Bidirectionality in Professional Practices: A Systematic Review

1. Introduction

Practical training is one of the central components of initial teacher training, as it is the main meeting place between university training and the professional practice developed in educational establishments. Through professional practices, future teachers articulate disciplinary, pedagogical and didactic knowledge with the situated conditions of teaching, developing professional competencies, building their teaching identity and generating processes of reflection on practice. However, the relevance of these experiences progressively transcends their function from the individual training one: the internships also constitute spaces for systematic interaction between universities, educational establishments, collaborating teachers, university trainers and future teachers (Daza, Gudmundsdottir & Lund, 2021).

This understanding represents an important change with respect to the traditional conceptions of practical training; During a good part of their development, the internships were conceived fundamentally as instances of application of knowledge previously acquired at the university, placing the school as a stage to learn to teach and the collaborating teacher mainly as a supervisor or mentor. During the last decades, this perspective has been questioned by approaches that seek to overcome the separation between theory and practice and recognize that university and school have different but complementary knowledge, experiences and skills for professional training. Concepts such as Professional Development Schools, School–University Partnerships, Third Space, Hybrid Spaces and Reciprocal Professional Learning express this shift towards more collaborative ways of understanding the relationship between both training spaces (Burroughs et al., 2020).

This change has made it possible to recognize that professional internships can generate learning not only for pre-service teachers, but also for collaborating teachers, university academics and participating organizations. Joint planning, co-teaching, shared reflection and other forms of professional interaction can foster processes by which participants teach and learn from each other, confront different forms of knowledge and build new understandings about teaching. From this perspective, practice ceases to constitute only a curricular device for initial training and begins to take shape as a potential space for shared learning between university and school.

However, the literature uses a wide diversity of concepts to describe the reciprocal relationships between university and school and, although there is growing recognition of their potential benefits, comparatively less has been the development of frameworks that explain how interaction produces learning for the different participants, how this learning translates into contributions for the institutions involved and under what conditions they can produce transformations of greater scope. This fragmentation is reproduced in evaluation: while there is abundant research on competencies, self-efficacy, identity or performance of teachers in training, studies that simultaneously examine the learning of other actors, the co-construction of knowledge or the transformations produced in educational establishments and in the universities themselves are less frequent (Sarmiento-Márquez et al., 2023).

This problem acquires particular relevance in the Chilean context; The consolidation of Linkage with the Environment within the quality assurance system has reinforced the requirement that higher education institutions not only develop systematic relationships with their environment, but also be able to demonstrate their bidirectional nature and the contributions and impacts they produce. In this framework, professional internships represent a particularly relevant space to examine this relationship, since they permanently articulate a university function – training – with actors and organizations of the school system (Green, Tindall-Ford, & Eady, 2020).

From this perspective, bidirectionality offers an analytical category that allows the integration of conceptual developments that have been studied so far in a relatively fragmented way. More than the mere existence of collaboration or exchange between university and school, it is interesting to determine when this interaction allows different actors to contribute knowledge, learn from others, modify their understandings or practices and jointly generate new skills, decisions or products. This means shifting the traditional question – what does the future teacher learn during his or her practice? – to a relational question: what do the different actors learn and what do they transform as a result of their interaction?

Consequently, the purpose of this systematic review is to analyze how the literature has conceptualized and evaluated bidirectionality in professional practices of initial teacher training, identifying its conceptual evolution, the mechanisms by which it is produced, and the evidence used to recognize its contributions and impacts. From this synthesis, it seeks to establish conceptual foundations and analytical dimensions that allow to guide the evaluation of bidirectionality in the relations between university and educational establishments.

2. General Background

The contemporary understanding of professional practices is closely linked to the questioning of the traditional separation between academic knowledge and professional knowledge. Under conventional training models, the university occupied a privileged position as a space for the production of pedagogical knowledge, while educational establishments provided the contexts where this knowledge should be applied. This structure configured a fundamentally unidirectional relationship: the university trained, the school provided the setting for practice, and the future teacher constituted the main subject of learning (Zeichner, 1992).

The questioning of this conception made it possible to recognize that teaching is a situated practice and that professional knowledge is not produced exclusively in university institutions. The work of Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1999), Darling-Hammond (2006) and, subsequently, Zeichner (2010) contributed to shifting the relationship between university and school from a logic of application to a logic of integration between different sources of knowledge. Particularly relevant has been Zeichner’s (2010) Third Space proposal, which questions the epistemological hierarchy that historically placed academic knowledge above the knowledge constructed by teachers and school communities.

School-University Partnerships and Professional Experience Partnerships deepened this shift by situating the quality of practical training in the nature of the relationships built between actors. From these perspectives, the existence of institutional arrangements is an important but insufficient condition: partnerships require trust, mutual recognition, shared responsibilities, and opportunities for effective participation of school and university teachers (Martin et al., 2011; Grudnoff et al., 2017; Forgasz et al., 2018). In this way, the school progressively ceases to be conceived only as a context of practice and begins to be recognized as a space of professional knowledge.

Thus, a university and an institution can coordinate activities, share responsibilities or maintain a stable partnership without their participants changing their knowledge or practices as a result of that relationship.

Developments on Reciprocal Professional Learning move precisely in this direction by showing that practice relationships can generate learning opportunities for both future teachers and collaborating teachers. Kerin and Murphy (2015), for example, situate co-teaching as an opportunity for shared professional development, while Lemlech and Hertzog (1999) show that co-teachers and students can learn from each other during the co-teaching experience. In both cases, reciprocity is no longer defined solely by the distribution of roles and begins to be expressed through modifications in the knowledge and actions of the participants.

Similarly, the concept of Dialogic Space addresses how shared reflection on teaching can generate spaces where knowledge from the university and from the school experience is collectively confronted and reconstructed (Youens, Smethem, & Sullivan, 2014). Co-teaching, peer coaching, research on practice and professional communities represent, from this perspective, different mechanisms through which this exchange can take place (Harlin, 2000; Meyer & Sawyer, 2006; Steele, 2017).

2.1. The Problem of Assessing Bidirectionality

The conceptual evolution of professional practices must be accompanied by an equivalent development of their evaluation strategies, however, the instruments used continue to focus predominantly on the future teacher and on results such as performance, competencies, self-efficacy, professional reflection or integration between theory and practice. Even when studies recognize benefits for collaborating teachers or educational establishments, these are often analyzed separately, making it difficult to reconstruct the process by which interaction produces changes for the different actors (Laferrière, 2018).

This limitation reveals a fundamental difference between evaluating professional practice and evaluating its bidirectionality. The first can establish what the future teacher learned; the second requires determining who contributes knowledge, who learns as a result of this exchange, what changes from learning and whether this change manages to be incorporated into the practices of the participants or the institutions. In analytical terms, this means shifting the focus from individual performance to the relationship and the transformations produced by it.

This distinction also allows us to conceptually differentiate learning, contribution and impact; learning corresponds to modifications in knowledge, understandings or skills produced through interaction; the contributions express the materialization of such learning in practices, decisions, products or capacities; while impact implies transformations of greater depth, relevance and permanence. The documentation of this last stage represents one of the main weaknesses of the literature reviewed, due to the scarcity of longitudinal designs and assessments capable of following changes beyond individual participants. The paper itself identifies precisely this absence of a framework connecting collaboration, learning, and observable transformations as one of the central gaps in the literature.

On this basis, bidirectionality can be provisionally understood as a relational process through which actors belonging to the university and educational establishments contribute different knowledge and skills, generate reciprocal learning through their interaction and transform this learning into contributions capable of modifying the practices and capacities of the people and organizations involved. This conceptualization does not presuppose that all professional practice is bidirectional or that all interaction generates impact. On the contrary, it converts these relationships into empirical phenomena that must be demonstrated.

Thus, the central problem for research is no longer only to establish whether there is collaboration between university and school. The challenge is to explain and evaluate the process by which such collaboration can evolve from interaction to mutual learning, from mutual learning to co-construction and contributions, and eventually to sustained institutional transformations. It is precisely this problem that justifies the systematic review developed in this study and the subsequent construction of a taxonomy and guiding dimensions for its evaluation.

3. Materials and Methods

The research strategy was structured based on three conceptual components derived from the research question: (a) the context of professional practices in initial teacher training; (b) approaches that describe processes of reciprocal interaction between university and school; and (c) studies aimed at evaluating their results, contributions or impacts. ((“student teaching” OR practicum OR “professional experience” OR “field experience”) AND (“reciprocal professional learning” OR “reciprocal learning” OR “mutual learning” OR “school-university partnership*” OR “third space” OR “dialogic space”) AND (evaluation OR assessment OR impact* OR outcome*))

Empirical studies and descriptive or conceptual articles that present models, experiences or evaluations of university-school alliances in the context of professional practices of initial teacher training were included, provided that they provided elements to understand the conceptualization, implementation or evaluation of bidirectionality, its contributions or its impacts.

Study selection and exclusion criteria: Studies were excluded when they did not address professional practice or field-based experiences in initial teacher education, when the university–school relationship was merely contextual and provided no evidence relevant to its conceptualization, implementation, or evaluation, or when they focused exclusively on pre-service teacher outcomes without examining relational or collaborative processes between the participating actors. Records that did not correspond to empirical, descriptive, or conceptual studies relevant to the review question were also excluded. The identification, screening, eligibility assessment, and final inclusion of studies were conducted following the PRISMA framework. Figure 1 summarizes the study selection process, from the 159 records initially identified across Web of Science, Scopus, and ERIC to the final corpus of 71 studies (See Figure 1).

3.1. Bibliometric Analysis of Co-Occurrence

As a complement to the systematic review, a bibliometric analysis was carried out using VOSviewer to examine the conceptual structure and thematic evolution of the field. The bibliographic records corresponding to the included studies were analyzed through a network of co-occurrence of terms, with the purpose of identifying the main conceptual nuclei associated with professional practices, initial teacher training, and university-school relations.

The analysis allowed us to examine both the structure of relationships between the terms and their temporal evolution. In the visualization, the size of the nodes represents the frequency of occurrence of each term, while the links express their co-occurrence relationships. In addition, an overlay visualization based on the average year of publication was used, which allowed observing the temporal shift from concepts mainly associated with the organization of professional practices and the training of the future teacher to terms related to professional collaboration, partnerships, practicum, professional experience and initial teacher education. The bibliometric structure allowed contextualizing the configuration and evolution of the field, but it was not used to determine the analytical categories of the review, which were constructed through the qualitative analysis of the content of the studies.

3.2. Qualitative Content Analysis

Subsequently, the 71 included studies were subjected to a qualitative content analysis aimed at reconstructing how the literature has conceptualized, operationalized and evaluated bidirectionality in professional practices of initial teacher training. The analytical process combined inductive coding and constant comparison between the studies, paying special attention to the concepts used to describe university-school relations, the mechanisms by which interaction occurs, the learning generated for the different actors and the evidence used to recognize contributions and impacts.

To guarantee the systematicity and traceability of the analysis, three complementary matrices were constructed. The first characterized each study according to year, context, design, conceptual framework and emerging categories, allowing the conceptual evolution of the field to be reconstructed. The second systematized the evidence provided by each research, considering its objectives, units of analysis, main findings, mutual learning, contributions, impacts, evaluation strategies and instruments used. The third specifically examined the operationalization of bidirectionality, identifying the mechanisms by which it is produced and the available evidence regarding contributions and impacts.

Through an iterative process of comparison between studies, patterns of increasing complexity in university-school relationships were identified. These patterns made it possible to reconstruct the conceptual evolution of bidirectionality and, subsequently, to elaborate a taxonomy of maturity: presence, coordination, functional reciprocity, mutual learning, epistemic co-construction and institutional transformation. In a complementary way, the cross-sectional analysis allowed the identification of the mechanisms by which bidirectionality occurs and the dimensions used by the literature to evaluate it.

Finally, the temporal distribution of the studies was used to examine the historical evolution of these conceptions. To ensure analytical transparency, each article maintained a unique identifier (RIS_ID) throughout the coding process, allowing the categories, subcategories and maturity levels to be linked to the studies that support each interpretation. The complete coding matrix is presented in Appendix A.1 and Appendix A.2.

4. Results

4.1. General Characteristics of the Included Studies

The review included 71 studies published between 1990 and 2026, which made it possible to observe more than three decades of research development on professional practices, university-school alliances and learning processes among the actors involved in initial teacher training. Production has shown a clear concentration of time in the last two decades. Only four studies correspond to the period 1990–1999 (5.6%), while 11 were published between 2000 and 2009 (15.5%), 30 between 2010 and 2019 (42.3%) and 26 between 2020 and 2026 (36.6%). Overall, 56 of the 71 studies (78.9%) were published since 2010, evidencing a recent intensification of interest in the relationships between university, schools and practical training.

The geographical distribution shows a considerable concentration. The United States has 35 studies (49.3%), followed by Australia with eight (11.3%). Israel, Ireland, Chile and Spain contribute three studies each, while the rest of the works are distributed among Hong Kong, England, Sweden, Norway, Canada, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Brazil, Finland, Colombia and Nigeria. A 2026 study also adopts a comparative perspective between Brazil, India and South Africa. Thus, although the literature has diversified geographically in recent years, the available knowledge continues to be strongly influenced by Anglo-Saxon teacher training systems.

Methodologically, the corpus is predominantly empirical and qualitative. Forty-nine records are directly classified as empirical studies, to which are added various empirical variants —evaluative, diagnostic, documentary, longitudinal or design-based—. Among the designs identified, qualitative studies, case studies and their different variants predominate, followed by mixed-methods research. Comparative, quasi-experimental, or longitudinal quantitative designs are considerably less frequent. This methodological configuration is consistent with a field mainly interested in understanding relationships, interaction processes, mentoring experiences, knowledge construction and partnership configurations, rather than in estimating effects through causal designs.

4.2. Analysis of Co-Occurrence and Conceptual Evolution of the Field

The bibliometric analysis of keyword co-occurrence shows that research on professional practices is structured around a relatively stable conceptual core made up of preservice teachers, college school cooperation, field experience programs, and student teaching (Figure 2). The high centrality of these terms indicates that, throughout the period analyzed, the main object of research has remained associated with initial teacher training and cooperative relations between universities and schools.

The map also shows a progressive evolution in the conceptual configuration of the field. The earliest appearance terms focus mainly on concepts related to the organization of professional internships and the training of future teachers, such as college school cooperation, student teaching, field experience programs and internship programs. These descriptors reflect an understanding of professional practice fundamentally oriented towards the insertion of the student in school contexts and the operational articulation between university and school.

As scientific production evolves, terms related to professional collaboration and the development of shared capacities begin to acquire greater presence, including teacher collaboration, cooperating teachers, professional development and teacher education. This transition suggests a shift from a vision focused on the organization of practice to an understanding that incorporates the professional relationships established between the different actors involved.

Finally, the most recent terms on the map—such as partnerships, practicum, initial teacher education, and professional experience—appear closely linked to the traditional concepts of the field, configuring a conceptual extension rather than a break with previous perspectives. Overall, this bibliometric structure shows that the research does not abandon the paradigm of university-school cooperation, but progressively expands its meaning, incorporating dimensions related to professional collaboration, shared learning and the joint development of the training experience.

5. Conceptual Evolution of Bidirectionality in Professional Practices

The analysis allowed us to identify that the meaning of the concept of bidirectionality has evolved progressively over the last three decades, moving from a conception focused on the transfer of knowledge to the future teacher to approaches that understand the relationship between university and school as a process of mutual learning, shared production of knowledge and institutional transformation. This evolution not only incorporates new concepts, but also modifies the very object of analysis: from the individual learning of the practitioner to the relational and epistemic dynamics that emerge among the participating institutions (Table 1).

The first stage of literature, developed during the 1990s, conceives professional practice fundamentally as a space for the learning of the future teacher. The relationship between university and school is structured through processes of mentoring, supervision, and insertion in the school context, where experienced teachers and university supervisors assume the role of main transmitters of professional knowledge. In this period, concepts such as mentoring, field-based education, internship and school-university partnership predominate, but collaboration between institutions is mainly an organizational condition to facilitate initial training. Consequently, bidirectionality does not yet appear as an explicit object of research, since the flow of knowledge is essentially understood as a unidirectional process oriented towards the student in practice.

During the 2000s, a first conceptual shift began to be observed. The focus is no longer exclusively on the supervision of the future teacher and is progressively oriented towards the relationship between university and school as a collaborative alliance. The incorporation of concepts such as Professional Development Schools, communities of practice, mutual benefits and co-teaching reflects the recognition that both institutions can derive benefits from professional practice. However, this reciprocity has a predominantly functional character. The school is beginning to be recognized as a beneficiary of university collaboration, but most of the evidence continues to focus on the development of competencies of the future teacher. The dominant question ceases to be only how the student learns, to become how university and school collaborate.

From the 2010s onwards, a more profound conceptual change took place. The literature begins to shift its attention from organizational structures to the processes of interaction that occur between the different participating actors. Concepts such as professional learning, collaborative inquiry, reciprocal professional learning, clinical practice and later third space express a different understanding of the university-school relationship. Professional practice is no longer understood only as a space for student training and begins to be conceived as a scenario of shared professional learning, where future teachers, mentor professors and university academics can jointly modify their knowledge, skills and ways of understanding teaching. Consequently, the research question evolves from institutional collaboration to how the different participants in the training experience learn from each other.

Studies published since 2019 further deepen this conceptual transformation. The incorporation of frameworks such as boundary crossing, boundary objects, boundary spanners, knowledge brokers, hybrid roles, co-construction, and active mentee influence represents a shift from a relational understanding to an increasingly epistemic understanding of bidirectionality. At this stage, the interest ceases to focus only on who learns and begins to consider how knowledge circulates, is translated, recontextualized and is produced jointly between university and school. Bidirectionality is no longer defined as a simple exchange of benefits and begins to be understood as a process through which different actors contribute complementary knowledge, generate new objects, practices or shared criteria and, potentially, transform the institutions of which they are part.

In this way, the review allows us to identify a conceptual evolution characterized by four successive displacements. Firstly, the focus shifts from the individual learning of the future teacher to the collaborative relationship between university and school. Subsequently, this relationship is no longer evaluated solely in terms of the benefits it generates for each institution and begins to be analyzed as a process of mutual professional learning. Finally, the most recent works place the interest in the shared production of knowledge and in the transformative capacity of interaction, incorporating concepts from the theory of situated learning, hybrid spaces and boundary crossing. This trajectory shows that bidirectionality has ceased to be understood as an organizational characteristic of professional practices and has progressively become a concept that describes processes of construction, circulation and transformation of knowledge between university and school.

5.1. Taxonomy of Bidirectionality Maturity

The evolution described allows us to identify that the literature does not present a single definition of bidirectionality. On the contrary, the studies represent different degrees of development of this phenomenon. Some describe only the presence of the university in the schools; others document coordination between actors; some show benefits for both institutions; while a smaller group demonstrates mutual learning, joint production of knowledge or institutional transformations.

Based on these emerging patterns, a taxonomy of bidirectional maturity was developed, which organizes the studies according to the depth reached by the university-school relations (see Table 2).

Level 0 (Presence) corresponds to studies in which the school is mainly the setting where professional practice is developed, without evidence of substantive interaction between the institutions. The focus is on the organization of the practicum, the assignment of functions or the existence of agreements, while the flow of knowledge remains essentially unidirectional from the university or experienced teachers to the future teacher. The works classified at this level mainly evaluate organizational aspects and do not incorporate indicators of mutual learning, contributions or changes derived from the relationship.

Level 1 (Coordination) represents the first step towards more structured forms of interaction. In these studies, bidirectionality is expressed through mechanisms of communication and shared organization, such as coordination meetings, joint planning, shared supervision or consensual definition of responsibilities. However, collaboration continues to be mainly oriented to manage the development of the practicum and not necessarily to produce learning for both institutions. The evidence focuses on the quality of coordination, the frequency of interactions or the satisfaction of the participants, rather than on the transformations derived from these relationships.

Level 2 (Functional Reciprocity) The literature is beginning to recognize that collaboration can generate benefits for university and school simultaneously; research shows improvements in the training of teachers in training, support to schools, strengthening of institutional programs or development of shared services. However, these benefits continue to be analysed mainly as parallel results of collaboration and not as a consequence of shared learning processes; Reciprocity, therefore, is expressed in the existence of differentiated benefits for both parties, without yet demonstrating reciprocal modifications in the knowledge or practices of the actors involved.

Level 3 (Mutual Learning). The university-school relationship is no longer evaluated solely by its organization or by the benefits obtained, and begins to be analyzed as a process of reciprocal professional learning. Studies show that trainees, co-teachers and university academics jointly modify their knowledge, skills, beliefs or practices as a result of sustained interaction. The evidence comes mainly from interviews, observations, reflective diaries, and other qualitative designs capable of documenting professional changes attributable to shared experience. The high concentration of studies at this level suggests that mutual learning has become the main contemporary reference for understanding bidirectionality.

Level 4 (Epistemic Co-construction) represents a shift from shared learning to the joint production of knowledge. In these works, interaction is no longer limited to the exchange of experiences and leads to the collaborative development of curricula, assessment devices, pedagogical materials, research, didactic innovations or boundary objects that can only be understood as jointly developed products. As a result, bidirectionality acquires an increasingly epistemic character: university and school not only learn from each other, but also generate new knowledge, practices and professional criteria through sustained processes of collaboration.

Finally, Level 5 (Institutional Transformation) corresponds to the highest degree of maturity identified in the review. The learning and products developed jointly transcend the individual participants and are incorporated into the organizational structures of the institutions involved. The studies describe relatively stable modifications in curricula, supervisory models, institutional policies or permanent forms of collaboration. However, this is the least represented level of the corpus. Studies classified in this category show that the literature still has limited evidence regarding the institutionalization and sustainability of the transformations generated by bidirectionality.

Finally, the progression identified should not be interpreted as an obligatory sequence, but as different levels of depth observed in the corpus. Each level incorporates an emergent property with respect to the previous one: coordination adds shared organization; functional reciprocity incorporates benefits for both institutions; mutual learning implies reciprocal professional transformation; co-construction implies joint production of knowledge; and institutional transformation represents the relatively stable incorporation of these learnings in the participating organizations.

5.2. Guiding Dimensions for the Assessment of Bidirectionality

Although the above taxonomy allows us to classify the different levels of maturity identified in the literature, the analysis showed that the studies use very different criteria to assess these relationships. Some emphasize organizational conditions; others privilege coordination, while more recent work focuses on mutual learning, co-construction or institutional changes.

From the cross-sectional analysis of the corpus, it was possible to identify eight recurrent dimensions that organize the main evidence used to recognize bidirectionality. These dimensions are not an assessment instrument or a measurement scale, but an analytical framework that can guide the design of future instruments to assess the contributions generated by professional practices (See Table 3).

This framework synthesizes the conceptual evolution observed in the literature and translates this evolution into dimensions that can be observed empirically. Together, both tables show that bidirectionality can be understood not only as a characteristic of professional practices, but also as a phenomenon whose maturity can be classified and whose evidence can be evaluated by explicit criteria. From this perspective, the review not only reconstructs the conceptual development of the field, but also offers an analytical basis to guide future research and the design of instruments aimed at assessing the quality of the bidirectional relationships between university and school.

5.3. Between Contributions and Impact

The identified contributions are distributed over several levels. The most documented level corresponds to the future teacher. Studies report the development of pedagogical competencies, better integration between theory and practice, greater reflective capacity, understanding of the school context, professional confidence, self-efficacy, teacher identity and ability to respond to specific needs of students.

A second group of contributions is observed in teachers, mentors and school collaborators. Among them are opportunities for professional development, reflection on one’s own teaching, knowledge of new pedagogical strategies, strengthening mentoring and leadership capacities, participation in inquiry processes and expansion of professional relationships. In some studies, these contributions are translated into concrete modifications of teaching practices.

A third level corresponds to educational establishments. Contributions are identified in the form of greater availability of human resources, individualized support for schoolchildren, implementation of innovations, shared professional development, strengthening of professional communities and greater capacity to participate in the training of future teachers. However, these contributions are less frequently evaluated by systematic indicators than those corresponding to the student in practice.

University is the least directly studied level. Some studies show modifications in practice tasks, curricula, evaluation processes, forms of supervision and understanding of school conditions. However, relatively few studies explicitly ask what the university learns from experience or what institutional modifications can be attributed to that interaction. This asymmetry constitutes one of the most consistent gaps in the corpus.

Finally, a small number of studies incorporate effects on school students and the community. Greater individual attention, academic and socio-educational support, engagement, learning opportunities and, in some more robust designs, improvements in specific outcomes for schoolchildren are described. This level acquires relevance because it shifts the evaluation of practice from the traditional question of what the future teacher learns to the question of what value the practice simultaneously produces for the context that receives it.

Although the literature frequently uses terms such as impact, transformation or mutual benefit, methodological analysis shows that most of the evidence actually corresponds to contributions or changes observed during the experience, and not to impacts demonstrated in a strong sense.

Studies often document perceptions of learning, changes in knowledge or practices, improved self-efficacy, competency development, or incipient organizational modifications. However, designs that make it possible to determine whether these changes persist over time, extend beyond the direct participants or are institutionalized in schools or universities are much less frequent. Longitudinal research is scarce and comparative or quasi-experimental designs constitute a minority of the corpus.

Even among studies that report quantitative outcomes, evaluation tends to focus on the future teacher. Some research compares the performance, knowledge, or practices of candidates exposed to different clinical models; others incorporate indicators of retention or professional insertion. There are also cases that report results in school students. However, designs that simultaneously evaluate results for future teacher, mentor, establishment and university are exceptional.

This difference allows us to establish an important analytical distinction between activity, contribution and impact. Meetings, co-teaching or joint planning constitute activity. The incorporation of a new practice, the development of a competency or the modification of a curricular task represents an observable contribution. To talk about impact, however, it would be necessary to demonstrate that these contributions produce relevant, sustained transformations that are sufficiently linked to the experience developed.

6. Discussion

The purpose of this systematic review was to analyze how the literature has conceptualized bidirectionality in professional practices and, based on this, to identify the conceptual foundations that allow guiding its evaluation. The results show that bidirectionality is not a homogeneous concept or an inherent characteristic of the relations between university and educational establishment. On the contrary, the analysis of the corpus shows a conceptual evolution sustained over the last three decades, in which the understanding of professional practices moves from models focused on the supervision of the future teacher to perspectives that recognize mutual learning, the shared production of knowledge and, in the most recent works, the possibility of generating institutional transformations. This shift coincides with the progressive incorporation of approaches that seek to overcome the traditional dichotomy between theory and practice, such as the proposals of Third Space (Zeichner, 2010), Boundary Crossing (Akkerman & Bakker, 2011) and the recent reviews on hybrid spaces in teacher training.

A first finding of the review is to show that the literature has progressively expanded the meaning of university-school cooperation. Early studies conceived of collaboration primarily as an organizational condition that facilitated initial teacher training through supervision and mentoring mechanisms. Subsequently, research began to recognize benefits for both institutions, shifting interest from administrative coordination to professional collaboration. Finally, the most recent studies incorporate an increasingly epistemic understanding of these relationships, where interaction becomes a space to negotiate knowledge, build knowledge and redefine the professional identities of the participants. This trajectory coincides with what Daza, Gudmundsdottir, and Lund (2021) point out, who conclude that the development of the Third Space implies a transformation in the way of understanding what knowledge is legitimate and who is recognized as a bearer of expertise within teacher training.

However, the review also shows that concepts frequently used as equivalents describe distinct phenomena. In the corpus analyzed, partnership corresponds mainly to the institutional structure that makes possible the interaction between university and school; Third Space describes a relational configuration where different forms of knowledge can meet in less hierarchical conditions; while bidirectionality constitutes a specific property of the interaction process, characterized by the reciprocal circulation of knowledge, skills or learning among the participating actors. From this perspective, mutual learning represents the first empirical evidence that bidirectionality does indeed occur, the contributions correspond to the materialization of these learnings in new practices, capacities or products, and the impact constitutes the most complex expression of the process, when these contributions manage to be incorporated in a relatively stable way to the organizations involved. This differentiation allows for a more precise interpretation of studies that, although developed in partnership or Third Space contexts, do not necessarily demonstrate bidirectional learning processes. At the same time, it responds to the observations made by recent reviews that warn of the need to operationalize the concept of Third Space more precisely in professional practice.

A second contribution of this review is to show that the conceptual evolution observed not only modifies the definition of bidirectionality, but also what the literature considers evidence of its existence. Earlier studies tend to document the presence of agreements, coordination mechanisms or shared supervision structures. Subsequently, the evidence shifts to the benefits obtained by university and school, to finally incorporate changes in the knowledge, practices and capacities of the different participants, as well as processes of co-construction of knowledge and organizational transformations. Consequently, bidirectionality is no longer understood as a structural characteristic of partnerships and is conceived as an emergent property of the relationships that are established between the actors. This finding explains why apparently similar studies reach different conclusions regarding the quality of university-school relations: they differ not only in their conceptual frameworks, but also in what they choose to observe and evaluate.

From this perspective, the proposed taxonomy represents an integrative synthesis of the available evidence. Rather than classifying professional practice programs as “more” or “less” bidirectional, it organizes the different levels of complexity with which the literature has described this phenomenon. The progression identified shows that coordination is a requirement for collaboration, but does not guarantee mutual learning; that functional reciprocity incorporates benefits for both institutions, although these can occur without necessarily modifying the practices of the participants; whereas mutual learning involves reciprocal professional transformations; that co-construction involves the joint production of new knowledge, devices, or practices; and that institutional transformation represents the level of greatest maturity, as it incorporates these learnings into relatively stable structures. This interpretation is consistent with approaches to organizational learning (Argyris & Schön, 1978), knowledge creation (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995), and expansive learning (Engeström, 2001), which argue that institutional transformations require mechanisms of collective reflection and organizational appropriation that transcend individual learning.

In this sense, the review allowed us to reconstruct an explanatory sequence that articulates the different levels identified in the literature. The evidence analyzed suggests that bidirectional relationships are developed through a chain of processes that begins with the existence of enabling conditions —such as protected time, mutual recognition, distribution of responsibilities and institutional support—, continues with the two-way interaction between the actors, favors mutual learning and teaching, enables processes of co-construction of knowledge, materializes in contributions to university and school, and, finally, it can lead to institutionalization processes capable of generating relatively sustainable impacts. This sequence allows us to understand that impact is not an immediate result of collaboration, but the consequence of a progressive accumulation of learning and organizational transformations.

Finally, the main gap identified by this review does not seem to be conceptual, but methodological. Although the literature has made considerable progress in understanding the nature of university-school relations, assessment instruments continue to focus predominantly on the performance of pre-service teachers. There are comparatively few studies that systematically document the learning of collaborating teachers, the transformations produced in the university or the institutionalization of the changes derived from interaction. Consequently, the evaluation of bidirectionality requires overcoming approaches focused exclusively on the quality of the practicum and incorporating dimensions capable of identifying the circulation of knowledge, reciprocal learning, the co-construction of practices, institutional contributions and sustainable impacts. From this perspective, the proposed analytical framework constitutes a conceptual basis for the development of future assessment instruments aimed at valuing bidirectionality as a process of generating shared value between university and educational establishment.

Appendix A.1

Allen, J. (2011). Stakeholders’ perspectives of the nature and role of assessment during practicum. TEACHING AND TEACHER EDUCATION, 27(4), 742-750. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.12.004

Allen, J., & Wright, S. (2014). Integrating theory and practice in the pre-service teacher education practicum. TEACHERS AND TEACHING, 20(2), 136-151. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2013.848568

Ardley, J. (2009). Unanticipated Findings: Gains by Cooperating Teachers via Video-Mediated Conferencing. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 25(3), 81-86.

Broadley, T., Martin, R., & Curtis, E. (2019). Rethinking Professional Experience Through a Learning Community Model: Toward a Culture Change. Frontiers in Education, 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00022

Carmi, T., & Tamir, E. (2026). Reflective or transmissive, is there a superior learning approach? Lessons from mentoring relationships. TEACHING AND TEACHER EDUCATION, 175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2026.105460

Case, A. F., & Traynor, J. (2016). Early Field Experience Innovations to Increase Positive Impact on K-12 Students. AILACTE Journal, 13(1), 1-21.

Castle, S., Fox, R. K., & Fuhrman, C. (2009). Does Professional Development School Preparation Make a Difference? A Comparison of Three Teacher Candidate Studies. School-University Partnerships, 3(2), 58-68.

Chambers, F., & Armour, K. (2012). School-University Partnerships and Physical Education Teacher Education Student Learning: A Fruitful Division of Labour? European Physical Education Review, 18(2), 159-181.

Chan, C. (2020). I know how it feels: How online mentors help pre-service teachers negotiate practicum tensions in the third space. Mentoring and Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 28(2), 189-210. https://doi.org/10.1080/13611267.2020.1749348

Chandler-Olcott, K., Dotger, S., Waymouth, H., Crosby, M., Lahr, M., Hinchman, K., Newvine, K., & Nieroda, J. (2018). Teacher Candidates Learn to Enact Curriculum in a Partnership-Sponsored Literacy Enrichment Program for Youth. New Educator, 14(3), 192-211.

Clarke, D., & Winslade, M. (2019). A School-University Teacher Education Partnership: Reconceptualising Reciprocity of Learning. Journal of Teaching and Learning for Graduate Employability, 10(1), 138-156.

Cooper, S. (2016). A collaborative assessment of students’ placement learning. ASSESSMENT & EVALUATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION, 42(1), 61-76. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1083093

Coulter, G. (2003). Primetime: A University and Local School Partnership for the Recruitment and Training of Preservice Teachers. Teacher Education and Special Education, 26(4), 356-359.

Cunningham, R. C., & Shillington, N. M. (1989). Mentoring Preservice Teachers through Interdisciplinary Teams: A School-University Partnership. Action in Teacher Education, 11(4), 6-12.

Douglas, A. S., & Ellis, V. (2011). Connecting Does Not Necessarily Mean Learning: Course Handbooks as Mediating Tools in School-University Partnerships. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(5), 465-476.

Duran, M., Brunvand, S., & Fossum, P. (2009). PREPARING SCIENCE TEACHERS TO TEACH WITH TECHNOLOGY: EXPLORING A K-16 NETWORKED LEARNING COMMUNITY APPROACH. TURKISH ONLINE JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY, 8(4), 21-42 WE-Social Science Citation Index (SSCI).

Feinberg, J. R., & Bey, Y. (2024). Leveraging PDS Teacher Preparation Grants: A Majority-Minority Research University’s Approach to Increasing the Diverse Teacher Pipeline. School-University Partnerships, 17(1), 20-28.

Ferraz, O., Vidoni, C., & Boas, M. (2021). Bridging the gap between theory and practice: The impact of school-university partnership in a PETE program. SPORT EDUCATION AND SOCIETY, 26(7), 788-799. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2020.1851182

Fielder, S., Morrison, C., Ledger, S., & Whipp, P. (2024). A Framework for Supporting Teacher Development and Progression: Identifying Conditions to Support Teaching Interns and Early Career Teachers. AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF TEACHER EDUCATION, 49(6). https://doi.org/10.14221/1835-517X.6551

Flores-Lueg, C. (2024). REFLECTIVE PROCESSES PROMOTED IN FUTURE TEACHERS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF MENTORING TEACHERS DURING THE PROFESSIONAL PRACTICUM. PERSPECTIVA EDUCACIONAL, 63(3), 164-187. https://doi.org/10.4151/07189729-Vol.63-Iss.3-Art.1485

Gibson, R. A. (2024). The Effects of Delivering Short-Cycle Literacy Interventions to Beginning Readers on Pre-Service Teachers’ Self-Efficacy in Literacy Instruction. School-University Partnerships, 17(4), 459-477.

Gimbert, B. (2008). Classroom Management Instruction in the Context of a School-University Partnership: A Case Study of Team-Based Curriculum Deliberation, Design, and Delivery. Teacher Education and Practice, 21(3), 300-328.

Grudnoff, L., Haigh, M., & Mackisack, V. (2017). Re-envisaging and reinvigorating school-university practicum partnerships. ASIA-PACIFIC JOURNAL OF TEACHER EDUCATION, 45(2), 180-193. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2016.1201043

Hamilton, E. R., & Margot, K. C. (2023). Using Practice-Based Learning to Extend Undergraduate Teaching and Learning. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 17(1).

Harms, S. E. (2026). Bridging Theory and Practice: Creation of a Reflection and Engagement Guide to Support School-Based Teacher Educators. PDS Partners: Bridging Research to Practice, 21(1), 69-78.

Helfeldt, J. P., Capraro, R. M., Capraro, M. M., Foster, E., & Carter, N. (2009). An urban schools–university partnership that prepares and retains quality teachers for “high need” schools. Teacher Educator, 44(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730802520050

Hicks, F., & Lyons, M. (2024). Creating Personalized Partnerships across Diverse Districts. School-University Partnerships, 17(1), 52-57.

Hoz, R., & Peretz, A. (1996). The residence teaching practicum internship at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR TEACHING, 22(2), 149-169. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607479620322

Jiménez-Narváez, M., & Quiceno-Serna, Y. (2025). Co-teaching in initial teacher training: An experience in pedagogical practice courses. EDUCAR EM REVISTA, 41. https://doi.org/10.1590/1984-0411.97950

Kagan, D. M., & Others, A. (1993). Benefits of Crisis: The Genesis of a School-University Partnership. Action in Teacher Education, 15(4), 68-73.

Kerin, M., & Murphy, C. (2015). Exploring the Impact of Coteaching on Pre-Service Music Teachers. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 43(4), 309-323.

Kershner, R., Pedder, D., & Doddington, C. (2013). Professional learning during a schools-university partnership Master of Education course: Teachers’ perspectives of their learning experiences. TEACHERS AND TEACHING, 19(1), 33-49. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2013.744197

Leránoz-Iglesias, M., Fernández-Morante, C., Cebreiro-López, B., & Abeal-Pereira, C. (2023). Study on the Collaboration between University and Educational Centers Mentors in the Development of the In-School Education Placements in Official University Degrees Qualifying for the Teaching Profession: The Case of the University of Santiago de Compostela. EDUCATION SCIENCES, 13(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13020104

Manton, C., Heffernan, T., Kostogriz, A., & Seddon, T. (2021). Australian school-university partnerships: The (dis)integrated work of teacher educators. ASIA-PACIFIC JOURNAL OF TEACHER EDUCATION, 49(3), 334-346. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2020.1780563

Marcum-Dietrich, N. I., & Mahoney, T. (2015). Millersville University Secondary Education PDS. School-University Partnerships, 8(1), 3-6.

Maskit, D., & Orland-Barak, L. (2015). University-School Partnerships: Student Teachers’ Evaluations across Nine Partnerships in Israel. Journal of Education for Teaching: International Research and Pedagogy, 41(3), 285-306.

Mauri, T., Onrubia, J., Colomina, R., & Clarà, M. (2019). Sharing initial teacher education between school and university: Participants’ perceptions of their roles and learning. TEACHERS AND TEACHING, 25(4), 469-485. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2019.1601076

Mononen, M., Havu-Nuutinen, S., & Haring, M. (2023). Student teachers? Experiences in teaching practice using team teaching in flexible learning space*. TEACHING AND TEACHER EDUCATION, 125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2023.104069

Montecinos, C. (2024). Contrasting the expectations of supervisors and classroom teachers regarding their roles in the practicum experiences of preservice teachers. Pensamiento Educativo, 61(2). https://doi.org/10.7764/PEL.61.2.2024.7

Morarua, M., & Santanab, L. R. (2018). The transition from student to teacher: Students’ negotiations in the third space of an early community practicum. Estudios Pedagogicos, 44(3), 317-335. https://doi.org/10.4067/s0718-07052018000300317

Morrison, C., Dempsey, H., Dehle, K., & Fielder, S. (2025). School-based teacher educators use of a teaching performance assessment as a boundary object. AUSTRALIAN EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHER, 52(3), 2583-2606. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-025-00825-5

Morton, B. M., & Birky, G. D. (2015). Innovative University-School Partnerships Co-Teaching in Secondary Settings. Issues in Teacher Education, 24(2), 119-132.

Muñoz Martínez, Y., Domínguez Santos, S., Madarova, S., de la Sen Pumares, S., & García Laborda, J. (2021). Inclusive Practicum: Creating Networks of Learning and Collaboration between Students, Teachers, and the Faculty of Education. REVISTA INTERUNIVERSITARIA DE FORMACION DEL PROFESORADO-RIFOP, (96), 205-224. https://doi.org/10.47553/rifop.v96i35.3.89093

Ossai, O. V., & Ramsaroop, S. (2025). Mentoring Experiences Of Student Teachers During Teaching Practice In Nigeria. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 50(1), 58-74. https://doi.org/10.14221/1835-517X.6398

Österling, L. (2022). inVisible Theory in Pre-Service Mathematics Teachers’ Practicum Tasks. SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH, 66(3), 519-532. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2021.1897874

Pohan, C. A., Ward, M., Kouzekanani, K., & Boatright, C. (2009). The Impact of Field Placement Sites on Preservice Teachers’ Beliefs about Teaching Diverse Students. School-University Partnerships, 3(1), 43-53.

Polizzi, J. A. (2009). Best Practices for Transformational Teacher Education: The Full-Immersion Professional Development Schools Alternative. School-University Partnerships, 3(2), 98-111.

Prater, M. A., Carter, N., & Munk, J. (2013). Preparing special educators to teach reading: A pre-student teaching practicum. Literacy Research, Practice and Evaluation, 2, 181-196. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2048-0458(2013)0000002012

Putman, S. M., Cash, A. H., & Polly, D. (2022). Examining the Impact of Structured Clinical Experiences within a School-University Partnership on Student-Teacher Candidate Instructional Interactions. Teacher Educator, 57(3), 325-342. https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730.2021.2014006

Quesenberry, A. C., Hamann, K., Sanden, S., Bates, A., & Hartle, L. (2018). Examining the Impact of a Year-Long University-School Partnership. Action in Teacher Education, 40(3), 288-304.

Ruben, B., Rigelman, N., & McParker, M. (2016). Analysis of Stakeholder Perceptions of a Clinical Model Involving Co-Teaching and Extended-Field Experiences in an Inclusive Middle-Grades Setting. RMLE Online, 39(6), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/19404476.2016.1171571

Savick, S. L., Thrift, G., & Fenster, M. (2018). Is a “Critical Mass” of Teacher Candidates Needed in a Professional Development School to Achieve a Quality Student Teaching Experience? School-University Partnerships, 11(2), 47-61.

Sayed, Y., Ramchand, M., Mosito, C., Milani, R., & Bertini, L. (2026). School-university partnership for effective teaching practicum experiences: A study of an initial teacher education programme from Brazil, India and South Africa. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH, 137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2026.102956

Shanks, J. (2016). Implementing Action Research and Professional Learning Communities in a Professional Development School Setting to Support Teacher Candidate Learning. School-University Partnerships, 9(1), 45-53.

Sivakumaran, T., Holland, G., Clark, L., Heyning, K., Wishart, W., & Flowers-Gibson, B. (2011). University-School Partnerships for Clinical Experiences: Design, Implementation, Assessment, and Data Collection. Journal of Case Studies in Education, 1.

Sivan, A., & Chan, D. W. K. (2009). The Roles of Supervised Teaching Practice and Peer Observation in Teacher Education in Hong Kong: Implications for Partnership. Teacher Development, 13(3), 251-266.

Smith, K. (2007). Empowering school- and university-based teacher educators as assessors: A school—University cooperation. Educational Research and Evaluation, 13(3), 279-293. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803610701632109

Stairs, A. J. (2010). Becoming a Professional Educator in an Urban School-University Partnership: A Case Study Analysis of Preservice Teacher Learning. Teacher Education Quarterly, 37(3), 45-62.

Stairs, A. J., Corrieri, C., Fryer, L., Genovese, E., Panaro, R., & Sohn, C. (2009). Inquiry into Partnered Student Teaching in an Urban School-University Partnership. School-University Partnerships, 3(1), 75-89.

Strieker, T. S., Lim, W., Hubbard, D., Crovitz, D., Gray, K. C., Holbien, M., & Steffen, C. (2017). The Pursuit of a Collegial Model of Clinical Practice: The Story of One University. Action in Teacher Education, 39(2), 118-137. https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2016.1245637

Suh, J. M., & Fulginiti, K. (2012). «Situating the Learning» of Teaching: Implementing Lesson Study at a Professional Development School. School-University Partnerships, 5(2), 24-37.

Swanson, J. A., & Duncan, R. (2025). University-School District Collaborative Continuum for Teacher Preparation. School-University Partnerships, 18(1), 4-27.

Tolgfors, B. (2026). Sara’s story: A narrative inquiry into the third space of physical education teacher education and school PE. Sport, Education and Society, 31(6), 958-972. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2024.2440888

Trepper, K., Levine, S., Lomelí, K., & Garcia, A. (2023). One text, two worlds, third space: Design principles for bridging the two-worlds divide in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2023.104144

van Velzen, C., Volman, M., Brekelmans, M., & White, S. (2012). Guided work-based learning: Sharing practical teaching knowledge with student teachers. TEACHING AND TEACHER EDUCATION, 28(2), 229-239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.09.011

Waters, S., Pellegrino, A., Hensley, M., & Kenna, J. (2021). Forming School and University Partnerships to Learn and Teach with Primary Sources. Journal of Social Studies Education Research, 12(3), 47-78.

Weinberg, A. E., Ruiz, E. A., & Stevenson, C. A. (2025). Third Space through Collaboration, Coteaching, and Pedagogies of Practice: Exploring Outcomes and Opportunities. New Educator, 21(1), 21-46.

White, M. (2017). A Study of Guided Urban Field Experiences for Pre-Service Teachers. Penn GSE Perspectives on Urban Education, 14(1).

Wiseman, D. L., & Nason, P. L. (1995). The Nature of Interactions in a Field-Based Teacher Education Experience. Action in Teacher Education, 17(3), 1-12.

Young, A., Cavanagh, M., & Moloney, R. (2018). Building a whole school approach to professional experience: Collaboration and community. ASIA-PACIFIC JOURNAL OF TEACHER EDUCATION, 46(3), 279-291. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2018.1436689

Young, A., O’Neill, A., & Simmie, G. (2015). Partnership in learning between university and school: Evidence from a researcher-in-residence. IRISH EDUCATIONAL STUDIES, 34(1), 25-42. https://doi.org/10.1080/03323315.2014.1001203

Appendix A.2

RIS_ID	Año	Autor	Revista	País	Contexto	Marco conceptual	(CA)
1	1990	Cunningham	Action in Teacher Education	EE.UU.	Partnership	Mentoring	CA1
2	1994	Kagan	Action in Teacher Education	EE.UU.	Partnership	Collaboration	CA1
3	1995	Wiseman	Action in Teacher Education	EE.UU.	Field-based	Interaction	CA1
4	1996	Hoz	JET	Israel	Internship	Mentoring	CA2
5	2003	Coulter	TESE	EE.UU.	Reading program	Mutual benefits	CA6
6	2007	Smith	Educational Research & Evaluation	Noruega	Assessment	Assessment	CA7
7	2008	Gimbert	Teacher Education and Practice	EE.UU.	Curriculum	Co-teaching	CA6
8	2009	Ardley	JCTE	Canadá	Technology	Teacher learning	CA4
9	2009	Castle	School-University Partnerships	EE.UU.	PDS	PDS	CA3
10	2009	Duran	TOJET	EE.UU.	Learning community	Community of Practice	CA6
11	2009	Helfeldt	The Teacher Educator	EE.UU.	Urban Partnership Internship	Urban School–University Partnership	CA3
12	2009	Pohan	School-University Partnerships	EE.UU.	Field Placement	Culturally Responsive Partnerships	CA3
13	2009	Polizzi	School-University Partnerships	EE.UU.	Professional Development School	Transformational PDS	CA3
14	2009	Sivan & Chan	Teacher Development	Hong Kong	Supervised Teaching Practice	Partnership Models	CA2
15	2009	Stairs et al.	School-University Partnerships	EE.UU.	Partnered Student Teaching	Collaborative Inquiry	CA4
16	2010	Stairs	Teacher Education Quarterly	EE.UU.	Urban Partnership	Professional Learning	CA4
17	2011	Allen	Teaching and Teacher Education	Australia	Practicum Assessment	Theory–Practice Partnership	CA7
18	2011	Douglas & Ellis	Journal of Teacher Education	Inglaterra	School-based Teacher Education	CHAT / Mediation	CA5
19	2011	Sivakumaran et al.	Journal of Case Studies in Education	EE.UU.	Clinical Experiences	Clinical Partnerships	CA7
20	2012	Chambers & Armour	European Physical Education Review	Irlanda	Teaching Practice	Communities of Practice	CA5
21	2012	Suh	School-University Partnerships	EE.UU.	PDS / Lesson Study	Situated Learning / Reflective Practice	CA4
22	2012	Van Velzen	Teaching and Teacher Education	Países Bajos	School-based Teacher Education	Guided Work-Based Learning	CA2
23	2013	Kershner	Teachers and Teaching	Inglaterra	School-University Partnership M.Ed.	Professional Learning	CA4
24	2013	Prater	Literacy Research, Practice and Evaluation	EE.UU.	Pre-student Teaching Practicum	School-University Partnership	CA6
25	2014	Allen & Wright	Teachers and Teaching	Australia	Practicum	Theory-Practice Integration	CA7
26	2015	Kerin & Murphy	Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education	Irlanda	Co-teaching Placement	Reciprocal Professional Learning / Obuchenie	CA4
27	2015	Marcum-Dietrich & Mahoney	School-University Partnerships	EE.UU.	PDS	Professional Development School	CA3
28	2015	Maskit & Orland-Barak	Journal of Education for Teaching	Israel	University-School Partnerships	Praxis / Pedagogical Relationships	CA7
29	2015	Morton & Birky	Issues in Teacher Education	EE.UU.	Co-teaching Partnership	Co-teaching	CA6
30	2015	Young et al.	Irish Educational Studies	Irlanda	School Placement Partnership	Democratic Partnership / Co-inquiry	CA5
31	2017	Cooper	Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education	Reino Unido	Placement Assessment	Collaborative Assessment / Community of Practice	CA7
32	2016	Ruben et al.	RMLE Online	EE.UU.	Extended Clinical Experience / Co-teaching	School–University Partnership / Co-teaching	CA8
33	2016	Shanks	School-University Partnerships	EE.UU.	PDS / Field Experience	Action Research / Professional Learning Communities	CA4
34	2017	Grudnoff et al.	Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education	Nueva Zelanda	Practicum Partnership	Third Space / Boundary Crossing	CA5
35	2017	Strieker et al.	Action in Teacher Education	EE.UU.	Yearlong Clinical Experience	Co-teaching / Collegial Supervision / Professional Learning Community	CA8
36	2017	White	PennGSE Perspectives on Urban Education	EE.UU.	Guided Urban Field Experience	Sociocultural Learning / Cognitive Dissonance / CRT	CA6
37	2018	Chandler-Olcott et al.	The New Educator	EE.UU.	Partnership-Sponsored Clinical Experience	Community of Practice / Co-construction	CA6
38	2018	Moraru & Santana	Estudios Pedagógicos	Chile	Early Community Practicum	Third Space / Hybridity	CA5
39	2018	Quesenberry et al.	Action in Teacher Education	EE.UU.	Year-long University–School Partnership	Social Constructivism / Situated Learning / Third Space	CA8
40	2018	Savick et al.	School-University Partnerships	EE.UU.	PDS / Cohort Placement	Professional Development School	CA7
41	2018	Young et al.	Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education	Australia	Professional Experience / Whole-school partnership	Professional Experience Learning Community / Instructional Rounds / Lesson Study	CA6
42	2019	Broadley et al.	Frontiers in Education	Australia	Professional Experience	Third Space / Learning Community / 3PEx	CA5
43	2019	Clarke & Winslade	Journal of Teaching and Learning for Graduate Employability	Australia	School–University Hub / Team Teaching	Communities of Practice / Boundary Crossing / Reciprocity	CA8
44	2019	Mauri et al.	Teachers and Teaching	España	Practicum / Joint Reflection Settings	Expansive Communities of Practice / Joint Reflection / Third Space	CA5
45	2020	Chan	Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning	Hong Kong	Virtual Mentoring during Practicum	Third Space / Online Mentoring	CA5
46	2021	Ferraz et al.	Sport, Education and Society	Brasil	PETE / Early Childhood Practicum	Professional Practice / Knowledge Base / Reflective Practice	CA6
47	2020	Manton et al.	Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education	Australia	School–University Partnerships	Practice Architectures / Third Space / Boundary Spanning	CA5
48	2021	Muñoz Martínez et al.	Revista Interuniversitaria de Formación del Profesorado	España	Inclusive Practicum / School Networks	Collaborative Learning Networks / Inclusive Education	CA8
49	2021	Waters et al.	Journal of Social Studies Education Research	EE.UU.	Year-long Clinical Experience	Cognitive Apprenticeship / Historical Thinking	CA8
50	2022	Österling	Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research	Suecia	Practicum Tasks	Third Space / Conceptual Objects / Bernstein	CA5
51	2022	Putman, Cash & Polly	The Teacher Educator	EE.UU.	Year-long clinical internship / School–University Partnership	Clinical Practice / Program Coherence / Communities of Practice	CA6
52	2023	Hamilton & Margot	International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning	EE.UU.	Museum-based practice learning	Experiential Learning / Practice-Based Learning / Third Space	CA5
53	2023	Leránoz-Iglesias et al.	Education Sciences	España	Practicum universitario-escolar	Collaboration / Hybrid Training Scenario / Knowledge Transfer	CA5
54	2023	Mononen et al.	Teaching and Teacher Education	Finlandia	Teaching Practice / Team Teaching / Flexible Learning Spaces	Peer Learning / Team Teaching / Professional Development	CA6
55	2023	Trepper et al.	Teaching and Teacher Education	EE.UU.	ELA Methods Course + partner middle school	Third Space / Horizontal Expertise / Boundary Objects	CA8
56	2024	Feinberg & Bey	School-University Partnerships	EE.UU.	Teacher Residency / PDS	PDS / Teacher Residency / Continuous Professional Learning	CA8*
57	2024	Fielder et al.	Australian Journal of Teacher Education	Australia	Extended Teaching Internship	Communities of Practice / Early Career Teacher Resilience	CA6
58	2024	Flores-Lueg	Perspectiva Educacional	Chile	Tutoría universitaria del prácticum	Reflective Practice / Pedagogical Knowledge	CA6
59	2024	Gibson	School-University Partnerships	EE.UU.	PDS / Literacy Intervention	Self-Efficacy / Clinically-Rich Practice / Reflection	CA6
60	2024	Hicks & Lyons	School-University Partnerships	EE.UU.	Multiple district partnerships	NAPDS Essentials / Reciprocal Partnership	CA8*
61	2024	Montecinos	Pensamiento Educativo	Chile	Practicum / Supervisión universidad–escuela	School–University Partnership / Bidirectionality / Role Expectations	CA8
62	2025	Jiménez-Narváez & Quiceno-Serna	Educar em Revista	Colombia	Cursos de práctica pedagógica	Co-teaching / Collaborative Learning	CA6
63	2025	Morrison et al.	The Australian Educational Researcher	Australia	Teaching Performance Assessment	Boundary Object / Boundary Crossing	CA8
64	2025	Ossai & Ramsaroop	Australian Journal of Teacher Education	Nigeria	Teaching Practice / Mentoring	Communities of Practice / Mentoring	CA2
65	2025	Swanson & Duncan	School-University Partnerships	EE.UU.	Embedded Coursework / Multi-year Field Experience	Third Space / Place-Based Learning / Self-Efficacy	CA8
66	2025	Weinberg et al.	The New Educator	EE.UU.	Clinical Literacy Internship	Third Space / Pedagogies of Practice / Peer Co-teaching	CA5
67	2026	Carmi & Tamir	Teaching and Teacher Education	Israel	Fieldwork / Co-teaching / Mentoring	Reflective vs. Transmissive Learning / Reciprocity	CA4
68	2016	Case & Traynor	AILACTE Journal	EE.UU.	Early Field Experience	Mutual Transformation / Hybrid Roles / PDS	CA8
69	2026	Harms	PDS Partners: Bridging Research to Practice	EE.UU.	Student Teaching / Weekly Conferences	Third Space / Cognitive Apprenticeship	CA5
70	2026	Sayed et al.	International Journal of Educational Research	Brasil / India / Sudáfrica	Teaching Practicum	SUP Governance / Relationships / Resources	CA1
71	2026	Tolgfors	Sport, Education and Society	Suecia	PETE / School PE	Third Space / Vertical and Horizontal Discourses	CA5