research on preservice teachers

Teaching Preparedness of Pre-Service Teachers: Perception to Practice

• Bukidnon State University

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations

• Percy Mashebe
• JIMMY P. MANIGBAS
• Emmanuel P Cama

• Yolanda A. Santelices
• Pornpisut Duangngern

• Lan Thi Nguyen

• Maia Gurgenidze

• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

Changing Expectations for the K-12 Teacher Workforce: Policies, Preservice Education, Professional Development, and the Workplace (2020)

Chapter: 5 preparing teachers to meet new expectations: preservice teacher education, 5 preparing teachers to meet new expectations: preservice teacher education.

As described in the previous chapters, student demographics and expectations for student learning have changed dramatically in the past two decades, and with them, the demands placed on teachers. Preservice teacher education—a vast and varied enterprise—plays a key role in preparing teacher candidates for these new conditions and increased responsibilities. Whether present approaches to teacher education fulfill that role well, and whether or not teacher education has changed in response to changes in expectations for students, have been the subjects of considerable debate. Given the size of the teacher workforce and the sheer scale of teacher education in the United States, it is perhaps not a surprise to find variation in the quality of programs or in their impact on individual graduates. Some past research has yielded critiques of teacher education as a weak intervention, largely ineffective in persuading teacher candidates of the need for deep specialized preparation or providing them with a sufficient understanding of the students they would likely be teaching ( Book, Byers, and Freeman, 1983 ; Olsen, 2008 ). Policy makers, 1 academics, and advocacy groups alike have issued sweeping critiques ( Levine, 2006 ; National Council on Teacher Quality [NCTQ], 2018).

Such all-encompassing critiques do not provide much empirically based guidance on the ways teacher preparation could be improved. There is evidence that some features of teacher preparation can make a difference with respect to teachers’ sense of efficacy ( Darling-Hammond, Chung, and

___________________

1 For remarks by Education Secretary Arne Duncan at Teachers College, Columbia University, see https://www.ed.gov/news/speeches/teacher-preparation-reforming-uncertain-profession .

Frelow, 2002 ; Ronfeldt, Schwarz, and Jacob, 2014 ) and with teachers’ retention in the profession ( Ingersoll, Merrill, and May, 2014 ; Ronfeldt, Schwarz, and Jacob, 2014 ). For example, a requirement of a capstone project as part of teacher preparation is associated with teachers’ students exhibiting greater test score gains ( Boyd et al., 2009 ).

States and institutions have undertaken initiatives to strengthen the quality of preservice preparation and to develop systems of teacher accountability based on outcome measures (e.g., see Chief Council of State School Officers [CCSSO], 2017 ). Case study research supplies persuasive examples of programs and practices with the capacity to shape the knowledge, practices, and dispositions of novice teachers ( Boerst et al., 2011 ; Darling-Hammond and Oakes, 2019 ; Lampert et al., 2013 ). Finally, the availability of large administrative datasets in some states has enabled quantitative research that seeks to uncover the relationship between a teacher’s enrollment in a particular program and the learning subsequently demonstrated by that teacher’s students. Although the last of these developments has been controversial on multiple grounds, it may spur additional research that could fruitfully inform improvements in preservice education. 2

This chapter provides a “broad strokes” characterization of teacher education opportunities to meet new expectations and respond to changing student demographics, drawing on scholarship about what does happen in teacher preparation programs while also noting arguments about what should happen in teacher preparation programs (e.g., CCSSO, 2017 ; Darling-Hammond and Oakes, 2019 ; Espinoza et al., 2018 ), particularly with regard to producing novice teachers who are prepared to be successful with all students. It explores the range of visions promoted by teacher preparation programs and describes scholarship about preservice teacher preparation in general as well as highlights particular programs that are engaging in innovative approaches that show promise for recruiting—and supporting—teacher candidates from a diverse range of backgrounds.

The chapter also describes mechanisms for influencing preservice teacher education, provides illustrative cases of institutions and programs that represent deliberate and strategic responses to both the demographic changes and the evolving shifts in expectations for teaching and learning, and describes policies and practices designed to recruit, prepare, and retain teachers of color. It also highlights reform efforts in teacher education in recent years.

2 Goldhaber, Liddle, and Theobald (2012 , p. 34) conclude: “There is no doubt that evaluating teacher training programs based on the value-added estimates of the teachers they credential is controversial. It is true that the value-added program estimates do not provide any direct guidance on how to improve teacher preparation programs. However, it is conceivable that it is not possible to move policy toward explaining why we see these program estimates until those estimates are first quantified. Moreover, it is certainly the case that some of the policy questions that merit investigation . . . require additional data.”

In this chapter and the following two chapters, discussion is framed around the capacity of teacher education, inservice professional development, and the school workplace to:

• Recruit, prepare, and retain a diverse teacher workforce.
• Prepare and support teachers to engage students in the kind of conceptually rich, intellectually ambitious, and meaningful experience encompassed by the term “deeper learning.”
• Prepare and support teachers to work with a student population that is ethnically, racially, linguistically, culturally, and economically diverse.
• Prepare teachers to pursue equity and social justice in schools and communities.

The committee acknowledges that these goals of teacher education are closely intertwined. In particular, it is noted throughout Chapters 2 and 3 that achieving goals of “deeper learning” will require the capacity to work effectively within a diverse landscape of students, families, and communities.

A SPRAWLING LANDSCAPE

This section provides a brief overview of what might best be described (borrowing a phrase from Cochran-Smith et al., 2016 ) as a “sprawling landscape.” Amid that sprawling landscape are the contributions and limitations of existing research. This chapter identifies cases in which preservice preparation programs seem particularly well positioned to attract and prepare teachers with the capacity and disposition to meet high expectations for an increasingly diverse student population. The chapter highlights programs that are part of colleges and universities as well as programs that have evolved in organizations outside institutions of higher education.

The Scale and Variability of Preservice Teacher Education

As noted above and described in Chapter 4 , preservice teacher education is marked by a range of pathways into teaching, which vary considerably from state to state. The different interpretations of the term “alternative route” complicate how to analyze and report trends in preparation. The National Research Council ( NRC; 2010 ) report Preparing Teachers: Building Evidence for Sound Policy concluded that distinctions between “traditional” and “alternative” routes are not clearly defined, and that more variation exists within the “traditional” and “alternative” categories than between them. States vary in the definition of “alternative” they use

in federal Title II reports, and many of the “alternative” routes included in those reports are based in institutions of higher education. Yet it is worth noting that while the past 20–30 years have witnessed a proliferation of “alternative routes” (however defined—within or outside of institutions of higher education [IHEs]), the majority of prospective teachers continue to be prepared by traditional programs within IHEs. Eighty-eight percent of the organizations that offer teacher preparation programs are 2- and 4-year colleges and universities, including minority-serving institutions (see Box 5-1 ). The remaining 12 percent are school districts, nonprofit organizations, and other entities that run state-approved alternative teacher preparation programs. Alternative routes to teacher certification tend to enroll more racially diverse student populations than traditional programs ( U.S. Department of Education, 2016 ). Finally, state-level data in California reveal the

prominent place now occupied by online teacher preparation programs; in data reported for 2016–2017, five of the top six producers in that state were online programs, and the top five online producers accounted for one-third of all completers. 3

Like K–12 education in the United States, most preservice teacher education (with the exception of some online programs) is varied and localized: programs differ considerably among and within states. Programs are accredited by the states, which vary in terms of their requirements for preservice teacher candidates ( Cochran-Smith et al., 2016 ; NRC, 2010 ). Even within states, where state standards and regulations govern program

3 Detailed information can be found at https://www.ctc.ca.gov/docs/default-source/educator-prep/standards/adopted-tpes-2016.pdf?sfvrsn=0 .

accreditation and teacher licensure, programs of teacher preparation vary in size, duration, curriculum, and the nature of field experience ( NRC, 2010 ).

The discussion that follows describes general characteristics and trends in preservice teacher education over the past 20 years. It focuses in particular on characteristics that bear on the likelihood that teacher preparation programs will successfully recruit a more diverse teacher workforce and that they will develop the kind of curriculum, pedagogy, and learning experiences that are responsive to changing demographics and expectations.

What makes this task challenging is that the field lacks empirical evidence about what programs are effective, why, and for whom. Most state data systems fail to link preservice teacher candidates to inservice outcomes. Part of the problem has to do with the disagreement about what constitutes effectiveness (i.e., should indicators of effectiveness be student test scores, teacher retention rates, or closing achievement gaps among groups of students, or some other measure?). The NRC report Preparing Teachers (2010) called for research on the development of links between teacher preparation and outcomes for students, but that call has yet to be fulfilled. The problem also has to do with the difficulty in examining the causal effectiveness of teacher preparation programs, given all the confounding variables—including individual teacher traits—that might explain teacher success. The chapter instead examines qualitative research that dives deeply into program aims, characteristics of programs, innovations in practice, and accountability of programs.

The Visions of Teaching and Teachers Conveyed by Programs

The field lacks national data about the nature/substance of teacher preparation programs and the degree to which they have changed in any collective way over time, clearly signaling a critical area for research. There are, however, indicators of general shifts and developments in teacher preparation. For example, as highlighted in Chapter 2 , the past two decades can be characterized as an “era of accountability” in education generally, and in teacher education specifically, in which federal, state, and professional association policy initiatives have been aimed at measuring outcomes such as student achievement ( Cochran-Smith et al., 2018 ). This focus on outcomes is a shift from previous accountability emphases on measuring inputs ( Cochran-Smith et al., 2018 ). Even if national data are lacking, there is evidence that increased attention to standards, accreditation, and the development and growing influence of new players committed to advancing equity and justice, such as the Education Deans for Justice and Equity ( Cochran-Smith et al., 2018 ), have led to changes in teacher preparation, as reflected by case studies of programs.

A report by the National Academy of Education ( Feuer et al., 2013 ) describes the variety of organizations that conduct evaluations of the quality of teacher preparation programs in the United States, including the federal government, state governments, national organizations (e.g., accreditors), private organizations (e.g., NCTQ), and individual programs themselves. It notes that selection or development of appropriate measures is a key component of designing a study of teacher preparation program quality. The measures might include assessments of program graduates’ knowledge and skills, observations of their teaching practice, or assessments of what their pupils learn. Measures of program features could include analyses of course syllabi, qualifications of program faculty, and program uses of educational technology. The report describes general strengths and limitations of varying types of measures.

High-profile reports on teacher education (e.g., Educating School Teachers [ Levine, 2006 ] and Powerful Teacher Education: Lessons from Exemplary Programs [ Darling-Hammond, 2006 ]) have singled out specific programs as exemplars of excellence. Whereas these programs vary greatly in terms of program design, it is important to recognize that judgments about what constitutes “excellence” are often based on subjective assessments of what teacher preparation ought to look like rather than empirical, causal evidence on the effectiveness of teacher education.

Other reports describe programs that highlight particular approaches to program design, such as close connections to local communities ( Guillen and Zeichner, 2018 ; Lee, 2018 ). Scholars looking at program similarities and differences across countries also have selected and described programs because of particular features they had, such as an intention to be coherent ( Jenset, Klette, and Hammerness, 2018 ). The large international comparative study of preparation of mathematics teachers for elementary and lower secondary school ( Tatto et al., 2012 ) described features of nationally representative samples of teacher preparation programs. All of these studies provide more information about what goes on in teacher preparation, but none can support causal claims about the effects of programs or program features on desired outcomes.

In the recent volume Preparing Teachers for Deeper Learning Darling-Hammond and Oakes (2019) identify seven “exemplars” that include public and private colleges and universities, a teacher residency program, and a “new graduate school of education” embedded in a charter management organization (see Box 5-2 ). These exemplars as described in the volume suggest that they are aligned with the five principles of deeper learning: (1) learning that is developmentally grounded and personalized; (2) learning that is contextualized; (3) learning that is applied and transferred; (4) learning that occurs in productive communities of practice; and (5) learning that is equitable and oriented to social justice ( Darling-Hammond and

Oakes, 2019 , pp. 13–14). The programs are diverse across many axes but all “have track records of developing teachers who are strongly committed to all students’ learning—and to ensuring, especially, that students who struggle to learn can succeed” ( Darling-Hammond and Oakes, 2019 , p. 25). Common features of these programs are that they have a coherent set of courses and clinical experience (these programs have intensive relationships with schools and carefully matched student teaching placements that share the programs’ commitments to deeper learning and equity); instructors model powerful practices rather than lecture and teach through textbooks; there is a strong connection between theory and practice; and they use performance assessments to evaluate teacher candidates’ learning (pp. 323–324). Interpretation of key terms, such as “coherent,” “intensive relationship,” and “powerful practice,” are still matters of judgment.

Pondering the question of what would constitute a “strong intervention” in preservice teacher education requires considering the conception of teachers and teaching conveyed by teacher preparation programs. Preparing

Teachers ( NRC, 2010 , p. 44) notes, “All teacher preparation programs presumably have the goal of preparing excellent teachers, but a surprising variation is evident in their stated missions.” The sheer scale of preservice teacher education in the United States, combined with the fact that teacher preparation is governed at the state level, suggests wide variation in the degree to which a distinctive and coherent vision undergirds a given program. Although many web-based descriptions provide only vague and generic portraits of a program’s conception of teachers and teaching, some institutions and programs articulate a goal to recruit and prepare teacher candidates who fit a strongly conceptualized and distinctive vision of teaching, and describe a program designed to embody that vision.

Program Coherence and Integration

Programs of teacher education confront the challenge of preparing prospective teachers for a complex and multi-faceted professional role, one that requires not only specialized knowledge related to the subjects, grades, and students they are likely to teach but also the capacity to assume responsibilities beyond the classroom and to engage in productive communication with professionals in other specializations (social work, school psychology, health professions). Yet long-standing criticisms of teacher education point to its fragmented or “siloed” character as a limitation on the quality of preparation experienced by teacher candidates ( Ball, 2000 ; Grossman, Hammerness, and McDonald, 2009a ; Harvey et al., 2010 ; Lanier and Little, 1986 ; Scruggs, Mastropieri, and McDuffie, 2007 ; Stone and Charles, 2018 ). This siloed nature takes the form of university coursework disconnected from clinical field experience; classroom teachers being trained separately from special education teachers, social workers, school psychologists, or other specialists focused on the development and well-being of students; elementary teachers prepared separately from early childhood educators, or from middle and high school teachers; and preservice preparation segmented from induction experiences and ongoing professional development. Achieving a conceptually coherent and experientially integrated program proves challenging for teacher education programs; Darling-Hammond terms this “probably the most difficult aspect of constructing a teacher education program” (2006, p. 305), but also underscores the importance of providing teacher candidates an “almost seamless experience of learning to teach” (p. 306).

The most prominent efforts to bridge the silos in the past two decades center on strengthening the relationship between university coursework and clinical practice, and on enhancing the quality of student teachers’ field experiences. These efforts respond most directly to complaints that candidates receive little help in bridging theory and practice in their preparation, with training in content knowledge separate from training in classroom

management and pedagogy ( Ball, 2000 ). Some programs are addressing the chasm between university coursework and clinical practice by situating university courses within school sites ( Zeichner, 2010 ), with results some scholars see as promising ( Hodges and Baum, 2019 ). National associations have taken steps to promote higher quality approaches to clinical experience, closely integrated with other components of teacher preparation, as reflected most recently in the “proclamations” issued by AACTE’s Clinical Practice Commission (2018) .

CHARACTERISTICS OF TEACHER CANDIDATES

Every occupation must find ways of attracting newcomers to its ranks. The individuals who enroll in programs of teacher preparation bring with them a view of teaching as an occupation, and a set of experiences, perspectives, and motivations that shape their decision to enroll. Three developments in the past 20 years deserve particular attention, as they may shape both the capacity and motivation of new teachers to respond to changing student demographics and to expectations for teaching and learning in the 21st century. The committee offers a few illustrations of initiatives that have been started; however, the examples highlighted represent a small subset. Given time constraints, the committee was unable to offer a comprehensive review of all national efforts.

First, individuals who are now becoming teachers, with the possible exception of career changers (see Box 5-3 ), likely attended school during the era of test-based accountability. Their ideas of what it means to teach—the goals of learning, the nature of classroom instruction, the form and role of assessment, the relationships between teachers and students—may have been influenced strongly by the kinds of accountability-based instruction that evolved in the wake of No Child Left Behind (NCLB; see Chapters 2 and 3 ). Elementary instruction in particular shifted under NCLB to focus increasingly on math and reading at the expense of social studies, science, and the arts, and to emphasize narrowly defined, standardized forms of assessment ( Dee and Jacob, 2010 ; Dee, Jacob, and Schwartz, 2013 ).

A second development conceives of teaching as short-term public service. The advent of Teach For America (TFA) introduced the premise that “that young, highly educated individuals will stimulate achievement and motivation in low-performing schools, even if they remain only a short period; a corollary but more implicit premise is that high turnover of such teachers will do no harm to students or schools, presuming that programs and schools are able to recruit a steady supply” ( Little and Bartlett, 2010 , p. 310). Although teachers recruited by TFA and by similar recruitment efforts (including the hiring of overseas-trained teachers) represent a small percentage of the teacher workforce (see Chapter 4 ), they are concentrated

in high-minoritized and high-poverty schools and districts ( Bartlett, 2014 ; Clotfelder, Ladd, and Vigdor, 2005 ). More important than their numbers may be the staying power of the institutional logic of teaching as short-term service rather than a career for which one requires in-depth preparation and ongoing opportunity to learn (see Chapter 4 ).

A third development of the past two decades entails efforts to recruit a more diverse pool of teacher candidates, with respect to both teachers’ demographic characteristics (more teachers of color and male teachers) and teachers’ ability to help remedy chronic shortages in STEM fields, special education, and bilingual education (as discussed in Chapter 4 ). A report issued by the American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education (AACTE) ( King and Hampel, 2018 ) identifies several initiatives intended to diversify the workforce, including Federal TEACH grants, state-level scholarships, foundation-supported initiatives, and AACTE initiatives. Most supply financial incentives or supports, but AACTE has also adopted the idea of a Networked Improvement Community to help institutions increase the number of Black and Hispanic/Latino men (see Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 2019 ). TFA’s current teacher corps is now half people of color ( Teach For America, 2019 ), with active recruitment from MSIs, reflecting the organization’s success in meeting one of the workforce’s top agenda items.

PREPARING TEACHERS TO ENGAGE STUDENTS IN DEEPER LEARNING

As described in Chapter 3 , teaching for deeper learning arguably requires teachers to have deep command of content knowledge (i.e., disciplinary knowledge) and specialized content knowledge for teaching (i.e., knowing how to teach disciplinary knowledge and practices), as well as strong practical training in what it means to engage and empower learners from diverse communities through culturally relevant education. Intentional, purposeful instruction in disciplinary learning is critical to developing students’ deep learning. Deeper learning also involves cultivating the disposition and ability to work effectively with a diverse population of students and families.

However, the constant refrain that teachers must be able to serve “all students” tends to emphasize academic competencies and render opaque some of the complex issues entailed in working for equity and social justice both in and beyond the classroom that in fact impact academic success ( Cochran-Smith et al., 2016 ; Darling-Hammond, 2006 ). Some “deeper learning” documents focus learning outcomes principally on academic competencies, often characterizing this as a pursuit of “excellence.” A notable example of this can be observed in the creation of particular standards such as computer science (e.g., Grover, Pea, and Cooper, 2015 ). In contrast, the five principles identified in the Darling-Hammond and Oakes (2019) book Preparing Teachers for Deeper Learning explicitly reference learning for equity and social justice. A substantial body of research suggests that each of these aims—achieving depth of understanding and skill, and catalyzing

equity and social justice—present daunting challenges and tensions that may be compounded by the tendency to address “excellence” and “equity” as divergent rather than convergent aspects of an equitable learning ecology ( Khalil and Kier, 2018 ).

Having acknowledged this dilemma, and having underscored the intersection of the preparation goals identified here, this section concentrates on approaches that teacher preparation programs have developed to supply novice teachers with deep specialized content knowledge for teaching ( Ball, Thames, and Phelps, 2008 ) and with the ability to design and enact instruction that engages students in rich, complex, and authentic tasks. Three developments are highlighted: the movement to focus on professional practice, with particular focus on “core” or “high leverage” practices (and critiques of that movement); field experiences; and innovations in teacher education pedagogy.

Practice-Based Teacher Education

As described in Chapter 3 , developing the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to support an increasingly diverse set of learners to engage in deeper learning requires significant shifts in what teaching looks and sounds like in most U.S. classrooms. It can be challenging to support preservice teachers in shifting their conceptions of instruction so as to be able to teach in ways substantially different from those experienced as K–12 students. Over the past two decades, a growing appreciation for the multi-faceted and specialized nature of teachers’ knowledge has been joined to a richer conceptualization of the complexities of professional practice (see Box 5-4 ). Shulman (1987) introduced a taxonomy of teacher knowledge that in turn stimulated a substantial body of empirical research (especially on the nature of “pedagogical content knowledge”) as well as further conceptual refinements ( Ball, Thames, and Phelps, 2008 ; Gess-Newsome, 2015 ).

In a widely cited essay, Ball and Cohen (1999) present a compelling case for why this multi-faceted and specialized knowledge requires professional learning opportunities rooted in practice, especially if our educational system aspires to “deeper and more complex learning in students as well as teachers” (p. 5). Ball and Cohen envision professional education “ centered in the critical activities of the profession—that is, in and about the practices of teaching ,” but caution that this does not entail a simplistic recommendation to locate more of teacher preparation in schools and classrooms, where the immediacy of classroom activity may limit teachers’ ability to gain new insight into central problems of practice. Throughout, they urge (and illustrate) the thoughtful, collective analysis of well-chosen records of professional practice that include samples of student work, video-records

of classroom lessons, curriculum materials, and teachers’ plans and notes. Ball and Cohen nonetheless acknowledge that centering professional learning in an intensive consideration of practice would represent a fundamental, systemic change in the organization of teacher education and in the role of teacher educators.

Grossman and colleagues (2009b) developed a framework of the pedagogies of practice-based teacher education that elaborates on Ball and Cohen’s (1999) call to center professional education on practice. The framework is grounded in a cross-field study that included teacher education together with preparation for the clergy and for clinical psychology. It distinguishes between pedagogies of investigation , which focus on analyzing and reflecting on records of practice (e.g., video recordings, student work), and pedagogies of enactment , or “opportunities to practice elements of interactive teaching in settings of reduced complexity” ( Grossman and McDonald, 2008 , p. 190). Analyzing records of practice to reflect upon and improve teaching, while necessary, is not sufficient for supporting novices to develop the enact the “contingent, interactive aspects of teaching” ( Grossman, 2011 , p. 2837)—especially when the goals of teaching are, for many novices, substantially different from what they experienced themselves as K–12 learners (see Box 5-5 ).

One issue in practice-based teacher education entails deciding what aspects of practice to focus on with novices, and when, and why. Grossman, Hammerness, and McDonald (2009a , p. 277) argued for the value in focusing teacher education on “core practices,” which the authors describe as those that occur with high frequency in teaching; can be enacted in classrooms across different curricula or instructional approaches; allow teachers to learn more about students and about teaching; preserve the integrity and complexity of teaching; and are research-based and have the potential to improve student achievement. (See also Ball et al., 2009 for a discussion of “high-leverage practices.”)

Facilitating whole-class discussions is an example of what might count as a “core” or “high-leverage” practice. Substantial research has indicated that engaging students in whole-class discussions, in which students are supported and pressed to reason about central ideas, and to connect their ideas to those of their peers, deepens students’ understanding of content and competence with disciplinary forms of argument and reasoning (e.g., Fogo, 2014 ; Franke, Kazemi, and Battey, 2007 ; NASEM, 2018 ).

In 2012, a group of educators from multiple institutions and subject matter disciplines formed the Core Practices Consortium (CPC) to advance program innovations and a related research agenda. The premise underlying the work of the Consortium is that focusing on a selected set of core practices may better prepare novice teachers to “counter longstanding inequities in the schooling experiences of youth from historically marginalized communities in the U.S.” ( Core Practice Consortium, 2016 ). Although CPC participants share a set of commitments and understandings, the core practices they identify “vary in grain size, content-specificity, exhaustiveness, and other features” ( Grossman, 2018 , p. 4). For example, TeachingWorks, a center at the University of Michigan School of Education, identified

19 high-leverage practices that include leading a group discussion, building respectful relationships with students, and checking student understanding during and at the conclusion of lessons. A set of core science teaching practices in secondary classrooms was developed by a Delphi panel of expert science teachers and university faculty; these practices include engaging students in investigations, facilitating classroom discourse, and eliciting, assessing, and using student thinking about science ( Kloser, 2014 ). Also using a Delphi panel, a set of core teaching practices for secondary history education were developed, including employing historical evidence, the use of history concepts, big ideas, and essential questions, and making connections to personal/cultural experiences ( Fogo, 2014 ).

Some scholars have questioned the compatibility of organizing teacher education coursework around high-leverage practices with a commitment to advancing equity and social justice ( Philip et al., 2018 ; Souto-Manning, 2019 ). Dutro and Cartun (2016) argue that calling some practices “core” necessarily suggests other practices are peripheral. They suggest that while choosing to focus on routine aspects of teaching can be of great value, it is important for teacher educators to remain vigilant in interrogating what is identified as central and what is less so. Moreover, they call for teacher educators to support novices to treat and approach teaching as complex, especially when narrowing focus to a particular form of practice. Similarly concerned with what is centered and what is pushed to the periphery, Philip et al. (2018) argue that a focus on core practices may result in the parsing of teaching into discrete, highly precise skills with not enough consideration into the character and complexity of local schooling contexts, and thus “decenter justice” (p. 6).

Recent research, including studies involving scholars affiliated with CPC, has begun to shed light on the impact of the core practices approach and issues related to equity. Several studies focus on determining whether and how core practices are evident in the planning and instruction of novice teachers. For example, Kang and Windschitl (2018) conducted a mixed-methods study of the lessons taught by two groups of first-year science teachers; one group had completed a “practice-embedded” program organized around core practices, and the second group completed a program that did not feature a core practices approach. The research team found that the graduates of the practice-embedded program were significantly different from the comparison group with respect to the opportunities for student learning embodied in the lesson plans (goals, tasks, tools) and in the level of active science sense-making evident in classroom discourse (see Chapter 6 for similar findings related to inservice professional development).

In an extension of that research, Kang and Zinger (2019) explicitly take up questions regarding the relationship between preparation in core practices and outcomes centered on equity and social justice. The authors

draw on a longitudinal (3-year) case study of White women as they completed a program focused on core practices in science teaching and then in their first 2 years of teaching as they taught students from ethnically, linguistically, and economically diverse backgrounds. Even within a small case study sample of three teachers, they found variations in the teachers’ use of ambitious science teaching practices (enabled or constrained in part by their workplace context), but also found that the awareness of core practices alone did not help novice teachers adopt teaching methods that reflect a critical consciousness about racism and systemic, structural inequity. The researchers attributed these results in part to a preparation program in which coursework focused on cultural diversity and equity remained separate from coursework on science teaching methods.

In a second example, Kavanagh and Danielson (2019) investigated novice elementary teachers’ opportunities to attend to issues of social justice and facilitate text-based discussions in a literacy methods course, and the ways novices integrated the two domains when reflecting on their teaching practice. The literacy methods course was co-taught by a literacy methods instructor and a foundations instructor. Data included video recordings of the literacy methods course in which the novices prepared to teach text-based discussions (specifically in the context of interactive read-alouds), video recordings of the novices engaging elementary students in read-alouds, and novices’ written reflections on their videos.

One finding concerned differences in teacher educator pedagogies as they relate to a focus on social justice issues or content. Kavanagh and Danielson found that when teaching about facilitating a text-based discussion, teacher educators supported the novices to both analyze and try out (e.g., rehearse) specific moves one might make during an interactive read-aloud, and to reason about their instructional decisions. However, while novices engaged in conversations about social justice in relation to planning for text-based discussions (e.g., which text to select in relation to their students’ lived experiences), novices rarely engaged in discussions of social justice in relation to their actual facilitation of text-based discussions. Kavanagh and Danielson write: “When TEs . . . support[ed] teachers to attend to social justice in their teaching, justice was exclusively treated as an element of lesson planning rather than as a factor in in-the-moment instructional decision making, or instruction . . . Only on extremely rare occasions did novices discuss attending to social justice while making in-the-moment instructional decisions.” (p. 19). Further, when reflecting on video recordings of their teaching, novices discussed issues of facilitating text-based discussions much more frequently than issues of attending to social justice (p. 19).

Kavanagh and Danielson suggest that novices’ tendency to center issues of content and decenter issues of social justice when reflecting on their instructional decision-making is likely shaped by the pedagogies employed

by the teacher educators. “While [Teacher Educators] frequently represented, decomposed, and approximated practice with novices, they rarely did so when supporting novices to attend to social justice” (p. 30). On the basis of these findings, and in relation to the ongoing debates about the relationships between “core practices” and advancing social justice and equity, Kavanagh and Danielson suggest the value in understanding more deeply how teacher educators might more purposefully integrate attention to specific forms of practice (e.g., facilitating a text-based discussion) and social justice concerns (e.g., representation of students, addressing classroom power relations during a discussion) in the context of practice-based teacher education.

The Field Experience

One hallmark of professional education in all fields is its reliance on practical experience to help novices develop key skills and cultivate professional judgment. Numerous correlational studies have shown some aspects of clinical experiences to be positively associated with measures of teacher effectiveness and retention (e.g., Boyd et al., 2009 ; Goldhaber, Krieg, and Theobold, 2017 ; Krieg, Theobold, and Goldhaber, 2016 ; Ronfeldt, 2012 , 2015 ). Ronfeldt (2012 , p. 4) points to variations in the degree to which programs take an active role in selecting and overseeing field placements, citing the NYC Pathways Study 4 conducted by Boyd and colleagues (2009) as an example.

[P]rogram oversight of field experiences was positively and significantly associated with teacher effects. More specifically, new teachers who graduated from programs that were actively involved in selecting field placements had minimum experience thresholds for cooperating teachers and required supervisors to observe student teachers at least five times had higher student achievement gains in their first year as teacher of record.

Recent scholarship points to the relationship between field experience and teacher candidates’ perceptions of the quality of their program and their preparedness to teach. Using longitudinal data from the Schools and Staffing Survey, Ronfeldt, Schwarz, and Jacob (2014) found that teachers who completed more methods-related coursework and practice teaching felt they were better prepared and were more likely to stay in teaching. These findings applied to teachers no matter what preparation route they

4 The NYC Pathways Study reviewed the entry points for teachers in New York City through an analysis of more than 30 programs, including a survey of all first-year teachers. The study examined the differences in the components of the teacher preparation programs and examined the effects related to student achievement.

took. In an experimental study of a project called Improving Student Teaching Initiative (ISTI), Ronfeldt et al. (2018) found that teachers randomly assigned to placements evaluated as more promising rather than less promising (in terms of various measures of teacher and school characteristics) had higher perceptions of the quality of the instruction of their mentor teachers and the quantity and quality of the coaching they received. Additionally, candidates in the more promising placements were more likely to report better working conditions, stronger collaboration among teachers, more opportunities to learn to teach, and feeling better prepared to teach ( Ronfeldt et al., 2018 ). In their study of six Washington State teacher education programs, Goldhaber, Krieg, and Theobald (2017) found that teachers are more effective when the student demographics of the schools where they did their student teaching and those of their current schools are similar. Scholarship also shows an association between the effectiveness of the mentor teacher and the future effectiveness of teacher candidates ( Goldhaber, Krieg, and Theobald, 2018 ), using value-added as a measure of effectiveness.

Research on preservice preparation in multiple fields, including teacher education, points to the difficulties that novices may encounter in integrating their academic preparation with their clinical or field experience ( Benner et al., 2010 ; Cooke, Irby, and O’Brien, 2010 ; Grossman et al., 2009b ; Sheppard et al., 2009 ; Sullivan, 2005 ). Those difficulties may be compounded when novices lack access to clinical experiences in settings that reflect high standards of professional practice and that prepare novice professionals to take a reflective and questioning stance toward their own practice. As Ball and Cohen (1999) caution, some clinical experiences do little to disrupt or address the “apprenticeship of observation” ( Lortie, 1975 ) that teachers bring with them to their field experiences and student teaching: that is, the thousands of hours in the classroom spent observing teaching as students. This apprenticeship of observation may reinforce the conservatism of teaching practice if teacher education, including clinical experience, does not offer opportunities for preservice teachers to seriously study their own experiences and practice, and engage in “substantial professional discourse” ( Ball and Cohen, 1999 , p. 5).

Concerns about the quality of clinical experience seem particularly warranted in situations where teacher candidates have little or no field experience, or where candidates are permitted or even required to find their own placement sites for early field experiences and/or student teaching ( Levine, 2006 ). In a study of mathematics and science teachers using the 2003–2004 Schools and Staffing Survey, and the supplement, the 2004–2005 Teacher Follow-up Survey, Ingersoll, Merrill, and May (2012, 2014 ) found that 21 percent of new teachers did not have any practice or student teaching before their first job, and the rates were even higher for science teachers: 40 per-

cent had no practice teaching. The latest data from the 2015–2016 National Teacher and Principal Survey indicate that this has not changed: 23 percent of first-year teachers in 2015 had no practice teaching ( Ingersoll, personal communication, 2019 ). This matters because the amount of practice teaching teachers candidates have is associated with whether they remain in the field as teachers ( Ingersoll, Merrill, and May, 2014 ). However, much is not known about how the student teaching experience contributes to teacher candidates’ development ( Anderson and Stillman, 2013 ). Much of the scholarship tends to focus on changing beliefs among teacher candidates rather than the development of teaching practice, and a more robust research base is needed to understand the role such development plays in teacher preparation ( Anderson and Stillman, 2013 ).

Innovations in Teacher Preparation

Efforts to strengthen the quality of clinical experience have taken center stage in recent years, spurred in part by high-profile reports such as the Blue Ribbon Panel report, Transforming Teacher Education through Clinical Practice: A National Strategy to Prepare Effective Teachers (NCATE, 2010; see also the report of the AACTE Clinical Practice Commission, 2018 ). In addition, some studies have demonstrated the potential of field experiences to support teacher learning when well designed and coordinated with campus coursework ( Darling-Hammond, 2006 ; Lampert et al., 2013 ; Tatto, 1996 ). Three recent innovations in the organization of clinical experience, discussed below, show promise for developing teacher candidates’ practice, particularly in working in urban and high-need contexts.

Clinical Experiences

In an approach modeled after medical rounds attended by physicians in training, Robert Bain and Elizabeth Moje at the University of Michigan developed a project to integrate student teachers’ discipline-specific preparation with their preparation to tackle problems of practice in the field ( Bain, 2012 ; Bain and Moje, 2012 ). The Clinical Rounds Project was launched in 2005 with a pilot in the area of social studies; it has since expanded to include methods instructors, field instructors, interns, and practicing classroom teachers across five content areas: social studies, mathematics, science, English language arts, and world languages. The project seeks to integrate the disparate components of the teacher education program through a spiraling program of study. Teacher candidates rotate through classrooms of carefully selected mentor teachers (called “attending teachers”) who model selected practices and intervene in the teaching of teacher candidates to offer real-time feedback. Based on video of preservice

teachers working in the field and on other project documentation, Bain (2012) reports several changes evident in the “Rounds” cohorts compared to previous cohorts: a new conception of the teacher’s role; a heightened appreciation for the kinds of curricular and instructional tools they would need to achieve their goals; a deeper understanding of the challenges their secondary students are likely to experience in the history classroom; and end-of-program perception that their coursework and field experiences had been fruitfully integrated.

Methods courses located at school sites (sometimes referred to as a hybrid space) can facilitate new connections between teacher candidates, practicing teachers, and university-based teacher educators in new ways that can address the historical divide that exists between campus and field-based teacher education and enhance teacher candidates’ learning. This hybrid space has the potential of creating a partnership among key stakeholders (K–12 students, teacher candidates, university faculty, and mentor teachers) characterized by more egalitarian and collegial relationships than conventional school-university partnerships ( Zeichner, 2010 ).

Different kinds of hybrid spaces exist. Some examples include having “studio days” focused on teaching English learners, with prospective teachers working jointly with experienced teachers to focus on language structures ( Von Esch and Kavanagh, 2018 ); incorporating K–12 teachers and their knowledge bases into campus courses and field experiences (e.g., by having teachers with high levels of competence spend a residency working in all aspects of a preservice teacher education program); incorporating representation of teachers’ practices in campus courses (through writing and research of K–12 teachers or multimedia representations of their teaching practice); and incorporating knowledge from communities into preservice teacher preparation ( Zeichner, 2010 ).

Many other clinical innovations exist and are in various phases of development. Empirical research is needed to explore the effectiveness of these innovations on a range of outcome measures (e.g., teacher candidates’ future effectiveness related to student achievement and in centering equity and justice in their teaching) as well as the feasibility and cost of implementing them. Some clinical approaches, such as microteaching, have been used for many years ( Grossman, 2005 ) and continue to be common components of field instruction, with adaptions to make use of current contexts ( Abendroth, Golzy, and O’Connor, 2011 ; Fernandez, 2010 ).

Technological Innovations

Teacher preparation programs are increasingly using technological innovations in a range of ways in attempts to better prepare teacher candidates ( Hollett, Brock, and Hinton, 2017 ; Kennedy and Newman Thomas,

2012 ; Rock et al., 2009 , 2014 ; Schaefer and Ottley, 2018 ; Scheeler et al., 2006 ; Sherin and Russ, 2014 ; Uerz, Volman, and Kral, 2018 ). eCoaching through bug-in-ear technology is a relatively new technology that allows for discreet coaching to be offered via an online coach or supervisor ( Hollett, Brock, and Hinton, 2017 ; Rock et al., 2009 , 2014 ; Schaefer and Ottley, 2018 ; Scheeler et al., 2006 ). Current research examines the way bug-in-ear technology can enhance teacher preparation programs ( Hollett, Brock, and Hinton, 2017 ; Schaefer and Ottley, 2018 ; Scheeler et al., 2006 ), especially the long-term benefits for special education teachers-in-training ( Rock et al., 2009 , 2014 ).

Video recordings of practice are used for reflection, peer collaboration (e.g., through a “video club”), evaluation, and coaching. In response to the increased use of video recordings, there has been a corresponding development in video sharing platforms (e.g., Edthena, Torsh Talent, Class Forward, Iris Connect). For example, in one recent study of preparation for mathematics teaching, Sun and van Es (2015) designed a video-based secondary-level mathematics methods course, Learning to Learn from Teaching (LLFT), in which teacher candidates studied video cases of teaching to learn to notice features of ambitious pedagogy, with particular attention to analysis of student thinking. Researchers compared videos of teaching practice between teacher candidates enrolled in the LLFT course and teacher candidates in the same program from a prior year who did not take the LLFT course. They analyzed the videos along the dimensions of (1) making student thinking visible, (2) probing student thinking, and (3) learning in the context of teaching. Sun and van Es found that the teacher candidates in the LLFT course enacted responsive teaching practices attending to student thinking with more frequency.

Technology-supported simulations provide preservice teacher candidates opportunities to hone classroom management and instructional skills with multiple opportunities for practice without experimenting on actual students. This standardized tool is often found in other professions such as medicine, business, and the military. There are forms of simulations that are not aided by technology, such as work being done at Syracuse University in which actors play the part of students in the simulations (similar to the work being done within medical schools) and experimental efforts at the University of Michigan with an assessment that utilizes a “standardized student.”

According to one teacher educator and researcher with extensive experience with this technology, an effective simulation needs to have three critical components: “(a) personalized learning, (b) suspension of disbelief, and (c) cyclical procedures to ensure impact” ( Dieker et al., 2014 , p. 22). For example, TLE TeachLivE, a mixed-reality teaching environment, provides a room for the teacher or teacher candidate to physically enter that

simulates an actual classroom, with “virtual students” as avatars (played by a live “actor” offsite) ( Dieker et al., 2014 ). Teachers interact with the virtual students (who represent a range of ages, cultures, backgrounds, and abilities), teach new content, and monitor students as they work independently. Following feedback or self-reflection, the teacher candidates may re-enter the virtual classroom to attempt different responses and strategies to support student learning ( Dieker et al., 2014 , p. 3).

PREPARING TEACHER CANDIDATES TO WORK WITH DIVERSE POPULATIONS

At their best, all of the approaches outlined above—developing a command of core practices in subject-specific teaching, participating in well-designed clinical experiences integrated with coursework, and capitalizing on new technologies—should aid in the preparation of teachers to work with a diverse student population. Some recent studies supply evidence that field experiences in local communities—beyond classrooms and schools, and where preservice teachers are carefully prepared and guided through mediation, debriefing of these experiences, and connecting these experiences to the rest of their program—may help teacher candidates develop a richer understanding of students whose backgrounds differ from their own ( McDonald et al., 2011 ). Yet the charge that teacher preparation programs fail to effectively prepare teacher candidates for the students they teach remains a common theme in the scholarship on teacher preparation (Anderson and Stillman, 2010; Cochran-Smith et al., 2016 ).

As illustrated in Chapter 3 , one response to the disconnect between teachers (who are predominantly White, middle class, and female) and their students has been to emphasize the tenets of culturally relevant pedagogy and culturally sustaining pedagogy that support multilingualism and multiculturalism. Although a full characterization of teacher education faculty was beyond the scope of this report, teacher education faculty including adjunct faculty (which as of 2007 were 78% White) may play a key role in “how urgently a program works to address race and ethnicity” ( Sleeter, 2017 , p. 158).

There is no shortage of approaches and programs designed to prepare teachers for increasing cultural diversity, conceptualized in terms of social class, ethnicity, culture, and language ( Major and Reid, 2017 ). However, there is no single “formula” ( Major and Reid, 2017 , p. 8) for implementing these approaches because, as Gay (2013) argues, the sociocultural context in which instructional practices are taught should influence the approaches used: “Culturally responsive teaching, in idea and action, emphasizes localism and contextual specificity” ( Gay, 2013 , p. 63). As Major and Reid (2017) observe, “Cultural and linguistic difference is inevitably overlaid

with larger historical and political issues of migration, indigeneity, invasion, economic power, citizenship and racism. All of these are realised differently in different contexts and require teachers to understand their own cultural positioning and power in relation to the varieties of cultural difference with which they are engaged” (p. 11).

To what extent do teacher preparation programs foreground approaches for teaching multilingual, multicultural students? Critics argue that most teacher programs fall short. In their review of the literature on culturally responsive schooling for indigenous youth, Castagno and Brayboy (2008) found that schools and classrooms were failing to meet the needs of Indigenous students; they also found that although much theory and scholarship has been devoted to culturally responsive schooling for Indigenous populations, the main tenets of such pedagogies are often essentialized or too generalized to be applicable and effective. Similarly, few teachers develop the required skills to effectively work with emergent bilinguals—skills such as gauging students’ language development and content understanding and using informal and formal assessments to promote literacy development ( López and Santibañez, 2018 ). Scholars who have examined these issues argue that the consequences of these failures are serious, with consequences for a range of indicators of student success, including achievement, classification as emergent bilinguals, and high school completion ( López and Santibañez, 2018 ).

In one effort to advance the integration of culturally relevant pedagogy preparation into programs of teacher education, Allen and colleagues (2017) developed a conceptual framework that “requires teacher educators and candidates to pose questions that disrupt, deconstruct, reimagine, and develop concepts in an effort to promote academic rigor and higher-order thinking” (p. 18). The authors urge questions that challenge the “status quo” curriculum, the nature of classroom and field learning opportunities, the content of the program, instructional practices, and avenues for voice.

Given the demographic divide between teacher candidates and the students they teach, preparing teacher candidates to address issues of diversity and focus on equity in meaningful, authentic, and practical ways is critical. Teacher preparation programs vary dramatically in their approaches. Box 5-6 highlights two approaches that show promise for developing teacher candidates’ will and capacity to value students’ diverse backgrounds and engage in culturally sustaining pedagogy ( Paris and Alim, 2017 ): (1) valuing students’ funds of knowledge from outside of school and (2) building relationships with the students’ communities.

This section highlights principles, commitments, and pedagogies that hold promise for preparing teachers to work for equity and social justice. Preparing teachers to work for equity and social justice is not the

same as preparing teachers to work with a diverse student population ( Cochran-Smith, 2004 ). Rather, it involves preparation that fosters a deep understanding of the structures and processes that reproduce inequality, cultivates a disposition to act in ways that interrupt those structures and processes, and equips teachers for equity-oriented leadership.

Educators have been calling for teacher preparation that reflects commitments to equity for decades ( Fraser, 2007 ). For example, a recent issue of Teachers College Record compiled articles devoted to the goal to “reclaim the power and possibility of university-based teacher education to engage in transformations that prioritize the preparation of asset-, equity-, and social justice-oriented teachers” ( Souto-Manning, 2019 , p. 2).

As discussed earlier, the philosophical approach of culturally sustaining pedagogy directly seeks to foster linguistic, literate, and cultural

pluralism with the aim of positive social transformation for education. Culturally sustaining pedagogy is an assets-based approach that addresses the colonial aspect of contemporary schooling and actively works to disrupt anti-Blackness, anti-Indigeneity, anti-Brownness, model minority myths, and other ways in which schools foster colonialism and seeks to provide an alternative to the dominant “White gaze” ( Paris and Alim, 2017 , pp. 2–3).

Contemporary teacher education scholarship continues to argue that programs are not adequately preparing teachers to enact teaching in ways that are informed by equity-oriented interpretive frames ( Carter Andrews et al., 2019 ; Sleeter, 2017 ). Such programs may employ interpretive frameworks in coursework and field experience and engage in activity that deepens teacher candidates’ understanding, skills, and commitments (e.g., asset

mapping, placement in community-based organizations). Unfortunately, many scholars claim that most programs tend to fall short of equipping teacher candidates with a deep understanding of structural inequalities and tools needed to create more equitable opportunities (e.g., Carter Andrews et al., 2019 ; Cochran-Smith et al., 2014; Sleeter, 2017 ). Understanding how to prepare teacher candidates for this kind of work is an area for both research and innovation.

MECHANISMS FOR INFLUENCING PRESERVICE TEACHER EDUCATION

If preservice teacher education is to be a more uniformly coherent and demonstrably effective contributor to the quality of teachers and teaching in the 21st century, it will require change at multiples levels and in multiple respects. Thinking about levers for change proves challenging. Nonetheless, four (admittedly overlapping) categories of influence occupy a prominent place in the available research literature and in educational journalism.

First, teacher education has been increasingly shaped by regulatory and policy mechanisms including professional standards, program admission criteria, state licensure requirements, and program accreditation. Over the past two decades, policy makers supported new and flexible pathways into teaching while simultaneously moving to tighten accountability for program outcomes ( Cochran-Smith et al., 2018a ). States and other accrediting bodies have specified criteria for admission that emphasize both the academic qualifications of individuals and the formation of a diverse pool of teacher candidates. Standards of professional teaching practice encompass the expectations outlined in Chapter 3 , although the field lacks the kind of empirical evidence to know with certainty how standards translate into preparation and practice outcomes. Nonetheless, changes in licensure requirements and program accreditation mark a shift from program inputs and components to teacher candidate outcomes, with some states requiring candidate performance assessment for licensure and/or program accreditation ( AACTE, n.d. ).

A second potential source of influence on teacher education are the multiple institutional or professional associations and networks that populate the teacher education terrain, as well as various policy-related organizations that include teacher education policies on a broader agenda of educational reform. Professional associations of teachers and teacher educators have served as mechanisms for developing and promoting research-based conceptions of learning that in turn have influenced programs of teacher preparation and professional development; a well-known example

is the conception of mathematics learning advanced by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics in the late 1980s ( NRC, 2001 ). Professional associations with institutional (rather than individual) membership are more likely to promote broad programmatic priorities, as NCATE did by appealing to program to place field experience as the center of teacher preparation, and AACTE did in 2018 when it followed up with a set of proclamations regarding clinical practice ( Little, 1993 ). 5

A third source of influence takes the form of targeted change initiatives. Some initiatives have emerged from within the field of teacher education, led by teacher educators and teacher education researchers. Among the examples that span several decades are the Holmes Group and the more recent CPC. Other initiatives flow from initiatives or funding streams supported by the federal government (such as support for Teach For America and for alternatives to university-based teacher preparation). Still others stem from private corporations, venture capitalists, or foundations that have altered the landscape of teacher education through their investments in new institutional entities (such as new Graduate Schools of Education) and their ties to federal policy makers. Some private-sector initiatives recruit institutions that agree to pursue a particular reform agenda; Teachers for a New Era, launched by the Carnegie Corporation of New York, presents one well-funded example (see Box 5-7 ).

Finally, the committee acknowledges the potential of ideas, messaging, and exemplars to stimulate new organizational arrangements and practices. The rapid spread of terms such as “deeper learning” and “core practices” points to the potential for influence though the technology-aided and network-supported spread of new ideas and associated exemplars. Powerful ideas may be developed and spread by any number of entities, including public agencies, universities, reform organizations, private foundations, networks, and individuals—and by numerous means including social media, conferences, publications, as well as privately and publicly funded initiatives. Of course, the rapid spread of organizing ideas and images does not signal common definitions of what those terms mean (in fact, rapid spread may impede such common definition, complicating the conduct of related research), nor does it entail uniform endorsement of any given idea or approach ( Aydarova and Berliner, 2018 ; Zeichner, 2014 ).

5 More information regarding NCATE’s appeal to place field experiences at the center of teacher preparation can be found at http://www.highered.nysed.gov/pdf/NCATECR.pdf . More on AACTE’s proclamations can be found at https://secure.aacte.org/apps/rl/res_get.php?fid=3750&ref=rl .

The past 20 years has witnessed a proliferation in the pathways to teacher preparation and a range of innovations in teacher preparation programs including in the field and in technology. Preservice teacher education content, goals, and approaches have changed due in part to the accountability movement, increased attention to deeper learning, the changing nature of standards for what teachers should know and be able to do, and increased attention to equity. Qualitative studies of programs suggest that factors leading to stronger candidates include program coherence, instructors’ modeling of powerful practices in methods courses, a strong connection between theory and practice, and intentional design of the field experience. However, the committee did not find evidence to support policies that would address questions about systems-level issues in preservice teacher preparation due to the high degree of variation in institutional type and mission, as well as decentralization of control that is built into the historical development of colleges and universities ( Labaree, 2017 ).

In general, there is a lack of systematic research or evidence beyond anecdotes and case studies about teacher preparation programs’ content and effectiveness, and whether these programs have changed over time. Despite a call nearly ten years ago ( NRC, 2010 ) for an independent evaluation of teacher education approval and accreditation, no such evaluation has been initiated.

Abendroth, M., Golzy, J.B., and O’Connor, E.A. (2011). Self-created YouTube recordings of microteachings: Their effects upon candidates’ readiness for teaching and instructors’ assessment. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 40 (2), 141–159.

Adler, S. (2008). The education of social studies teachers. In L.S. Levstik and C.A. Tyson (Eds.), Handbook of Research in Social Studies Education (pp. 329–351). New York: Routledge.

Allen, A., Hancock, S.D., W. Lewis, C., and Starker-Glass, T. (2017). Mapping culturally relevant pedagogy into teacher education programs: A critical framework. Teachers College Record, 119 (1), 1–26.

American Association of Colleges for Teacher Educators (AACTE) (n.d.). Participation Map . Available: http://edtpa.aacte.org/state-policy .

American Association of Colleges for Teacher Educators Clinical Practice Commission. (2018). A Pivot Toward Clinical Practice, Its Lexicon, and the Renewal of Educator Preparation . Available: https://aacte.org/programs-and-services/clinical-practice-commission .

Anderson, L.M., and Stillman, J.A. (2013). Student teaching’s contribution to preservice teacher development: A review of research focused on the preparation of teachers for urban and high-needs contexts. Review of Educational Research , 83 (1), 3–69.

Anderson, M. (2017). A Look at Historically Black Colleges and Universities as Howard Turns 150 . Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Available: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/28/a-look-at-historically-black-colleges-and-universities-as-howard-turns-150 .

Aydarova, E., and Berliner D.C. (2018). Responding to policy challenges with research evidence: Introduction to special issue. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 26 (32).

Bain, R.B. (2012). Using disciplinary literacy to develop coherence in history teacher education: The Clinical Rounds Project. The History Teacher, 45 (4), 513–532.

Bain, R.B., and Moje, E.B. (2012). Mapping the teacher education terrain for novices. Kappan, 93 (5), 62–66.

Ball, D. (2000). Bridging practices: Intertwining content and pedagogy in teaching and learning to teach. Journal of Teacher Education, 51 (3), 241–247.

Advertisement

Pre-service teachers becoming researchers: the role of professional learning groups in creating a community of inquiry

• Open access
• Published: 20 January 2023
• Volume 51 , pages 463–480, ( 2024 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Sandris Zeivots   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5450-2530 1 ,
• John Douglas Buchanan 2 &
• Kimberley Pressick-Kilborn 2  

4355 Accesses

5 Citations

7 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

This article has been updated

Contemporary schools seek to employ teachers who are curious learners, who can employ practitioner inquiry skills to investigate, inform and grow their own classroom practice, responsive to their circumstances. As a profession, the question we must ask is how do we best prepare and continue to equip teachers with the necessary research skills to investigate and inform their own practice? In this study, we share our pedagogical stance and features of our approach in a new core undergraduate subject for pre-service teachers (PSTs). We discuss professional learning groups (PLGs) for initial teacher education students as the main intervention in the subject, and, more specifically, we elaborate how regular participation in PLGs formed in an on-campus subject can help PSTs to become researchers. We draw on 183 student exit tickets and student feedback surveys to consider broader implications for how to engage teachers in research. This study poses questions about the nature of practitioner research and investigates the role that PLGs play in disrupting the challenges universities face in preparing teachers to engage in and with research.

Similar content being viewed by others

Learning to Walk Your Talk: The Pre-service Campus Programme as a Context for Researching and Modelling Reflective Pedagogy in an Era of Transmission and Testing

High School Student Experiences of Teacher Research Thinking

Fostering Teacher Educators’ Professional Development on Practice-Based Research Through Communities of Inquiry

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Teachers need to retain their sense as learners and as inquirers for numerous reasons. It can enhance their sense of agency, refresh their openness to new knowledge and ways of seeing and thinking, sharpen their reliance on valid evidence and model inquiry learning for their students. Perhaps most fundamentally, remaining open to learning familiarises teachers with their students and their learning contexts, and with their own professional practice with a view to improving it. In establishing professional learning communities in schools, a culture of inquiry, innovation and exploration amongst teachers is regarded as a distinguishing element (Admiraal et al., 2021 ). Such professional communities of inquiry are characterised by a collective open-mindedness to doing things differently (Admiraal et al., 2021 ) through curiosity-driven, evidence-informed, contextualised collaborative endeavours (Timperley et al., 2014 ). However, teachers are reputed at times to be hesitant to engage in research. Gutierez and Kim ( 2017 ) attribute this to time pressures and associated priorities and motivations and a “belief that research results are irrelevant to the immediate needs of the teaching and learning situation” (p. 444). Giralt-Romeu et al., ( 2021 , p. 1) define teacher-initiated research as “systematic analysis of their own educational practices with the goal of improving them”, while Badia et al. ( 2020 ) describe teacher inquiry as “ways in which teachers carry out inquiries in order to affect [ sic ] changes in educational practice”’ (p. 865).

This paper explores and evaluates the use of PLGs drawing on interpretive phenomenological analysis (IPA) and case study methodologies. This approach served to disrupt some of the above dynamics, while not being too disruptive. Two authors of this study co-designed a new fourth-year university core subject for PSTs ‘Teacher as Researcher’ in an Australian university. The subject was underpinned by an important, yet challenging aim: how to prepare PSTs to become researchers.

The subject comprised weekly workshops wherein our students developed, implemented and evaluated individual action research projects (McNiff, 2017 ), sometimes called action learning projects (Aubusson et al., 2009 ). Revans ( 2011 ) defines action research, at its simplest, as “learning by doing” (p. 5). In ‘doing’, the PSTs learned through designing, experimenting, implementing, as well as refining, potentially erring and evaluating a research project. Individual projects were developed over nine weeks through experiential in-class activities, requiring PSTs to develop a guiding inquiry question, engage with scholarly literature and theories, discuss ethical considerations and decide on data collection and analysis methods.

Having prepared the action research proposal, our students participated in a three-week in-school professional experience (PE), where they conducted their research. Before starting the ‘Teacher as Researcher’ subject, the students had undertaken at least four prior PEs. The placements typically take place in each year during the degree and create opportunities for PSTs to apply and extend their campus-based learning. During this PE the PSTs implemented lessons and their action research projects.

Individual research projects aligned with the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers (Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL), 2018 ). Seven Standards comprise domains of professional knowledge, professional practice and professional engagement:

Knowing students and how they learn;

Knowing the content and how to teach it;

Implementing effective teaching and learning;

Creating safe and supportive learning environment;

Assessing, reporting and providing feedback on student learning;

Engaging in professional learning;

Engaging professionally with colleagues and the community.

PSTs designed, conducted and evaluated their projects as an embedded element of class activities and assessments. An integral part of the subject design was professional learning groups (PLGs)—a fixed cluster of 3–5 members with similar professional research interests. We define PLGs as a capacity-building means for practitioners to enhance teacher learning, competency and practice (Hairon et al., 2017 ). The groups were formed voluntarily based on PSTs’ individual, subjective research interests and their alignment to a specific professional Standard (AITSL, 2018 ). PLGs provided opportunities to offer and receive peer feedback, discuss weekly challenges and garner support through emphasising a collective open-mindedness towards contextualised professional inquiry. The small-group time (10–20 min) was embedded in the weekly workshop design and allowed students to collaboratively apply freshly acquired knowledge to their projects and support one another. Despite being one of several educational design innovations in the subject, PLGs had a significant impact on the students’ action research projects, community building and professional learning within their initial teacher education degree.

Over the past 30 years a new paradigm has been moving teacher professional development beyond solely the acquisition of new knowledge and skills. This shift prompts scholars and practitioners to rethink teaching practices and construct new classroom roles and expectations (Timperley et al., 2014 ; Vescio et al., 2008 ). Teachers are increasingly expected to be more active in curriculum development, directing their own professional learning and engagement with research. The notion of teacher-as-researcher has been commonly discussed both in relation to practitioner research and the research-engaged teacher (Furlong, 2014 ; Priestley & Drew, 2019 ).

The promotion of research in pre-service education presents challenges. Many PSTs harbour negative attitudes towards conducting research (Puustinen et al., 2018 ). PSTs would rather focus on teaching than conducting research and perceive that conducting research demands too much cognitive effort, which is typically a compulsory, assessment-related exercise (van Katwijk et al., 2021 ). This is nested in a wider socio-political context. Charest ( 2019 ) argues that many universities and schools teach reproduction of colonial practices and imported knowledges, methodologies and curricula. Charest questions why PSTs should focus their efforts on how to improve classroom management to attain higher scores on standardised examinations, rather than on ways to make schools more democratic, equitable, just, sustainable and inviting. PSTs have little, if any, say in the what, how, or why of teaching. This can be problematic as these teachers then pass on to their students the values, strategies and practices that they internalise during pre-service. Accordingly, some PSTs enter this subject with an instrumental mindset, presuming that the course should serve to help them teach rather than to undertake research , which some see as peripheral at best. One student teacher in our study stated: “Teach us how to teach, not how to research”. How, then, should teachers learn research skills? In this paper we ask what role PLGs can play in this process.

Teachers-as-researchers

The nexus between learning, teaching and research is crucial. Both research and teaching create something that is systematic, not haphazard, and new knowledge is thereby acquired. Accordingly, the processes of inquiry, data collection, analysis and dissemination, need to be systematic, purposeful and meaningful. These practices should mean something to those they serve, and to those from whom they glean data. In these aspects, research parallels learning; its dissemination equates to teaching.

Action research can “contribute to knowledge and to practice ” (Coughlan & Coughlan, 2002 , p. 222, emphasis added). Teachers-as-researchers undertake intentional, focussed and systematic collection of data to inform (their) learning and teaching. Evidence-based practice is important for ongoing improvement, as is practice-based evidence (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009 ). Teaching serves its immediate and distal communities well as a “research-informed” and “research informing” profession (Lingard & Renshaw, 2010 , p. 26). The teaching profession also seeks constantly to evaluate, improve and transform both itself (Campbell & McNamara, 2010 ), and its students. One way of doing this is through investigating issues or problems relevant to local—and broader—practice (Ravitch, 2014 ) through engaging in individual and collective inquiry. Le Fevre et al. ( 2015 ) refer to genuine inquiry, characterised by an “open-minded stance and desire to learn” (p. 1). They lament the infrequency with which it is practised among teachers as part of their professional learning.

We frame the teacher-as-researcher around relationship as follows: relationship with research inquiry, with peers, with teachers, with literature and with self. Relationship is crucial to teaching, learning and research, and this definition encapsulates connection with the student-selected research questions, with peers and teachers, and with PSTs’ own identity and agency. These bear some resonance with Brookfield’s ( 2017 ) four lenses of critical reflection: students’ eyes (how do students experience learning?), colleagues’ perceptions (how would colleagues deal with/address/interpret your challenges?), personal experience (what is your view/standpoint/experience?) and theory (what literature/sources of knowledge discuss the inquiry?). Student participation in PST education can affect how these relationships emerge. Bergmark and Westman ( 2018 ) define student participation as “students being active and engaged in the classroom; students impacting on curriculum design; and students’ feeling of belonging to a community” (p. 1352).

Relationship with the research inquiry—engagement and authenticity

Engagement is a sine qua non of effective education, piquing students’ curiosity and triggering their interest towards active involvement in learning (Buchanan, Pressick-Kilborn, & Maher, 2018 ). One of the highest quests for teachers is the generation of ‘buy-in’, or student investment in the subject at hand. Some systems have attempted this through high-stakes testing, but the risk with mostly extrinsic rewards (and punishments) is that student investment might be superficial, instrumental and grudging (Olson, 2009 ). Formal education environments have struggled with drawing the students into deep learning (Zeivots, 2015 ). Associated student behaviour might successfully mimic engagement, but could have the opposite effect, of preparing students for lifelong disengagement from the topic. Such regimes might also compromise student wellbeing.

One means of increasing engagement is the adoption of authentic learning tasks. Such tasks need to be relevant to students’ worlds, while extending learners beyond those worlds. Authentic learning is characterised by, inter alia , real-world similitude, sustained engagement, collaboration, inbuilt ambiguity and uncertainty of outcomes, and metacognitive reflection (Lombardi, 2007 ). It engages learners with the real worlds of work and life, through tailored associated activities. Similarly, at its best it requires and enables engagement with peers and teachers, within and beyond the classroom, preferably over a sustained period. It also demands and rewards reflection on action and outcomes. It is accompanied by authentic assessment, which also presents complexities and ambiguities that may be daunting for the teacher and student, particularly if the stakes are high.

Relationship with others—peers and teachers

Learners will inevitably interact with others in the room, and, increasingly, beyond the room, to take ‘next steps’ in developing their skills, knowledge and understanding. Vygotsky ( 1978 ) termed this as the Zone of Proximal Development, defined as the gap between actual capabilities and potential achievements “under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers” (p. 86). Groupwork is one effective means of achieving such collaboration. This approach enables learners to identify a problem and to devise responses accordingly, acquiring interpersonal skills thereby. Such skills have been identified as important for 21st-century teaching/learning contexts (Fiore et al., 2018 ).

Learners and teachers form part of a community, or perhaps overlapping communities, of practice with a specific focus on knowledge building which can be co-created through collaborative inquiry. As Lave and Wenger ( 1991 ) explain, members contribute to such a community through developing “knowledge, skill and discourse” (p. 122). Universities and schools are communities of (learning and teaching) practice. Wenger ( 2000 ) stipulated that all organisations need to “design themselves as social learning organisations” (p. 225) within a broader learning context. How much more then should initial teacher education programs function as learning organisations that seek to tackle and interrogate the profession’s social practices?

Relationship with self—teacher identity and reflection

Final-year PSTs are at a crucial point of their identity development. They are soon to pivot from being primarily learners to being, first and foremost, teachers. Nevertheless, the latter (i.e. teaching) should not be allowed to displace the former (learning), and graduates should retain an identity of teacher-as-learner. Schön ( 1983 ) outlined the centrality of practitioner reflection. Such reflection sheds light on and de-camouflages tacit professional knowledge, leveraging it to inform, shape and improve practice. For learners, reflection is sometimes couched as metacognition. Hacker et al. ( 2009 ) nominate two core components of metacognition: associated understanding and beliefs; and monitoring and regulation of thinking. More recently, the narrative has transcended its primary focus on cognition and acknowledges a range of reflective practices, which include embodied, emotional, problem-posing and collaborative characteristics (Forgasz, 2019 ; Yang, 2019 ).

The above elements interrelate. Lave and Wenger ( 1991 ) note that identity/membership is strongly tied to motivation. One possible limitation of Lave and Wenger’s community of practice framework is its tendency to reproduce, rather than renew or revolutionise. Lave and Wenger address this in observing that making an impact on the world is facilitated, “if a person is both a member of a community and an agent of activity” (p. 122).

Agency arguably draws together all the above relationships—with the inquiry, with others and with self. Agentic learners “take charge of their own learning” (Hacker et al., 2009 , p. 1). As Bandura ( 2006 ) explains, “through cognitive self-regulation, human beings create visualized futures that act on the present; construct, evaluate, and modify alternative courses of action to secure valued outcomes; and override environmental influences” (p. 164). Self-regulation underscores the centrality of the individual in owning control, in a context of evidence-based perceptions that one can make a difference in pursuit of a worthy goal. While agency enables an overriding of environmental factors according to Bandura, the provision of a favourable learning environment will further lubricate agency. A sense of agency, through ownership and responsibility, is likely to stimulate engagement; responsibility is its own worthy pursuit in learning.

We adopt an ontological view that PSTs should be subjects of action and responsibility instead of objects to be moulded and disciplined. Biesta ( 2013 ) argues that agency, or as he calls it “subjectivity”, is an ethical phenomenon that deserves an important place in education. Biesta warns that education inevitably entails risk as it is an encounter among humans. Instead of presuming that agency happens, universities should offer PSTs authentic situations in which to practise agency.

A PLG is an established peer learning strategy to support students to gain confidence in their own ability to take charge of their learning. Small teams of students, with a common interest, interact and learn with and from one another, which is vital for PLGs (Boud et al., 2014 ). Typically, PLGs are not one-off groupwork activities. Rather, the peer collaboration proceeds for an extended period, often the entire project or semester, allowing students to form and sustain relationships with peers and their prior knowledge (Riese et al., 2012 ). Beyond PST education, PLGs are often termed peer learning groups (Rasheed et al., 2021 ). We argue that PLGs exemplify a pedagogical approach that sustains student agency, supports risk taking and professional learning through engagement with peers, research inquiry and self. Students can be asked to do rather than passively absorb the relationships through regular tasks, experimentation and collaborative project development (Wilkinson & Kemmis, 2015 ). Further details on PLGs are discussed under Methodology, below.

Methodology

The principal question of this paper investigates how regular participation in PLGs formed in an on-campus subject can help PSTs to become researchers by equipping them to inquire into their own practice. This study combines theoretical and empirical approaches that permit an examination of the students’ insights and experiences of PLGs. The investigative focus draws on two methodologies: IPA and case study. Both approaches enrich the study by illuminating students’ in-depth experiences and unmasking their perspectives and the sociocultural aspects related to the inquiry.

IPA, a qualitative research approach, was selected to explore and analyse PST experiences. With roots in phenomenology, symbolic interactionism and discourse, IPA explores how students, being experts of their own experience, make sense of their PLG experiences (Smith et al., 2009 ). Through IPA, researchers give voice to a specific target group who otherwise may remain unheard; in this case, PSTs who engaged with research and participated in PLGs.

A case study enables close examination of data within a specific context, for example, in a distinct university, subject or experience. This study examined final-year PSTs who formed and engaged in PLGs in a ‘Teacher as Researcher’ subject. Typically, case studies involve analyses of experiences and events that are studied holistically and a commitment to consider real-life complexities (Thomas, 2011 ). Applying IPA and a case study to the data examination process offered a methodology that gathered specific PST experiences with PLGs and leveraged epistemic means to engage with the research inquiry. The authors conducted analysis by (1) immersing themselves in the data, (2) independently exploring the content through initial noting and coding, (3) identifying emerging themes and (4) collaboratively looking across themes and developing deeper interpretations regarding the research question.

Research methods

Two sources of participant data were collected: (1) exit tickets and (2) anonymised, aggregated student feedback survey data. Exit tickets are an educational method allowing students to provide anonymous responses relating to that day’s session and are typically collected at the conclusion of a class (Kirzner et al., 2021 ). Tickets were collected on three occasions during the semester (9 weeks), in weeks 2, 5 and 8, at the conclusion of those face-to-face workshops. Each exit ticket comprised different questions based on the course development and progress, as outlined in Table 1 . Overall, 183 exit tickets were collected across four workshop/class groups: Week 2 and 5 tickets elicited individual PST responses from everyone who attended the workshop, while Week 8 responses were collected collectively from the PLGs. Blank A5 sheets were provided for PSTs to write their reflections. Table 1 outlines the questions that were asked in each exit ticket. The questions were designed to assess student learning experience throughout the semester, particularly since this was a new subject. None of the questions enquired specifically about PLGs.

Student feedback data were routinely collected and anonymised by the university during ( n  = 30; 31% response rate) and at the end of the semester ( n  = 43; 47% response rate). Only those comments that referred to PLGs are reported on here.

Context of the study: ‘Teacher as Researcher’ subject

‘Teacher as Researcher’ was a newly designed, fourth-year undergraduate subject in an education-focussed faculty at an Australian university. The subject comprised a one-off welcome and orientation lecture for the whole cohort, followed by weekly 2-hour workshops over the 9-week semester delivered in class groups. During this time, PSTs were tasked with designing individual action research projects which required the identification of a clear problem in their own practice, research question(s), a suitable methodology, ethical considerations, and proposed data collection and analysis.

PSTs designed and evaluated their projects as part of class activities (2-h workshops) and assessment tasks (2 assignments: the action research project proposal; and examination and presentation of action research project findings as Poster presentations). The topics of projects varied widely, including non-verbal communication, positive reward programs, supporting students with autism and differentiation strategies for English as additional language students. More specifically, PSTs selected inquiries such as how different coloured pens affect student perception of teacher feedback, or how can teachers use Sphero coding robots during maths classes to address students’ learning difficulties.

Each week, the PSTs learned about a specific step applicable to their action research project design. In-class activities included, inter alia , experiential tasks, simulation activities, multimodal participation, technology activities involving mobile devices, individual, group or whole-class reflections via live polling tools and panel discussions with external practitioner teacher–researchers. Once the action research project design was complete and assessed, PSTs engaged in a three-week PE in-school placement and teaching, where they collected data on their individual inquiry. A few weeks after the placement PSTs presented their action research projects and empirical findings in a Poster session, aligned with the second assignment. In this activity, they shared their inquiry, methodology, findings and engaged in Q&A with peers. This constituted the final stage of their action research project and was typified by excitement, ownership, pride and professional agency.

The PLG was an essential design pattern in the subject development (Goodyear, 2005 ). The groups were established during the first workshop. PSTs with similar research inquiries self-assigned to a PLG based on Professional Standards for Teachers (AITSL, 2018 ). For example, those students interested in supportive and safe learning environments (Standard 4) were grouped together. If more than five PSTs chose the same Standard, then mini-groups within the Standard were created based on the commonality of inquiries. PLG membership remained consistent to one group throughout the semester. Each week PSTs spent at least 10 min in the selected groups allowing critical discussions on a weekly focus, inter alia, research question development, methodology and on applications for their own research projects. For example, in week 3, PSTs learned about various methods of data collection. After exploring and testing interviews, surveys and other data collection strategies in class, the PSTs could decide which techniques most effectively suited their projects. PLG discussions afforded a sensemaking time which provided a safe space to observe how other group members discussed these methods and their application. During the semester, PLG members gradually developed their individual action research projects and also witnessed, learned from and contributed to, the development of others’ projects.

This section presents accounts of undergraduate students and their experience with PLGs in the ‘Teacher as Researcher’ subject, collected through exit tickets and anonymised university student feedback data. The PSTs shared a broad range of lived experiences and their interpretations relating to our research question on how PLGs can help PSTs to become researchers. This findings section derives from data collected in two layers: first, overall statistics on frequency of student references to PLGs, and second, reflections and feedback that discuss PLGs and their impact on learning.

We observed that well over 50% of PST responses discussed PLGs in the dataset, despite an absence of any prompt reflection questions on these groups. Forty-eight per cent of individual student exit tickets discussed PLGs in Week 2; almost half of the cohort perceived the groups as integral to their learning in the early stages. In Week 5, this increased to 68%, and remained above 50% in week 8 (54%). The Week 8 exit tickets were produced in PLGs and, despite fewer tickets (Table 1 ), the proportion of PLG references was significant. This section will comprise direct quotes about PLGs as well as related narratives where PSTs addressed critical discussions and collaboration with peers. We found it intriguing that the PLGs attracted no criticisms. Instead, participants’ responses exemplified achievement and pride in their contributions, and benefits.

The remainder of the findings are summarised across themes that emerged from analysis of the student data. Three distinct themes comprised: PLGs co-create meaningful communities; build professional identity and practices through collaboration and scaffolding; and change practices of learning (and teaching).

PLGs co-create meaningful communities

A notable thread observed across data is PSTs describing PLGs as useful, beneficial and helpful to their subject learning and, in particular, the research project. Ability to discuss relevant matters and learn from group members was cited across the dataset. What is noticeable is that PSTs did not anticipate the extent to which other group members helped them with thinking, research questions and project development, as typified in the following comment.

PLG is underrated & extremely beneficial. Surprised how quickly I could formulate a research question by discussing it with my peers.

Several evaluative accounts showcased attributes that made PLGs meaningful. Typical responses described PLGs as “mutually informative”, “specified + related discussions”, “with the same people” or, as others put it, a “small, comfortable” context. The latter excerpt illustrates an affective space, which assists with understanding the socio-emotional features of the strategy.

Groupwork activities are often assumed to result in discussions and sharing; however this does not necessarily ensue organically and meaningfully. Indeed, group assignments rarely offer students the opportunity to engage with collaboration unrelated to competition or individualism. The extended nature of the PLGs enabled deeper connections and knowledge about members and their authentic, personal projects to emerge. PLGs demonstrated a different, more extended functioning of authentic groupwork, which were described as: “we are actually having discussions”, “[surprised about] the perspective of others and their take on different Standards” and “everyone is sharing ideas”. These experiences underpin and assist with modelling strategies and activities that PSTs designed for their own students. PLGs provided the necessary “safety net” to unpack the given aspect of research projects and safely integrate them into the project designs. These factors contributed to the success of participation in collaborative professional learning (Cloonan, 2019 ).

As the PSTs recounted their PLG experiences in the feedback, they used strong positive verbs such as “really like” and “enjoy”. Common aspects that they enjoyed were “the amount of collaboration”, “encouraged group chats”, “vitality”, and the opportunity to “gain an understanding of others’ views”. In other instances, the enjoyment was linked to the surprise of, and gratitude for, working on one’s professional development during class time. Common sentiment comprised “a lot of class time to construct and share our ideas” and “the subject does not guide us specifically on how to teach but how to improve our teaching”, where PSTs melded the notions of working on their research project and their professional development, saying that:

We are choosing something to investigate & work on improving [underlined in original] on practicum—one of the few class experiences that will improve my teaching strategy based on research & inquiry.

Enjoyment and relevance of the learning process diminishes the need to extrinsically engage students. Working on research projects in PLGs served to “stop me [from] ‘switching off’ in class”. While historically positive experiences are commonly seen as superficial and hedonistic aspects of learning (Zeivots, 2015 ), this study demonstrated that these positive moments linked to student learning through participation, engagement and motivation. A combination of PLGs and authentic learning activities, for example, action research project development, can meaningfully engage students with their learning, assessments and professional development.

PLGs build professional identity and practices through collaboration and scaffolding

PLGs contribute to the development of professional identity. Such identities can incorporate values, beliefs, attitudes, skillsets and experiences. Our students typically referred to PLGs as “learning groups” and positioned deep learning as a pivotal component of the group dynamics. Group membership allowed PSTs to explore different viewpoints and thus better articulate and challenge their own perspectives: “I loved how much I was able to learn from my group members and really define my own research question with their help”. The process entailed learning and sharing: “I enjoy sharing ideas with colleagues (collaboration)”.

Learning from the group’s wisdom occasionally meant becoming a critical teacher–researcher. Observations such as “I have found it surprising how diverse each of our inquiries are” and “sometimes the things we think are effective, or are effective for others, might not be [effective] for you” position the teacher-as-researcher as a connected member of a diverse learning community. Although the development, implementation and evaluation of PST projects were linked to individual assignments, this process did not occur in silos. PLGs provided safe, interactive communities which scaffolded project development, alongside PST professional learning as practising researchers.

Respondents praised PLGs for being “small”, “recurring”, “productive”, and “with the same people”. Although each PST was responsible for their project, PLGs provided a space for agency and collaborative ownership to emerge. What made the groups professional, was the design that “force[d] us to interact with different people and have discussions/get perspectives from people outside of friendship groups”. PLGs were seen as “a good way to develop our research projects in a small, comfortable setting”, “lead[ing] to new approaches that I would not have experienced/thought about myself”, through “working with like-minded people with similar goals”.

PLGs provided space for our students to grow their professional identity and shape their own learning outcomes. The groups helped participants to “clarify my understanding”, “keep [me] accountable”, and “reflect and improve my teaching styles”. Furthermore, collaborative criticality and an analytical mindset became ingrained in their teaching and learning practices: “I can make better decisions based on the analysed data” and “build professional communication skills”. As part of PLG activities the lines between individual and group, personal and professional, and fixed and flexible became blurred and permeable.

PLGs change practices of learning (and teaching)

The third emergent theme illuminated PLG practices, often unfamiliar and unexpected, where PSTs re-discovered how to do learning. PLGs provided positive avenues for the emergence of social capital, which included perceptions of how one experienced change in study and work. PSTs pointed out the aspects that challenged their assumptions about the ways that ‘Teacher as Researcher’ was taught and designed. For example, they were pleasantly surprised that the “development of assessment [was] done thoroughly in class with support” and there was “flexibility and choice for the assignment”. Here an assessment task was identified not as a course feature developed in isolation; instead, it was intertwined in the course practices that offered support from academic and student partners.

“Intensity” and “challenge” were frequently invoked in student exit tickets, and both terms connoted benefits to student development. Illustrating this, PSTs reported that they “like that I find it a bit challenging, because I know that I am learning”, “I wasn’t expecting this to be this intense”, and the subject “is already challenging me + my way of thinking; I find this the best way to learn”. For many this course was the first time their undergraduate degree had required them to make decisions on a research topic and approach. It was not a topic for a one-off essay; instead, PSTs selected a specific inquiry which was sustained for the entirety of the semester, and which articulated with the subject’s assessments, groupwork, readings and practicum activities. For some PSTs, this process was exciting; for others, unnerving: “In an environment where we are rarely motivated to truly think about our own interests being given the sudden freedom can be a daunting and scary process”. Another participant wondered: “how do I know I’m on track/the right road?”. These statements demonstrate the fluid rather than the linear nature of inquiry, which for many was a novel approach to their professional learning.

The content focus in many pre-service teaching subjects is pre-determined, for example, classroom management. PSTs were surprised to learn that in this subject they needed to select the focus themselves. This initiative positioned them as chief investigators requiring them to manage their project, which many found formidable. This prompted epistemic re-focus and re-engagement: “it’s very much about us”; “I’m actively engaged in my learning”. PSTs were surprised “how many people struggle with the same challenges in their teaching as me—[it] makes me feel less alone”. Others concurred that “collaboration makes it less daunting”. Support featured in several accounts: “the whole project feels well scaffolded, and I don’t feel scared or stressed about it at all!”. This demonstrates the proportional balance between challenge and support (Larkin & Richardson, 2013 ), both indispensable ingredients of PLGs and inquiry-driven learning.

For this final-year undergraduate unit, the students were required to apply experience from previous classes and practicums. This concept was new to many:

[This subject is] far more relevant and [has] concrete content. Previous PE tutes [tutorials] have been largely anecdotal and not based in academic study. This subject has been the complete opposite. [Surprised] how well it relates to what actually happens on prac [practicum]. I’m enjoying how much I know already but how little I have researched further for understanding.

There was a shift to the new learning paradigm where previous knowledge and experience were enmeshed with critical research and professional identity development. PLGs triggered an interest in learning more: “I like the learning environment—group work that promotes learning effectively…It leaves you wanting to learn more”.

PLGs influenced the process of learning. The PSTs valued the group discussions, which generated authentic personal and shared reflections, and enticement to explore new concepts and apply them to their contexts. The experience cha(lle)nged preconceived ideas harboured by some respondents: “it has surprised me how important research is for teachers” and “research doesn’t have to be boring—[I] had a stigma associating research = hard & boring”. Developing an action research project through PLGs highlighted the embedded and integral knowledge and practices of becoming a teacher–researcher: “research informs my teaching practice more than I had previously considered”. PLG discussions within a community of inquiry were crucial in developing this level of critical thinking and, importantly, connecting “how to be a better educator in regard to using colleagues and peers to broaden my knowledge and understanding”.

Instead of approaching PST education as a problem-focussed field, we have sought emerging and disruptive insights through the PLG educational intervention observed in this study, challenging our thinking and taking advantage of “epistemic possibilities” (Ragni & Johnson-Laird, 2020 , p. 1). We share three concerns of PST education, and how strategic integration of PLGs may provide epistemic insights to disrupt them.

Disruption 1: competition versus collaboration

The environment created by the PLGs offered high support, resulting in PSTs’ willingness to assist and advise one another on their assessable research projects. This atmosphere differs considerably from some aspects of university and, particularly, school education; it is characterised by competition through national and international testing regimes on which institutions through their students’ performance are rated, and, ultimately, ranked. The PLGs also blended theory and practice, resulting in the development and testing of strategies—theory-informed approaches. Teacher educators, and teachers, can play an important role in engendering such an environment. PLGs enabled the PSTs to focus on relating , so essential to teaching and learning . One PST described the benefits of collaboration as, “tackling the issue that is daunting but ultimately rewarding”. We posit here that such an approach might embolden our PSTs to be more confidently collaborative in their professional inquiries once they enter the workforce, neutralising some of its competitive pressures. We note particularly that this collaboration took place in production of an individual assignment, rather than one submitted in groups.

Disruption 2: shift away from work in silos

Educators are expected to provide scaffolding for their students, but teachers themselves are rarely placed in a scaffolded environment. The culture of working in silos has frequently been embedded in, and assumed of, educational institutions such as universities and schools (Troiani & Dutson, 2021 ). Nevertheless, a shift from silos does not necessarily induce collaboration; it requires systemic change. A related question is how to create an environment that prompts sustainable collaboration, support and scaffolding.

We contend that PLGs operate as safe communities of practice where collaborative inquiry opportunities such as sharing, meaningful discussions and distributed effort and engagement in professional learning can flourish. PSTs demonstrated genuine surprise about the quality, support and usefulness of PLGs and how these directly benefitted their action research projects and professional growth. The PSTs commonly characterised PLGs as inspirational and enjoyable. The experiences described here link to the notion of emotional highs in learning (Zeivots, 2016 , 2018 , 2019 ) which is common in educational settings outside higher education, for example, in adult, experiential and outdoor learning. Although we are cautious of adopting these notions uncritically, we argue that they are meaningful experiences and practices contributing to a robust and sustainable educational environment. These are sites where teachers should not operate in isolation; instead, they must be supported by like-minded professionals who can share inquiries, insights, experiences and developmental opportunities.

Disruption 3: ownership as an individual phenomenon

Teachers are facing increasing levels of accountability without authority (Cochran-Smith, 2021 ). We argue that regular engagement with PLGs can challenge this. The ownership of accountability, power, competencies and relationships appeared more distributed and balanced through PLG involvement. The coordination and development of individual action research projects did not function on an individual basis; instead, the process was distributed through critical discussions, shared reflections and learning from peers, embedded in the collaborative inquiry process. We recommend integrating PLGs as an integral pattern of PST education, providing PSTs with necessary support and strategies to leverage later as teachers.

Conclusions

Education empowers and liberates. It also colonises by imposing ideas held dear by teachers and elders. Education disrupts and such disruptions can be met with learner resistance. The innovations in this subject appear to have been welcome disruptions for the PSTs. In a context of assessment, which is routinely the most instrumental, competitive element of the learning process, this approach fostered collaboration, and breaches of discipline , enabling PSTs to interact across subject areas. The innovations also had longer-term implications. They challenged some of the PSTs’ identities as pure pedagogues, while setting out ways to be more agentic teachers and devolving some of this agency to their students.

In light of the above, we propose PLGs as a complementary approach to support and sustain PST education. Biesta ( 2013 ) indicates that if one sees the purpose in doing something, one is more invested in it through agency and subjectivity. The integration of PLGs identified knowledge and wisdom within the group, and so PLGs appeared as an effective second educator in the room behind teaching staff.

Education is increasingly being shoehorned into competition over collaboration at individual teacher, school, jurisdiction and national levels (Buchanan, 2020 ). This risks robbing education of the enrichment derived from collaboration and ideas sharing. We trust that graduating and early career teachers will join a movement that sets out to disrupt such competition.

Change history

02 march 2023.

Change History entry: Missing Open Access funding information has been added in the Funding Note.

Admiraal, W., Schenke, W., De Jong, L., Emmelot, Y., & Sligte, H. (2021). Schools as professional learning communities: What can schools do to support professional development of their teachers? Professional Development in Education, 47 (4), 684–698. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2019.1665573

Article   Google Scholar  

Aubusson, P., Ewing, R., & Hoban, G. (2009). Action learning in primary schools: Rethinking teacher professional development and learning . Routledge.

Google Scholar  

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL). (2018). Australian professional standards for teachers . AITSL.

Badia, A., Liesa, E., Becerril, L., & Mayoral, P. (2020). A dialogical self approach to the conceptualisation of teacher-inquirer identity. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 35 (4), 865–879. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-019-00459-z <quillbot-extension-portal></quillbot-extension-portal>

Bandura, A. (2006). Towards a psychology of human agency. Association for Psychological Science, 1 (2), 164–180. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00011.x

Bergmark, U., & Westman, S. (2018). Student participation within teacher education: Emphasising democratic values, engagement and learning for a future profession. Higher Education Research & Development, 37 (7), 1352–1365. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2018.1484708

Biesta, G. J. (2013). The beautiful risk of education . Routledge.

Boud, D., Cohen, R., & Sampson, J. (2014). Peer learning in higher education: Learning from and with each other . Routledge.

Book   Google Scholar  

Brookfield, S. D. (2017). Becoming a critically reflective teacher . John Wiley & Sons.

Buchanan, J. (2020). Basic, basal skills and their effects on higher order thinking. In J. Buchanan (Ed.), Challenging the deprofessionalisation of teaching and teachers (pp. 87–105). Springer.

Buchanan, J., Pressick-Kilborn, K., & Maher, D. (2018). Promoting environmental education for primary school-aged students using digital technologies. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 15 (2), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/100639

Campbell, A., & McNamara, O. (2010). Mapping the field of practitioner research, inquiry and professional learning in educational contexts: A review. In A. Campbell & S. Groundwater-Smith (Eds.), Connecting inquiry and practitioner research in education (pp. 10–25). Routledge.

Charest, B. (2019). Navigating the shores: Troubling notions of the teacher as researcher. The International Journal of Critical Pedagogy, 10 (2), 19–44.

Cloonan, A. (2019). Collaborative teacher research: Integrating professional learning and university study. The Australian Educational Researcher, 46 (3), 385–403. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-018-0290-y

Cochran-Smith, M. (2021). Rethinking teacher education: The trouble with accountability. Oxford Review of Education, 47 (1), 8–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2020.1842181

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (2009). Teacher research as stance. In S. E. Noffke & B. Somekh (Eds.), The Sage handbook of educational action research (pp. 39–49). Sage Publications.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Coughlan, P., & Coghlan, D. (2002). Action research for operations management. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 22 , 220–240. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570210417515

Fiore, S., Graesser, A., & Greiff, S. (2018). Collaborative problem-solving education for the twenty-first-century workforce. Nature Human Behaviour, 2 , 367–369. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0363-y

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Forgasz, R. (2019). Supporting teachers’ critical reflection through the embodied practice of the rainbow of desire. The Educational Forum, 83 (4), 401–417. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131725.2019.1624904

Furlong, J. (2014). Research and the teaching profession building the capacity for a self-improving education system . Final report of the BERA-RSA inquiry into the role of research in teacher education, BERA.

Giralt-Romeu, M., Liesa, E., & Castelló, M. (2021). Teacher identity as inquirer: Voices of teacher educators. European Journal of Teacher Education . https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2021.2015319

Goodyear, P. (2005). Educational design and networked learning: Patterns, pattern languages and design practice. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 21 (1), 82–101. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1344

Gutierez, S., & Kim, H.-B. (2017). Becoming teacher-researchers: Teachers’ reflections on collaborative professional development. Educational Research, 59 (4), 444–459. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2017.1347051

Hacker, D., Dunlosky, J., & Graesser, A. (2009). A growing sense of ‘agency.’ In D. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 1–4). Routledge.

Hairon, S., Goh, J. W. P., Chua, C. S. K., & Wang, L. Y. (2017). A research agenda for professional learning communities: Moving forward. Professional Development in Education, 43 (1), 72–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2015.1055861

Kirzner, R. S., Alter, T., & Hughes, C. A. (2021). Online quiz as exit ticket: Using technology to reinforce learning in face to face classes. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 41 (2), 151–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841233.2021.1898521

Larkin, H., & Richardson, B. (2013). Creating high challenge/high support academic environments through constructive alignment: Student outcomes. Teaching in Higher Education, 18 (2), 192–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2012.696541

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation . Cambridge University Press.

Le Fevre, D., Robinson, V., & Sinnema, C. (2015). Genuine inquiry: Widely espoused yet rarely enacted. Educational Management, Administration & Leadership, 43 (6), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143214543204

Lingard, B., & Renshaw, P. (2010). Teaching as a research-informed and research-informing profession. In A. Campbell & S. Groundwater-Smith (Eds.), Connecting inquiry and professional learning in education: International perspectives and practical solutions (pp. 26–39). Routledge.

Lombardi, M. (2007). Authentic learning for the 21st Century: An overview. Educause, 1 , 1–12.

McNiff, J. (2017). Action research: All you need to know . London: Sage.

Olson, K. (2009). Wounded by school: Recapturing the joy in learning and standing up to old school culture . Teachers College Press.

Priestley, M., & Drew, V. (2019). Professional enquiry: An ecological approach to developing teacher agency. In D. Godfrey & C. Brown (Eds.), An eco-system for research-engaged schools. Reforming education through research (pp. 154–170). Routledge.

Puustinen, M., Säntti, J., Koski, A., & Tammi, T. (2018). Teaching: A practical or research-based profession? Teacher candidates’ approaches to research-based teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 74 , 170–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.05.004

Ragni, M., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2020). Reasoning about epistemic possibilities. Acta Psychologica, 208 , 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2020.103081

Rasheed, R. A., Kamsin, A., & Abdullah, N. A. (2021). An approach for scaffolding students’ peer-learning self-regulation strategy in the online component of blended learning. IEEE Access, 9 , 30721–30738. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3059916

Ravitch, S. M. (2014). The transformative power of taking an inquiry stance on practice: Practitioner research as narrative and counter-narrative. Perspectives on Urban Education, 11 (1), 5–10.

Revans, R. (2011). Action learning: Its origins and nature. In M. Pedler (Ed.), Action learning in practice (pp. 5–14). Routledge.

Riese, H., Samara, A., & Lillejord, S. (2012). Peer relations in peer learning. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 25 (5), 601–624. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2011.605078

Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action . Basic Books.

Smith, J. A., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2009). Interpretative phenomenological analysis: Theory, method and research . Sage Publications.

Thomas, G. (2011). A typology for the case study in social science following a review of definition, discourse, and structure. Qualitative Inquiry, 17 (6), 511–521. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800411409884

Timperley, H., Kaser, L., & Halbert, J. (2014). A framework for transforming learning in schools: Innovation and the spiral of inquiry (Seminar Series Paper 234) . Centre for Strategic Education.

Troiani, I., & Dutson, C. (2021). The neoliberal university as a space to learn/think/work in higher education. Architecture and Culture, 9 (1), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/20507828.2021.1898836

van Katwijk, L., Jansen, E., & van Veen, K. (2021). Pre-service teacher research: A way to future-proof teachers? European Journal of Teacher Education . https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2021.1928070

Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). A review of research on the impact of professional learning communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24 (1), 80–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2007.01.004

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher psychological processes . Harvard University Press.

Wenger, E. (2000). Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organization, 7 (2), 225–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/135050840072002

Wilkinson, J., & Kemmis, S. (2015). Practice theory: Viewing leadership as leading. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 47 (4), 342–358. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2014.976928

Yang, H. (2019). The nexus between pre-service teachers’ emotional experience and cognition during professional experience. The Australian Educational Researcher, 46 (5), 799–825. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-019-00320-8

Zeivots, S. (2015). Lived experience of emotional highs in experiential learning . (Doctoral dissertation). University of Technology Sydney. Australia.

Zeivots, S. (2016). Emotional highs in adult experiential learning. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 56 (3), 353–373.

Zeivots, S. (2018). Triggers of emotional highs in experiential learning. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 18 (3), 275–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/14729679.2018.1443482

Zeivots, S. (2019). Escaping to nature to learn: Emotional highs of adult learners. Journal of Outdoor and Environmental Education, 22 (3), 199–216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42322-019-00041-7

Download references

Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and its Member Institutions. The authors have not disclosed any funding.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Business School, The University of Sydney, H70, Camperdown, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia

Sandris Zeivots

The School of International Studies and Education, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, NSW, 2007, Australia

John Douglas Buchanan & Kimberley Pressick-Kilborn

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sandris Zeivots .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors report there are no competing interests to declare.

Ethical approval

The research was approved by the University of Technology Sydney, Approval Number ETH20-5516.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Zeivots, S., Buchanan, J.D. & Pressick-Kilborn, K. Pre-service teachers becoming researchers: the role of professional learning groups in creating a community of inquiry. Aust. Educ. Res. 51 , 463–480 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-022-00589-2

Download citation

Received : 26 March 2022

Accepted : 27 October 2022

Published : 20 January 2023

Issue Date : April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-022-00589-2

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Professional learning groups
• Pre-service teachers
• Teacher education
• Practitioner research
• Action research
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research