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 P-

12 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-, university-

based-, 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 school-

based 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, ill-

defined, 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 “full-

blown 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, school-

and 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 mentor-

intern 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/wp-content/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_effectiveness.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: McGraw-

Hill.

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: Jossey-

Bass. 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: Jossey-

Bass.

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.v22n6.20 14

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), 878-

903.

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 (1-

2), 89-99.

29