Redefining a Secondary Education Program Through the Use of Service-Learning Field Experiences

Abstract

To expand the field component of our secondary education program, we added service-learning field experiences to three courses. This qualitative study (n = 99) was designed to determine what our students learned from participating in these experiences and to examine whether the experiences supported our programmatic goals. The findings demonstrate that students developed an increased awareness of diversity in the local schools and community, they acquired knowledge of strategies for engaging and communicating with parents, they developed a more nuanced understanding of learners, and they improved their foundation of effective pedagogy for English language learners.

Keywords

teacher education service learning English learners equity community

There is a renewed focus in the teacher education community on quality clinical experiences (American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education [AACTE], 2018; National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education [NCATE], 2010). Although teacher educators have long realized the value of field experiences in teacher preparation (LaMaster, 2001), there is new emphasis on making clinical practice central to the preparation of teachers (Hollins, 2015). In 2018, the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE) published the results of the AACTE Clinical Practice Commission whose goal was to “advance the operationalization of clinical practice by defining its key terms and criteria, lifting up exemplary models in the field, and making its benefits readily identifiable in both PK-12 and university-based contexts” (AACTE, 2018, p. 6). This report focused primarily on traditional clinical experiences within K-12 classrooms.

Recognizing the important link between theory and practice (Marchel & Green, 2014), our secondary education program decided to expand the field component of our program, which already included an extensive traditional practicum in a middle or high school as well as a full semester of student teaching. We recognized that we had options, including additional traditional field placements as well as community-based experiences. When considering adding further traditional field experiences, we identified some challenges: (a) capacity issues with additional placements in local schools, (b) questions about what new knowledge could be attained, and (c) costs of supporting an additional field placement. When we turned our attention to community-based experiences, we saw the potential for meeting additional learning goals while also addressing community needs.

After deliberation, which included attention to curriculum mapping, we opted to integrate service-learning field experiences into three existing courses with a focus on reciprocal experiences for students and the community (Furco, 2003). To qualify as a field experience, the service requires direct interaction with learners or families (Tinkler & Tinkler, 2013). We embedded a sequence of service-learning field experiences across three courses to support the academic objectives of each course and to provide experiences with specific populations of learners. Our goal, in line with “10 Design Principles” put forward by the Blue Ribbon Panel on Clinical Preparation (NCATE, 2010), was to integrate field or clinical components “throughout every facet of teacher education in a dynamic way” (p. 5). Our design thinking allowed us to ensure that the integration was deliberate across three courses: (a) introduction to education; (b) adolescent development and learning theory; and (c) content literacy.

In the introduction to education course completed by first-year students, preservice teachers worked with a local school district to conduct face-to-face surveys with parents at school events as their service-learning experience. Because the school district serves a growing population of English language learners (ELLs) who have relocated to the area through refugee resettlement, the district was seeking feedback from parents as to how to better meet the educational needs of their children. The preservice teachers were scheduled into slots so that there was coverage across the full parent conference period at the high school, and the preservice teachers surveyed parents who attended.

By involving our students in this project, the program sought to expand the preservice teachers’ understanding of the sociocultural context of schools and the strategies that schools might use to engage parents, particularly because to be culturally and linguistically responsive teachers they need to understand the important roles that families play (Murry & Herrera, 2008). This survey also modeled for our students how they should think about actively soliciting information from parents to advance their practice.

For the other two service-learning experiences, the program wanted preservice teachers to work directly with youth to advance youth-centric learning outcomes. We found placements with community centers that allowed preservice teachers to work one-on-one with learners in community-based academic support settings. In the adolescent development course, which is generally taken during the spring of their sophomore year, the service-learning field placement required preservice teachers to tutor, interact with, or mentor middle or high school students at a community center once a week for the full semester. The learning goal of the service experience was to augment preservice teachers’ understanding of adolescent development and learning theory. In other words, we used the high impact practice of service-learning to allow preservice teachers an opportunity to augment their learning through experiences with youth to more fully understand how adolescents learn.

The third service-learning field experience was aligned with the content literacy course, a required course in the secondary education program which is generally completed during the junior year. For this community-based clinical experience, preservice teachers provided tutoring support for high school–aged students at one of four different organizations that provide academic support for community youth. To ensure reliable delivery of program support, preservice teachers were slotted to work at a community center once a week at the same time every week for the full semester. The centers were selected because many of the youth who use their services are ELLs, allowing a goal of the experience to help preservice teachers understand the challenges and strengths of ELLs as they worked to attain literacy in English.

To determine whether these service-learning field experiences supported program goals and learning outcomes, we developed this qualitative study to contribute to understanding community-based practice experiences in teacher education. Two questions guide this study: (a) To what extent did the experience supplement or extend the content of each course? and (b) What did the preservice teachers learn from the service-learning experience?

Review of Literature

The renewed focus on clinical practice in teacher education has prompted many programs to think about expanding the field component of their preparation programs. While this expansion has focused primarily on traditional K-12 placements, it is valuable to consider the caution offered by a task force on field experiences convened by the Association of Teacher Educators (Guyton & Byrd, 2000) which states, “More field experiences are not the answer. Better planned and more deliberative field experiences based on program goals are more likely to influence teacher candidates in positive ways” (p. 14). To design field experiences that support program goals, teacher education programs may need to broaden their thinking about what constitutes appropriate sites for field placements (Hallman, 2012). A report, Reforming Teacher Preparation: The Critical Clinical Component (2010), put out by the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE) included four universities that had service-learning field experiences in their descriptions of clinical practice. All of this speaks to a robust remodeling of clinical practice in teacher preparation.

When designing clinical experience, one challenge is ensuring meaningful connections between teacher education course work and field experiences (NCATE, 2010; Zeichner, 2010). As quality service-learning necessitates that service experiences be closely aligned to course learning goals and that the course instructor incorporates ongoing and meaningful reflection on the experience, service-learning is well suited to making important connections between theory and practice (Griffith, 2005) by interweaving practice with content, and it allows for the modeling of effective pedagogy for preservice teachers (Hildenbrand & Schultz, 2015).

When considering placement opportunities, setting is important, particularly for those programs that struggle to find sufficient placements for preservice teachers to have experiences with diverse populations of students. As noted by Sleeter (2001), these experiences are integral in developing culturally responsive teachers. Research exploring the impact of service-learning on preservice teachers demonstrates important outcomes in relation to their preparation to work with diverse learners. These outcomes are both dispositional, such as increased awareness and self-efficacy (Coffey, 2011; Meaney et al., 2008; Tice & Nelson, 2013), and skill related, such as improved strategies for working with ELLs (He, 2015). From a dispositional standpoint, service-learning can help preservice teachers recognize their privilege (Lund & Lee, 2015) which can lead to a more critical stance in regard to systems of education (Borrero et al., 2012). Service-learning field experiences tend to support reciprocal learning, because, as Zeichner (2010) pointed out, “academic and practitioner knowledge and knowledge that exists in communities come together in new less hierarchical ways” (p. 89). This experience within the community can foster cultural humility (Lund & Lee, 2015) and improved skills for working with diverse families (Able et al., 2014).

By using service-learning field experiences, teacher education programs can target specific experiences (Barnes, 2016). Because many of these community-based clinical experiences require preservice teachers to interact with individuals, preservice teachers begin to understand the differences in learners and how to respond to these differences (Tinkler, Hannah, Tinkler, & Miller, 2015). Understanding the individuality of learners is even more significant as more states are moving toward the development of individualized learning plans for every secondary student (Solberg et al., 2014). As the students in our teacher education program are gaining licensure in a state that is working toward this goal, it is all the more crucial that our preservice teachers are able to evaluate and respond to the needs of individuals.

Method

This qualitative, exploratory study (Johnson & Christensen, 2010) was designed to determine what our students learned from participating in a service-learning field experience and to examine whether the experience supported our emerging programmatic goals. We administered a qualitative questionnaire with open-ended response items in each of the three courses that include a service-learning component. According to Johnson and Christensen (2010),

Questionnaires that include mostly open-ended items are called qualitative questionnaires. These questionnaires are often used for exploratory research, such as when the researcher wants to know how participants think or feel or experience a phenomenon or when the researcher wants to know why participants believe something happens. (p. 170)

The questionnaires were developed by the authors of this study and were different for each course. We used only open-ended items that were designed to address the primary research questions. Questions were brief and written in clear and concise language. The structure of the instruments was akin to a written interview with the questions being broad and open to interpretation, allowing each participant to share what they felt to be most applicable. In the questionnaire, we first asked what in general the students learned from the experience; this question was common for all courses. For each course, we then designed additional open-ended items specific to each course. In the first-year course, for example, we asked what students learned about schools’ efforts to connect to parents; in the adolescent development course, we asked what the students learned about developmental theory; and in the content literacy course, we asked what students learned about ELLs. This alignment between course goals and questions allowed us to examine whether the experience supported our intended outcomes.

The participants of this study reflect the student population of the department as a whole. Although there is some ethnic and racial diversity, the population is predominantly White (86%). There is some socioeconomic diversity with 22% of the student population eligible for Pell Grants, and 25% are first generation college students. Enrollment is heavily weighted toward female students (typically around 80%). We chose not to include demographic information in the questionnaire to protect the identity of participants. All of the students in the three courses (except for three students in the Introduction to Education course who were minors) were asked to participate. The second author (who was not an instructor for any of the courses) facilitated a consent process in the three courses and left the room as students completed the questionnaire so that students could be assured that we would not know who chose to participate.

In total, 99 students (out of a possible 117 participants) completed the questionnaire for an 84% response rate. We had 57 participants (out of 73 possible participants) from the first-year introduction to education course, we had 18 participants (out of 19) from the adolescent development and learning theory course, and we had 24 participants (out of 25) from the content literacy course.

The first and second authors used an open coding process (Benaquisto, 2008) to independently code the responses to each question. Using a process of constant comparison (Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2008) to explore areas of overlap and divergence, we developed 26 codes across all three data sets. We then worked to “group the codes into similar categories” (Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2008, p. 594) which solidified into eight themes. Finally, we used a process of axial coding (Charmaz, 2006) to identify broad themes that spanned across courses.

Results

Meeting Course Goals

The data provide evidence that we met the programmatic goals for each service-learning field experience to varying degrees with the depth of learning impacted by the duration and the intensity of the service-learning experience. As the service experiences in the adolescent development course and the content literacy course were more intensive (a weekly commitment for the entire semester), these students described more extensive learning gains. All of the participants (n = 18) in the adolescent development course described how the service-learning experience supported an understanding of different facets of development and learning theory. One participant wrote, “By allowing me to converse with these adolescents, I was able to identify aspects of developmental theory—especially in regards to where students were at in their identity development.” In addition, all of the participants (n = 24) in the content literacy course described learning gains aligned with the literacy development of ELLs. One participant wrote,

My service-learning experience showed me the importance of understanding the multiple facets of literacy. When you have knowledge of who the student is you can devise a plan on how to teach them utilizing some of the many strategies we’ve learned.

The service-learning project in the first-year course (n = 57) broadened some students’ understanding of the sociocultural context of schools and how parents interact with schools. There were 43 participants (75%) in the first-year course that described learning that related to how schools work to engage parents. One wrote, “I learned that schools are changing every day, making new policies. Schools need to get parents opinions on these policies.” Another stated, “Schools can successfully connect to parents and effectively gauge parent thoughts.” However, some of the students in the first-year course did not have the opportunity to interact with parents when working to administer the parent survey and thus their learning was limited. There were 23 participants (40%) in the first-year course that questioned whether the service experience extended or supported the content they learned in the course. However, nine of these 23 participants described learning gains related to parent involvement.

Across all three courses, 54 participants (55%) overtly described how the experience extended course content. One participant identified how the experience “allowed [her] to see some of the content we were learning about first-hand, the experience is a very good supporter to the content of this class.” Participants emphasized that these were “real life experiences” (13 respondents) that allowed them to apply the theory they learned about in class (32 respondents). One respondent wrote, “At my service-learning site, I was able to see the things we learned in class put into action. It made the in-class content more tangible and realistic. Nothing was hypothetical, it was real.” This recognition of the relevance of the experience is witnessed when examining the particular learning gains.

Examining Learning Gains

In addition to examining whether we met overall course goals, we sought to determine the specific learning gains in regard to these goals. All of the participants, except for one student in the first-year course, described learning gains. There were themes that emerged across the data set as well as themes that were specific to each course. These learning gains include (a) increased awareness of diversity in the local schools and community, (b) increased knowledge of strategies for engaging and communicating with parents, (c) a more nuanced understanding of learners, and (d) improved pedagogy for ELLs.

Increased awareness of diversity in the local schools and community

Across all three courses, increased awareness of the diversity in the local schools and community emerged as a theme. Forty-three of the respondents (43%) wrote comments that were coded as demonstrating this increased awareness with awareness primarily focused on the diversity created by refugee resettlement. Thirty respondents (30%) wrote comments that were coded as reflecting an increased awareness of the diversity in the local schools. A number of participants wrote about how the experience made them aware of the diversity in local schools. One participant wrote, “I learned that [the local] High School is very diverse.” Another wrote, “[the local high school] is an extremely diverse school and students have different needs.” Some participants recognized that the local schools are much more diverse than the schools they attended. One student wrote, “I was able to notice how diverse schools can be. I came from a very non-diverse school.” Another wrote, “I learned that [the local] High School is a lot more diverse than my high school was.” This point makes evident the importance of field experiences in diverse settings, and it also makes clear the importance of ensuring that outcomes align with program goals.

In addition to better understanding the diversity in the local schools, the preservice teachers also developed an increased awareness of the diversity in the community. One student wrote, “By doing this service-learning project I learned more about the [local] community.” Some of the students expressed surprise at the level of diversity in the community. One student wrote, “I learned that there was a very diverse community right in my backyard!” A more thorough understanding of the local context is important as research has pointed to the importance of understanding community context to be an effective teacher of diverse learners (Gimbert, 2010).

Through the service-learning experience, participants noted that they had the opportunity to learn about refugees who were ELLs and better understand their stories, backgrounds, and home lives. One participant wrote, “We had the opportunity to hear the stories of the students to understand their background.” Another stated, “It was really inspiring to hear about the journeys of many of the refugee students.” Some of the participants (seven respondents) described this as their first experience working with ELLs. One stated, “Working with English language learners for the first time was a great experience.” Participants noted that the experience allowed them to gain knowledge of other cultures and cultural differences. One participant wrote, “Working with ELL students at [the community center] helped me gain experience working with kids who are not all white, wealthy kids from a nice suburb.” Another stated, “I learned to be less judgmental about cultures I am not familiar with, which I think will help me be less surprised by people, traditions, etc., that I don’t know and be more culturally sensitive.” Research has pointed to the need to provide these kinds of experiences for preservice teachers so that they are better prepared for working with diverse learners in their future classrooms (Coffey, 2011).

Increased knowledge of strategies for engaging and communicating with parents

As noted earlier, 43 of the participants (75%) in the first-year course described increased knowledge of strategies schools use to engage parents. The respondents acknowledged the work that the school district was doing to connect with families (17 respondents, 29%) and to seek their input (15 respondents, 25%). One participant was intrigued with how schools approach parents, and they wrote about the importance of schools asking, “families for help when it comes to families’ opinions about their student’s learning.” Another participant, who framed engaging parents with a new personalized-learning plan initiative at the school, recognized that “Parental feedback is very important to the success of a new program.” Some participants acknowledged the challenges that the school district faces in seeking to involve parents even as the school, as one participant stated, “aim to reach all parents, no matter the difficulties.” Another wrote, “I was able to recognize and appreciate [the school district’s] efforts to make sure parents of all backgrounds were given the same attention. Ex. The use of translators and surveys in different languages.”

Through the interactions that participants in the first-year course had with parents, some of them (17 respondents, 29%) noted that they developed new skills for communicating with parents. One wrote, “I learned how to talk to parents.” Another stated, “I learned how to approach parents in a professional manner.” Some respondents also noted that they developed particular skills for communicating with parents from diverse backgrounds. One participant wrote, “I learned how to communicate with parents and guardians of many backgrounds.” Another stated, “I learned how to interact with a diverse group of parents whom I was unfamiliar with.” These responses make it clear that it is not enough to know that interacting with parents is important; it is also crucial to have an opportunity to develop and practice the skills and dispositions that are necessary to ensure engagement with parents or guardians.

A more nuanced understanding of learners

In the adolescent development course and the content literacy course, the preservice teachers had the opportunity to interact with learners one-on-one at community centers with robust academic support programs. One theme that emerged from the responses provided in these two courses was that the preservice teachers developed a more nuanced understanding of learners. There were 16 respondents (38%) who wrote comments that were coded as developing an understanding of the differences between learners. Part of understanding, of course, is observing, and one student wrote about how it was “very observable that adolescents learn and develop at different rates. Students had a variety of needs when it comes to learning and many had different maturity levels.” Because the experiences allowed participants to work one-on-one with youth, another participant wrote about how the “service-learning experience showed me that students really do learn in so many different ways, and what works for one student may not work for another.”

The more nuanced understanding of learners also accounted for participants understanding the importance of relationships. Twelve participants (29%) referenced the importance of building relationships to support student learning. One participant wrote, “I really benefited from this experience because it reinforced the necessity of building relationships with students.” As these comments make clear, the practice of engaging with different learners to develop strategies to work individually with youth augments the pedagogical awareness of the need for differentiation which confirms the aforementioned aspirations for additional clinical experiences.

When describing their interactions with learners, some of the preservice teachers (16 respondents, 38%) demonstrated a strengths-based perspective. One participant wrote, “I only helped one middle school student and he was insanely smart and extremely willing to learn. He was excited about his homework and loved getting answers correct. Very enthusiastic!” Another stated, “The kids that came to receive homework help were so motivated and eager to learn.” Even as participants acknowledged the capabilities of the students they worked with, some participants (13 respondents, 31%) noted concerns about the challenges of keeping learners engaged, particularly given the social needs of adolescents. One participant wrote, “I found that one of the biggest challenges was keeping the kids on track, they are easily distracted by social interactions. But, once the students were on track, they were all motivated and fun to work with.” This awareness, of course, allows participants to think about the assignments they will use as teachers to enhance motivation by engaging in thoughtful and strengths-based pedagogy.

Improved pedagogy for ELLs

In addition to better understanding learners in general, the participants in the adolescent development course and the content literacy course also gained specific knowledge of how to effectively teach ELLs. One student wrote, “I learned how to interact with a student whose first language may not be English, and also may not have been in America for the majority of their lives.” There were 25 participants (60%) in these two courses that wrote comments that were coded as having learned strategies for teaching ELLs. These strategies related to communication and differentiation. For example, one student wrote, “[I learned] how to break down certain aspects of the English language in order to help students understand better—learning how to explain abstract concepts or seemingly everyday words by giving relatable or concrete examples and synonyms they know.” Another wrote, “[I] learned how to focus and control my presentation of info (vocab choice, speed, volume, etc.).” The data provide evidence that the service-learning experiences align with principles of effective clinical preparation which focus on preparing “teachers who are expert in content and how to teach it and are also innovators, collaborators and problem solvers” (NCATE, 2010, p. 5).

Participants also illustrated an increased awareness of language acquisition. There were 21 respondents (50%) who wrote statements that were coded as reflecting knowledge of language acquisition. One participant wrote, “ELLs all progress at different rates. Some may be strong vocally but not able to read and write efficiently and vice versa.” Another stated, “It was interesting to see how quickly some picked up the language while others struggled. It was a sort of representation of how some students can master other subjects easily while others require additional help.” However, not only did participants gain new knowledge and skills, they also recognized the dispositional elements that are critical to becoming an effective teacher of ELLs. There were 26 participants (62%) who wrote statements that were coded as reflecting the affective skills a teacher needs to reach all learners. One participant wrote, “ELL students require a patient instructor that can dedicate time to helping them progress.”

Through interacting with ELLs, some of the participants (23 respondents, 55%) gained an understanding of the challenges that ELLs face in learning English. One participant wrote, “I learned that for many ELL students, if not at all, English is the primary reason they struggle in school, and not because of their capabilities and intelligence.” Another wrote, “I learned about the struggles an ELL student has when trying to learn English and still keeping up with their peers.” Some participants (nine, 21%) also recognized how these struggles could be exacerbated by teachers and schools. One wrote, “I [learned about] issues that face ELL students that are not routinely spoken of, that is, teachers using shorthand or cursive in responses.” Another stated, “You can’t expect students who are struggling in Freshman English to write a research paper in their 11th grade Biology class.” One thing that these participants were not aware of is the school’s policy of allowing parents and students to select out of ELL classes where students are provided additional supports. However, this points to the ongoing struggle for the school district to better support ELLs who are enrolled in mainstream classes.

Summary

The data show that the service-learning experiences, for the most part, met our programmatic goals. It is clear that the experience led to learning gains for most students, and the nature of these learning gains points to the potential of these kinds of experiences to meet programmatic goals, particularly goals around working with diverse learners and interacting with parents, that are not always addressed in traditional practica. By establishing community-based learning experiences aligned with course content, students developed insights and skills that will serve them well as they move into increasingly diverse school contexts.

The variability of impact of the service-learning experience in the Introduction to Education (first-year) course speaks to the need to be very intentional in developing service-learning projects. Although the parent survey project was designed to meet a community partner need, it is also important that the students who participate realize learning gains. In the next iteration of the course, the course instructors developed a project that led to greater reciprocity in that it met community needs while also supporting greater student involvement and impact.

Discussion

As teacher educators work to reframe teacher education around clinical practice, we posit that service-learning field placements should be an important component of this remodeling process. This study provides evidence that service-learning field experiences can provide valuable learning opportunities to supplement the array of clinical practica for programs wishing to advance programmatic remodeling by adding additional clinical experiences, including offerings in partnership with community partners. This study shows that by extending field placements beyond traditional K-12 settings, preservice teachers have the opportunity to develop important skills as well as augmenting their understanding of each individual’s growth and development.

This study also offers clarification about what learning outcomes result from robust service-learning experiences. This knowledge and understanding provides support for programs that are looking to add additional practice experiences. This is particularly importance because, as Zeichner (2010) noted, it is unlikely that traditional K-12 placements can support the same knowledge and understanding of the broader community that preservice teachers can gain through community-based service-learning field experiences. With the experiences in place, it is important to define and evaluate the learning outcomes and their alignment with program goals.

The learning outcomes indicated by this study, including greater awareness of community, affirm that there are learning gains through a community-based, service-learning experiences. While the study does not suggest that these gains are unique to community-based, service-learning experiences, the study does show that such learning experiences extend student learning in line with program goals.

This initial affirmation allows us to consider other areas of needed research. The program recognizes the need for a longitudinal study to identify how the use of service-learning pedagogy, as an integral part of their teacher preparation program, impacts their practice, as this nesting of practice would offer insights into whether or not the practice of service-learning pedagogy advances the use of the pedagogy at the secondary level. This future study could also examine whether the experience informs the practice of parent engagement, as this study showed an increased knowledge of strategies for engaging and communicating with parents, so it would be interesting to see whether this resonates through the induction experience.

Footnotes

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.

ORCID iD

Barri Tinkler

References

Able

Ghulamani

Mallous

Glazier

(2014). Service learning: A promising strategy for connecting future teachers to the lives of diverse children and their families. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 35(1), 6–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/10902017.2013.874383

American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. (2010). Reforming teacher preparation: The critical clinical component: AACTE Day on the Hill, 16–17 June 2010. http://aacte.org/research-policy/clinical-preparation/reforming-teacher-preparation-the-critical-clinical-component.html

American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. (2018). A pivot toward clinical practice, its lexicon, and the renewal of educator preparation [A Report of the AACTE Clinical Practice Commission]. https://aacte.org/clinical-practice-commission/

Tinkler, A., & Tinkler, B. (2013). Teaching across the community: Using service-learning field experiences to develop culturally and linguistically responsive teachers. In V. M. Jagla, J. A. Erickson, & A. S. Tinkler (Eds.), Transforming teacher education through service-learning (pp. 99–117). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Tinkler, B., Hannah, C., Tinkler, A. & Miller, E. (2015). The impact of a social justice service-learning field experience in a social foundations course. Critical Questions in Education, 6(1), 16–29

Barnes

M. E.

(2016). The student as teacher educator in service-learning. Journal of Experiential Education, 39(3), 238–253. http://doi/org/10.1177/1053825916643831

Benaquisto

(2008). Open coding. In Given

(Ed.), The Sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods (Vol. 2, pp. 582–583). SAGE.

Borrero

Conner

Mejia

(2012). Promoting social justice through service-learning in urban teacher education: The role of student voice. Partnerships: A Journal of Service-learning and Civic Engagement, 3(1), 1–24.

Charmaz

(2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. SAGE.

10.

Coffey

(2011). Promising partnerships: Developing cultural competence with pre-service teachers through community service-learning experiences. Partnerships: A Journal of Service-learning & Civic Engagement, 2(2), 1–18.

11.

Furco

(2003). Service learning: A balanced approach to experiential education. In Introduction to service-learning toolkit (pp. 11–14). Providence, RI: Campus Compact.

12.

Gimbert

(2010). Partnerships, community engagement, and teacher education: Preparing the community teacher. Teacher Education & Practice, 23(3), 355–358.

13.

Griffith

(2005). Service learning: Packing parachutes for the jump into education. Teacher Education & Practice, 18(3), 282–296.

14.

Guyton

Byrd

(Eds.) (2000). Standards for field experiences in teacher education. Association of Teacher Educators.

15.

Hallman

H. L.

(2012). Community-based field experiences in teacher education: Possibilities for a pedagogical third space. Teaching Education, 23(3), 241–263. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2011.641528

16.

(2015). Learning in the community: ESL teacher preparation beyond university classrooms. International Journal of Research on Service-learning in Teacher Education, 3, 1–11.

17.

Hildenbrand

S. M.

Schultz

S. M.

(2015). Implementing service learning in pre-service teacher coursework. Journal of Experiential Education, 38(3), 262–279. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053825915571748

18.

Hollins

E. R.

(Ed.). (2015). Rethinking field experiences in preservice teacher preparation: Meeting new challenges for accountability. Routledge.

19.

Johnson

R. B.

Christensen

L. B.

(2010). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (4th ed.). SAGE.

20.

LaMaster

K. J.

(2001). Enhancing preservice teachers field experiences through the addition of a service-learning component. Journal of Experiential Education, 24(1), 27–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/10538259102400107

21.

Leech

N. L.

Onwuegbuzie

A. J.

(2008). Qualitative data analysis: A compendium of techniques and a framework for selection for school psychology research and beyond. School Psychology Quarterly, 23(4), 587–604. https://doi.org/10.1037/1045-3830.23.4.587

22.

Lund

Lee

(2015). Fostering cultural humility among pre-service teachers: Connecting with children and youth of immigrant families through service-learning. Canadian Journal of Education/Revue canadienne de l’éducation, 38(2), 1–30.

23.

Marchel

C. A.

Green

S. K.

(2014). Fostering knowledge and skills to teach for diversity: “There is nothing so practical as a good theory.” Teacher Education & Practice, 27(1), 118–137.

24.

Meaney

K. S.

Bohler

H. R.

Kopf

Hernandez

Scott

L. S.

(2008). Service-learning and pre-service educators’ cultural competence for teaching: An exploratory study. Journal of Experiential Education, 31(2), 189–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/105382590803100206

25.

Murry

K. G.

Herrera

S. G.

(2008). Reaching culturally and linguistically diverse families through differentiated teacher education and practices. Teacher Education & Practice, 21(2), 201–214.

26.

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2010). Transforming teacher education through clinical practice: Report of the blue ribbon panel on clinical preparation and partnerships for improved student learning.

27.

Sleeter

C. E.

(2001). Preparing teachers for culturally diverse schools: Research and the overwhelming presence of whiteness. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(2), 94–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487101052002002

28.

Solberg

V. S.

Wills

Redmon

Skaff

(2014). Use of individualized learning plans: A promising practice for driving college and career efforts. National Collaborative on Workforce and Disability for Youth.

29.

Tice

Nelson

(2013). Toward understanding effective community field experiences. In Jagla

V. M.

Erickson

J. A.

Tinkler

A. S.

(Eds.), Transforming teacher education through service-learning (pp. 73–98). Information Age.

30.

Zeichner

K. M.

(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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487109347671