549072
research-article2014
JTEXXX10.1177/0022487114549072Journal of Teacher EducationCochran-Smith and Villegas
Article
Framing Teacher Preparation Research:
An Overview of the Field, Part 1
Journal of Teacher Education
2015, Vol. 66(1) 7­–20
© 2014 American Association of
Colleges for Teacher Education
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0022487114549072
jte.sagepub.com
Marilyn Cochran-Smith1 and Ana Maria Villegas2
Abstract
This is the first of a two-part article that aims to chart the contemporary landscape of research on teacher preparation
and certification. It is based on a review of more than 1,500 studies published between 2000 and 2012. Part 1 provides
information about how the review was conducted and describes the theoretical/analytic framework the authors developed
to guide the review. The framework combines ideas from the sociology of knowledge and research as social practice. This
framework situates the research on teacher education within salient economic, intellectual, and demographic developments
of the past half century and also examines the practices of researchers who are differently positioned from one another, have
divergent purposes and audiences, and who work both inside and outside teacher education. Part 1 also analyzes the first
of three major research programs—research on teacher preparation accountability, effectiveness, and policies, identifying
strengths and weaknesses in this body of studies.
Keywords
teacher education preparation, teacher education research methodology, certification/licensure
Research on teacher preparation and certification is an
emerging, complex, and multifaceted field, influenced by
competing ideas about the purposes of research and the
goals of education. This is the first of a two-part article
about this field of research. It provides an overview of our
comprehensive review of the landscape of the field
(Cochran-Smith et al., in press), which is 1 of 25 lengthy
chapters in the Handbook of Research on Teaching
(Gitomer & Bell, in press), a project of the American
Educational Research Association (AERA). Part 1 of this
two-part article provides information about how our review
was conducted and describes “Research on Teacher
Preparation as Historically Situated Social Practice,” a
theoretical/analytic framework we developed to guide the
review. Part 1 also analyzes the first of the three major
research programs we identified based on a massive review
of published research, 2000 to 2012: (a) research on teacher
preparation accountability, effectiveness, and policies; (b)
research on teacher preparation for the knowledge society;
and (c) research on teacher preparation for diversity and
equity; each of these programs has multiple sub-categories
of studies, which we refer to as clusters and lines of
research. Part 2, which will appear in the next issue of JTE,
discusses the second and third programs of research. It also
suggests new directions for research based on lacunae in
the literature and on our analysis of the strengths and
weaknesses of the existing field and the possibilities for
new programs and lines of research.
Teacher Preparation Research and
Research on Teaching
Since 1963, AERA has published five handbooks of research
on teaching with the fifth to be released in 2015. Each handbook, published 10 to 15 years after its predecessor, includes
comprehensive reviews of major areas in the broad field of
research on teaching, as defined by the editors. Widely disseminated to individual scholars and libraries, the handbooks
are generally considered milestones in the chronicles of the
field; they have substantially influenced how emerging and
experienced researchers make sense of multiple areas of study.
Over the years, these handbooks have handled research on
teacher education in different ways. The first handbook (Gage,
1963) had no chapters directly related to teacher education or
to teacher learning, teachers’ professional development, or
policies related to preparation/certification. Rather, in keeping
with the emerging paradigm of the time, the handbook focused
primarily on research methods and the variables that influence
teaching. The second handbook (Travers, 1973) included an
entire chapter on teacher education research (Peck & Tucker,
1
Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA, USA
Montclair State University, Montclair, NJ, USA
2
Corresponding Author:
Marilyn Cochran-Smith, Boston College, Campion Hall 111, Lynch School
of Education, Chestnut Hill, MA 02467, USA.
Email: cochrans@bc.edu
Downloaded from jte.sagepub.com at Mofet Institute on May 3, 2015
8
Journal of Teacher Education 66(1)
1973), which focused on experimental studies about the training procedures that produced effective teaching behaviors in
prospective teachers; the authors characterized this as a “quantum leap” forward. The third handbook (Wittrock, 1986) also
included a chapter devoted to research on teacher education
(Lanier & Little, 1986), but it contrasted starkly with the previous handbook. In fact, Lanier and Little’s chapter explicitly
excluded experimental research on teacher training, asserting
that it offered nothing that was not already well known.
Instead, the chapter focused on teacher professionalism, synthesizing interdisciplinary research that spoke to the intractable problems of teacher education. In the fourth handbook
(Richardson, 2001), which reflected the proliferation of paradigms related to research on teaching during the prior 15 years,
there was, again, no chapter devoted to teacher education.
Rather the research on teacher education was treated as one
piece of the body of research on formal programs of teacher
change (Richardson & Placier, 2001).
Our chapter in the fifth handbook, which is the basis of this
two-part article, is devoted entirely to research on teacher education, as were chapters in the second and third handbooks. In
contrast, however, our chapter, which reviews research on initial teacher preparation and certification in the United States
and internationally, does not privilege some bodies of work
and exclude others. Rather, although the review reflects our
own positionality and interests as researchers, as all reviews
do (Lather, 1999), it is deliberately inclusive of multiple—
sometimes competing—research approaches and agendas.
The intention of the chapter is to chart the contemporary landscape of what we refer to as the “sprawling field” of research
on teacher preparation by identifying, analyzing, and critiquing its major programs. Our purpose in this two-part article is
to provide for teacher educators a cohesive overview of this
sprawling and uneven field, situating the research on teacher
education within major developments of the past half century
and examining the practices of researchers who are positioned
quite differently from one another, have divergent purposes
and audiences in mind, and who work both inside and outside
of the daily work of teacher education. Their strikingly different programs of research are seldom considered together in
one review, and there is little general understanding of how
they relate to one another or the implications they have for
practice and policy. Along these lines, Kennedy (1996) pointed
out nearly two decades ago that primarily quantitative research
on teacher education, intended to inform policy and policy
makers, was often more familiar to skeptics and critics of
teacher education, including economists and policy analysts,
than to teacher educators themselves.
Teacher Preparation Research as
Historically Situated Social Practice
To capture the untamed and uneven landscape of research on
teacher preparation, we developed a two-part theoretical/
analytical framework, which we titled “teacher preparation
research as historically situated social practice.” The framework’s two parts are described below.
The Larger Historical-Social Setting
The first part of the framework focuses on the larger social,
political, and economic forces and resulting ideologies that
have shaped education over the last 50 years or so. This
approach is consistent with Mannheim’s (1936/1949) perspective on the intellectual project of the sociology of knowledge, which addressed relationships between the ideas of
human beings and the historical and social contexts from
which they emerged. In his classic text, Mannheim suggested
that the task of the sociology of knowledge was “to analyze
the relationship between knowledge and existence” (p. 237).
In the book’s preface, Wirth summarized,
The sociology of knowledge concerns itself not merely with the
ideas and modes of thinking that happen to flourish, but with the
whole social setting in which this occurs. This must necessarily
take account of the factors that are responsible for the acceptance
or the rejection of certain ideas by certain groups in society. (pp.
xxix-xxx)
Figure 1 provides a graphic representation. Beginning
with the base and reading upward, this figure emphasizes
relationships among the larger historical context that has
shaped almost every aspect of social life over the past 50
years, including formal education (bottom layer); emergent
trends and ideas, which have had a major influence on
teacher preparation practice and policy (middle layer); and
the major programs of research that have developed (top
layer). Below we take up each layer.
As Figure 1’s bottom layer suggests, current research on
teacher preparation is located within the milieu of major economic, social, and political forces and the modes of thought
that have become dominant over the past 50 years. In developed nations, the most fundamental development of this historical period was the shift from an industrial economy based
on manufacturing and material goods to a knowledge-based
economy that revolves around the production and distribution
of goods and services related to information. This shift has
given rise to new labor markets, new patterns of production
and consumption, and worldwide mass migration. These have
not only created new media and specialized flexible markets
but have also brought unprecedented challenges and new conditions of social and cultural life (Apple, 2005; Luke, 2004).
In terms of education policy and practice in the United
States and other developed countries, the shift to a global and
competitive knowledge society has also been accompanied by
a shift to neoliberal economics wherein individualism, free
markets and private good(s) have taken precedence over other
goals (Mehta, 2013). Although not inevitable, some critics
now suggest that neoliberal perspectives have become nearly
imperceptible as ideology in education policy and practice and
are currently more likely to be understood simply as common
Downloaded from jte.sagepub.com at Mofet Institute on May 3, 2015
9
Cochran-Smith and Villegas
Figure 1. Teacher preparation research as historically situated social practice, Part 1: The larger context.
sense (Apple, 2005). This does not mean that there are no
competing perspectives about educational purposes and
research practices, but our point here is that the shift to a
knowledge society with neoliberal economics as the dominant
paradigm of education policy and practice comprises the larger
historical and social context in which teacher preparation
research, practice, and policy are currently situated. (Many
scholars have provided in-depth analysis and critique of how
these larger issues play out in education policy and politics and
in other areas of social life, for example; Apple, 2005; Hursh,
2007; Luke, 2004; Mehta, 2013; Sleeter, 2009; Torres, 2009.)
Three trends related to teacher education. We use the word
“trend” to refer to the far-reaching social, political, policy,
ideological, demographic, and/or intellectual developments
that are most relevant to teacher preparation. Over the past
half century, three trends, which are consistent in differing
ways with the shift to a knowledge society, converged and
helped to shape the development of major programs of
research. These trends are represented by the middle layer of
Figure 1: unprecedented attention to teacher quality and
accountability, changing conceptions of how people learn
and what they need to know to thrive in a knowledge society,
and increasingly diverse student populations coupled with
growing social and school inequality.
Unprecedented attention to teacher quality and accountability. As many analyses have indicated, the major shift from
an industrial to a knowledge economy brought unparalleled
attention to the quality of education systems, and in particular to teachers, who were presumed to be the primary makers
of knowledge workers for the new economy (e.g., Furlong,
Cochran-Smith, & Brennan, 2009; McKinsey & Company,
2007; OECD, 2005; World Bank, 2010). Many politicians,
policy makers, and researchers came to agree that teachers
were a critical influence (if not the single most important
influence) on how, what, and how much students learned.
Accordingly, many nations developed very high expectations
for teachers, including teaching all students to world-class
standards, serving as the linchpins in educational reform,
and helping diminish social inequality. Internationally, the
same message was conveyed in report after report: Teachers
matter, not just in the classroom but in terms of a nation’s
economy.
With regard to the United States, Spring (2011) referred
collectively to the assumptions underlying A Nation at Risk
(NAR; National Commission on Excellence in Education,
1983) and the string of related reports that accompanied and
followed it as the “human capital paradigm” (p. 11), a nonpartisan agenda that conceptualized schools as businesses preparing workers for other businesses. Along similar lines,
Mehta (2013) suggested that a new “education policy paradigm” (p. 286) transformed American educational policy after
NAR, based on several key tenets: educational success is the
key to economic success, American schools are failing and
need reform, teachers and schools—rather than social factors—are responsible for academic outcomes, and educational
success should be measured by tests. These assumptions
Downloaded from jte.sagepub.com at Mofet Institute on May 3, 2015
10
Journal of Teacher Education 66(1)
underlie the predominant neoliberal, market-based approach
to education reform.
What this means for policy, practice, and research on
teacher preparation is, as we note above, that in many parts
of the world there has been unprecedented and politicized
attention to teacher preparation/certification and the policies
and accountability systems that govern them and measure
their effectiveness (Cochran-Smith, Piazza, & Power, 2013;
Furlong et al., 2009; Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development, 2005), which has consistently been coupled with outcomes-based accountability (Cuban, 2004). To
a great extent, the discourse of outcomes has been normalized both inside the professional/university teacher education community and outside it. For example, in the United
States, to compete successfully for Race to the Top funds,
states were required to agree to develop accountability systems that linked data about student test scores with data
about teachers with data about the preparation programs/
pathways through which they entered teaching (Crowe,
2011). This outcomes emphasis has not simply been imposed
on teacher preparation from the outside, however; it is also
now clear within the teacher education profession itself, as
reflected in new accreditation standards and emphases
(Brabeck & Koch, 2013).
Changing conceptions of how people learn and what they
need to know. Although alternatives to transmission views
of learning existed long before the shift from industrial to
knowledge economies, this economic transformation supported the ascent of such alternatives in the world of ideas.
In developed countries, manufacturing jobs were automated
or outsourced in increasing numbers during the 1970s and
1980s, and as the mix of available jobs began to change,
schools were under pressure to adapt to the new economic
reality (Blinder, 2009) by providing a new type of education
that prepared all students—not just an elite few—to evaluate
and use information, frame and solve problems, and collaborate with others to develop new ideas (OECD, 2005; World
Bank, 2010).
Along with pressure for educational reform, alternative
conceptions of how people learned gained the attention of
the education community. Building on research from the
learning sciences (Bransford, Derry, Berliner, & Hammerness,
2005; Resnick, 1987; Sawyer, 2006) and the anthropology
and sociology of education (Heath, 1983/1999; Tharp &
Gallimore, 1990), learning was conceptualized as a process
of active construction wherein learners drew on prior knowledge and experiences—both individual and sociocultural—
as they built new understandings. These new conceptions of
learning, which had been making their way into education
for more than 30 years, became the dominant mode of thinking within university-based teacher education.
As conceptions of learning shifted, so did views of teaching. Instead of transmitting the content of the school curriculum, teachers were expected to help students expand or
reconfigure pre-existing understandings by engaging them in
meaningful problem-solving activities, organizing communities of learners to maximize access to support, and monitoring students’ developing ideas (Brown & Campion, 1994).
Because learners brought different prior knowledge to learning, teachers were expected to continuously tailor their
teaching to the specific students in their classes. Just as
importantly, because disciplines differed, teachers needed to
engage in practices consistent with the demands of their subjects (Shulman, 1986), which required professional judgment and instructional decisions made on pedagogical
grounds. In short, the traditional image of teachers as technicians yielded to the image of knowledgeable and reflective
professionals who worked in the context of communities of
professional educators and made reasoned decisions in the
service of their students (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993,
2009).
Because teachers were widely regarded as the key to
school reform, it became clear that teacher candidates needed
more powerful opportunities to learn to teach (Lampert &
Ball, 1999), and traditional views of teacher learning were
revised. In the new formulation, learning to teach was understood as complex and demanding intellectual work that
occurred throughout the professional life span and required
pre-professional preparation that laid the foundation for
teaching as well as strong induction and mentoring support
(Feiman-Nemser, 2001). Despite a steady shift toward these
new views of teacher and student learning within the educational research and practice community, more traditional
views remained entrenched within many schools (Cuban,
1993) and within some education reform initiatives.
Increasingly diverse student populations and growing inequality. The third trend relevant to teacher preparation has to
do with demographic and geopolitical changes. In a global
world, the rigid boundaries that separated countries became
more fluid, and technological developments shrank geographic distances. This resulted in the mass movement of
people across the world, transforming the demographic
makeup of many countries, which was strikingly evident in
schools. In some countries, such as the United States, new
immigration patterns were coupled with a history of institutionalized racism and the impoverishment of minority families. These brought diversity and inequality to the forefront
of educational policy and practice. At the same time, however, a “new civil rights” movement emerged that worked
against the historical goals of mid-20th century Civil Rights
movements by undermining public education and reinforcing stratification of opportunities and outcomes (Kumashiro,
2010; Zeichner, 2010). This is reflected in the current backlash against multicultural and social justice approaches to
teaching and teacher education (Cochran-Smith, Barnatt,
Lahann, Shakman, & Terrell, 2009) and in increasing pressure to concentrate on the aspects of teacher preparation
directly linked to student test scores.
Downloaded from jte.sagepub.com at Mofet Institute on May 3, 2015
11
Cochran-Smith and Villegas
In the United States, students of color now account for
44% of enrollments in elementary and secondary schools, up
from 22% in 1972 (National Center for Education Statistics,
2010). In addition, 22% of children 18 years of age or
younger live in poverty (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011), and
10% of K-12 students are English learners (Lazarin, 2006).
Historically, schools have not educated these students on par
with their White, more affluent, native English-speaking
peers, and there are persistent disparities in achievement
(KewalRamani, Gilbertson, Fox, & Provasnick, 2007), high
school completion (Swanson, 2007), and college matriculation (Harvey & Anderson, 2007). While the achievement gap
is not new, policy makers’ attention to the problem is unprecedented, which is not surprising given the assumption that
school achievement corresponds to economic growth.
While there is wide agreement about the urgency of closing the achievement gap, there are fundamental differences
about its causes and remedies. Some believe that good teachers and schools alone can offset the effects of social inequalities and gaps in learning across groups (e.g., Education
Equality Project, 2008). Others contend that unless school
opportunities to learn are equalized (e.g., school funding,
class size, textbooks, facilities, and curriculum offerings)
and unless out-of-school factors that distract students from
academic learning are addressed (e.g., lack of medical care,
food insecurity, poor housing, and the stress associated with
poverty), then even excellent teachers are seriously limited
in their ability to improve achievement for poor and racial/
ethnic minority students (e.g., Berliner, 2006; Carter &
Welner, 2012; Economic Policy Institute, 2008).
The contrasting demographic profiles of the K-12 student
population and the teaching force present another challenge
to schools. Although the student population is increasingly
diverse, the teaching force is overwhelmingly White, middle
class, and monolingual English speaking. Thus, teachers
have an increasing number of students who are culturally,
economically, and linguistically different from themselves.
In addition, recent changes in educational policy and practice
have made U.S. classrooms more developmentally and linguistically diverse than ever before (Lucas & Grinberg,
2008; Pugach & Blanton, 2009).
Programs of research on teacher preparation. The three broad
policy, intellectual, and demographic trends described above
are important parts of the larger milieu in which teacher
preparation research is conducted. The first level of analysis
in our larger review involved the identification of three
broadly construed programs of research. By “programs” of
research, we mean major groupings of studies that were
shaped by, but also helped to shape, the trends described
above. The three programs of research we identified are represented by the pentagonal shapes along the top layer of Figure 1: (a) research on teacher preparation accountability,
effectiveness, and policies; (b) research on teacher preparation for the knowledge society; and (c) research on preparing
teachers for equity and diversity. Although the third program
of research is in a certain sense a sub-set of the second, we
treat it as a program of research in its own right to ensure that
research on diversity, equity, and access in teacher preparation is not marginalized or buried within larger issues.
We identified these programs of research through an iterative process based on our knowledge of the trends described
above and a massive search for empirical studies about preprofessional teacher preparation, described below. In other
words, although we had tentative ideas about what the major
programs of research would be based on experience and
background reading, we sought to validate or challenge these
ideas empirically by testing them against the published
research. This iterative approach was deliberately intended
to avoid the limitations of previous reviews, which were
based on a priori decisions about which research topics and
methods to include and exclude. In contrast, our approach
was not only informed by knowledge of the issues that concern policy makers, researchers, and practitioners but also
accounted for the range of topics actually studied by differently positioned researchers.
Research as Social Practice
The second part of our theoretical/analytic framework—
research as social practice—is complementary to the first.
The idea here is that the interests, commitments, and social
experiences of researchers—and not simply their epistemological or methodological perspectives (i.e., their research
paradigms)—guide the research questions they pursue and
the frameworks they adopt (Herndl & Nahrwold, 2000). This
perspective is informed by Bourdieu’s (1977/1980) “theory
of practice,” which conceptualized sociology as a science of
social practices situated in social spaces and defined by
struggles among agents with different resources and different
inclinations about how to use those resources (Heilbron,
2011). In their analysis of research on technical and professional communications, Herndl and Nahrwold (2000) drew
on Bourdieu to contrast the notion of research as social practice with the more traditional notion of research paradigms,
arguing that people who actually do the work of research are
engaged in research practices. They suggested that the shift
in perspective from paradigms to practices allowed considerations of not only methods but also purposes and “the relationship between research practices and social, economic
and institutional power” (p. 263). We would argue that
although identifying the social practices in various
approaches to research is appropriate to many fields of
research, it is especially appropriate in emerging fields such
as teacher preparation, which are made up of multiple territories, many of which are contested, and which borrow from
many other disciplines.
Our analysis of various clusters of teacher preparation
research, which are described below, was guided by the idea
of research as social practice. Figure 2 represents the
Downloaded from jte.sagepub.com at Mofet Institute on May 3, 2015
12
Journal of Teacher Education 66(1)
Figure 2. Teacher preparation research as historically situated social practice, Part 2: Research practices.
protocol we used for our second level of analysis, which
involved analyzing the social practices in which researchers
whose work we grouped into the various clusters engaged.
For each cluster of studies, we considered (a) construction of
problems and questions, topics and themes, including what is
taken for granted or problematized and how research problems, as constructed, imply particular kinds of solutions,
which are related to existing power structures; (b) underlying
assumptions and the logic of argumentation; (c) researcher
identity and positionality, intended audiences, perceived purposes and objectives, and connections to larger political/professional/policy agendas; (d) research designs, theoretical
frameworks, epistemologies, and uses of evidence; and (e)
issues, tensions and trends in findings and the implications
that researchers have in mind for their research.
Defining, Locating, and Analyzing
Teacher Preparation Research
For our review, we defined teacher preparation research as
empirical, peer-reviewed studies, published between 2000
and 2012, about initial teacher preparation in various preparation contexts. This time frame coincided with new accountability expectations and the emerging policy focus on teacher
quality/teacher preparation that intensified in many parts of
the world at the end of the 1990s (Furlong, Cochran-Smith,
& Brennan, 2009). Our review includes research on multiple
aspects of practice and policy regarding the pre-professional
preparation or certification of elementary and secondary
general education teachers in various contexts, including colleges/universities and multiple “alternative” pathways and
programs. By definition, then, we did not review research on
teacher induction or mentoring, the continuing professional
development of experienced teachers, or the preparation of
educational specialists (e.g., bilingual, English as a second
language, and special education teachers). In addition, the
review did not include general studies of teacher quality,
such as studies of teacher characteristics or qualifications,
unless they focused specifically on either pre-professional
preparation or teacher candidate certification.
Although the majority of the studies in our review was
conducted in the United States, many studies from other
nations were also included, and some clusters of research
were highly international in focus. To locate the literature,
we conducted a hand search of major national and international journals in general education, teacher education, key
subject matter and special area journals, and the publications
of major research institutions with self-reported or published
external peer-review procedures.1 We also conducted targeted electronic searches on topics that occupy the attention
of policy makers and social science policy researchers, such
as alternative routes and teacher certification, to account for
research related to teacher preparation but not necessarily
associated with the field of education.
Our initial search yielded more than 1,500 empirical studies, all of which were included in our preliminary review. We
sorted each study into one of the three major programs of
research. Although some studies had multiple foci, we
Downloaded from jte.sagepub.com at Mofet Institute on May 3, 2015
13
Cochran-Smith and Villegas
Research Program A:
Teacher Preparation Accountability, Effectiveness, and Policies
Cluster A-1
Alternative certification and pathways
Cluster A-2
Policy responses and trends
Cluster A-3
Testing and assessment
Cluster A-4
Program evaluation
Research Program B:
Teacher Preparation for the Knowledge Society
Cluster B-1
Preparing teachers to teach science subject matter
Cluster B-2
The influence of coursework on learning to teach
Cluster B-3
The influence of fieldwork on learning to teach
Cluster B-4
Content, structures, and pedagogy of teacher preparation for the knowledge society
Cluster B-5
Teacher educators as teachers and learners
Cluster B-6
Teacher preparation and learning to teach over time
Research Program C:
Teacher Preparation for Diversity and Equity
Cluster C-1
The influence of coursework and fieldwork on learning to teach diverse student populations
Cluster C-2
Recruiting and preparing a diverse teaching force
Cluster C-3
Content, structures, and pedagogies of teacher preparation for diversity
Cluster C-4
Teacher educator learning for/experiences with diversity
Figure 3. Major programs and clusters of research on teacher preparation.
nevertheless sorted each study into only one program of
research, based on its primary focus. Within the three major
programs of research, we further categorized the studies into
clusters, based on focal themes and topics. Clusters were
identified based on an iterative process made up of preliminary reading of the studies, tentative formation of studies
that clustered together, closer reading, and revision/reformation of clusters. Within most clusters, we further identified
two or more lines of research, using a similar iterative process. Clusters and lines of research were analyzed according
to the social practices in which researchers engaged. It is
important to note that it was not the goal of our review to cite
every single existing study to provide a definitive analysis of
“what we know” about particular topics. Rather, our goal
was to map the territories and identify trends and issues
within the expansive landscape.
Figure 3 provides an overview of the three major programs of research and the clusters within each. The remainder of this article describes Research Program A. Part 2 of
the article describes Research Programs B and C. Given
space constraints, for each of these three programs, we
describe the larger historical, economic, and social forces
within which these research programs emerged. Then, we
focus on the social practices of one cluster and offer two
illustrative examples of studies within the cluster.
Research Program A
Teacher Preparation Accountability, Effectiveness,
and Policy
As we noted, one of the major policy/political trends that
has influenced teacher preparation is unprecedented attention to teacher quality and accountability with a heavy
emphasis on policies related to entry pathways, certification, testing, and assessment. Shaped by this trend, the
studies in Research Program A have to do with teacher
preparation accountability, effectiveness, and the impact of
policies, particularly those that govern alternative certification routes and pathways. Within this broad program of
research, we identified four clusters of studies (see Figure 4):
policies regarding alternative certification and pathways
(Cluster A-1); institutional responses to policies and/or
analyses of policy trends and discourses (Cluster A-2); testing and assessment of teacher candidates or preparation
programs, including new assessment tools (Cluster A-3);
and program evaluation studies (Cluster A-4). Given its
prominence as an issue for policy makers, philanthropists,
the business world, and practitioners and because of its
high visibility in the education reform discourse, we concentrate on Cluster A-1.
Downloaded from jte.sagepub.com at Mofet Institute on May 3, 2015
14
Journal of Teacher Education 66(1)
Research Program A:
Teacher Preparation Accountability, Effectiveness, and Policy
Cluster A-1
Alternative
Certification and
Pathways
Studies examined the nature and impact of education policies intended to improve teacher quality by opening
up the entry level teacher labor market, particularly through “alternative” certification routes, entry pathways,
and recruitment/preparation programs.
• E
ffects of alternative certification policies, pathways, entry routes, or recruitment/preparation
programs on students’ achievement, teacher retention, teacher preparedness or other outcomes
• H
ow alternative certification policies, pathways, routes, programs vary and how they operate in
particular settings, regions or contexts
• E
ffects of specific programs or the effects of features and structures of preparation across
programs and pathways on student achievement, retention, or other outcomes
Cluster A-2
Policy Responses
and Trends
Studies examined teacher preparation policy trends and/or the implementation of external
accountabilitypolicies related to teacher preparation standards and outcomes, particularly how programs and
institutionsresponded to, understood, and interpreted them.
• H
ow teacher education practitioners and other participants interpret and respond to accountability
policies in varying contexts of practice
• A
nalyses of professional or political agendas, larger influences, and discourse patterns implicit
or explicit in teacher preparation accountability policies at state, national, international or
supranational levels
Cluster A-3
Testing and
Assessment
Studies examined teacher candidate and/or teacher preparation program testing and assessment, including
the development of new assessment tools, instruments, and systems for professional, higher education, or
teacher quality accountability
• V
alidity, reliability, fairness, effectiveness and/or consequences of testing programs for sorting
teacher candidates with/without minimum basic skills and essential knowledge for teaching or
assessing teacher preparation programs
• D
evelopment, implementation and/or evaluation of tools, instruments, scales or systems for the
assessment/evaluation of preparation programs and/or teacher candidates, including performance
assessments
Cluster A-4
Program
Evaluation
Program evaluations and case studies of individual teacher preparation programs designed to assess program
effectiveness for local purposes, usually conducted by teacher educators about their own projects and
programs
Figure 4. Research Program A.
Labor market policies allowing “alternative” certification,
entry pathways, preparation, and recruitment were initiated or
expanded in all but a handful of U.S. states during the 1980s
and 1990s (U.S. Department of Education, 2013). Although
these have enjoyed considerable attention and funding, when
alternative certification policies were developed, there was
limited evidence about their potential impact (Allen, 2003;
Wilson, Floden, & Ferrini-Mundy, 2001; Zeichner & Schulte,
2001; Zumwalt, 1996). The studies in Cluster A-1 responded
to these lacunae in the research.
Research Problems and Underlying Assumptions:
Research Program A, Cluster 1
At a general level, Cluster A-1 studies constructed the
research “problem” as the current failure of school districts,
states, and teacher preparation programs to provide all
students with high-quality teachers, including teachers in
shortage subject areas and teachers for low-income, urban,
and/or hard-to-staff schools. The premise here is that teacher
quality is among the most important factors in students’
achievement, but schools with large numbers of poor and
minority students are the most likely to have teachers who
are not well-qualified. When the problem is framed this way,
the logical conclusion is that we need policies that produce
and distribute more high-quality teachers. Most Cluster A-1
studies were intended to inform policy makers who are
responsible for such policies.
Some of these studies (e.g., D. J. Boyd, Grossman,
Lankford, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2006, 2009; Cleveland, 2003;
Donaldson & Johnson, 2010; Gimbert, Cristol, & Sene,
2007; Glazerman, Mayer, & Decker, 2006; Kane, Rockoff,
& Staiger, 2008; MacIver & Vaughn, 2007; Papay, West,
Fullerton, & Kane, 2012; Suell & Piotrowski, 2006;
Downloaded from jte.sagepub.com at Mofet Institute on May 3, 2015
15
Cochran-Smith and Villegas
Xu, Hannaway, & Taylor, 2011) framed the research problem in terms of determining the nature, cost, and effect of
new routes into teaching intended to address teacher shortages and equalize the distribution of teacher quality. Other
studies (e.g., Cohen-Vogel & Smith, 2007; DarlingHammond, Chung, & Frelow, 2002; Darling-Hammond,
Holtzman, Gatlin, & Heilig, 2005; Evans, 2010;
Friedrichsen et al., 2009; Konold et al., 2008) framed the
problem in terms of the outcomes and consequences of
“traditional” versus “alternative” entry pathways and certification credentials, which reflects larger debates about
professionalization and deregulation (Cochran-Smith &
Fries, 2001; Cochran-Smith & Zeichner, 2005; Zeichner,
2003) and larger questions about whether preparation adds
value to teacher effectiveness (Ballou & Podgursky, 2000;
Darling-Hammond, 2000). This latter construction of the
problem emerged from early critiques of alternative certification policies and concerns about growing differences
in the nature of teachers’ preparation prior to full teaching
responsibility (Darling-Hammond et al., 2005).
Research Questions, Designs, and Researcher
Positionality: Research Program A, Cluster 1
We identified three major lines of research in this cluster,
differentiated primarily by the questions pursued. By far, the
largest group of studies asked, What are the effects of certification and/or alternative pathways, programs, routes and
certification? Although it is widely acknowledged that there
are enormous differences among “alternative” and “traditional” preparation programs and pathways (Committee on
the Study of Teacher Preparation in the United States, 2010;
Humphrey & Wechsler, 2007; Zeichner & Conklin, 2005),
most of these studies examined the effects of alternative
pathways and certification statuses or the effects of particular
alternative programs by comparing these with other pathways and statuses or by comparing alternatively certified
teachers with teachers with regular or other certifications.
Many of these studies constructed students’ achievement as
the primary outcome (e.g., Boyd et al., 2012; Clotfelter,
Ladd, & Vigdor, 2010; Darling-Hammond et al., 2005; Dee
& Cohodes, 2008; Glazerman et al., 2006; Kane, Rockoff, &
Staiger, 2008; Xu et al., 2011), although studies also considered distribution of teachers (e.g., Boyd et al., 2008; CohenVogel & Smith, 2007), teacher retention (e.g., MacIver &
Vaughn, 2007; Papay et al., 2012), diversification of the
teacher workforce (e.g., Papay et al., 2012), and teachers’
efficacy or sense of preparedness for teaching (e.g., DarlingHammond et al., 2002; Zientek, 2007).
A second group of studies asked, What are the characteristics of alternative certification programs/pathways and
how do they operate in various regional and state contexts?
The intention of these studies was to examine the actual
workings of pathways by exploring their variations, characteristics, management in particular state or regional contexts,
the experiences of teachers who chose those routes, factors
that influenced career decisions, and other aspects of local or
regional practice or of state management and regulatory policies regarding alternative routes. Unlike the studies in the
first line, the studies in the second tended not to focus on
student achievement or other outcomes. Rather, they explored
the range and variation among alternative pathways (e.g.,
Humphrey & Wechsler, 2007), including the experiences of
teacher candidates (e.g., Carter & Keiler, 2009; Wilcox &
Samaras, 2009), their needs for support (e.g., Foote,
Brantlinger, Haydar, Smith, & Gonzalez, 2010; Unruh &
Holt, 2010), their reasons for staying in or leaving teaching
(e.g., Costigan, 2005; Ng & Peter, 2010), and the administrative structures (Boggess, 2010) and regulatory mechanisms
(e.g., Heinen & Scribner, 2007; Johnson, Birkeland, & Peske,
2005) involved at local or state levels.
Finally, a third, much smaller line of studies asked, What
are the effects of the features and structures of preparation
across programs and pathways? These studies examined the
effects of particular features and structures of preparation
across programs and pathways, which produced finer grainsized analyses than the studies in the first group. The studies
in this third line of research (e.g., Boyd et al., 2009;
Humphrey, Wechsler, & Hough, 2008; Kee, 2012) aimed to
identify salient features or ingredients of preparation rather
than pathways or routes conceptualized as blunt policy
levers.
Many of the researchers in this cluster are social scientists
in sociology, economics, testing and assessment, and public
policy, positioned as “outsiders” to the teacher education
community. Their research purposes and agendas differed
from those who conduct research from inside universitybased teacher education programs, as was the case in most
studies in Research Programs B and C (see Part 2). Many of
the studies above were published in social science journals,
particularly economics.
Most of the studies in Cluster A-1 were quantitative, with
some qualitative observational or interview data and case or
cross-case analyses used to analyze regional or local characteristics, consequences, structures, and organizational contexts of alternative certification. In the quantitative studies,
many used large-scale databases, as well as value-added
modeling or other forms of multiple regression analysis to
examine the relationship between pathways and student
achievement or other outcomes.
Two Examples: Research Program A, Cluster 1
To illustrate the individual studies in this research cluster and
the social practices in which researchers engaged, we offer
two examples. The first examined how changes in entry
requirements altered the teacher workforce and affected student achievement in the New York City (NYC) teacher labor
market (Boyd et al., 2006). The study, published in Education
Finance and Policy, was conducted by university-based
Downloaded from jte.sagepub.com at Mofet Institute on May 3, 2015
16
Journal of Teacher Education 66(1)
researchers in the fields of economics, public policy, and
education. Addressing the problem of increasing demand for
quality teachers, especially in low-performing schools, Boyd
and colleagues compared the achievement of NYC students
taught by teachers from university-recommended, Teach for
America (TFA), and the NYC Teaching Fellows (NYCTF)
programs as well as pathway impact on the teacher workforce. The researchers matched the achievement scores of
students in grades 3 to 8 with teacher data to examine the
relationship between student achievement and teacher pathways. They found that the students of teachers from university-recommended pathways achieved greater gains in
mathematics and English language arts than students of
teachers from pathways with reduced coursework prior to
teaching, although TFA teachers were initially more effective
and NCYTF teachers caught up quickly in middle-school
mathematics. However, they also found that differences were
small, and many disappeared over time. Overall, they concluded that variation in effectiveness was much greater
within than between pathways.
This study was ground-breaking in that it was one of the
first to caution against what the authors called “simple stories” about which pathway was best, which is one of the
ways this research had previously been characterized. In
contrast, Boyd and colleagues used multiple models to estimate the effects of the pathways while attempting to account
for differences in retention, experience, costs, and outcomes.
This group continued to examine NYC pathways data over
time, making refinements to these initial findings and conducting a number of other analyses of the features of pathways and programs correlated with student achievement and
other outcomes, including teacher retention.
The second example is Humphrey and Wechsler’s (2007)
national study of alternative certification programs, which
was published in Teachers College Record. In this study,
sponsored by the non-profit research and development organization, SRI International, the researchers analyzed seven
different alternative route programs, using interviews with
key personnel, entry and exit surveys, and structured observations of and interviews with teacher candidates. Humphrey
and Wechsler found that the characteristics of participants
across the alternative certification programs could not be
generalized. The researchers also examined teacher retention, knowledge for teaching, self-efficacy, and teachers’
reported growth as desired outcomes of preparation programs. They found that coursework influenced these outcomes, that university selectivity and teaching experience
were influential, and that mentoring made a limited contribution. Importantly, they also found that school context was the
major factor that influenced retention, efficacy, and candidates’ reported growth. Overall, they concluded that there
was enormous variation between and within the programs
themselves.
This study, which was extended the following year
(Humphrey et al., 2008), was trend-setting. Because the
differences among alternative certification programs were so
great, Humphrey and Wechsler argued that alternative routes
themselves were the wrong unit of analysis for studies about
alternative certification. Instead, they suggested that research
should focus on subgroups of individuals within programs
who had similar backgrounds and experiences in similar
school settings. They argued that this could help avoid the
inconsistent findings that permeate the literature on alternative programs and pathways.
Issues, Tensions, and Trends in Findings:
Research Program A, Cluster 1
We conclude this discussion of Research Program A, Cluster
1, which focuses on alternative certification and pathways,
with insights from our larger analysis. Our review confirmed
that many studies about alternative certification have moved
beyond the simple “horse race” (Cochran-Smith, 2005, p. 3)
approach that aimed to determine whether “the alternative”
or “the traditional” preparation/certification pathway was the
most effective. Few of the more recent studies we reviewed
aimed to draw global conclusions about the single best pathway into teaching, although some investigated whether particular models or alternative pathways/programs, such as the
urban teacher residency approach (e.g., Papay et al., 2012) or
TFA-type fast track models (e.g., Xu et al., 2011), were
effective as policy levers for improving teacher quality in
comparison with other sources of new teachers. Studies like
these are only one step away from the horse race, and, not
surprisingly, there are mixed results across them.
A strong second trend across these studies is recognition
that there is as much variation within as between “alternative” and “traditional” pathways. This trend of variation and
contingency was very strong across the studies. The studies
showed that the experiences and performances of teachers
who entered through different pathways depended on the
interaction of what teacher candidates brought with them, the
features of programs and pathways as experienced, and the
resources, leadership, and cultures of particular school
contexts.
A third trend across the studies is their use of more sophisticated and powerful conceptual categories, data sources, and
analytical techniques than earlier studies. Many of these
studies attempted to untangle the impact of pathway type
from the impact of other variables, including teacher, student, and school characteristics and teacher retention. Across
studies, we found evidence that policies that permit alternative pathways have the potential to alter the characteristics of
the entering teaching force within particular labor markets.
Finally, there were several limitations to this cluster of
studies. First, because they focused on preparation and pathways as policy issues, they generally did not provide information about how participants actually learned to teach—that is,
what they learned from early entry into classrooms, what
practices they took up, what knowledge they drew on, or how
Downloaded from jte.sagepub.com at Mofet Institute on May 3, 2015
17
Cochran-Smith and Villegas
their interpretive frameworks mediated their work. Assuming
that school context is a central factor influencing new teachers’ career decisions, efficacy, and growth (Donaldson &
Johnson, 2010; Humphrey & Wechsler, 2007), it is apparent
we need more research on the impact of particular mixes of
teachers’ characteristics, school contexts, and program features. Second, in this cluster of studies, student test scores
were the most important measure of effectiveness. With some
important exceptions, the studies collectively tended to reify
test scores as the decisive measure of teacher effectiveness
and program/pathway effectiveness, marginalizing other outcomes. Third, many of the studies in this cluster were couched
in larger discussions about the unequal distribution of quality
teachers to poor and minority schools with the intention of
creating greater access for children from poor and non-dominant groups. In another sense, however, many of the studies
worked from the assumption that school and teaching factors
were the major sources of educational inequality without
acknowledging that inequality is rooted in and sustained by
larger societal inequalities. Along these lines, some of the
studies (e.g., Glazerman, Mayer, & Decker, 2006; Xu et al.,
2011) were designed to examine whether alternative pathways depressed already low levels of achievement for certain
groups of students. Ultimately, research that examines alternative pathways in terms of whether they are good enough to
maintain or slightly increase existing low levels of achievement rather than whether they help break the cycle of low
achievement for certain groups of students may reinforce the
cycle of inadequate resources, low expectations, and poor
achievement.
Part 2 of this article, to be published in the next issue of
JTE, describes Research Programs B and C and analyzes one
cluster of studies within each. The article concludes with recommendations for the future of teacher preparation research
that cut across all three programs.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Note
1. These procedures are spelled out in detail in Cochran-Smith,
Villegas, Abrams, Chavez-Moreno, Mills & Stern, in press.
References
Allen, M. (2003). Eight questions on teacher preparation: What
does the research say? Denver, CO: Education Commission
of the States.
Apple, M. (2005). Educating the “right” way: Market, standards,
God, and inequality. New York, NY: Routledge.
Ballou, D., & Podgursky, M. (2000). Reforming teacher preparation and licensing: What is the evidence? Teachers College
Record, 102(1), 5-27. doi:10.1111/0161-4681.00046
Berliner, D. (2006). Our impoverished view of educational reform.
Teachers College Record, 108(6), 949-995. doi:10.1111/
j.1467-9620.2006.00682.x
Blinder, A. S. (2009). Education for the third industrial revolution.
In D. Goldhaber & J. Hannaway (Eds.), Creating a new teaching profession (pp. 3-13). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Boggess, L. (2010). Tailoring new urban teachers for character and
activism. American Educational Research Journal, 47(1), 6595. doi:10.3102/0002831209358116
Bourdieu, P. (1980). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1977)
Boyd, D. J., Grossman, P.L., Hammerness, K., Lankford, H.,
Loeb, S., McDonald, M., . . .Wyckoff, J. (2008). Surveying
the landscape of teacher education in New York City:
Constrained variation and the challenges of innovation.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(4), 319-343.
doi:10.3102/0162373708322737
Boyd, D. J., Grossman, P. L., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff,
J. (2006). How changes in entry requirements alter the teacher
workforce and affect student achievement. Education Finance
and Policy, 1(2), 176-216. doi:10.1162/edfp.2006.1.2.176
Boyd, D. J., Grossman, P. L., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff,
J. (2009). Teacher preparation and student achievement.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(4), 416-440.
doi:10.3102/0162373709353129
Boyd, H., Grossman, P., Hammerness, K., Lankford, H.,
Loeb, S., Ronfeldt, M., & Wyckoff, J. (2012). Recruiting
effective math teachers: Evidence from New York City.
American Educational Research Journal, 49(6), 1008-1047.
doi:10.3102/0002831211434579
Brabeck, M., & Koch, C. (2013, September 18). Why the new teacher
ed. standards matter. Education Week. Retrieved from http://
www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2013/09/18/04brabeck_ep.h33.html
Bransford, J., Derry, S., Berliner, D., & Hammerness, K. (2005).
Theories of learning and their role in teaching. In L. DarlingHammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a
changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do
(pp. 40-85). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Brown, A. L., & Campion, J. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of learners. In K. McGuilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons:
Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 229270). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Carter, J., & Keiler, L. (2009). Alternatively certified teachers in
urban small schools: Where policy reform meets the road. Urban
Review, 41(5), 437-460. doi:10.1007/s11256-008-0117-7
Carter, P., & Welner, K. (Eds.). (2012). Closing the opportunity
gap: What America must do to give every child an even chance.
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Cleveland, D. (2003). A semester in the life of alternatively certified teachers: Implications for alternative routes to teaching.
High School Journal, 86(3), 17-34. doi:10.1353/hsj.2003.0002
Clotfelter, C. T., Ladd, H. F., & Vigdor, J. L. (2010). Teacher credentials and student achievement in high school. Journal of
Human Resources, 45(3), 655-681. doi:10.1353/jhr.2010.0023
Cochran-Smith, M. (2005). Taking stock in 2005: Getting beyond
the horse race. The Journal of Teacher Education, 56(1), 3-7.
doi:10.1177/0022487104272881
Downloaded from jte.sagepub.com at Mofet Institute on May 3, 2015
18
Journal of Teacher Education 66(1)
Cochran-Smith, M., Barnatt, J., Lahann, R., Shakman, K., & Terrell,
D. (2009). Teacher education for social justice: Critiquing the
critiques. In W. Ayres, T. Quinn, & D. Stovall (Eds.). The
handbook of social justice in education (pp. 625-639). London,
England: Taylor & Francis.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Fries, K. (2001). Sticks, stones, and ideology: The discourse of reform in teacher education. Educational
Researcher, 30(8), 3-15. doi:10.3102/0013189X030008003
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1993). Inside/outside teacher
research and knowledge. New York, NY: Teachers College
Press.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (2009). Inquiry as stance:
Practitioner research for the next generation. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Cochran-Smith, M., Piazza, P., & Power, C. (2013). The politics
of accountability: Assessing teacher education in the United
States. The Educational Forum, 77(1), 6-27. doi:10.1080/001
31725.2013.739015
Cochran-Smith, M., Villegas, A. M., Abrams, L., Chavez Moreno,
L., Mills, T., & Stern, R. (in press). Research on teacher preparation: Charting the landscape of a sprawling field. In D.
Gitomer & C. Bell (Eds.). Handbook of research on teaching
(5th ed.). Washington, DC: American Educational Research
Association.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Zeichner, K. (Eds.). (2005). Studying teacher
education: The report of the AERA panel on research and
teacher education. Washington, DC: American Educational
Research Association.
Cohen-Vogel, L., & Smith, T. M. (2007). Qualifications and
assignments of alternatively certified teachers: Testing core
assumptions. American Educational Research Journal, 44(3),
732-753. doi:10.3012/0002831207306752
Committee on the Study of Teacher Preparation in the United
States. (2010). Preparing teachers: Building evidence for
sound policy. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
Costigan, A. T. (2005). Choosing to stay, choosing to leave: New
York City teaching fellows after two years. Teacher Education
Quarterly, 32(2), 125-142.
Crowe, E. (2011). Race to the top and teacher preparation:
Analyzing state strategies for fostering program innovation.
Washington, DC: Center for American Progress.
Cuban, L. (1993). How teachers taught: Constancy and change in
American classrooms 1890-1990. New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.
Cuban, L. (2004). Looking through the rearview mirror at school
accountability. In K. Sirotnik (Ed.), Holding accountability
accountable (pp. 18-34). New York, NY: Teachers College
Press.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Reforming teacher preparation and
licensing: Debating the evidence. Teachers College Record,
102(1), 28-56. doi:10.1111/0161-4681.00047
Darling-Hammond, L., Chung, R., & Frelow, F. (2002). Variation
in teacher preparation: How well do different pathways prepare
teachers to teach. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(4), 286302. doi:10.1177/0022487102053004002
Darling-Hammond, L., Holtzman, D. J., Gatlin, S. J., & Heilig, J.
V. (2005). Does teacher preparation matter? Evidence about
teacher certification, Teach for America, and teacher effectiveness. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13, 1-47.
Dee, T. S., & Cohodes, S. R. (2008). Out-of-field teachers and student achievement: Evidence from matchedpairs comparisons. Public Finance Review, 36(1), 7-32.
doi:10.1177/1091142106289330
Donaldson, M. L., & Johnson, S. M. (2010). The price of misassignment: The role of teaching assignments in Teach for America
teachers’ exit from low-income schools and the teaching profession. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 32(2),
299-323. doi:10.3102/0162373710367680
Economic Policy Institute. (2008). A broader, bolder approach to
education. Available from http://www.boldapproach.org
Education Equality Project. (2008). Available from http://www.
educationequalityproject.org
Evans, L. (2010). Professionals or technicians? Teacher preparation programs and occupational understandings. Teachers and
Teaching, 16(2), 183-205. doi:10.1080/13540600903478458
Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing
a continuum to strengthen and sustain teaching. Teachers
College Record, 103(6), 1013-1055.
Foote, M. Q., Brantlinger, A., Haydar, H. N., Smith, B., & Gonzalez,
L. (2010). Are we supporting teacher success: Insights from
an alternative route mathematics teacher certification program
for urban public schools. Education and Urban Society, 43(3),
396-425. doi:10.1177/0013124510380420
Friedrichsen, P. J., Abell, S. K., Pareja, E. M., Brown, P. L.,
Lankford, D. M., & Volkmann, M. J. (2009). Does teaching
experience matter? Examining biology teachers’ prior knowledge for teaching in an alternative certification program.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(4), 357-383.
doi:10.1002/tea.20283
Furlong, J., Cochran-Smith, M., & Brennan, M. (Eds.). (2009).
Policy and politics in teacher education: International perspectives. London, England: Routledge.
Gage, N. L. (Ed.). (1963). The handbook of research on teaching
(1st ed.). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
Gimbert, B. G., Cristol, D., & Sene, A. M. (2007). The impact of
teacher preparation on student achievement in algebra in a
“hard-to-staff” urban PreK-12-university partnership. School
Effectiveness and School Improvement, 18(3), 245-272.
doi:10.1080/09243450601147528
Gitomer, D., & Bell, C. (Eds.). (in press). Handbook of research
on teaching. Washington, DC: American Educational Research
Association.
Glazerman, S., Mayer, D., & Decker, P. (2006). Alternative routes
to teaching: The impacts of Teach for America on student
achievement and other outcomes. Journal of Policy Analysis
and Management, 25(1), 75-96. doi:10.1002/pam.20157
Harvey, W. B., & Anderson, E. L. (2007). Minorities in higher education 2003-2004: Twenty-first annual status report (2005).
Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
Heath, S. B. (1999). Ways with words: Language, life, and work
in communities and classrooms. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press. (Original work published 1983)
Heilbron, J. (2011). Practical foundations of theorizing in sociology: The case of Pierre Bourdieu. In C. Camic, N. Gross, & M.
Lamont (Eds.) Social knowledge in the making (pp. 181-213).
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Heinen, E. B., & Scribner, J. P. (2007). Bureaucratic discretion
and alternative teacher certification: Understanding program
Downloaded from jte.sagepub.com at Mofet Institute on May 3, 2015
19
Cochran-Smith and Villegas
variation in Missouri. Education Policy Analysis Archives,
15(13), 1-21.
Herndl, C., & Nahrwold, C. (2000). Research as social practice: A case study of research on technical and professional
communication. Written Communication, 17(2), 258-296.
doi:10.1177/0741088300017002004
Humphrey, D. C., & Wechsler, M. (2007). Insights into alternative
certification: Initial findings from a national study. Teachers
College Record, 109(3), 483-530.
Humphrey, D. C., Wechsler, M. E., & Hough, H. J. (2008).
Characteristics of effective alternative teacher certification
programs. Teachers College Record, 110(1), 1-63.
Hursh, D. W. (2007). Assessing No Child Left Behind and the
rise of neoliberal education. American Educational Research
Journal, 44(3), 493-518. doi:10.3102/0002831207306764
Johnson, S. M., Birkeland, S. E., & Peske, H. G. (2005). Life in the
fast track: How states seek to balance incentives and quality in
alternative teacher certification programs. Educational Policy,
19(1), 63-89. doi:10.1177/0895904804270774
Kane, T. J., Rockoff, J. E., & Staiger, D. O. (2008). What does
certification tell us about teacher effectiveness? Evidence from
New York City. Economics of Education Review, 27(6), 615631. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2007.05.005
Kee, A. N. (2012). Feelings of preparedness among alternatively certified teachers: What is the role of program
features? Journal of Teacher Education, 63(1), 23-38.
doi:10.1177/0022487111421933
Kennedy, M. (1996). Research genres in teacher education. In F.
Murray (Ed.), The teacher educator’s handbook: Building a
knowledge base for the preparation of teachers (pp. 120-154).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
KewalRamani, A. N., Gilbertson, I., Fox, M. A., & Provasnick, S.
(2007). Status and trends in the education of racial and ethnic minorities (NCES 2007-039). Washington, DC: National
Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences,
U.S. Department of Education.
Konold, T., Jablonski, B., Nottingham, A., Kessler, L., Byrd, S.,
Imig, S., . . .McNergney, R. (2008). Adding value to public
schools: Investigating teacher education, teaching, and pupil
learning. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(4), 300-312.
doi:10.1177/0022487108321378
Kumashiro, K. K. (2010). Seeing the bigger picture: Troubling
movements to end teacher education. Journal of Teacher
Education, 61(1-2), 56-65. doi:10.1177/0022487109347318
Lampert, M., & Ball, D. L. (1999). Aligning teacher education with
contemporary K-12 reforms. In L. Darling-Hammond & G.
Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook
of policy and practice (pp. 33-53). San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.
Lanier, J., & Little, J. (1986). Research on teacher education. In M.
Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp.
527-569). Washington, DC: American Educational Research
Association.
Lather, P. (1999). To be of use: The work of reviewing. Review of
Educational Research, 69(1), 2-7.
Lazarin, M. (2006). Improving assessment and accountability for
English language learners in the No Child Left Behind Act (Issue
Brief No. 16). Washington, DC: National Council of La Raza.
Lucas, T., & Grinberg, J. (2008). Responding to the linguistic reality of mainstream classroom: Preparing all teachers to teach
English language learners. In M. Cochran-Smith, S. FeimanNemser, & D. J. McIntyre (Eds.), Handbook of research on
teacher education (pp. 606-636), New York: Routledge.
Luke, A. (2004). Teaching after the market: From commodity to
cosmopolitan. Teachers College Record, 106(7), 1422-1443.
MacIver, M. A., & Vaughn, E. S., III. (2007). “But how long will
they stay?” Alternative certification and new teacher retention
in an urban district. ERS Spectrum, 25(2), 33-44.
Mannheim, K. (1949). An ideology and utopia: An introduction to
the sociology of knowledge. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace.
(Original work published 1936)
McKinsey & Company. (2007). How the world’s best performing
school systems come out on top. Retrieved from http://mckinseyonsociety.com/downloads/reports/Education/Worlds_
School_Systems_Final.pdf
Mehta, J. (2013). How paradigms create politics: The transformation of American educational policy, 1980-2001.
American Educational Research Journal, 50(2), 285-324.
doi:10.3102/0002831212471417
National Center for Education Statistics. (2010). Digest for education statistics, 2010 tables and figures (Table 4. Number
of teachers in elementary and secondary schools, and instructional staff in postsecondary degree-granting institutions, by
control of institution: Selected year, fall 1970 through fall
2019). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation
at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington,
DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Ng, J., & Peter, L. (2010). Should I stay or should I go? Choices of
alternatively licensed teachers in urban schools. Urban Review,
42, 123-142.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD). (2005). Teachers matter: Attracting, developing and
retaining effective teachers. Paris, France: Author.
Papay, J., West, M., Fullerton, J., & Kane, T. (2012). Does an
Urban Teacher Residency increase student achievement? Early
evidence from Boston. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 34, 413-434. doi:10.3102/0162373712454328
Peck, R., & Tucker, J. (1973). Research on teacher education. In R.
Travers (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (2nd ed., pp.
940-978). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
Pugach, M. C., & Blanton, L. P. (2009). A framework for
conducting research on collaborative teacher education.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 575-582. doi:10.1016/j.
tate.2009.02.007
Resnick, L. (1987). Education and learning to think. Washington,
DC: The National Academies Press.
Richardson, V. (Ed.). (2001). Handbook of research on teacher
education (4th ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Richardson, V., & Placier, P. (2001). Teacher change. In V.
Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th
ed., pp. 905-947). Washington, DC: American Educational
Research Association.
Sawyer, R. K. (2006). Introduction: The new science of learning. In
R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning
science (pp. 1-16). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Downloaded from jte.sagepub.com at Mofet Institute on May 3, 2015
20
Journal of Teacher Education 66(1)
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Paradigms and research programs in the
study of teaching: A contemporary perspective. In M. C.
Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp.
3-36). New York, NY: Macmillan.
Sleeter, C. E. (2009). Teacher education, neoliberalism, and social
justice. In W. Ayers, T. Quinn, & D. Stovall (Eds.), The handbook of social justice in education (pp. 611-624). Philadelphia,
PA: Taylor & Francis. doi:10.1080/01626620.2009.10463506
Spring, J. (2011). The politics of American education. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Suell, J. L., & Piotrowski, C. (2006). Efficacy of alternative certification programs: A study of the Florida model. Education,
127(2), 310-315.
Swanson, C. B. (2007). Who graduates? Who doesn’t? A statistical portrait of public high school graduation, class of 2005.
Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1990). Rousing minds to life:
Teaching, learning, and schooling in social contexts. New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Torres, C. (2009). Globalizations and education: Collected essays
on class, race, gender, and the state. New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.
Travers, R. M. W. (1973). Second handbook of research on teaching. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
Unruh, L., & Holt, J. (2010). First-year teaching experiences: Are
they different for traditionally versus alternatively certified
teachers? Action in Teacher Education, 32(3), 3-14.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2011). The research supplemental poverty
measure: 2010. Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. Department of Education. (2013). 9th annual report to congress on teacher quality. Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Education.
Wilcox, D. R., & Samaras, A. P. (2009). Examining our career
switching teachers’ first year of teaching: Implications for alternative teacher education program design. Teacher Education
Quarterly, 36(4), 173-191.
Wilson, S., Floden, R., & Ferrini-Mundy, J. (Eds.). (2001). Teacher
preparation research: Current knowledge, gaps, and recommendations. Washington, DC: Center for the Study of Teaching
and Policy.
Wittrock, M. (Ed.). (1986). Handbook of research on teaching (3rd
ed.). New York. NY: Macmillan.
World Bank. (2010). Teacher politics around the world: Objectives,
rationale, methodological approach and products. Retrieved from
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EDUCATION/Resources/
Vegasetal__Teacherpoliciesaroundtheworld.draft.pdf
Xu, Z., Hannaway, J., & Taylor, C. (2011). Making a difference?
The effects of Teach For America in high school. Journal of
Policy Analysis and Management, 30(3), 447-469. doi:10.1002/
pam.20585
Zeichner, K. (2003). The adequacies and inadequacies of three current strategies to recruit, prepare, and retain the best teachers
for all students. Teachers College Record, 105(3), 490-515.
Zeichner, K. (2010). Competition, economic rationalization,
increased surveillance, and attacks on diversity: Neoliberalism and the transformation of teacher education in
the U.S. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 1544-1552.
doi:10.1016/j.tate.2010.06.004
Zeichner, K., & Conklin, H. (2005). Research on teacher education programs. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. Zeichner (Eds.),
Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on
research and teacher education (pp. 645-736). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Zeichner, K., & Schulte, A. (2001). What we know and don’t know
from peer-reviewed research about alternative teacher certification programs. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(4), 266282. doi:10.1177/0022487101052004002
Zientek, L. R. (2007). Preparing high-quality teachers: Views from
the classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 44(4),
959-1001. doi:10.3102/000283120 7308223
Zumwalt, K. (1996). Simple answers: Alternative teacher certification. Educational Researcher, 25(8), 40-42.
Author Biographies
Marilyn Cochran-Smith is Cawthorne Professor of Teacher
Education and the Director of the Doctoral Program in Curriculum
and Instruction at Boston College’s Lynch School of Education.
She is a member of the National Academy of Education and a former president of the American Educational Research Association.
She has published nine books and more than 175 articles, chapters,
and editorials on teacher education research, practice, and policy
and practitioner inquiry.
Ana Maria Villegas is Professor of education and Director of the
Doctoral Program in Teacher Education and Teacher Development
at Montclair State University. She has published widely on topics
related to preparing culturally and linguistically responsive teachers
as well as recruiting and preparing a diverse teaching force. Over
the years, she has received awards for her scholarship from the
American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, American
Educational Research Association, and Educational Testing
Service.
Downloaded from jte.sagepub.com at Mofet Institute on May 3, 2015