MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7117252741 · doi:10.32038/ltrq.2025.52.03

A Bibliometric Analysis of Practicum Research in Preservice Teacher Education: Trends, Themes, and Future Directions (2006–2024)

2025· article· W7117252741 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Eunjeong Park

Bibliographic record

VenueLanguage Teaching Research Quarterly · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTeacher Education and Leadership Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPracticumThematic analysisIdentity (music)CitationTeacher educationQuality (philosophy)Scopus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current study conducted a bibliometric review of studies that examine practicum experiences in preservice teacher education, and searches were performed in the Scopus database, retrieving publications between 2006 and 2024. VOSviewer was primarily used to analyze 145 peer-reviewed journal articles, examining trends in publications, most-cited articles, keywords, and thematic groups. The findings indicate an increase in interest in practicum research after 2021. The highest-ranked journal in terms of volume and citation impact was Teaching and Teacher Education. Among the most well-cited articles were those that embrace topics on professional identity development, reflective practice, diversity, mentorship, and international field experiences. Cluster analysis identified four main areas related to the practicum research: 1) the structure and evaluation, 2) reflective identity formation, 3) professional development, and 4) application to classes. The most significant contributors were the United States, Australia, and Canada, while the growing presence of publications from non-Western contexts suggests a continuously spreading trend of global involvement in practicum research. The findings are significant and relevant to guide research-based policy making and teacher educator efforts to enhance the quality and effectiveness of practicum courses in teacher education.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationalhigh
gptBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designhigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Bibliometrics, Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesBibliometrics
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.447
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.2160.385
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.123
GPT teacher head0.515
Teacher spread0.392 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

Bibliometrics

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designObservational · Other design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLanguage Teaching Research QuarterlySame topicTeacher Education and Leadership StudiesCategoryBibliometricsFrench-language works237,207