Please note that this is a DRAFT document. It is in the revision process and is likely to
change prior to it’s completion.
Clinical Practice and Its Lexicon: Toward the Renewal of the Profession of Teaching
A Pivot Toward “Clinical Practice”
“The education of teachers in the United States needs to be turned upside down. To
prepare effective teachers for 21st century classrooms, teacher education must shift away
from a norm which emphasizes academic preparation and course work loosely linked to
school-based experiences. Rather, it must move to programs that are fully grounded in
clinical practice and interwoven with academic content and professional courses.”
(NCATE, 2010).
The NCATE Blue Ribbon Panel Report, Transforming Teacher Education through
Clinical Practice: A National Strategy to Prepare Effective Teachers, a groundbreaking
document released in 2010, called for clinical practice to reside at the center of all teacher
preparation efforts. This clarion call identified 10 Design Principles to develop clinical practice
programs and included recommendations for sweeping changes in the delivery, monitoring,
evaluation, staffing, and oversight of teacher preparation. These design principles include the
following tenets:
o A focus on PK-12 student learning
o Dynamic integration of clinical preparation throughout every facet of teacher
education
o Continuous evaluation of a teacher candidate’s progress and of the elements of a
preparation program
o Preparation of teachers who are simultaneously content experts and also
innovators, collaborators, and problem solvers
o Candidate engagement in interactive professional learning communities
1
o Rigorous selection of clinical educators and coaches from both higher education
and the PK-12 sector
o Designation of specific sites funded to support embedded clinical preparation
o Integration of technology to foster high-impact preparation
o Creation of powerful [research and development agendas] and systematic
gathering and use of data to support continuous improvement in teacher
preparation
o Establishment of strategic partnerships for powerful clinical preparation.
(NCATE, 2010)
Unfortunately, since the publication of the Blue Ribbon Panel report, reform and reinvention
efforts have largely been scattered and at times haphazard attempts by programs and universities
to grapple with what it means to immerse teacher preparation in clinical practice. A unified
professional structure with a shared understanding of clinical practice has yet to develop in
teacher preparation.
In 2015, AACTE formed the Clinical Practice Commission to further operationalize the
findings of the report, so that the benefits would become readily identifiable in PK-12 and
university-based teacher education contexts. The Commission is a call to action by the profession
for the profession. As representatives of PK-20 contexts, we consider ourselves actors along this
schooling continuum, each with great value to add to the overall endeavor and each with the
agency to impact the work. It is in this space that we expect to:
[r]ethink every aspect of the trajectory people follow to become accomplished teachers.
[We are conscious of the fact that getting] that path right and making sure all teachers
2
follow it asserts the body of knowledge and skills teachers need and leads to a level of
consistent quality that is the hallmark of all true professions (Thorpe, 2014a, p.1).
As proposed by the AACTE Clinical Practice Commission, “clinical practice” is a model
to prepare high quality teachers with and through a pedagogical skill set that provides articulated
benefits for every participant, while fully embedded in the PK-12 classroom. By preparing
teacher candidates through an interwoven structure of academic learning and the professional
application of that knowledge—under the guidance of skilled school-based and university-based
teacher educators—teacher preparation will experience the long-overdue pedagogical shift that
so many have demanded (NCATE, 2010).
A Cacophony of Perspectives
Recent teacher education reform efforts have been characterized by their disparate nature
and have been enacted at a glacial pace. The rate of the implementation of reforms has been
slowed by the sheer number of these restructurings, their incorporation of an extraordinary range
of suggestions, and the fact that they have been subject to shifting forms of accountability and
political wrangling. Teacher education reforms have also been impeded by the reality that they
have been guided and sometimes misguided by well-intentioned funders and the recognition that
our policies and practices must be responsive to our differing communities and contexts.
More recently, the rise of college and career readiness standards and more restrictive
notions of “accountability” have led to a push for new teacher evaluation systems that more
closely connect student outcomes to teacher effectiveness. Race to the Top requirements and a
corporate education reform ideology have led to very narrow, drive-by, compliance-driven
methods of teacher evaluation that have become normalized within schools and teacher
preparation programs (Cochran-Smith & Villegas, 2014). The pedagogical principle of
3
continuous improvement, with embedded formative assessments, has been diluted if not
commandeered by these efforts.
Unfortunately, the wide-ranging critiques, ever-shifting reform ideas, and high-stakes
accountability efforts are contributing to increasingly fragmented rather than focused research
agendas. The result is that we measure “quality” in a myopic manner. Annual Professional
Performance Reviews (APPRs), brought on under NCLB legislation, often operate in sharp
contrast to the standards of quality defined by the profession itself, whether through accreditation
objectives determined by the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) or
the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS).
In this context, teachers are at once expected to be practitioners who are knowledgeable,
decisive, reflective, and able to promote critical thinking and problem-solving in every child
(Cochran-Smith, 2014; Zumwalt, 1997), and yet they are simultaneously called on to explicitly
and positively impact our nation’s economy by eliminating drop-out rates and developing a
skilled workforce (NCTAF, 1996). As the demands upon teachers have evolved, so have the
expectations of teacher candidates. There is a dynamic tension here, between high “quality” and
the everyday demands of back-breaking accountability. This tension is best mediated by those
professionals who understand it and live it—university-based and school-based teacher
educators. While teacher preparation and accountability measures aim to ensure that novice
teachers are learner ready when they first step into a classroom, these policies also reflect a linear
view of teaching—suggesting an input/outcome orientation that dilutes the human equation at the
core of every teaching act.
NOTE TO AMANDA: ADD ROBINSON “TENSION” PIECE HERE
4
This complex interplay of factors has impeded the development of a shared
understanding of clinical practice. Of course, teaching requires specialized knowledge and skills
that are grounded in theory and practice and are developed over time. Yet, a shared
understanding of what constitutes a high quality clinical teacher preparation program varies by
institution and even program. Unlike other recognized professions—such as medicine,
engineering, and nursing—teaching is eternally gripped by an evolution of our notions of quality
that seems to begin anew with each school year and every Congressional session. The
characteristics of our profession are therefore in continual process (Lortie, 1975).
This is perhaps best exemplified by the amorphous lexicon of teacher preparation. While
many of these external critiques have served to distract rather than drive meaningful renewal,
recent research has highlighted the fact that the teaching profession suffers from a sprawling and
poorly defined professional lexicon, particularly related to clinical practice (CITE, Zenkov,
Parker, et al). Terminology is at once used for accreditation, but locally determined, defined, and
distinguished. The extent of the problem was highlighted in a recent study of school/university
partnerships, which found great variety in even the most basic terms of clinical teacher
preparation (CITE, see Table X). While we may know how effective teacher preparation
centered on clinical practice looks, we are not yet able to discuss this amongst ourselves or
consistently name it in our communities of practice. The absence of a professional, codified
language impedes efforts to advance clinical practice as the basis of our teacher education
activity.
The grounding of teacher preparation in a common set of pedagogies and customs and a
common language around clinical practice is the first of many necessary, grand, and intentional
steps toward re-establishing teaching as a profession and teachers as the valued partners that they
5
are and must be in a democratic society. No profession is fully formed without a language that
unifies its constituents, that allows for ready communication with the general public and policy
makers, and both describes realities and suggests future directions. A “profession” is a field that
is governed by its members, where its policies, practices, and, of course, its lexicon, are
determined and systematically revised by its most immediate affiliates and adherents.
It is within this complex context that we seek to define the tenets of clinical practice and
identify a lexicon for our field. In this paper we offer a foundational, definitive—and
contextually implemented—set of roles, structures, and, practices associated with clinical
practice.
School Renewal, Not Just School Reform
We distinguish between school renewal—the commitment to repeatedly revisiting a
system or structure in order to respond to changing needs as part of a dynamic, reciprocal
relationship—and school reform, where the emphasis is on fixing something perceived as
broken. Characterizing the difference between renewal and reform, Goodlad, Mantle-Bromley,
and Goodlad (2004) explained, “Whereas school reform attempts to include in daily educational
fare something that presumably was not there before, school renewal creates an environment—a
whole culture—that routinely conducts diagnoses to determine what is going well and what is
not” (pp. 156-157). Goodlad’s (1990) concept of simultaneous renewal speaks to the modern
concept of “clinical practice” in teacher preparation and suggests a model for the profession.
Simultaneous renewal recognizes that when schools and universities work together, both entities
improve, in turn enhancing PK-12 students’ schooling experiences and outcomes (Lucero, 2010).
One of Goodlad’s “postulates” detail criteria for clinical practice and recommend that teacher
6
preparation programs provide candidates a wide array of laboratory settings for simulation,
observation, hands-on experiences, and exemplary schools for internships (Goodlad, 1990).
Design Features in Clinical Practice
Clinical practice requires attention to five specific program design features: content,
active learning, collective participation, coherence, and duration (Desimone, 2009). A focus on
content in clinical practice refers to both teacher candidates’ knowledge of subject matter and P12 students’ acquisition of new material. Active learning requires teacher candidates to observe
with purpose, practice teaching, participate in interactive feedback and discussion, and review
students’ work. Opportunities for collective participation allow teacher candidates to collaborate
with one another, while also receiving consistent, scaffolded support from school- and
university-based educators. Coherence in clinical practice is achieved through the integration of
developmentally appropriate coursework and fieldwork across clinical and university based
experiences with specific attention to duration and spiraling of clinical experiences. These five
features of well-designed clinical preparation programs are interrelated and together support a
developmental view of learning to teach.
Models of Clinical Practice
During the last two decades, two types of models—Professional Development Schools
(PDS) and teacher residencies—have emerged as the most common and most rigorous forms of
clinical practice. Both structures strive to create a partnership-based clinical space where teacher
candidates implement research-based instructional practices and learn from the application of
those practices through reflective learning processes and strategies for delivery and management.
7
PDSs emerged in the early 1990s and have grown exponentially since that time. PDSs are
formed through partnerships between teacher preparation programs and PK-12 schools.
Mirroring medical schools that operate as “teaching hospitals,” PDSs provide teacher candidates
a sound academic program and intense clinical preparation (Holmes, 1986, 1990; Levine, 1992).
PDSs also seek simultaneous renewal, emphasizing the professional learning of all stakeholders
(Goodlad, 1988, 1990).
According to the 2014 National Education Association Report, teacher residencies are
clinical contexts that provide ongoing opportunities for teacher candidates to plan and deliver
lessons, and then analyze and reflect on their own teaching practice with school-, universitybased-, and boundary-spanning teacher educators and peers (Coffman, Patterson, Raabe, &
Eubanks, 2014), in the context of an intensive full-year classroom residency. Teacher residencies
also often continue providing support once the candidate is hired as the teacher of record (Berry,
Montgomery, Curtis, Hernandez, Wurtzel, & Snyder, 2008).
Defining Clinical Practice and the Clinical Internship
At the core of “clinical practice” is the expectation that teacher candidates work in a
classroom setting and practice the work involved in the profession of teaching. Beginning with
the learning needs of K-12 students, candidates’ college coursework is intentionally integrated
with clinical practice expectations. Clinical practice also requires stakeholders to continually and
systematically rethink the elements of programs and practices used to develop teacher candidate
professional knowledge and performance. Well-designed clinical practices offer contexts for
evaluating teacher candidates’ abilities to demonstrate competency and readiness to become
certified teachers (Ball & Forzani, 2009).
8
“Clinical teacher preparation” encompasses the broad work of preparing new teachers to
enter the field with a specific focus on the instructional context. This process is intentional and
purposeful, and is done in partnership between universities and local education agencies. Clinical
teacher preparation creates spaces for simultaneous renewal among all stakeholders (Cite
Goodlad here). The inclusion of the word “clinical” with the concept of teacher preparation
offers other professions a template from which to make meaning of the complex world of
teaching and differentiates it from other forms of professional preparation. To defend against
widely held misconceptions related to the traditional preparation of new teachers in the silos of
university-based coursework and school-based field experiences, a shift to clinical terminology
indicates the necessary connection between universities and local education agencies in
providing opportunities for teacher candidates to develop as professionals.
A “clinical internship” is a culminating clinical practice experience of varying duration
but no less than one semester and typically occurring as the final experience in a clinical teacher
preparation program. In order to maintain the foundational integrated approach to clinical teacher
preparation, clinical internships require sustained partnerships between universities and local
education agencies. This work is also “clinical” because the teacher candidate implements
practices with children that are representative of the work of a teacher, with the support of both
school-based and university-based teacher educators. The commission advocates for the term
“clinical internship” to include fieldwork, residency, internship, and student teaching
experiences.
Evolving Roles and Responsibilities in Clinical Practice
The implementation of a clinical practice model requires a shift in how we define teacher
educator roles and the consideration of hybrid or third spaces, where practitioner and academic
9
knowledge is integrated in a way that better supports teacher candidates’ growth (Ipkeze et al.,
2012; Williams, 2014; Zeichner, 2010). Another step in this transition is to define and
consistently use the titles and tasks to highlight the nature of “high leverage” practices in the
profession. Such hybrid spaces require teaching professionals to engage in “boundary-spanning,
positions in which their work as teacher educators takes place both on university campuses as
well as in [PK-12] school classrooms” (Ikpeze et al., 2012, p. 276). Working in these spaces
flattens the hierarchy between university and PK-12 instructors. We have identified six core
terms that we present as the first examples of a clinical practice lexicon. Although we recognize
that these terms may differ from the everyday terms used in local contexts, we advocate for these
terms to be used within scholarly and political literature in order to demonstrate consistency
within the field.
School-Based Teacher Educator
The term “school-based teacher educator” is intended to be an encompassing title that
names every individual involved in a teacher education practice whose primary institutional
home is a school or school district. The terms historically used for individuals in school-based
teacher educator roles include university liaison, university-based liaison, school facilitator, site
facilitator, site coordinator, school-based liaison, cooperating teacher, mentor teacher,
collaborating teacher, clinical mentor teacher, district liaison, teacher liaison, school liaison,
professional development school liaison, school-site coordinator, or on-site coordinator.
These traditional terms are problematic for their ill-defined and overlapping nature and
for the way that these too often marginalize school-based individuals and minimize the teacher
education contributions they are making. The term “school-based teacher educator” is necessary
to highlight the very significant roles of school-based individuals. This term is necessary, too, for
10
its parallels to “university-based teacher educator,” suggesting stronger relationships and regular
collaborations between these roles, clarifying that individuals in these positions might move
across contexts and institutions—daily and across career spans.
School-based teacher educators assume coaching and partnership responsibilities that are
in addition to their responsibilities for PK-12 student learning. Mentoring is non-evaluative and
typically offered by practicing teachers and educators who move fluidly between each milieu. In
clinical teacher preparation, school-based teacher educators utilize practices such as focused
observations, coaching, co-teaching, direct dialogue, inquiry, and reflections on teaching.
Although high quality school-based teacher educators are essential for clinical preparation,
equally important is the principal’s commitment to leading a school dedicated to preparing the
next generation of teachers. In addition to the educators who work within the school, other
stakeholders including parents, school board members, school support staff, community
members, and community agencies also influence teacher candidate development within clinical
programs.
University-Based Teacher Educator
“University-based teacher educator” names every individual involved in teacher
education efforts whose primary institutional home is a college or university. Other traditional
terms for individuals playing university-based teacher educator roles include university
professor, faculty member, university supervisor, content coach, university liaison, university
facilitator, and university coordinator. University-based teacher educators might also include
clinical supervisors, clinical educators, clinical faculty member, and professional development
school liaisons.
11
Much like “school-based teacher educator,” the term “university-based teacher educator”
and its synonyms are also problematic for their sheer quantity and ill-defined nature, and for the
ways that these differentiate university faculty members operating as teacher educators from
others affiliated with the university who are also playing such roles. University-based teacher
educators are often engaged in these activities to a greater extent and in richer ways than the
university professors credited with such responsibilities. Like the term “school-based teacher
educator,” this one expands the range of individuals who are recognized as teacher educators,
with the primary distinction being the institution that these individuals count as their professional
homes. This term also suggests stronger connections across school and university contexts.
University-based teacher educators responsible for clinical practice assume an expanded
set of roles including evaluation, coaching, methods instruction, and partnership support.
(CITATION) In clinical practice, these activities are coherently integrated and this integration
requires conceptualizing the idea of what is considered pedagogy within institutions of higher
education. Within clinical teacher preparation, university-based teacher educators assume
expanded and multiple responsibilities within, and often across, each of these four instructional
activities. Even individuals without direct clinical responsibilities might be counted as
university-based teacher educators, including university and even higher education
policymakers, who are central to the success of teacher preparation in the clinical context.
Boundary-Spanning Teacher Educator
“Boundary-spanning teacher educator” is another comprehensive term. This title and role
open a space for those who might be considered non-traditional partners in a teacher education
exchange to be recognized. These might include district or university personnel or even
community constituents or individuals who do not have formal roles in teacher education
programs or schools. Such a title also more formally recognizes the fact that schools and
12
universities—and individuals who count either as a professional home—increasingly must
partner to effectively train teacher candidates and to serve teachers at any point along a
professional continuum as active participants in the learning endeavor.
Teachers
A “teacher” is any individual prepared via an accredited provider. This return to the
singular term “teacher” constitutes both a simplification and a complication of this title and role.
Teachers are no longer defined as “in-service” or “pre-service.” Being a teacher is a professional
capacity. Being a teacher does not involve “service,” which has popular connotations related to
volunteering or a military tenure. As well, teachers will no longer be described or identified as
“highly qualified”; rather, all educators prepared via the types of comprehensive, aspirational,
and clinical programs that are foundational to the future of our profession would earn this title. A
focus on clearer articulation of effective teacher preparation methods will result in the
professionalization of teaching, and no further modifiers are necessary to name those playing a
teaching role. Of course, some teachers will play additional roles in their schools and as schoolbased or boundary-spanning teacher educators.
Teacher Candidate
A “teacher candidate” is any student admitted to a clinical teacher preparation program.
This term prioritizes the “teacher” title but also communicates that one is not a teacher until s/he
has completed licensure via an accredited program with a set of experiences and expectations.
The term refers to a student at any point in their clinical teacher preparation program, and the
transition to “teacher” only occurs when they have successfully completed the clinical internship
and met all licensure requirements in their state. This summary term would replace titles like
13
“fieldwork student” and “practicum student” and “teacher intern,” thus clarifying their role for
audiences within and outside of our profession.
Clinical Coach/Clinical Coaching
Viewed through the lens of teacher education practice, every classroom, school,
community, and even student home setting might be considered a “clinical” context. However,
the term highlights the ongoing learning cycle in which all constituents in a teacher education
endeavor are involved, while also paralleling the framework and terminology used by other
professions. The terms “clinical coach” replaces titles like university supervisor, mentor,
supervision and mentoring—although these are used to describe tasks and activities conducted
by university-based, school-based, and boundary-spanning teacher educators, but are not titles.
Current terms that “clinical coach” would replace are problematic for their dated, illdefined, and informal connotations. While “supervision” in teacher education has a long and
distinguished history, a “supervisor” has very different meanings in virtually every other context
as necessarily evaluative. This more commonly understood notion of “supervision” is not
consistent with the primary role that school-based, university-based, or boundary-spanning
teacher educators play. While it is recognized that teacher educators do play “mentor” roles, this
term also connotes informality, rather than the more formal and professional science of teacher
preparation that these coaching activities warrant.
Practices and Pedagogies in Clinical Practice
The term “clinical coaching”—introduced just above—represents the bridge between the
roles and structures we have considered and the practices in which these individuals engage.
There is a growing consensus among teacher education scholars and practitioners that identifying
a set of “core practices” to be learned and enacted by teacher candidates could help mitigate
14
challenges plaguing teacher education, including the “theory-practice dichotomy” (Lampert,
2010), “the problem of enactment” (Kennedy, 1999), and the need for a common language to
promote the practice of teaching as a professional community (McDonald, Kazemi, & Schneider
Kavanagh, 2013). Shulman (2005) argued that teacher preparation needed to identify a set of
pedagogical practices that facilitate teacher candidates learning core practices. More recently,
Hollins (2011) introduced a set of “epistemic practices” consisting of focused inquiry, directed
observation, and guided practice that can be used by school- and university-based teacher
educators to develop teacher candidate professional knowledge.
Core practices include high leverage habits that occur with elevated frequency in engaged
learning; that teacher candidates can enact in classrooms across different curricula or
instructional approaches; that newer teachers can actually begin to master; that allow novices to
learn more about students and about teaching; that preserve the integrity and complexity of
teaching; and that are research-based and have the potential to improve student achievement.
Forzani (2014) suggests that core practices center around three ideas about teaching and teacher
education:
Instruction should be aimed at ambitious learning goals grounded in the expectation
that all students will develop high-level thinking, reasoning and problem-solving
skills; [t]eaching that will help students learn content for these purposes is a partially
improvisational practice, contingent on the ideas and contributions that are offered in
the classroom, and that novices must be trained to manage the uncertainty that arises
as a result; [t]eaching requires making the subject-matter of instruction a critical
component of the goals and activities that constitute the professional curriculum. (p.
359)
15
Examples of core practices (see sidebar on p. xx) include eliciting students’ thinking,
responding to student thinking (McDonald, et. al., 2013), orchestrating group discussions (Hatch
& Grossman, 2009), planning for a lesson, helping students construct theories about content
(Windschitl et. al., 2012), choosing appropriate examples, and reflecting on and responding to
student errors (Waddell, 2014). Lampert (2010) explains that in a practice-based framework
these core practices are dissected into smaller components called interchangeable techniques,
tools, or teaching moves that are learned and practiced separately prior to taking on the “fullblown work of teaching” (p. 27). A more concentrated focus on core practices necessarily shifts
the expectations of school- and university-based teacher educators. In clinical practice, schooland university-based teacher educators skillfully select from these, and other, research-based
practices to support teacher candidate learning.
What are the next steps?
An evolving array of policies and changing contexts in the first decade of the 21st century
have had a direct impact on the teaching profession as a whole, and by proxy, have directly
impacted changes to teacher education. The points of impact come from within and outside of
the profession, often leading to conflicts and opportunities that are in themselves shaping the
direction of clinical practice, the development of school-university partnerships, and PK-20
teaching and learning.
The idea of reform vs. renewal remains at the crux of many divergent responses, and
many of the resulting state and local policy disputes often serve to further divide efforts to
develop a unified continuum of professional training informed and determined by the profession
itself. The renewal of teacher education and advancement of systematic clinical practice teacher
preparation systems remains compelling and will be the model to move our profession forward.
16
Many of the conditions and actors that initiated the call to change teacher preparation, such as
gaps in student achievement and the need for greater teacher accountability (Wiseman, 2010),
still persist and play a critical role today. However, as the profession takes on the responsibility
of creating its own narrative, we can engage in processes, protocols, and assessments that
improve the field for children and for teachers. It is our obligation to teach those who are not
engaged in our profession and share with them what needs to be done as we seek a high quality
education for every child.
It is an imperative that the unified professions of teacher education and teaching embrace
a structure of practice and language and a common definition of clinical practice. A shared
profession and a shared professional lexicon for clinical teacher preparation will be necessary to
facilitate the acquisition of resources and technical assistance needed to truly transform teacher
education. Determining program- and context-specific terminology will only serve to divide us
and distract us from our goal of professionalizing this profession.
A universal language and united approach to teacher preparation poses a significant
challenge within a vast system of schools, districts, and states, each with its own needs and
diverse groups of students and constituents. The advancement of clinical practice, in particular,
may seem unique due to local conditions. In a fully formed profession, however, successes and
challenges are shared and built upon coherently among all members of the profession. Without
such a language and a system, teaching will remain relegated to pockets of excellence,
scattershot successes, and an inability to ensure the public a consistently qualified workforce able
to support the learning of all students.
Teacher preparation matters, and how institutions prepare their teacher candidates
influence effectiveness and credibility. As teacher preparation programs engage and take bold
17
action in making large-scale changes, a focus on core pedagogies to teach core practices that are
foundational to teaching must become and remain our focus. In fact, “If teaching is indeed a
complex practice, and not something that individuals naturally develop on their own, then
teacher educators must develop new approaches for preparing ordinary people…to be prepared
for the challenge” (Grossman, Hammerness, & McDonald, 2009, p. 287). It is time to place
clinical practice—named and defined by our profession—at the center of all actions in the
preparation of our future teachers.
18
References
Abrams, L (2013). Research on Teachers as Collaborators in Clinical Preparation of Teacher
Candidates. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, San Francisco, May 1, 2013.
Badiali, B., & Titus, N.E. (2010). Co-teaching: Enhancing student learning through mentorintern partnerships. School-University Partnerships, 4(2),74-80.
Ball, D.L. (2000). Bridging practices: Intertwining content and pedagogy in teaching and
learning to teach. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(3), 241–247.
Ball, D. L. & Forzani, F. M. (2009). The work of teaching and the challenge for teacher
education. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(5), 497-511.
Ball, D.L., Sleep, L., Boerst, T.A., & Bass, H. (2009). Combining the development of practice
and the practice of development in teacher education. Elementary School Journal, 109(5),
458-474.
Berry, Montgomery, Curtis, Hernandez, Wurtzel, & Snyder (2008) Cochran-Smith, M. & Lytle,
S. L. (2001). Beyond certainty: Taking an inquiry stance on practice. In Lieberman, A. &
Miller, L. (Eds.). Teachers caught in the action: Professional development that matters.
New York: Teachers College Press, pp. 45-58.
Bier, Horn, Campbell, Kazemi, Hintz, Kelley-Petersen, Stevens, Saxena, & Peck. (2012).
Designs for Simultaneous Renewal in University Public School Partnerships: Hitting the
“Sweet Spot. Teacher Education Quarterly, v39 n3, 127-141.
Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2008). Teacher preparation and
student achievement (NBER Working Paper No. W14314). Cambridge, MA: National
Bureau of Economic Research.
19
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher
learning in communities. Review of Research in Education, 24, 249-305.
CAEP. (June, 2013). CAEP Accreditation standards and evidence: Aspirations for Educator
Preparation. Recommendations from the CAEP Commission on Standards and
Performance Reporting to the CAEP Board of Directors. http://edsource.org/wpcontent/uploads/commrpt.pdf
CAEP (2014)
Coffman, Patterson, Raabe, & Eubanks, 2014
Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation. (2013). CAEP accreditation standards.
Washington, DC: CAEP.
Cochran-Smith, M. & Villegas, A.M. Framing Teacher Preparation Research: An Overview of
the Field, Part 1. Journal of Teacher Education. 65(4): 1-15.
Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP). (2015) CAEP Accreditation
Standards. As approved by the CAEP Board of Directors August 29, 2013 and as
amended by the CAEP Board of Directors February 13, 2015. Available at:
file:///C:/Users/Amanda/Downloads/caep-2013-accreditation-standards.pdf
Council of Chief State School Officers [CCSSO]. (2012). Our responsibility, our promise:
Transforming educator preparation and entry into the profession. Washington, D. C.,
Cowan, J. and Goldhaber, D. (2015). National Board Certification and Teacher Effectiveness:
Evidence from Washington State. CEDR Working Paper 2015-3. University of
Washington, Seattle, WA.
Cremin, L. A. (1961). The transformation of the School, p. 122-123. New York:
20
Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (Eds.). (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world:
What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Powerful teacher education. San Fransciso: Jossey-Bass.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). Evaluating teacher effectiveness: How teacher performance
assessments can measure and improve teaching. Washington, DC: Center for American
Progress. Retrieved from
https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wpcontent/uploads/issues/2010/10/pdf/teacher_effective
ness.pdf
Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). Teacher education and the American future. Journal of Teacher
Education, 61, 35-47.
Darling-Hammond, L., Newton, S.P., & Wei, R.C. (2013) Developing and assessing beginning
teacher effectiveness: The potential of performance assessments. Educational
Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 25(3), 179-204.
Dennis, D., Burns, R. W., Tricarico, K., VanIngen, S., Jacobs, J., & Davis, J. & (In Press).
Problematizing clinical education: What is our future? Chapter proposal accepted for R.
Desimone, L.M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development:
Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181-199.
Dewey (1909). Moral principles of education. Cambridge, MA: The Riverside Press.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York, NY: MacMillan Press.
Ericsson, K. A. (2002). Attaining excellence through deliberate practice: Insights from the study
of expert performance. In M. Ferrari (Ed.), The pursuit of excellence in education (pp.
21–55). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen
21
and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 1013-1055.
Flessner & D. R. Lecklider (Eds.), The power of clinical preparation in teacher
education. Rowman & Littlefield Education in association with the Association of
Teacher Education.
Fullan, M. (2003). The moral imperative of school leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.
Garden State Alliance for Strengthening Education (GSASE). (2014). Designing a Continuum to
Support Effective Teaching in New Jersey: Today and Tomorrow. Recommendations on
the teaching spectrum − from preparation to leadership – by the Garden State Alliance for
Strengthening Education, September 27, 2014.
Goodlad, J. (1990). Teachers for our Nation's Schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Goodlad, J. (1983). A Study of Schooling: Some Findings and Hypotheses. Phi Delta Kappan,
64(7), pp. 465-70.
Goodlad, J. (1984). A place called school: Prospects for the future. New York, NY: McGrawHill.
Goodlad, J. (1990). Teachers for our nation’s schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Goodlad, J., Soder, R., & Sirotnik, K. (Eds.). 1990. The moral dimensions of teaching. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Goodlad, J. (1994). Educational renewal: Better teachers, better schools. San Francisco: JosseyBass. In Biel, et. al, Designs for Simultaneous Renewal in University Public School
Partnerships: Hitting the “Sweet Spot. Teacher Education Quarterly, v39 n3, 127-141.
22
Goodlad, J. (1998). School–university partnerships for educational renewal: Rationale and
concept. In K.A. Sirotnik & H.I. Goodlad (Eds.), School–university partnerships in action
(pp. 3–31). New York: Teachers College Press.
Goodlad, J. (1999) Simultaneously renewing schools and teacher education: Perils and
promises. In Biel, et. al, Designs for Simultaneous Renewal in University Public School
Partnerships: Hitting the “Sweet Spot. Teacher Education Quarterly, v39 n3, 127-141.
Goodlad, J., Mantle-Bromley, C., & Goodlad, S. (2004). Education for everyone: Agenda for
education in a democracy. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Grossman, P., & McDonald, M. (2008). Back to the future: Directions for research in teaching
and teacher education. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 184–205.
Grossman, P., Compton, C., Igra, D., Ronfeldt, M., Shahan, E., & Williamson, P. W. (2009).
Teaching practice: A cross-professional perspective. Teachers College Record, 111(9),
2055-2100.
Grossman, P., Hammerness, K., & McDonald. (2009). Redefining teaching, re-imagining teacher
education. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and practice, 15, 273-289.
Hatch, T., & Grossman, P. (2009). Learning to look beyond the boundaries of representation:
Using technology to examine teaching (Overview for a digital exhibition: Learning from
the practice of teaching). Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 70-85.
Henning, J., Gut, D., & Beam, P. (2015). Designing and implementing a mentoring program to
support clinically-based teacher education. The Teacher Educator, 50, 145–162.
Hollins, E. R. (2011). Preparation for Quality Teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(4),
395-407.
23
Holmes Group. (1986). Tomorrow's teachers: A report of the Holmes Group. East Lansing, MI:
Author.
Holmes Group. (1990). Tomorrow's schools: Principles for the design of professional
development schools. East Lansing, MI: Author.
Ikpeze, C., Broikou, Journal of Teacher Education. 61 (1-2), 21-34. K., Hildenbrand &
Gladstone-Brown, W. PDS Collaboration as third space: An analysis of the quality of
learning experiences in a PDS partnership. Studying Teacher Education: A journal of
self-study of teacher education practices, 8(3), 275-288.
Kennedy, M. M. (1999). The role of pre-service teacher education. In L. Darling-Hammond &
G. Sykes (Eds.) Teaching as the learning profession (pp.54-85). San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Lampert, M. L. (2010). Learning teaching in, from and for practice: What do we mean? Journal
of Teacher Education, 61, 21–34.
Lampert, M. (2013). Keeping it complex: Using rehearsals to support novice teacher learning of
ambitious teaching. Journal of Teacher Education. 64 (3), 227-243.
Levine, M. (1992). A conceptual framework for professional practice schools. In M. Levine
(Ed.), Professional practice schools: Linking teacher education and school reform. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Louisiana Board of Regents. (2008). Regents study show teacher certification matters. Baton
Rouge, LA.
Lucero, R. S. (2010). A Tutorial for NNER Newcomers! Welcome to the NNER.
24
McDonald, M., Kazemi, E., & Schneider Kavanagh, S. (2013). Core practices and pedagogies of
teacher education: a call for a common language and collective activity. Journal of
Teacher Education. 64 (5), 378-386.
Mehta, J. (2013). From Bureaucracy to Profession: Remaking the Educational Sector for the
Twenty-First Century. Harvard Educational Review, 83(3), 463-488.
Michelli, N. M., & Keiser, D. L. (2005). Introduction: Teacher education for democracy and
social justice. In N. M. Michelli & D. L. Keiser (Eds.), Teacher education for democracy
and social justice (pp. xii-xxv). New York, NY: Routledge.
Michelli, N. & D.L. Keiser, (2005). Teacher Education for Democracy and Social Justice. New
York: Routledge.
National Association for Professional Development Schools (2008). What it means to be a
professional development school. Retrieved August 8, 2008, from www.napds.org.
National Education Association. (2012). Transforming teaching: Connecting professional
responsibility with student learning. Washington, DC: NEA.
National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (1996). What Matters Most: Teaching
for America's Future. Report of the National Commission on Teaching & America's
Future. Woodbridge, VA: National Commission on Teaching and America's Future.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A Nation at risk: The Imperative for
educational reform.
National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2010).Transforming teacher
education through clinical practice: A national strategy to prepare effective teachers. A
report of the Blue Ribbon Panel on Clinical Preparation and Partnership for Improved
Student Learning. Washington, DC: NCATE.
25
National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (2001). Standards for professional
development schools. Retrieved April 30, 2010, from
http://www.ncate.org/documents/pdsStandards.pdf.
Noddings, N. (2002). Educating moral people: A caring alternative to character education. New
York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Nord, W. A., & Haynes, C. C. (1998). Taking religion seriously across the curriculum.
Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Nutter Coffman, A., Patterson, R., Raabe, B., & Eubanks, S. (2014). Teacher Residencies:
Redefining Preparation Through Partnerships.
Ogletree, S. (2011). Professional Development Schools: History, development and current
research. In C.H. Bohan & J. E. Many (Eds.), Clinical Teacher Education: Reflections
from an urban professional development school network (pp.15-31). Chapel Hill, NC:
Information Age Publishing.
Peck, C.A., Singer-Gabella, M., Sloan, T., & Lin, S. (2014). Driving blind: Why we need
standardized performance assessment in teacher education. Journal of Curriculum and
Instruction, 8(1), 8-30.
Robinson, J. with AB Cutler, J. Bello, M. Brewster, M. Diaz, C. Granato, R. Leon, A. Orsini, and
S. Taylor, Partnership: Origins of an urban teacher residency. In M. Taylor M., E. Klein,
et.al. (in press), A Year in the Life of a Third Space Urban Teacher Residency: Using
Inquiry to Reinvent Teacher Education. Rotterdam, Sense Publishers.
Shulman, L.S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard
Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.
26
Shulman, L.S. (2005a). The Signature Pedagogies of the Professions of Law, Medicine,
Engineering, and the Clergy: Potential Lessons for the Education of Teachers. Paper
delivered at the Math Science Partnerships (MSP) Workshop Hosted by the National
Research Council’s Center for Education, Irvine, California. [MAKE SURE TO CHECK
IF THIS IS BEST REFERENCE]
Shulman, L.S. (2005b). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134 (3), 52–59.
Sirotnik K. A., & Soder, R. (1999). The beat of a different drummer: Essays on educational
renewal in honor of John I. Goodlad. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Soder, Roger, J. Goodlad, and T. J. McMannon. (2001). Developing Democratic Character in
the Young. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Stairs, A.j., Corrieti, C., Fryer, L., Genovese, E., Panaro, R., & Sohn, C. (2009). Inquiry into
partnered student teaching in an urban school-university partnership. School-University
Partnerships, 3(1), 75-89.
Starr, P. (1982). The Social Transformation of American Medicine., New York: Basic Books.
Strom, K. (2015). Teaching as assemblage: negotiating learning and practice in the first year of
teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, vol. 66(4) 321-333, pp. 321-333.
Tatto, T. (1996). Examining the values and beliefs about teaching diverse students:
Understanding the challenges for teacher education. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 18, 155-180
Thompson, J, Hagenah, S., Lohwasser, K., & Laxton, K. (2015). Problems without ceilings: How
mentors and novices frame and work on problems-of-practice. Journal of Teacher
Education, 66, 364-381.
27
Thorpe, R. (2014b). Residency: Can it transform teaching the way it did medicine? Phi Delta
Kappan, Vol. 96, no. 1, 36-40.
Van Soest, D. &Garcia, B. (2003).Diversity education for social justice: Mastering teaching
skills . Alexandria, VA: Council on Social Work Education.
Wang, J., Spalding, E., Odell, S. J., Klecka, C. L., & Lin, E. (2010). Bold ideas for improving
teacher education and teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 61 (4), 2-15.
Wangemann, P. (2013). The Beat of a Steady Drummer: The Influence of John Goodlad on a
University-School Partnership. Education in a Democracy: A journal of the NNER, (5), p.
73-84.
Wilson, M., Hallam, P.J., Pecheone, R.L., & Moss, P.A. (2014). Evaluating the validity of
portfolio assessments for licensure decision. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22(6).
Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v22n6.2014
Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., Braaten, M. & Stroupe, D. (2012). Proposing a core set of
instructional practices and tools for teachers of science. Science Education. 96 (5), 878903.
Wiseman, D. (2010). The intersection of policy, reform, and teacher education. Journal of
Teacher Education, 63(2) 87–91.
Yendol-Hoppey, D., & Franco, Y. (Spring, 2014). In Search for Signature Pedagogy for
Clinically-rich Teacher Education: A Review of Articles Published in the Journal of
Teacher Education and School University Partnerships. School-University Partnerships
Journal, 7(1), 17-34.
Yendol-Hoppey, D. (2013). Teacher Education in the United States: Possibilities and Problems.
Invited Keynote at ISATT 2013 Conference, Uberaba, Brazil.
28
Zeichner, K. (2010). Rethinking the connections between campus courses and field experiences
in college- and university-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education. 61 (12), 89-99.
29