effective teaching practices (Anderson & Radencich, 2001; Burns, Jacobs,
& Yendol-Hoppey, 2016a; Vertemara & Flushman, 2017).
Two of the preservice practices (modeling teaching practices and simulated student teaching practices) were also
associated with medium effect sizes. Both of the practices were related to preservice student and beginning
teacher use of the instructional practices that were the focus of preservice preparation. The practice-outcome
relationships for these preservice practices emphasize the importance of different types of preservice and
beginning teacher learning experiences and opportunities as factors promoting the acquisition of core teaching
competencies (Hauser & Kavanagh, 2019; Hollins, 2011).
3.1.5 Small Sizes of Effect
Nine of the preservice teacher practices were associated with small effect sizes. Six of these practices involved
comparisons of teachers with different degrees. In all six comparisons, having a bachelor’s or master’s degree
was associated with better classroom quality and better teaching practices compared to an associate’s or high
school degree. These results are consistent with the contention that advanced degrees are associated with the use
of more effective teaching practices (Whitebook, 2003). The influence of teaching degree on teaching quality is
not nearly as important as authentic learning opportunities and performance feedback and guidance as found for
practices associated with medium to very large effect sizes.
3.1.6 No Effects
Eight of the teacher preparation practices had no discernable effects on the preservice student and beginning
teacher outcomes as evidenced by confidence intervals including zero. Six of the eight practices are proxy
measures for teacher preparation program inputs which have been found to not be related to teacher preparation
program effectiveness (Mitchel & King, 2016; Smith et al., 2019). These practices included teacher certification,
teaching degree, and extended teacher preparation.
One other practice is worthy of note. Whereas school-based induction programs were not related to teacher belief
appraisals in terms of preparedness to teach, individual school-based coaching and mentoring were associated
with a number of the preservice and beginning teacher belief measures. Findings from a number of recent
research reviews indicate that individualized mentoring of beginning teachers as part of teacher induction stands
out as an important factor influencing the transition to a teaching career (Sponner-Lane, 2017; Wang, 2019).
4. Preservice Student and Beginning Teacher Performance
The rank-ordering for the relationships between the preservice and beginning teacher preparation practices and
the performance outcomes are shown in Table 4. Thirty-seven of the 41 teacher preparation practices (93%) were
associated with positive outcomes as evidenced by average effect sizes greater than .10 and confidence intervals
not including zero. Three things are noteworthy about the results. First, the sizes of effects differed considerably
as a function of the type of preservice practice. Second, the effect sizes for the preservice practices-outcome
relationships are almost identical to those found in other research reviews of the same or similar types of
practices and the same or similar types of outcomes (Hattie, 2015; Tomcho & Foels, 2008). Third, all of the
confidence intervals, with only a few exceptions, are very small, indicating that the average effect sizes are
reasonable estimates for the practice-outcome relationships (Cumming, 2012; Young, Young, & Hamilton, 2014).

http://hes.ccsenet.org Higher Education Studies Vol. 10, No. 1; 2020
37
4.1 Very Large Sizes of Effect
Only two of the preservice practices were associated with very large effect sizes: Traditional classroom
instruction plus peer instruction and class attendance. The former suggests that peer instruction provided students
opportunities to reinforce classroom learning (Burke, Plunkett, & Li, 2017), and the latter suggests that class
Table 4. Mean effect sizes (ES) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the relationships between the preservice and beginning
teacher preparation practices and performance outcomes
Rank
Preservice practices
Pa
Performance measures
ES
95% CI
1
Peer instruction + traditional classroom instruction
U
Achievement
0.96
.59, 1.33
2
Student class attendance
U
Achievement
0.94
.92, .96
3
Faculty coaching
U
Achievement
0.77
.67, .86
4
Performance feedback
U/G
Knpwledge/skill acquisition
0.74
.38, 1.09
5
Inquiry-based learning
U
Achievement
0.72
.69, .74
6
Small group learning
U
Achievement
0.63
.60, .66
7
Virtual-reality instruction
U
Achievement
0.43
.42, .44
8
Service learning
U
Achievement
0.43
.42, .44
9
Problem-based learning
U/G
Skill acquisition
0.43
.34, .53
10
Workplace coaching
CE
Job performance
0.40
.33, .46
11
Information & communication technology learning
U
Achievement
0.38
.30, .45
12
Computer-assisted learning
U
Achievement
0.38
.36, .41
13
Personal system of instruction learning courses
U
Achievement
0.36
.34, .38
14
Intelligent tutoring instruction
U
Achievement
0.35
.24, .46
15
Problem-based learning
U
Knowledge acquisition
0.34
.32, .36
16
Blended courses
U
Achievement
0.34
.33, .35
17
Computer-assisted instruction with feedback
U
Achievement
0.34
.32, .36
18
Faculty mentoring
U
Academic performance
0.33
.30, .36
19
Self-directed learning
U
Achievement
0.33
.30, .36
20
Small group learning
U
Academic performance
0.31
.29, .33
21
Faculty feedback on student performance
U
Achievement
0.30
.29, .31
22
Service learning
U
Skill acquisition
0.29
.28, .30
23
Technology-assisted instruction
U
Achievement
0.29
.28, .30
24
Peer tutoring
U
Achievement
0.28
.19, .37
25
Critical thinking instruction
U
Skill acquisition
0.26
.19, .33
26
Student note-taking practices
U
Course grades
0.25
.22, .27
27
Internet-based instruction
U
Achievement
0.25
.22, .29
28
Workplace mentoring
CE
Job performance
0.24
.17, .31
29
Small group computer-assisted instruction
U
Achievement
0.23
.22, .25
30
Audio tutorial courses
U
Achievement
0.22
.21, .23
31
Student feedback on faculty instruction
U
Achievement
0.22
.19, .25
32
Distance education courses
U
Achievement
0.21
.19, .23
33
Simulation-based instruction
U
Knowledge acquisition
0.18
.13, .23
34
Explanation-based learning
U
Knowledge acquisition
0.17
.14, .21
35
Visually-based learning
U
Achievement
0.15
.14, .16
36
Field experiences
ST/FT
Knowledge/skill acquisition
0.14
.09, .19
37
Field experiences
U
Achievement
0.12
.01, .22
38
Peer instruction
U
Knowledge/skill acquisition
0.09
.08, .10
39
Extended teacher preparation program
FT/CE
Job performance
0.06
-.03, .14
40
First year teaching seminars
U
Grade point average
0.02
-.25, .29
41
Computer-assisted learning with student control
U
Achievement
-0.01
-.02, .00
attendance provides opportunities for obtaining information as a foundation for academic success (Credé, Roch,
& Kieszczynka, 2010). Both practices point to the role of different types of learning opportunities for mastering
university course material and content contributing to academic achievement.
4.2 Large Sizes of Effect
Faculty coaching and performance feedback were each associated with large effect sizes. The effects of coaching

http://hes.ccsenet.org Higher Education Studies Vol. 10, No. 1; 2020
38
and performance feedback are noteworthy since both practices reflect the importance of faculty-provided
guidance and support as factors influencing preservice student performance achievement and skill development
(Fletcher & Mullen, 2012; Scheeler, Ruhl, & McAfee, 2004). The large confidence interval for performance
feedback was due to differences in the types of feedback investigated in the studies in the meta-analysis of this
type of preservice practice (Hatala, Cook, Zendejas, Hamstra, & Brydges, 2013).
4.3 Medium Sizes of Effect
Nine of the preservice practices were associated with medium effect sizes. The practices included a mix of active
preservice student learning opportunities (e.g., inquiry-based learning, problem-based learning), technology and
e-learning opportunities (e.g., computer-assisted learning, information and communication technology learning),
field experiences (e.g., service learning), and beginning teacher feedback and guidance (e.g., workplace
coaching). The combination of practices emphasizes the importance of different types of preservice and
beginning teacher practices as sources of academic achievement and optimal job performance (Cohan &
Honigsfeld, 2011; Darling-Hammond, 2006).
4.4 Small Sizes of Effect
Twenty-four of the 41 preservice practices-preservice student and beginning teacher performance outcomes
(58%) were associated with small effect sizes. Several things are noteworthy about the patterns of results. First,
and in contrast to the practices associated with medium effect sizes, the practices associated with small effect
sizes include a preponderance of outcomes that are measures of knowledge and skill acquisition and academic
performance (e.g., course grades). Second, many of the practices associated with sizes of effects ranked the
highest are qualitatively different from those ranked the lowest. For example, practices that actively involve
preservice students in improved performance (e.g., problem-based learning, self-directed learning, small group
learning) tend to be ranked higher than practices that involve more passive types of learning (e.g.,
explanation-based learning, visually-based learning). Third, the particular practices that are associated with skill
acquisition are ones that provide preservice students and beginning teacher authentic learning experiences and
opportunities (e.g., service learning, field experiences). Fourth, the importance of guidance and feedback as a
factor contributing to preservice student and beginning teacher performance is once again apparent in the pattern
of results for the practice-outcome relationships (e.g., faculty mentoring, performance feedback, workplace
mentoring).
4.5 No Effects
Four of the preservice practices had no discernable effects on preservice and beginning teacher outcomes as
evidence by mean difference effect sizes smaller than .10 and/or confidence intervals including zero. Two of the
practices (extended teacher preparation program and first-year teaching seminars) are the same types of teacher
preparation program inputs found to have no effects on the teaching quality outcomes.
5. Preservice Student and Beginning Teacher Belief Appraisals
Belief appraisals are subjective judgments of a person’s evaluation of a person, object, or event. Two of the
primary belief appraisals used in preservice teacher education program research are attitudes toward and
satisfaction with learning methods, faculty teaching, student teaching, etc. Attitudes include evaluative
judgments of the positive or negative consequences of a target of appraisal (Maio & Haddock, 2010).
Satisfaction is a student’s judgment of “how well a learning environment supports academic success” (Lo, 2010,
p. 48). Both types of belief appraisals are indirect or proxy measures on the perceived benefits of the focus of
preservice and beginning teacher practices.
Table 5 shows the ranking orderings for the relationships between the preservice practices and preservice student
and beginning teacher attitudes toward and satisfaction with different types of teacher preparation program
practices. Sixteen of the 21 practices were associated with small or medium effect sizes (76%), four of the 21
practices (24%) had no discernable effects on preservice student and beginning teacher beliefs as evidenced by
confidence intervals including zero, and one practice (information and communication technology learning) was
associated with a negative effect on satisfaction with this type of learning method.
5.1 Medium Sizes of Effect
Nine of the preservice practices were related to preservice student and beginning teacher belief appraisals. The
preservice and beginning teacher practices that were associated with medium effect sizes included guidance and
feedback (coaching and mentoring), learning methods (problem-based learning, small group learning), and
method of instruction (simulation-based instruction, personal system of instruction). One of the practices

http://hes.ccsenet.org Higher Education Studies Vol. 10, No. 1; 2020
39
(simulation-based instruction), however, had a confidence interval including zero. Examination of the studies in
this meta-analysis showed that students were less satisfied with this type of instruction involving simple tasks
and were more satisfied with this type of instruction involving difficult tasks (Cook et al., 2013). One other
practice (field placement clinical supervision) was associated with attenuated anxiety (Whittaker, 2004). In this
same meta-analysis, however, clinical supervision was positively related to self-efficacy beliefs (Table 3).
Table 5. Mean effect sizes (ES) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the relationships between the preservice
and beginning teacher preparation practices and student belief measures
Rank
Preservice practices
Student belief measures
ES
95% CI
1
Personal system of instruction courses
Attitudes towards learning method
0.64
.59, .68
2
Faculty mentoring
Attitudes toward faculty practices
0.61
.35, .88
3
Problem-based learning
Attitudes toward learning method
0.57
.54, .60
4
Small group learning
Attitudes toward learning method
0.56
.30, .82
5
Workplace coaching
Attitudes toward coaching
0.54
.34, .73
6
Simulation-based instruction
Satisfaction with type of instruction
0.51
-.33, 1.35
7
Clinical supervision
Anxiety toward supervision (R)
0.45
.19, .72
8
Workplace mentoring
Satisfaction with mentoring
0.39
.38, .41
9
Student feedback of faculty instruction
Attitudes toward type of feedback
0.37
.34, .41
10
Service learning
Attitudes toward field experiences
0.28
.15, .40
11
Technology-assisted instruction
Attitudes toward type of instruction
0.27
.17, .38
12
Internet-based instruction
Satisfaction with type of instruction
0.24
.17, .31
13
Computer-assisted instruction
Satisfaction with type of instruction
0.17
.16, .18
14
Field experiences
Attitudes toward learning experience
0.13
.09, .17
15
Audio tutorial courses
Attitudes toward course delivery
0.10
.09, .11
16
Small group computer-assisted instruction
Attitudes toward learning method
0.04
.01, .07
17
Distance education courses
Satisfaction with course delivery
-0.08
-.12, -.04
18
Visually-based learning
Attitudes toward learning method
-0.09
-.12, -.07
19
Blended courses
Satisfaction with course delivery
-0.15
-.26, -.05
20
Extended teacher preparation program
Attitudes toward preparation program
-0.16
-.19, -.13
21
Information and communication technology learning
Satisfaction with learning method
-0.51
-.68, -.34
NOTES. Confidence intervals in italics were estimated based on the mean effect size and standard deviation for
the studies contributing to the effect size. R = Reversed scored.
5.2 Small Sizes of Effect
Six of the preservice practices were associated with small but statistically significant effect sizes as evidenced by
confidence intervals not including zero. Five of the six practices involved either e-learning instruction
(technology-assisted instruction, internet-based instruction, computer-assisted instruction) or in-vivo learning
experiences (service learning, field experiences). The former all involved comparisons between e-learning
instruction and traditional classroom instruction (e.g., course lectures). The latter involved comparisons between
the two types of learning experiences and no in-vivo learning experiences.
5.3 Negative Sizes of Effects
Five of the preservice practices were associated with statistically significant negative effect sizes as evidenced by
confidence intervals not including zero. These included type of course delivery (distance education courses,
blended courses), visually-based learning, extended teacher preparation programs, and information and
communication technology learning. Blended courses and extended preparation programs were associated with
small effect sizes and information and communication technology learning was associated with a medium effect
size. In all cases, preservice students were less satisfied with and had more negative attitudes toward these
practices compared to more traditional types of practices (e.g., classroom lectures).
6. Conclusions
A number of generalized patterns of results (Rossman et al., 2009) emerged from the research synthesis of the
relationships between the 14 different types of preservice practices that were the focus of investigation (Table 1)
and the preservice student and beginning teacher outcomes (Table 2). These patterns of results were used to
identify preservice practices on a continuum from very high impact practices to practices having little or no
discernable effects on the preservice student and beginning teacher outcomes. These generalized patterns of

http://hes.ccsenet.org Higher Education Studies Vol. 10, No. 1; 2020
40
results were identified by first considering the teaching quality outcomes followed by the preservice student and
beginning teacher performance outcomes and then the preservice student belief outcomes.
Table 6 shows the categorization of the results in terms of different degrees of preservice practice impacts. An
internally consistent set of practices were associated with high or very high degrees of impact. These included
both clinically rich field experiences (extended and limited student teaching) that included opportunities for
deliberate
Table 6. Preservice teacher preparation program practices associated with different degrees of student and
beginning teacher impact
Degree of practice impact
Types of preservice and beginning teacher preparation practices
Very high impact practices
Clinically-rich practices
Extended student teaching (10+ weeks), simulated instruction
with deliberate practice
Coaching and feedback
Faculty coaching, workplace coaching, school-based coaching,
performance feedback
Teaching practices instruction
Critical thinking instruction, microteaching, peer-facilitated student instruction
Type of instruction
Peer instruction
Course-based learning practices
Inquiry-based learning
High impact practices
Student teaching
Limited student teaching (5-9 weeks)
Clinical supervision
Clinical supervision, clinical supervisor performance feedback
Teaching practices instruction
Mini-courses, modeling teaching practices
Course-based learning practices
Problem-based learning
Cooperative learning practices
Small group learning, peer tutoring
Medium impact practices
Mentoring and feedback
Faculty feedback on student performance, faculty mentoring,
school-based mentoring, workplace mentoring
Student field experiences
Course field experiences, service learning
Teaching practice instruction
Simulation-based practices
Student directed learning
Student self-directed learning, student note-taking practices
Types of course instruction
Virtual reality instruction, personal system of instruction learning
courses, intelligent tutoring instruction, simulation-based instruction
Types of courses
Blended courses, audio tutorial self-directed courses, distance education
courses (limited and fully interactive)
E-learning methods and practices
Computer-assisted learning, information and communication technology
learning, technology-assisted learning, internet-based learning
Low impact practices
Teacher degree
Teaching degree (MA/BA vs. CDA/AA/HS)
Education classes
Number of education classes
Course-based learning methods
Explanation-based learning, visually-based learning
Course-based instruction practices
Student feedback on faculty instruction, simulation-based instruction
Practices with no impact
Teacher certification
In-field certification, alternative certification (Teach for America
Certification, National Board Certification)
Type of preservice program
Extended teacher preparation program
Preparatory practices
First year teaching seminars
Teacher induction programs
School-based induction programs, induction program practices (group
seminars, group teacher support networks, group collaborative planning)
NOTE. Practices in italics include the specific types of practices associated or not associated with preservice
student and beginning teacher outcomes.
practice, faculty and school-based coaching, clinical supervision and performance feedback, different types of
learning opportunities to learn to teach, course-based experiential learning experiences, and cooperative learning
opportunities. The patterns of results are consistent with a practice-based approach to teacher preparation
(Darling-Hammond, 2014; Forzani, 2014; Hauser & Kavanagh, 2019) which emphasizes the importance of

http://hes.ccsenet.org Higher Education Studies Vol. 10, No. 1; 2020
41
authentic preservice teacher preparation learning opportunities and experiences, faculty and clinical supervisor
coaching, guidance, and feedback (Burns et al., 2016a; Dunst & Hamby, 2015), and practices that involve
repeated and ongoing learning opportunities to perfect teaching abilities and practices (Bransford et al., 2003;
Bronkhorst et al., 2011).
A cluster of six practices was associated with medium preservice teacher preparation impact. These included
different types of less intense student field experiences (course-based field placements, service learning), faculty
and school-based mentoring, performance feedback, simulated learning experiences (e.g., simulation-based
practices for learning to teach, virtual reality instruction), student directed learning opportunities (e.g.,
self-directed courses), and different types of e-learning methods and practices. Close inspection of these
practices, when compared to very high and high impact practices, indicates that they involve less preservice
student and beginning teacher investment in terms of active involvement in acquiring the knowledge and skills
needed to become a well prepared teacher (Darling-Hammond, 2006).
The preservice student and beginning teacher practices associated with little or no discernable impact include a
preponderance of teacher preparation program inputs (Mitchel & King, 2016) and static measures of teacher
preparation (Goldhaber & Brewer, 1996). These include teacher degree, number of education classes, type of
teacher certification, type of teacher preparation program, and teacher preparation program preparatory practices.
Except for the course-based learning methods and practices that had little or no impact on the teacher preparation
practice outcomes, nearly all of the teacher preparation practices associated with little or no benefits are ones that
tell us little about the make-up or content of the practices that were not associated with positive preservice
student and beginning teacher outcomes.
The particular preservice and beginning teacher preparation practice having very high impact and high impact
benefits, and to a lesser extent the practices associated with medium effects, provide a foundation for which
types of experiences and opportunities are indicated for improving preservice teacher education. These practices
provide a framework for preparing novice and beginning teachers’ abilities to engage in effective teaching with
students in preschool through high school (Hauser & Kavanagh, 2019; Hollins, 2011; O'Flaherty & Beal, 2018).
6.1 Implications for Preservice Teacher Preparation
The patterns of results are consistent with calls for practice-based preservice and beginning teacher preparation
(Forzani, 2014; Hauser & Kavanagh, 2019; Jansse, Grossman, & Westbroek, 2015; Peercy & Troyan, 2017) that
“focus professional preparation more directly on the enactment of teaching practices” (Forzani, 2014, p. 357)
and clinically rich coaching and feedback on the use of the teaching practices (Burns et al., 2016a; Ong'ondo &
Jwan, 2009). The results also point to the importance of active preservice student and beginning teacher
involvement in knowledge and skill acquisition at all points-in-time during teacher preparation (Herrington &
Herrington, 2017; Wright, 2011) and faculty coaching, mentoring, and feedback on this knowledge and skill
acquisition (Fletcher & Mullen, 2012; Grima-Farrell, 2015; McGraw & Davis, 2017).
The types of preservice student and beginning teacher preparation practices identified as very high impact and
high impact practices (Table 6) are especially indicated for graduating extraordinarily well prepared teachers
(Darling-Hammond, 2006). Medium impact practices are indicated for providing preservice students with
multiple experiences and opportunities to master foundational knowledge and skills. The particular practices
used as part of teacher preparation would depend on course content and the knowledge and skills that are the
focus of teacher education.
6.2 Limitations
Dunst et al. (2019a) describe a number of limitations to the focus, methodology, and results of the research
synthesis described in this paper. These include the fact that no meta-analyses of frequently used preservice
practices could be located (e.g., case-based learning), the unevenness in the rigor of the methodologies used by
the meta-analysts of the primary studies, and the fact that our method to coalescing evidence was a main effects
approach to data aggregation. It therefore could be the case that preservice practices having little or no impact
may be important but that their relationships with preservice student and beginning teacher outcomes are indirect
and mediated by other intervening variables.
Acknowledgments
The preparation of this paper was supported, in part, by funding from the U.S. Department of Education, Office
of Special Education Programs (No. 325B120004) for the Early Childhood Personnel Center (Mary Beth Bruder,
Principal Investigator), University of Connecticut Health Center. The contents and opinions expressed, however,
are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the policy or official position of the U.S. Department of

http://hes.ccsenet.org Higher Education Studies Vol. 10, No. 1; 2020
42
Education, Office of Special Education Programs, University of Connecticut Health Center, or the Early
Childhood Personnel Center, and no endorsement should be inferred or implied.
References
Ahn, S., Ames, A. J., & Myers, N. D. (2012). A review of meta-analyses in education: Methodological strengths
and weaknesses. Review of Educational Research, 82(4), 436-476.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312458162
Alfieri, L., Brooks, P. J., Aldrich, N. J., & Tenenbaum, H. R. (2011). Does discovery-based instruction enhance
learning?. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1037/a002101
Anderson, N. A., & Radencich, M. C. (2001). The value of feedback in an early field experience: Peer, teacher,
and supervisor coaching. Action in Teacher Education, 23(3), 66-74.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2001.10463076
Arsal, Z. (2014). Microteaching and pre-service teachers’ sense of self-efficacy in teaching. European Journal of
Teacher Education, 37(4), 453-464. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2014.912627
Bakker, A., Cai, J., Kaiser, G., Mesa, M., & Van Dooren, W. (2019). Beyond small, medium, or large: Points of
consideration when interpreting effect sizes. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 102, 1-8.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-019-09908-4
Bergeron, P., & Rivard, L. (2017). How to engage in pseudoscience with real data: A criticism of John Hattie's
arguments in Visible Learning from the perspective of a statistician. McGill Journal of Education, 52(1),
1-10. https://doi.org/10.7202/1040816ar
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis.
Chichester, England: Wiley.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., Cocking, R. R., Donovan, M. S., Bransford, J. D., & Pellegrino, J. W. (Eds.).
(2003). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (Expanded ed.). Washington, DC: National
Academy Press. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED440122.pdf.
Bronkhorst, L. H., Meijer, P. C., Koster, B., & Vermunt, J. D. (2011). Fostering meaning-oriented learning and
deliberate practice in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 1120-1130.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.05.008
Burke, J., Plunkett, M., & Li, B. (2017). Peer enhancement of learning and teaching for teacher educators. In J.
Mena, A. Garcia-Valcarcel, F. J. C. Penalvo, & M. M. Del Pozo (Eds.), Search and research: Teacher
education for contemporary contexts (pp. 347-356). Salamanca, Spain: Universidad de Salamanca Press.
Burns, R. W., Jacobs, J., & Yendol-Hoppey, D. (2016a). The changing nature of the role of the university
supervisor and function of preservice teacher supervision in an era of clinically-rich practice. Action in
Teacher Education, 38(4), 410-425. https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2016.1226203
Burns, R. W., Jacobs, J., & Yendol-Hoppey, D. (2016b). Preservice teacher supervision within field experiences
in a decade of reform: A comprehensive meta-analysis of the empirical literature from 2001 to 2013.
Teacher Education and Practice, 29(1), 46-75.
Campbell, T. A., & Campbell, D. E. (1997). Faculty/student mentor program: Effects on academic performance
and retention. Research in Higher Education, 38(6), 727-742. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024911904627
Casey, C. E., & Childs, R. A. (2017). Teacher education program admission criteria and what beginning teachers
need to know to be successful teachers. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 67,
1-24. Retrieved from https://journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/cjeap
Clift, R. T., & Brady, P. (2005). Research on methods courses and field experiences. In M. Cochran-Smith & K.
M. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher
Education (pp. 309-424). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cochran-Smith, M., Stern, R., Sanchez, J. G., Miller, A., Keef, E. S., Fernandez, M. B., ... Baker, M. (2016).
Holding teacher preparation accountable: A review of claims and evidence. Boulder, CO: National
Education Policy Center, University of Colorado. Retrieved from
https://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/teacher-prep
Cochran-Smith, M., & Zeichner, K. M. (Eds.). (2006). Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA
Panel on Research and Teacher Education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

http://hes.ccsenet.org Higher Education Studies Vol. 10, No. 1; 2020
43
Cohan, A., & Honigsfeld, A. (Eds.). (2011). Breaking the mold of preservice and inservice teacher education:
Innovative and successful practices for the 21st century. Lanham, MD: Rowan & Littlefield Education.
Cook, D. A., Hamstra, S. J., Brydges, R., Zendejas, B., Szostek, J. H., Wang, A. T., ... Hatala, R. (2013).
Comparative effectiveness of instructional design features in simulation-based education: Systematic
review and meta-analysis. Medical Teacher, 35, e867-898. Retrieved from
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.3109/0142159X.2012.714886
Cooper, H., & Koenka, A. C. (2012). The overview of reviews: Unique challenges and opportunities when
research syntheses are the principal elements of new integrative scholarship. American Psychologist, 67 (6),
446-462. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027119
Credé, M., Roch, S. G., & Kieszczynka, U. M. (2010). Class attendance in college: A meta-analytic review of the
relationship of class attendance with grades and student characteristics. Review of Educational Research,
80(2), 272-295. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654310362998
Cumming, G. (2012). Understanding the new statistics: Effect sizes, confidence intervals, and meta-analysis.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st-century teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3),
300-314. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487105285962
Darling-Hammond, L. (2014). Strengthening clinical preparation: The holy grail of teacher education. Peabody
Journal of Education, 89(4), 547-561. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2014.939009
Dunst, C. J., & Hamby, D. W. (2015). A case study approach to secondary reanalysis of a quantitative research
synthesis of adult learning practices studies. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational
Research, 13(3), 181-191. Retrieved from https://www.ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter/article/view/456
Dunst, C. J., Hamby, D. W., Howse, R. B., Wilkie, H., & Annas, K. (2019a). Metasynthesis of preservice
professional preparation and teacher education research studies. Education Sciences, 9(50). Retrieved from
https://susy.mdpi.com/user/manuscripts/review_info/6bcc0ae08297f088a008b6948ca04d8d
Dunst, C. J., Hamby, D. W., Howse, R. B., Wilkie, H., & Annas, K. (2019b). Metasynthesis of preservice
professional preparation and teacher education research studies: Supplemental report. Retrieved from
www.puckett.org/PreserviceMetaSynthesisReport.pdf
Early, D. M., Maxwell, K. L., Burchinal, M., Alva, S., Bender, R. H., Bryant, D., ... Zill, N. (2007). Teachers'
education, classroom quality, and young children's academic skills: Results from seven studies of preschool
programs. Child Development, 78(2), 558-580. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01014.x
Ericsson, K. A. (2006). The influence of experience and deliberate practice on the development of superior
expert performance. In K. A. Ericsson (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance
(pp. 685-705). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816796.038
Fletcher, S., & Mullen, C. A. (Eds.). (2012). The SAGE handbook of mentoring and coaching in education.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Forzani, F. M. (2014). Understanding "core practices" and "practice-based" teacher education: Learning from the
past. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(4), 357-368. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487114533800
Gitomer, D. H., & Bell, C. A. (Eds.). (2016). Handbook of research on teaching (5th ed.). New York: Routledge.
Gitomer, D. H., Latham, A. S., & Ziomek, R. (1999). The academic quality of prospective teachers: The impact
of admissions and licensure testing (Teaching and Learning Research Report No. RR-03-35). Princeton, NJ:
Educational Testing Service. Retrieved from https:/www.ets.org/Media/Researcj/pdf/RR-03-35.pdf
Goe, L. (2006). The research preparation-teacher practices-student outcomes relationships in special education:
A research synthesis. Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. Retrieved from
http://ea.niusileadscape.org/docs/FINAL_PRODUCTS/LearningCarousel/NCCTQResearchSynthesis.pdf
Goldhaber, D., & Brewer, D. J. (1996). Evaluating the effect of teacher degree level on educational performance.
Rockville, MD: Westat.
Goldhaber, D., & Liddle, S. (2012). The gateway to the profession: Assessing teacher preparation programs
based on student achievement. Washington, DC: CALDER. Retrieved from
https://caldercenter.org/sites/default/files/conferences/5th/Goldhaber-et-al.pdf

http://hes.ccsenet.org Higher Education Studies Vol. 10, No. 1; 2020
44
Gossman, P. (Ed.) (2018). Teaching core practices in teacher education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education
Press.
Grima-Farrell, C. (2015). Mentoring pathways to enhancing the personal and professional development of
pre-service teachers. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, 4(4), 255-268.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMCE-07-2015-0020
Hatala, R., Cook, D. A., Zendejas, B., Hamstra, S. J., & Brydges, R. (2013). Feedback for simulation-based
procedural skills training: A meta-analysis and clinical narrative synthesis. Advances in Health Sciences
Education, 19(2), 251-272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-013-9462-8
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York:
Routledge.
Hattie, J. (2011). Which strategies best enhance teaching and learning in higher education? In D. Mashek & E. Y.
Hammer (Eds.), Empirical research in teaching and learning: Contributions from social psychology (pp.
130-142). West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons.
Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on achievement. Oxford, UK: Routledge.
Hattie, J. (2015). The applicability of visible learning to higher education. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
in Psychology, 1(1), 76-91. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000021
Hauser, M., & Kavanagh, S. S. (2019). Practice-based teacher education. In G. Norbit (Ed.), Oxford research
encyclopedia of education. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Hedges, L. V. (1994). Fixed effects models. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research
synthesis (pp. 285-299). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Heinz, M. (2015). Why choose teaching? An international review of empirical studies exploring student teachers'
career motivations and levels of commitment to teaching. Educational Research and Evaluation: An
International Journal on Theory and Practice, 21(3), 258-297.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2015.1018278
Henry, G. T., Kershaw, D. C., Zulli, R. A., & Smith, A. A. (2012). Incorporating teacher effectiveness into
teacher preparation program evaluation. Journal of Teacher Education, 63(5), 335-355.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487112454437
Herrington, T., & Herrington, J. (2017). Authentic learning environments in higher education. Hershey, PA:
Information Science Publishing.
Hollins, E. R. (2011). Teacher preparation for quality teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(4), 395-407.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487111409415
Hollins, E. R. (2015). Rethinking field experiences in preservice teacher preparation: Meeting new challenges
for accountability. New York: Routledge.
IBM Corp. (2016). IBM SPSS statistics for Windows (Version 24). Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.
Ingvarson, L., Beavis, A., & Kleinhenz, E. (2007). Factors affecting the impact of teacher education programmes
on teacher preparedness: Implications for accreditation policy. European Journal of Teacher Education, 30,
351-381. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619760701664151
Isikoglu, N. (2008). The effects of a teaching methods course on early childhood preservice teachers' beliefs.
Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 29, 190-203. https://doi.org/10.1080/10901020802275260
Jansse, F., Grossman, P., & Westbroek, H. (2015). Facilitating decomposition and recomposition in
practice-based teacher education: The power of modularity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 51, 137-146.
Kinlaw, D. C. (1999). Coaching for commitment: Interpersonal strategies for obtaining superior performance
from individuals and teams. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a
meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254-284.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254
Korthagen, F. (2016, June). The search for the Holy Grail: How teacher education can make a difference. Paper
presented at the Bringing Teacher Education Forward Conference, Oslo, Norway. Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIBdBZVIDAk

http://hes.ccsenet.org Higher Education Studies Vol. 10, No. 1; 2020
45
Lehr, M. (1981). Changes in teacher education: The Holy Grail of quality. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Number ED 202 805).
Levin, B. B. (1995). Using the case method in teacher education: The role of discussion and experience in
teachers' thinking about cases. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(1), 63-79.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0742-051X(94)00013-V
Lewis, L., Parsad, B., Carey, N., Bartfai, N., Farris, E., Smerdon, B., & Greene, B. (1999). Teacher quality: A
report on the preparation and qualifications of public school teachers. Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from
https://nces.ed.gov/pubs99/1999080.pdf
Lo, C. C. (2010). How student satisfaction factors affect perceived learning. Journal of Scholarship of Teaching
and Learning, 10(1), 47-54. Retrieved from
https://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/josotl/article/view/1736
Maio, G. R., & Haddock, G. (2010). The psychology of attitudes and attitude change. Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE Publications.
McGaghie, W. C., Issenberg, B., Cohen, E. R., Barsuk, J. H., & Wayne, D. B. (2011). Does simulation-based
medical education with deliberate practice yield better results than traditional clinical education? A
meta-analytic comparative review of the evidence. Academic Medicine, 86(6), 706-711.
https://doi.org/10.1097IACM.0b013e318217e119
McGraw, A., & Davis, R. (2017). Mentoring for pre-service teachers and the use of inquiry-oriented feedback.
International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, 6(1), 50-63.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMCE-03-2016-0023
Metcalf, K. K. (1995, April). Laboratory experiences in teacher education: A meta-analytic review of research.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco,
CA. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED388645.pdf
Mitchel, A. L., & King, M. S. (2016). A new agenda: Research to build a better teacher preparation program.
Retrieved from
http://bellweathereducation.org/publication/new-agenda-research-build-better-teacher-preparation-program
Moulding, L. R., Stewart, P. W., & Dunmeyer, M. L. (2014). Pre-service teachers' sense of efficacy: Relationship
to academic ability, student teaching placement characteristics, and mentor support. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 41, 60-66. https://doi.org/10.1016.j.tate.2014.03.007
Myburgh, S. J. (2016). Critique of peer-reviewed articles on John Hattie’s use of meta-analysis in education.
International and Global Issues for Research (No. 2016/3). The University of Bath, Department of
Education. Retrieved from
http://www.bath.ac.uk/education/documents/working-papers/oitique-of-peer-reviewed-articles.pdf
O'Flaherty, J., & Beal, E. M. (2018). Core competencies and high leverage practices of beginning teachers.
Journal of Education for Teaching, 44(4), 461-478. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2018.1450826
Ong'ondo, C. O., & Jwan, J. O. (2009). Research on student teacher learning, collaboration and supervision
during practicum: A literature review. Educational Research and Review, 4(11), 515-524.
Peercy, M. M., & Troyan, F. J. (2017). Making transparent the challenges of developing a practice-based
pedagogy of teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 61, 26-36.
Pogrow, S. (2019). How effect sizes (practical significance) misleads clinical practice: The case for switching to
practical benefits to assess applied research findings. American Statistician, 73(Sup. 1), 223-234.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.2018.1549101
Rossman, G. B., Yore, L. D., Hand, B., & Shelley, M. C. (2009). Stitching the pieces together to reveal
generalised patterns: Systematic research reviews, secondary re-analyses, case-to-case comparisons, and
meta-syntheses of qualitative research studies. In M. C. Shelley, L. D. Yore, & B. Hand (Eds.), Quality
research in literacy and science education: International perspectives and gold standards (pp. 575-602).
Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer Science + Business Media.
Scheeler, M. C., Ruhl, K. L., & McAfee, J. K. (2004). Providing performance feedback to teachers: A review.
Teacher Education and Special Education, 27(3), 396-407. https://doi.org/10.1177.088840640402700407
Schmidt, F. L., & Oh, I.-S. (2013). Methods for second-order meta-analysis and illustrative applications.

http://hes.ccsenet.org Higher Education Studies Vol. 10, No. 1; 2020
46
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 121, 204-218.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.03.002
Schneider, M., & Preckel, F. (2017). Variables associated with achievement in higher education: A systematic
review of meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 143(6), 565-600. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000098
Smith, K., Wageman, J. J., Anderson, S. K., Duffield, S., & Nyachwaya, J. (2019). The relationship of academic
indicators and professional disposition to teaching skills: A secondary data analysis. Administrative Issues
Journal: Connecting Education, Practice and Research, 8(1), 106-118. https://doi.org/10.5929/2019.1.14.8
Sponner-Lane, R. (2017). Mentoring beginning teachers in primary schools: Research review. Professional
Development in Education, 43(2), 253-273. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.16.1148624
Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin, 124, 240-261. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.240
Thompson, B. (2008). Computing and interpreting effect sizes. confidence intervals, and confidence intervals for
effect sizes. In J. Osborne (Ed.), Best practices in quantitative methods (pp. 246-262). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Tight, M. (2018). Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of higher education research. European Journal of
Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2018.1541752
Tomcho, T. J., & Foels, R. (2008). Assessing effective teaching of psychology: A meta-analytic integration of
learning outcomes. Teaching of Psychology, 35, 286-296. https://doi.org/10.1080/00986280802374575
Vertemara, V., & Flushman, T. (2017). Emphasis of university supervisor feedback to teacher candidates. Journal
of Student Research, 6(2), 45-55. Retrieved from https://jofsr.org/index.php/path/article/view/392/170
Wang, J. (2019). Teacher mentoring in service to beginning teachers' learning to teach: Critical review of
conceptual and empirical literature. In S. J. Zepeda & J. A. Ponticell (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of
educational supervision (pp. 281-306). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Whitebook, M. (2003). Bachelor's degrees are best: Higher qualifications for pre-kindergarten teachers lead to
better learning environments for children. Washington, DC: The Trust for Early Education.
Whittaker, S. M. (2004). A multi-vocal synthesis of supervisees' anxiety and self-efficacy during clinical
supervision: Meta-analysis and interviews. (Doctoral Dissertation). Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University, Blacksburg, VA. Retrieved from
https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/bitstream/handle/10919/28983/whittakeretd.pdf?sequence=1
Wiernik, B. M., Kostal, J. W., Wilmot, M. P., Dilchert, S., & Ones, D. S. (2017). Empirical benchmarks for
interpreting effect size variability in meta-analysis. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 10(3),
472-479. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2017.44
Wilson, S. M., Floden, R. E., & Ferrini-Mundy, J. (2001). Teacher preparation research: Current knowledge,
gaps, and recommendations. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Teaching and Teacher Education.
Retrieved from
https://www.education.uw.edu/ctp/sites/default/files/ctpmail/PDFs/TeacherPrep-WFFM-02-2001.pdf
Wright, G. B. (2011). Student-centered learning in higher education. International Journal of Teaching and
Learning in Higher Education, 23(3), 92-97.
York, T. T., Gibson, C., & Rankin, S. (2015). Defining and measuring academic success. Practical Assessment,
Research & Evaluation, 20(5), 1-20. Retrieved from https://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=20&n=25
Young, J. R., Young, J. L., & Hamilton, C. (2014). The use of confidence intervals as a meta-analytic lens to
summarize the effects of teacher education technology courses on preservice teacher TPACK. Journal of
Research on Technology in Education, 46(2), 149-172. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2013.10782617
Zeichner, K. M. (2005). A research agenda for teacher education. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. M. Zeichner (Eds.),
Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education (pp. 737-759).
New York: Routledge.
Zientek, L. R., Capraro, M. M., & Capraro, R. M. (2008). Reporting practices in quantitative teacher education
research: One look at the evidence cited in the AERA panel report. Educational Researcher, 37(4), 208-216.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X08319762
Zientek, L. R., Ozel, Z. E. Y., Ozel, S., & Allen, J. (2012). Reporting confidence intervals and effect sizes:

http://hes.ccsenet.org Higher Education Studies Vol. 10, No. 1; 2020
47
Collecting the evidence. Career and Technical Education Research, 37(3), 277-295.
https://doi.org/10.5328/cter37.277
Copyrights
Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to the journal.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).