Challenges in Pre-Service Teachers’ Adoption of Innovative Teaching Practices During Practicum

Abstract

This study investigates the challenges Azerbaijani pre-service teachers face in adopting innovative teaching practices during their practicum. Guided by the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework, the research employed a qualitative design using semi-structured interviews with sixteen final-year pre-service teachers across diverse subject areas and practicum schools. Thematic analysis revealed five interconnected challenges: (1) pedagogical difficulties in balancing traditional and modern approaches; (2) limited digital literacy and inadequate preparation for technology integration; (3) classroom management issues, particularly in overcrowded settings; (4) institutional and systemic constraints, including resource disparities and resistance to change; and (5) inconsistent mentorship and feedback from cooperating teachers. These findings highlight tensions between teacher education curricula and practicum realities, particularly in preparing future teachers to integrate technology meaningfully into classroom practice. The study emphasizes the need for curriculum reform, enhanced mentor training, and targeted professional development in digital pedagogy.

Keywords

• Pre-service teachers
• practicum
• teacher education
• Azerbaijan
• student teachers’ challenges

References

1. Asgarova M., & Mammadov R. (2024). Staff training for the teaching profession: International experience and Azerbaijani reality. Azerbaijan Journal of Educational Studies, 707(2), 97-106.
2. Bernay, R., Stringer, P., Milne, J. et al. (2020). Three models of effective school–university partnerships. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 55, 133–148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40841-020-00171-3
3. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
4. Cajkler, W., & Wood, P. (2016). Lesson study and pedagogic literacy in initial teacher education: Challenging reductive models. British Journal of Educational Studies, 64(4), 503–521. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071005.2016.1164295
5. Cochran, K., King, R., & DeRuiter, J. (1993). Pedagogical content knowledge: A tentative for teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 44, 263-277. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487193044004004
6. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (2009). Inquiry as a stance: Practitioner research in the next generation. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
7. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
8. Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st century teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 57, 300–314. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487105285962

9. Donnelly, B. (2004). Inquiry into teacher education. Wellington: Parliamentary Report of the Education and Science Committee.
10. du Plessis, E. C. (2020). Student teachers’ perceptions, experiences, and challenges regarding learner-centred teaching. South African Journal of Education, 40(1). https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v40n1a1631
11. Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255–284. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2010.10782551
12. Gilani, N., Waheed, S. A., & Shaheen, A. (2020). Making a debut in taching: Uncovering prospective teachers’ first-time teaching experiences in schools. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 8(11), 5443-5452. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2020.081147
13. Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903
14. Harris, J., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2009). Teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge and learning activity types: Curriculum-based technology integration reframed. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(4), 393–416. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2009.10782536
15. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77 (1), 81-112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
16. Hillier, C., Singh, D., & Campbell, T. (2025). The influence of a university-school partnership on pre-service teachers’ perceived preparedness and views on teaching and learning S.T.E.M. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 23, 261–283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-024-10460-8
17. Huseynova, F. (2019). Challenges and new perspectives of teacher training in Azerbaijan: Assessment of pedagogical activities of English language teachers. Azerbaijan Journal of Educational Studies, 688 (3), 23–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.29228/edu.28
18. Ingersoll, R., & Strong, M. (2011). The impact of induction and mentoring programs for beginning teachers: A critical review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 201-233. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654311403323
19. Ingersoll, R. M., & Smith, T. M. (2004). Do teacher induction and mentoring matter? NASSP Bulletin, 88(638), 28-40. https://doi.org/10.1177/019263650408863803
20. Isakhanli, H., & Pashayeva, A. (2018). Higher education transformation, institutional diversity, and typology of higher education institutions in Azerbaijan. In J. Huisman, A. Smolentseva, & I. Froumin (Eds.), 25 years of transformations of higher education systems in post-Soviet countries (pp. 97–120). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52980-6_4
21. Isaxanli, H. (2018). Education facing globalization in a post-communist country: Azerbaijan. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Higher Education Advances (HEAd’18) (pp. 1623–1633). Universitat Politècnica de València. https://doi.org/10.4995/head18.2018.8384
22. Jenssen, E.S., & Haara, F.O. (2024). High-quality practicum – according to teacher education students on their practicum at partnership schools. European Journal of Teacher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2024.2370892
23. Kaplon-Schilis, A., & Lyublinskaya, I. (2020). Analysis of relationship between five domains of TPACK Framework: TK, PK, CK Math, CK Science, and TPACK of pre-service special education teachers. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 25, 25–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-019-09404-x
24. Korthagen, F.A., Loughran, J.J., & Russell, T. (2006). Developing fundamental principles for teacher education programs and practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 1020-1041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.04.022
25. Li, M., Kuang, F. & Dan, W. (2023). Exploring the characteristics of pre-service EFL teachers’ practicum experiences: a complexity theory-based case study in China. Asian Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 8, 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-023-00187-4
26. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
27. Luik, P., Taimalu, M. & Suviste, R. (2018). Perceptions of technological, pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK) among pre-service teachers in Estonia. Education and Information Technologies 23, 741–755. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-017-9633-y
28. Luik, P., Taimalu, M., & Laane, H. (2019). Estonian in-service teachers’ and pre-service teachers’ perceptions of content, pedagogy, and technology knowledge, based on the TPACK framework. In Lecture Notes in Educational Technology. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-7361-9_8
29. Lutovac, S., & Flores, M. A. (2021). Conceptions of assessment in pre-service teachers’ narratives of students’ failure. Cambridge Journal of Education, 52(1), 55–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2021.1935736
30. Mahmood, N., & Iqbal, Z. (2018). Challenges faced by prospective teachers during teaching practice: Connecting theory to practice. Bulletin of Education and Research, 40(02), 113-136. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1209790.pdf
31. Martínez Agudo, J. (2016). What type of feedback do student teachers expect from their school mentors during practicum experience? The case of Spanish EFL student teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 41(5). Retrieved October 17, 2024 from http://ro.ecu.edu.au/ajte/vol41/iss5/3
32. McCoy, S., & Lynam, A.M. (2022). How field experience shapes pre-service primary teachers’ technology integration knowledge and practice. Teacher Development, 26(4), 567-586. https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530.2022.2074086
33. Mena, J., Hennissen, P. & Loughran, J. (2017). Developing pre-service teachers’ professional knowledge of teaching: The influence of mentoring. Teaching and Teacher Education, 66, 47-59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.03.024
34. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
35. Mikayilova, U. T., & Huseynzada, G. Z. (2023). Student underperformance in Azerbaijan: Who is to blame and what to do?. Psikhologicheskaya nauka i obrazovanie = Psychological Science and Education, 28(5), 34–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.17759/pse.2023280503
36. Mikayilova U., & Kazimzade, E. (2016). Teachers as reflective learners: Teacher perception of professional development in the context of Azerbaijan’s curriculum reform. Вопросы образования, 125-145. http://dx.doi.org/10.17323/1814-9545-2016-2-125-145
37. Moate, J., & Ruohotie-Lyhty, M. (2014). Identity, agency and community: reconsidering the pedagogic responsibilities of teacher education. British Journal of Educational Studies, 62(3), 249–264. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071005.2014.955456
38. Mulryan-Kyne, C. (2021). Supporting reflection and reflective practice in an initial teacher education programme: An exploratory study. European Journal of Teacher Education, 44(4), 502–519. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2020.1793946
39. Nailer, S., & Ryan, J. (2021). School-university partnerships and enhancing pre-service teacher understanding of community. In: Zajda, J. (eds) Third International Handbook of Globalisation, Education and Policy Research. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-66003-1_50
40. Nelson, M. J., & Voithofer, R. (2022). Coursework, field experiences, and the technology beliefs and practices of preservice teachers. Computers and Education, 186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104547
41. Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847
42. Özbek, T., Wekerle, C. & Kollar, I. (2024). Fostering pre-service teachers’ technology acceptance – does the type of engagement with tool-related information matter?. Education and Information Technologies, 29, 6139–6161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12047-2
43. Rienties, B., Lewis, T., O’Dowd, R., Rets, I., & Rogaten, J. (2022). The impact of virtual exchange on TPACK and foreign language competence: reviewing a large-scale implementation across 23 virtual exchanges. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35(3). https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2020.1737546
44. Sarıçoban, A., Tosuncuoğlu, İ., & Kırmızı, Ö. (2019). A technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) assessment of pre-service EFL teachers learning to teach English as a foreign language. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 15(3). Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1230244.pdf
45. Sari, L. K., Thomas, V., De Backer, F., & Lombaerts, K. (2022). Pre-service teachers’ teaching challenges and the transformative learning opportunities during teaching practice in Indonesian remote areas. European Journal of Teacher Education, 47(3), 581–598. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2022.2071257
46. Scherer, R., Tondeur, J., Siddiq, F., & Baran, E. (2018). The importance of attitudes toward technology for pre-service teachers’ technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge: Comparing structural equation modeling approaches. Computers in Human Behavior, 80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.11.003
47. Schulz, R., & Hall, C. (2004). Difficulties in promoting inquiry in teacher education partnerships: English and Canadian perspectives. Journal of Education for Teaching, 30, 255–269. https://doi.org/10.1080/0260747042000309484
48. Smith, T. M., & Ingersoll, R. M. (2004). What are the effects of induction and mentoring on beginning teacher turnover? American Educational Research Journal, 41(3), 681–714. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312041003681
49. State Strategy for the Development of Education in the Republic of Azerbaijan (October, 2013). Order of the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan, 24. Retrieved from https://edu.gov.az/upload/file/sened/Education-Strategy_2013_eng.pdf
50. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285.https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4
51. Tanak, A. (2020). Designing TPACK-based course for preparing student teachers to teach science with technological pedagogical content knowledge. Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences, 41(1), 53–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.kjss.2018.07.012
52. Tondeur, J., Van Braak, J., Sang, G., Voogt, J., Fisser, P., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2012). Preparing pre-service teachers to integrate technology in education: A synthesis of qualitative evidence. Computers and Education, 59(1), 134-144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.009
53. Tondeur, J., Scherer, R., Siddiq, F. et al. (2020). Enhancing pre-service teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): a mixed-method study. Education Tech Research Dev., 68, 319–343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09692-1
54. Tseng, J. J., Cheng, Y. S., & Yeh, H. N. (2019). How pre-service English teachers enact TPACK in the context of web-conferencing teaching: A design thinking approach. Computers and Education, 128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.09.022
55. Tseng, J. J., Chai, C. S., Tan, L., & Park, M. (2022). A critical review of research on technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK) in language teaching. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35(4), 948–971. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2020.1868531
56. Xiong, X.B., Sing, C.C., Tsai, C.-C., & Liang, J.-C. (2022). Exploring the relationship between Chinese pre-service teachers’ epistemic beliefs and their perceptions of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Educational Studies, 48(6), 750-771. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2020.1814698
57. Valtonen, T., Leppänen, U., Hyypiä, M. et al. (2020). Fresh perspectives on TPACK: pre-service teachers’ own appraisal of their challenging and confident TPACK areas. Education and Information Technologies, 25, 2823–2842. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-10092-4
58. Voithofer, R., & Nelson, M. J. (2021). Teacher educator technology integration preparation practices around TPACK in the United States. Journal of Teacher Education, 72(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487120949842
59. Üzeirli, E., & Kılıçoğlu, G. (2021). Investigation of primary teacher training process in Turkey aand Azerbaijan. Education and Science, 46(207), 375-401. http://dx.doi.org/10.15390/EB.2021.9246
60. White, S., & Forgasz, R. (2016). The practicum: The place of experience? In International Handbook of Teacher Education: Volume 1. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-0366-0_6
61. World Medical Association. (2013). Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. JAMA, 310(20), 2191–2194. Retrieved from https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki/
62. Zeichner, K. (2010). Rethinking the connections between campus courses and field experiences in college- and university-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1-2), 89–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487109347671