Journal of Teacher Education2015, Vol. 66(4) 301 303 2015 American Association ofColleges for Teacher EducationReprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/0022487115596828jte.sagepub.com

Editorial

The theme of this issue of Journal of Teacher Education (JTE) focuses on theory, people, processes, and outcomes related to teacher learning in school-based settings. Teacher educators and researchers agree that externally driven, isolated work-shops and conferences have produced little impact on inser-vice teacher learning and change (Gallimore, Erneling, Saunders, & Goldenberg, 2009; Hawley & Valli, 1999). In contrast, when professional development is school-based and embedded in the daily work of teachers, learning is more likely to occur (Desimone, 2009; Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001). Similarly, teacher education rooted solely in university coursework has had minimal impact on preservice teacher (PST) learning. School-based approaches have been extended to PST learning with an increased focus on field experiences as a valuable element of PST education (American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education [AACTE], 2010). However, more research is needed to under-stand how multiple variables work together in these settings to affect teacher learning (Opfer & Pedder, 2011). Of particular interest is the role of the school workplace in both inservice and PST learning and the interplay between the two.

The call for manuscripts for this issue recognized that much of what teachers learn about teaching and learning occurs in school-based contexts and that opportunities for teacher learn-ing occur along the professional continuum, from preservice field experiences to a multitude of opportunities for inservice teachers to engage in job-embedded learning. In addition, school-based teacher education is supported by various types of teacher educators, including mentors, university supervi-sors, peers, instructional coaches, administrators, district-level supervisors, university faculty, and other professional devel-opment providers. The articles published in this issue focus on what teachers and PSTs learn in school-based settings; theo-ries, concepts, frameworks, approaches, and models that are powerful in explaining and guiding teacher learning in school contexts; and how school-based teacher educators work together to affect their own and others learning.

Highlights of the Theme Issue

The first two articles address the relationship between PST learning in field schools and learning in subsequent

school settings as beginning teachers, but from very different perspectives. Both consider the context of the use of value-added to student achievement measures (VAM) to determine effectiveness of teacher preparation programs (TPPs). JTE has published theme issues and articles related to the use of value-added models to determine the effectiveness of TPPs (Volume 63:5), with mixed reactions. Although researchers provide some support for the potential of the approach to provide feedback to policymakers and educators on the achievement of students taught by teachers in different TPPs (Gansle, Noell, & Burns, 2012; Plecki, Elfers, & Nakamura (2012), the potential of using VAM for teacher preparation is diminished by the complexity and limitations of the approach (see Floden, 2012; Goldhaber & Cowan, 2014; Henry, Kershaw, Zulli, & Smith, 2012; Lincove, Osborne, Dillon, & Mills, 2014). Ronfeldt and Strom provide additional perspectives on the topic in this issue.

Matthew Ronfeldt, author of Field Placement Schools and Instructional Effectiveness, investigates whether and how schools serve as organizations for teacher learning. More specifically, he examines the relationship between teachers inservice instructional performance measured by VAM and characteristics of field placement schools where they did their student teaching. Do teachers who were interns in schools characterized by greater collaboration, effectiveness in rais-ing student achievement, and less school turnover perform better in their initial positions? His findings indicated that math teachers who had previously learned to teach in field placements with better achievement and more collaboration were better at raising students math achievement. However, there was little evidence that teachers performed better when they were prepared in schools that matched the hiring school on the three characteristics. Other characteristics, including level and proportion of low-income students, predicted per-formance when matched. Surprisingly, he also found that lower performing, harder-to-staff, and less collaborative schools were more likely to be used as field placements.

596828 JTEXXX10.1177/0022487115596828Journal of Teacher EducationKnight et al.research-article2015

1Pennsylvania State University, University Park, USA

Corresponding Author:Stephanie L. Knight, Pennsylvania State University, 278 Chambers Building, University Park, PA 16802, USA. Email: slk44@psu.edu

School-Based Teacher Learning

Stephanie L. Knight1, Gwendolyn M. Lloyd1, Fran Arbaugh1, David Gamson1, Scott P. McDonald1, James Nolan Jr.1, and Anne Elrod Whitney1

by guest on September 3, 2015jte.sagepub.comDownloaded from

302 Journal of Teacher Education 66(4)

In contrast to the Ronfeldt article, Kathryn Strom, author of Teaching as Assemblage: Negotiating Learning and Practice in the First Year of Teaching, presents a framework that counters the linear/transactional conception of teaching underlying reforms that use VAM as a measure of account-ability. She presents rhizomatics, a theoretical lens that emphasizes the interrelationship of multiple interacting vari-ables in a given situation such as teaching and uses the tool of assemblage as a means of theorizing about the non-lin-ear connections between preservice learning and first-year classroom practice. Strom presents a case study examining how a science teacher negotiates his preservice learning within the first-year teaching environment as he constructs his practice. She finds that an assemblage of teacher beliefs, classroom environment, and the school context collectively work to shape teaching practice and that preservice prepara-tion is only one element of the assemblage. Because no direct linear relationship between preservice preparation and first-year teaching practice exists, linking preparation program to outcomes is vague at best.

The third theme article, Unraveling the Complexity of Student Teacher Learning in and From the Workplace by Leeferink, Koopman, Beijaard, and Ketelaar, focuses on how student teachers practical experiences in the workplace are transformed into learning experiences. Similar to Strom, they view the connection between experiences and learning as a complex system. Using a narrative approach, they col-lected stories of student teacher learning through digital logs and in-depth interviews. They learned that many learning experiences took place in transition situations that differ from workplace situations (e.g., mentor feedback or reaction to student behaviors) and that interactions in these situations are an important element in learning from practical experi-ence. Student teachers also learned from prior experiences in other contexts but only rarely mentioned previous teacher education experiences. In addition, different kinds of work-place situations lead to different chains of activities and experiences that lead to different kinds of learning. Most learning experiences occurred outside the workplace as stu-dents moved back and forth between present and past experi-ences that resulted in learning. An exemplary feature of the study was the use of an independent researcher so that stu-dent teachers could speak freely and remain anonymous.

Although the first three articles highlighted student teacher learning in school-based settings, the next three articles focus on specific models or approaches to accomplish certain kinds of learning. The fourth and fifth articles are similar in that they use specific work-embedded approaches to teacher learning, and they consider the role of collaboration within the model. The fourth article, From Experience to Expertise: The Development of Teachers Learning in Lesson Study by Candice Bocala, studies how school-based learning in the form of lesson study (LS) contributes to both individual learn-ing and collective performance. Bocala considers LS to reflect the ideal of school-based professional learning because

it incorporates the five characteristics of effective profes-sional development: focus on content/pedagogy, active learn-ing, use of data, continuous and work-embedded, and collaborative. Using interviews and observations, she investi-gated how teams participated in LS and how teams with more or less experience differed. She found that members of novice teams focused primarily on the novelty of observing other teachers instruction and on what they were learning individu-ally. However, members in experienced teams focused on how demonstration teachers elicited and listened to evidence of student thinking. They were less occupied with the profes-sional learning routine and more willing to experiment with thinking. The findings suggest that to move from experience to expertise, teachers need deliberate practice with purposeful participation in the routine, extended time participating, and feedback on performance.

The next article, Problems Without Ceilings: How Mentors and Novices Frame and Work on Problems of Practice by Thompson, Hagenah, Lohwasser, and Laxton, uses observations, interviews, and Facebook postings in a design-based research approach conducted over 2 years. The researchers investigated cooperating teacher (CT) and PST dyads as they learned about reform-based practices in sci-ence and solved problems related to those practices. Several studies focusing on core practices (ambitious teaching) have been featured previously in JTE (see, for example, Forzani, 2014; Lampert et al., 2013; McDonald, Kazemi, & Kavanaugh, 2013). This study extends the previous work by looking at how the CTPST dyads orient toward implemen-tation of teaching practices, the tools and routines they develop, and how they shape the framing of problems of practice. Of particular interest is whether certain frames pro-vide PSTs the opportunity to appropriate ambitious teaching practices. Findings identified three orientations toward the practices exhibited by the dyads: developing novice teachers, improving teaching, and improving student learning. Based on the findings, the authors conclude that just having an accomplished mentor teacher is not enough for PSTs to become proficient in the practices. They propose three pro-cess measures that can be used to gauge the success of the dyad: (a) the quality of student discourse that the CTs and PSTs support, (b) the quality of their discussion about stu-dent ideas, and (c) the quality of newly created routines and tools.

In the final theme article, Teaching, Learning, and Leading: Preparing Teachers as Education Policy Actors, Heineke, Ryan, and Tocci describe a teacher education pro-gram to promote teachers active roles in education policy. They use a model typically reserved for the practice-based teacher education described in the Thompson et al. article and apply it to learning around education policy in field set-tings: replication of practice, decomposition of practice, and approximation of practice. They examine how PSTs under-stand the relationship between policy and practice and what structures facilitate understanding.

by guest on September 3, 2015jte.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Knight et al. 303

In addition to the six theme articles described above, this issue continues a discussion in the form of a commentary that is a response to a previous commentary. Gargani and Strong (2014) published a study in JTE in which they describe a classroom observation instrument designed specifically to predict teachers ability to raise student test scores. They pres-ent the results of seven validation studies that use the Measure of Effective Teaching project findings as benchmarks for com-parison. In a subsequent commentary, Rating Teachers Cheaper, Faster, and Better: Not So Fast, Tom Good and Alyson Lavigne provide a strong response to Gargani and Strongs claims that a six-item observation system that requires only 4 hr of observer training can be used to reliably and val-idly assess classroom instruction and improve practice. They point out problems with internal, face, content, predictive, external, and ecological validity in relation to the instrument. In addition, they criticize the study for its ahistorical stance and point to others who have done considerable work in relat-ing classroom observations to student outcomes. The com-mentary by Strong and Gargani in this issue, Response to Rating Teachers Cheaper, Faster, and Better: Not So Fast: Its About Evidence responds to each of the criticisms.

We hope that the articles in the School-Based Learning theme issue of Volume 66 stimulate your thinking about the specific topics discussed and provide ideas for future research. We invite you to participate in conversations about the implications of the findings of these studies for your own research and practice and for education policy. We look for-ward to receiving manuscripts from you in the future as well as your ideas directed toward improvement of the JTE.

References

American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education. (2010). 21st century knowledge and skills in educator preparation. Washington, DC: Author.

Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 191-199.

Floden, R. (2012). Teacher value-added as a measure of program quality: Interpret with caution. Journal of Teacher Education, 63(5), 356-360.

Forzani, F. (2014). Understanding core practices and practice-based teacher education: Learning from the past. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(4), 357-368.

Gallimore, R., Erneling, B., Saunders, W., & Goldenberg, C. (2009). Moving the learning of teaching closer to practice: Teacher edu-cation implications of school-based inquiry teams. Elementary School Journal, 109(5), 537-553. doi:10:1086/597001

Gansle, K., Noell, G., & Burns, J. (2012). Do student achieve-ment outcomes differ across teacher preparation programs? An analysis of teacher education in Louisiana. Journal of Teacher Education, 63(5), 304-317.

Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effec-tive? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915-945.

Gargani, J., & Strong, M. (2014). Can we identify a successful teacher better, faster, and cheaper? Evidence for innovating teacher observation systems. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(5), 389-401.

Goldhaber, D., & Cowan, J. (2014). Excavating the teacher pipe-line: Teacher preparation programs and teacher attrition. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(5), 449-462.

Hawley, W., & Valli, L. (1999). The essentials of effective pro-fessional development: A new consensus. In G. Sykes & L. Darling-Hammond (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profes-sion: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 127-150). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Henry, G., Kershaw, D., Zulli, R., & Smith, A. (2012). Incorporating teacher effectiveness into teacher preparation program evalua-tion. Journal of Teacher Education, 63(5), 335-355.

Lampert, M., Franke, M., Kazemi, E., Ghousseini, H., Turrou, A., Beasley, H., . . . Crowe, K. (2013). Keeping it com-plex: Using rehearsals to support novice teacher learning of ambitious teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(3), 226-243.

Lincove, J., Osborne, C., Dillon, A., & Mills, N. (2014). The poli-tics and statistics of value-added modeling for accountability of teacher preparation programs. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(1), 24-38.

McDonald, M., Kazemi, E., & Kavanaugh, S. (2013). Core prac-tices and pedagogies of teacher education: A call for a com-mon language and collective activity. Journal of Teacher Education, 64, 378-386.

Opfer, V., & Pedder, D. (20111). Conceptualizing teacher pro-fessional learning. Review of Educational Research, 81(3), 376-407.

Plecki, M., Elfers, A., & Nakamura, Y. (2012). Using evidence for teacher education program improvement and accountabil-ity: An illustrative case of the role of value-added measures. Journal of Teacher Education, 63(5), 318-334.

by guest on September 3, 2015jte.sagepub.comDownloaded from