How Methods Instructors and Program Administrators Promote Teacher Education Program Coherence

Abstract

Although a growing body of scholarship points to the importance of teacher education program coherence, few studies focus on the ways in which teacher education program directors, field placement coordinators, and methods course instructors foster program coherence. This mixed-methods study draws on interview data from four teacher education program directors, seven field placement coordinators, and 25 elementary mathematics and English language arts methods course instructors at four large, public research universities, as well as survey data from 305 elementary teaching candidates at those universities. Using a coherence framework, we analyze differences across programs in the degree to which teaching candidates perceived their programs as having clear visions and high levels of program coherence. We also describe ways in which program directors, field placement coordinators, and methods instructors described and promoted shared visions across courses and between courses and field experiences. Implications for teacher education programs and research are discussed.

Keywords

elementary teacher education mixed methods preservice teacher education

A growing body of scholarship has argued for the importance of teacher education program coherence (Darling-Hammond, 2006; Grossman et al., 2008; Hammerness & Klette, 2015). Scholars contend that preparation programs should have a clear vision of teaching and learning that is reflected within and across courses; between courses and student teaching experiences; and across course instructors, program administrators, university supervisors, and cooperating teachers. Studies have shown that high levels of teacher preparation program coherence are associated with teaching candidates having greater opportunities to learn to teach, stronger effects on candidates’ instructional practices, and candidates being more likely to remain in teaching over time (Feiman-Nemser et al., 2014; Hammerness, 2014; Kennedy, 1998). In addition, research indicates that certain characteristics of student teaching placements seem related to teaching candidates’ perceptions of program coherence (Grossman et al., 2008).

At the same time, there has been less research on ways in which teacher education program directors, field placement coordinators, and methods course instructors can foster program coherence. These individuals may play key roles in establishing clear visions of teaching and learning and working to reinforce them within, across, and among courses, student teaching, and other field experiences. Specifically, they can promote both conceptual coherence and structural coherence (Feiman-Nemser et al., 2014; Grossman et al., 2008; Hammerness & Klette, 2015; Kennedy, 1998). Here, conceptual coherence includes shared views of teaching and learning being emphasized across courses. For example, this includes methods courses in literacy, mathematics, science, and history/social studies for candidates in the same program that all focus on teaching practices that promote students’ conceptual understanding of disciplinary content.

Structural coherence, however, is fostered when the instructional approaches highlighted in methods courses are reinforced by cooperating teachers in field placements or through the criteria used to evaluate teaching candidates in such placement. For example, this includes emphasizing similar approaches to classroom management in courses, field experiences, and the ways in which candidates are assessed during student teaching. Alternatively, program directors and methods instructors can weaken coherence by failing to emphasize a shared vision of teaching and learning in methods courses or neglecting to connect their work in individual courses with candidates’ experiences in other courses or field experiences. This can occur, for example, when methods course instructors do not align their teaching with approaches taken by content course instructors, instructional supervisors, or cooperating teachers.

In sum, there is a need for more research that considers how key personnel within teacher preparation programs can shape these important measures of coherence. This study addresses this gap in the literature by using interview data from four teacher education program directors, seven field placement coordinators, and 25 elementary mathematics and English language arts (ELA) methods course instructors at four universities, along with survey data from 305 elementary teaching candidates at the four universities. Data were collected in 2015–2016 when the candidates were in their final year of preparation. Drawing on survey data, we found significant differences across programs in the degree to which candidates perceived that their programs had clear visions and high levels of program coherence. Using interview data, we documented ways in which methods instructors and program administrators described promoting shared visions related to their program goals. We also drew on interview data to document ways that program directors, field placement coordinators, and methods instructors worked to support such shared visions across courses, between courses and field experiences, and through the criteria used to assess student teachers.

Vision and Coherence in Teacher Preparation

Researchers contend that strong teacher education programs are characterized by a clear vision of teaching and learning with efforts to reinforce that vision within and across courses; between courses and field experiences; and among course instructors, program administrators, cooperating teachers, and instructional supervisors (Darling-Hammond, 2006; Feiman-Nemser, 2001; Grossman et al., 2008; Hammerness & Klette, 2015; Kennedy, 2006). Examples of visions of teaching and learning include those that emphasize content-specific pedagogy and teaching in particular contexts (Feiman-Nemser et al., 2014).

Vision in Teacher Education

There is a small body of work documenting teaching candidates’ perceptions of such visions or the consequences when programs establish and communicate such visions. One example is a cross-national study of eight secondary teacher preparation programs that Hammerness, Klette, and colleagues carried out in five countries. In one analysis, Hammerness and Klette (2015) focused on 412 secondary candidates from four of the eight programs in the United States, Norway, Cuba, and Chile. Across these programs, secondary candidates perceived that their programs “articulated a clear vision of teaching and learning” and that their courses “seemed to be intended to build an understanding (of the vision) over time” and they indicated that they had some opportunities to “try out the theories, strategies and techniques (they were) learning in (their) classes” (Hammerness & Klette, 2015, p. 266).

In another study of three mission-oriented teacher education programs in the United States, Hammerness (2014) reported that all three programs communicated clear visions of teaching and learning and provided candidates with opportunities to enact these visions. In addition, she found that graduates from these programs were more likely to plan to remain in teaching and had clear ideas about teaching practices they could enact as future teachers (Hammerness, 2014).

Program Coherence

Researchers have reported that teacher education programs that are characterized by high levels of program coherence are likely to promote desired outcomes among their graduates (Feiman-Nemser et al., 2014; Kennedy, 1998). In one study of how six U.S. programs prepared elementary candidates to learn to teach ELA, Kennedy (1998) found that the more a program cohered around consistent ideas about teaching writing and learning to write, the more powerful the influence of the program was upon candidates’ learning to teach writing.

In their study of three mission-oriented teacher education programs, Feiman-Nemser et al. (2014) reported that the programs designed program structures, candidates’ opportunities to learn instructional strategies, and assessments in ways that were substantially aligned with their visions. The researchers also found that program graduates’ instructional practices were consistent with those visions, even several years after graduation (Feiman-Nemser et al., 2014).

Antecedents of program coherence

In a study of 22 elementary preparation programs at 15 universities in New York City, Grossman and colleagues (2008) examined factors associated with 248 teaching candidates’ perceptions of program coherence; each candidate completed a survey soon after completing their program. The authors reported that candidates were significantly more likely to perceive high levels of program coherence when program faculty selected cooperating teachers, when programs required cooperating teachers to have a certain amount of teaching experience, and when there were low rates of turnover among cooperating teachers. In addition, when programs required relatively more meetings between instructional supervisors and program faculty, candidates were more likely to perceive high levels of program coherence (Grossman et al., 2008).

Role of Cooperating Teacher in Candidate Learning

Since cooperating teachers are influential in candidates’ learning, it is important for teacher education programs to promote coherence between courses and teaching candidates’ experiences in student teaching and other field placements. For example, in one study of 1,000 teaching candidates, Ronfeldt et al. (2013) reported that candidates’ perceptions about the quality of their cooperating teacher and the degree of autonomy they had during student teaching predicted their planned persistence in teaching. The authors measured cooperating teacher quality by surveying candidates about the extent to which their cooperating teacher did such things as meeting with them regularly, providing helpful support, modeling effectives strategies, and providing useful feedback on their teaching. Other research has also documented the key role that cooperating teachers play in teaching candidate development and effectiveness (Boyd et al., 2009; Brouwer & Korthagen, 2005; Ronfeldt & Reininger, 2012).

In summary, when teacher education programs are characterized by an explicit vision of teaching and learning that is reinforced across courses and field experiences, they are more likely to influence candidates’ opportunities to learn to teach and graduates’ instructional practices and plans to remain in teaching. In addition, several characteristics of student teaching placements are associated with candidates’ perceptions of high levels of program coherence. In the absence of explicit visions of teaching and learning or alignment between courses and field experiences, preparation programs are less likely to help candidates overcome the theory-to-practice gap in teacher education and appropriate their program’s instructional vision as their own. Given the importance of vision and coherence, more research is needed on how methods course instructors, teacher education program directors, and field placement coordinators can promote them.

Conceptual Framework

Our conceptual framework posits the importance in elementary teacher preparation of creating a shared vision of teaching and learning (i.e., conceptual coherence) among methods instructors and between program administrators and methods instructors. Our framework also emphasizes the value of maintaining close connections (i.e., structural coherence) between ELA and mathematics methods courses, between methods courses and field experiences, and between methods courses and the criteria used to evaluate teaching candidates during student teaching. Finally, our framework identifies potential barriers to program coherence.

Considering conceptual coherence, shared visions in elementary teacher preparation often focus on things such as research-based practices and content-specific pedagogy. It is important to examine whether a given program’s vision includes “articulation of specific strategies or teaching approaches that embody the vision” (Hammerness & Klette, 2015, p. 249). Emphases on particular strategies or content may offer insight into the ways a program enacts its vision with teaching candidates. It is useful to consider whether teacher preparation program directors’ visions of teaching and learning are shared by or compatible with those held by methods course instructors. Priorities expressed by program directors may shape the ways a program expresses its vision. In programs with multiple instructors for a given methods area, it is important to explore whether these individuals share a common vision. Also, it is helpful to assess whether field placement coordinators share similar visions as those held by program directors and methods instructors (Hammerness & Klette, 2015).

Shared visions may reinforce teacher candidates’ learning across their program and thereby affect outcomes for candidates (e.g., Hammerness, 2014). For example, when a program director emphasizes classroom management at the same time that methods instructors focus on content-specific pedagogy, teaching candidates’ learning may potentially be inhibited. Alternatively, a consistent emphasis among program administrators and methods instructors on a shared vision related, for example, to reflective teaching, can strongly enhance candidate learning, especially when instructors teach candidates specific instructional strategies that represent the vision. Although program directors may be central in establishing and supporting consistent visions, methods instructors and field placement coordinators may or may not take up a particular vision. Therefore, methods instructors and program administrators alike can contribute to whether or not teaching candidates perceive program coherence.

Regarding structural coherence, it is important for elementary candidates’ opportunities to learn in courses and field experiences to be informed by a shared vision of teaching and learning. Furthermore, when candidates learn evidence-based practices in methods courses and are evaluated during student teaching based on their ability to enact such practices, they are likely to implement such practices as beginning teachers. In contrast, when course assignments rarely build on candidates’ field experiences, teaching candidates are less likely to connect between theory and practice (Hammerness & Klette, 2015). Therefore, course assignments should draw on candidates’ field placement experiences and vice-versa. In addition, methods instructors, program administrators, and candidates should understand, agree upon, and value their program’s vision (Hammerness & Klette, 2015). Finally, the criteria that a program uses to evaluate candidates during student teaching should be consistent with the instructional approaches emphasized in their methods courses.

In addition, when teaching candidates are part of a cohort model in which they progress together for courses or practicum experiences, they may have opportunities to get to know other candidates in their program well and feel that they are part of a larger group with shared values. For example, Beck and Kosnik (2001) found that a program-wide cohort model provided mutual support and supported productive learning experiences for teaching candidates, including strong participation, productive risk-taking, and personal and professional growth.

Our framework identifies several potential obstacles to program coherence. First, methods instructors and program administrators may emphasize multiple visions of teaching and learning without agreeing on a clear vision that is shared among courses and field experiences. Coordinating visions of teaching are complicated by the persistent divide between practices that candidates encounter as a part of their teacher preparation and those that they encounter in K-12 classrooms. Second, maintaining a shared vision can be difficult if there are large numbers of and/or turnover among methods instructors, cooperating teachers, and university supervisors. Third, evaluation criteria for student teachers, especially if mandated by state policy or influenced by program accreditation standards, can conflict with shared visions of teaching and learning.

Finally, we acknowledge that program coherence is not without potential drawbacks, particularly if coherence is considered a uniform end state to be achieved (Richmond et al., 2019). Although we note that outcomes for teaching candidates may benefit from shared visions of teaching and learning, we also recognize the need for diverse perspectives to support the preparation of new teachers. Program coherence requires negotiation, not adherence, among program administrators, methods instructors, and teaching candidates.

Here, we explore differences in the ways teaching candidates perceive the coherence of their teacher preparation programs. In addition, we consider factors that may affect these perceptions. Specifically, we sought to answer the following research questions: (a) To what extent do elementary teacher preparation programs vary in their teaching candidates’ perceptions, the vision and coherence of their program? (b) How do methods instructors and program administrators articulate and enact shared visions of teaching and learning?

Method

Sample

Teacher preparation program sample

We report on four teacher preparation programs that collectively prepared approximately 450 elementary teaching candidates each year: Cardinal University, Meadowlark University, Oriole University, and Robin University.¹ We selected these programs because each of them incorporated research-based practices in elementary ELA and mathematics methods courses and carefully structured student teaching to support candidates’ development and enactment of ambitious instruction in ELA and mathematics. Research-based practices refer to instructional strategies in literacy and mathematics that foster students’ deep, conceptual understanding of academic content and are associated with student learning (Carlisle et al., 2011; National Mathematics Advisory Panel, 2008).

This varied in several ways including characteristics of the universities (e.g., location, focus) and characteristics of programs, including length of student teaching and structure and sequence of methods courses and field experiences. Table 1 includes descriptive information about features of these programs and how they varied across the sample. Three of the programs required 12 to 15 weeks of student teaching, while Meadowlark mandated that candidates complete 30 weeks of student teaching. Three of the programs required three literacy methods courses, while Cardinal candidates completed two. Three of the programs required one math methods course, while Meadowlark candidates completed two. Two of the programs followed a cohort model, and three programs had a required course sequence; Oriole did not follow such a sequence.

Table 1.

Descriptive Information for Elementary Teacher Education Programs in Study.

Program features	Cardinal University	Meadowlark University	Oriole University	Robin University
University size and focus	Large public research focus	Large public research focus	Large public research focus	Large public teaching focus
University location	Northeast; Population < 50,000	Midwest; adjacent to mid-sized city; Population > 100,000	Mid-Atlantic; Population < 50,000	Mid-Atlantic; Population < 50,000
Length of program	5-year BS/MA program	5-year BA program plus MA credits	5-year BS/MA program	5-year BS/MA program
Annual number of elementary graduates	40	200	60	200
Required course sequence	Yes	Yes	No	Yes
Cohort	Yes	Partial	No	Yes
Required math methods courses	1 math methods	2 math methods	1 math methods	1 math methods
Pre-student teaching field experience	6 hr/week for 3 semesters	4 hr/week for 2 semesters	1 day/week for 1 semester	6 hr/week for 1 semester
Length of student teaching	12 weeks	30 weeks	15 weeks	15 weeks
Length of lead responsibility for teaching	5 weeks	10 weeks	8 weeks	8 weeks
Timing of student teaching	Spring of fourth year	Fall and spring of fifth year	Fall of fifth year	Spring of fourth year

Teaching candidate sample

In 2015–2016, we invited all 455 elementary teaching candidates at these four universities who were in their final year of their programs to participate in the study; 305 (68.5%) of these candidates completed a teaching candidate survey that featured items about their perceptions of (a) the extent to which their program had a shared vision and (b) program coherence. The survey also included questions that asked about candidates’ perceptions of the area(s) in which their program emphasized strong preparation (e.g., working with students with disabilities). Of those who completed the survey, 287 (94.1%) were female. The sample of elementary teaching candidates was predominantly White non-Hispanic (263 participants; 86.2%), with 19 identifying as Asian American (6.2%), eight identifying as African American (2.6%), seven identifying as Hispanic or Latinx (2.3%), and seven identifying as another or mixed race/ethnicity. Due to the high survey participation rates, we feel confident that our sample is representative of the populations of teaching candidates at these universities.

Program administrator and methods instructor sample

At each institution, we interviewed the director of teacher preparation or equivalent,² the field placement coordinator(s),³ two or more ELA methods instructors, and one or more math methods instructors (see Table 2). While we acknowledge that all course instructors may play a role in affecting program coherence, we focus exclusively on math and ELA methods instructors. We had three reasons for doing this. First, the larger study from which we draw our data focused on elementary candidates’ development of math and ELA teaching practices. Second, we note that due to state standardized testing in these subjects, ELA and mathematics currently hold privileged positions within elementary education. Therefore, coherence expressed in math and ELA methods courses may play a significant role in shaping candidates’ perceptions of program coherence. Third, by including multiple methods instructors in two subjects, we were able to consider the degree of coherence within and across literacy and mathematics at each institution.

Table 2.

Interview Participant Positions and Demographics at Each University.

Participants	Cardinal (n = 5)	Meadowlark (n = 16)	Oriole (n = 7)	Robin (n = 7)
Math methods instructor	1 White female	3 White females 1 Latino male 1 Asian female	1 White male 1 African American male	1 White male 2 White females
Literacy methods instructor	2 White males 1 White female	5 White females 1 African American male	2 White females 1 Middle Eastern male	2 White females
Field placement coordinator	1 White female	3 White females 1 African American female	1 White female	1 White female
Program director	1 White female	1 White female	1 White female	1 White female

We asked participants about the overall approach to teaching emphasized in their program/courses, how the program/courses helped candidates develop the knowledge and skills to enact this approach, major assignments in the program/courses, and how candidates’ field experiences helped them learn to implement the program’s approach to teaching.

Across the four institutions, we interviewed 35 program administrators and methods instructors. The number of interview participants from each program ranged from 5 to 16 (i.e., Cardinal and Meadowlark, respectively). Table 2 lists the number of interview participants in each role across the programs and their demographics. All program directors and the majority of field placement coordinators we interviewed were White females. Similarly, the majority of methods instructors we interviewed were White females with greater variation in the larger programs. All of the methods instructors we interviewed were full-time instructors except for one of the elementary math methods instructors at Oriole who was adjunct.

Measures

Quantitative survey data

The elementary teaching candidate survey was based on surveys used for prior research (Boyd et al., 2009; Youngs et al., 2012) and included a series of items that asked about candidates’ perceptions of their program. Here, we focus on a set of items drawn or adapted from past studies on teacher preparation program coherence (see Supplemental Appendix A, online; Boyd et al., 2009; Grossman et al., 2008; Hammerness & Klette, 2015). Specifically, five items focused on beginning teachers’ perceptions of their program’s coherence (e.g., “I hear similar views about teaching and learning across courses”). In addition, one item assessed the extent to which beginning teachers perceive their “program articulates a clear vision of teaching and learning.” We chose these items because they have been used in prior research and they are consistent with definitions of program coherence.

Finally, nine items asked beginning teachers about the extent to which their program emphasized certain aspects of teaching (e.g., “Teaching for equity is central to my program’s mission”). All items were rated on a 4-point scale from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.”

Qualitative interview data

The program director interview protocol (Supplemental Appendix B, online) was designed to learn about the vision of teaching and learning emphasized in a given preparation program; the design of the program, including whether it featured a required sequence of courses and whether cohorts of candidates took courses together; students’ clinical experiences; and the kinds of structures that the program used to facilitate communication across different parts of the program. We also asked about the program’s approach to selecting cooperating teachers and university supervisors and the program’s approach to assessing candidates during student teaching. The methods instructor interview protocol (Supplemental Appendix C, online) was designed to learn about their methods course objectives; the vision of teaching and learning emphasized in their methods course, including the instructional strategies that they want candidates to develop; how they engage candidates in learning these strategies and how they assess them; how their methods course fits into the larger preparation program; and the types of interactions they have with cooperating teachers and university supervisors.

Analytical Strategies

Quantitative data analysis

To assess differences across programs in candidates’ perceptions of the extent to which their program articulated a clear vision, the extent of program coherence, and the aspects of teaching that were most emphasized, we computed a series of one-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs). For each survey item described above, a one-way ANOVA (Howell, 2009) was computed to assess whether there were statistically significant mean differences in survey responses among the four programs (i.e., the resulting F-test statistic assesses the relative size of variance among program means [between-group variance] compared with the average variance within groups). When the F-test statistic was significant, post hoc comparisons using the Games–Howell test (which allows for unequal sample sizes between groups; Games & Howell, 1976) were used to test whether each specific program significantly differed in comparison with each of the other programs.

Qualitative data analysis

We examined all interviews to determine variation in how participants discussed visions of teaching and learning, structural coherence, and program emphases. To do so, we compiled each program director’s and field coordinator’s responses to interview questions that asked (a) how they would describe the approach to teaching on which their program was built and (b) what kinds of structures, connections, and/or supports facilitated communication across different parts of the program. We also compiled methods instructors’ responses to interview questions that asked (a) how instructors would describe the overall approach to teaching they try to develop in teaching candidates and (b) how their course fit into the goals and principles of the larger teacher education program.

We then compared the field placement coordinators’ and methods instructors’ responses with their director’s responses. For example, if a program director indicated that their program utilized a constructivist approach to teaching and learning, then comments from field placement coordinators or methods instructors in the same program that included references to constructivist approaches were considered evidence of coherence in the vision of teaching and learning across the program. In addition, we identified recurring themes among field placement coordinators’ and methods instructors’ interviews that did not appear in the directors’ interviews. We documented themes that appeared in at least two interviews of the director. We then generated tables (e.g., Table 4) to illustrate areas of agreement between program directors, field placement coordinators, and methods instructors in these areas. In short, programs in which large proportions of coordinators and instructors either echoed their program director’s comments or one another’s comments regarding visions of teaching and learning, structural coherence, and program emphases were considered to be more coherent than programs in which smaller proportions of coordinator and instructor comments aligned with one another.

Subsequently, all 35 transcripts were entered into Dedoose software and coded for visions/dispositions (i.e., ideas that shape participants’ views of their students, teaching, learning, and priorities/philosophy) and program structure (including alignment across programs, between courses and fieldwork, and within a particular course). In response to emergent themes regarding program emphases on preparing teachers to work with diverse groups of students, we examined all interviews for any mention of terms referring to working with diverse groups, including equity, social justice (socially just), disability(ies), English language learner (ELL), gifted, special needs, urban, and rural. We then skimmed each reference to determine whether the term appeared in a meaningful context, omitted any references to participants’ personal backgrounds, and removed all duplicates. We examined methods course syllabi as means to triangulate the themes we identified in interviews. Table 7 indicates the interviews and/or syllabi in which these terms appeared. Each interview and/or syllabus is listed only once, even if terms appeared multiple times.

Procedures for establishing validity of interview data

We took three main steps to establish the validity of the interview data described in this article. These included member checks, a multiple case design, and peer review and debriefing (Yin, 2017). Regarding member checks, we met with several interview participants during the 2016–2017 school year (i.e., 6 months after data collection was completed) to share and get feedback on emergent themes regarding program emphases and program coherence.

Second, by including literacy and mathematics methods instructors in the interview sample, we incorporated a multiple case design featuring replication logic. Specifically, the inclusion of both groups of instructors in the sample enabled us to test our theory that program coherence can vary across content areas within the same elementary preparation program. Finally, we received external feedback on our research design and initial findings from faculty colleagues at our universities in the areas of literacy and mathematics education. These colleagues encouraged us to investigate themes in the methods instructor and field placement coordinator interviews that did not emerge in the program directors’ interviews and to review course syllabi to confirm what we were learning from the methods instructor interviews.

Findings

Results of the one-way ANOVAs and corresponding Games–Howell post hoc comparison tests revealed several significant differences between programs in the degree to which elementary candidates perceived that their programs had clear visions and high levels of program coherence and in the degree to which elementary candidates perceived that their program placed strong emphasis on particular elements of teaching (see Table 3). In the following sections, we focus on only those differences between programs that the post hoc comparisons identified as statistically significant. The column labeled “interpretation of significant findings” in Table 3 highlights these differences across the four programs.

Table 3.

Teacher Preparation Program ANOVA Comparisons.

Category	Survey item	ANOVA F	M (SD)				Interpretation of significant differences
Category	Survey item	ANOVA F	Cardinal = 1	Meadowlark = 2	Oriole = 3	Robin = 4	Interpretation of significant differences
Clear vision	Program emphasizes clear vision of teaching/learning	2.87*	3.60 (.50)	3.58₂ (.55)	3.34₂ (.54)	3.49 (.54)	Meadowlark TCs more likely than those from Oriole to perceive clear vision
Program coherence	Got to know other students well	6.68***	3.43 (.72)	3.51₂ (.59)	3.17_2,3 (.68)	3.59₃ (.58)	Meadowlark and Robin TCs more likely than those from Oriole to endorse this item
	Part of group with shared values	4.70**	3.40 (.72)	3.56₂ (.61)	3.27_2,3 (.65)	3.61₃ (.58)	Meadowlark and Robin TCs more likely than those from Oriole to endorse this item
	Hear similar views across courses	2.45^†	3.33 (.61)	3.50₂ (.52)	3.27₂ (.57)	3.41 (.58)	Meadowlark TCs more likely than those from Oriole to endorse this item
	Field experiences match methods courses	1.90	3.37 (.62)	3.25 (.67)	3.06 (.61)	3.28 (.73)
	Evaluation criteria consistent with methods courses	2.58^†	3.20 (.71)	3.35 (.71)	3.20 (.67)	3.46 (.57)
Program emphases	Equity + social justice	10.33***	2.90 (.62)	3.20_2,3 (.54)	2.71₃ (.53)	2.91₂ (.60)	Meadowlark TCs reported more emphasis than either Oriole or Robin TCs
	Urban schools	35.08***	3.23₁ (.68)	3.07_2,3 (.78)	2.30₃ (.63)	2.22_1,2 (.74)	Cardinal and Meadowlark TCs reported more emphases than either Oriole or Robin TCs
	Rural schools	12.37***	2.73₃ (.74)	2.39₃ (.81)	1.97₃ (.40)	2.59₃ (.81)	Oriole TCs reported less emphasis than all others
	Special needs	12.07***	2.73₄ (.83)	2.50₄ (.79)	2.77₄ (.83)	2.07₄ (.84)	Robin TCs reported less emphasis than all others
	Gifted and talented	5.53**	2.37₁ (.85)	2.37₂ (.80)	1.91_1,2 (.64)	2.12 (.81)	Meadowlark and Cardinal TCs reported more emphasis than Oriole TCs
	ELA	25.63***	3.50₄ (.73)	3.54₄ (.58)	3.50₄ (.56)	2.79₄ (.85)	Robin TCs reported less emphasis than all others
	Math	18.30***	3.60₃ (.50)	3.50₃ (.54)	2.95₃ (.70)	3.60₃ (.58)	Oriole TCs reported less emphasis than all others
	Other subject	3.12*	3.07 (.75)	3.18₂ (.81)	2.76₂ (.88)	2.97 (.81)	Meadowlark TCs reported more emphasis than Oriole TCs

Note. Subscripts denote the reference group for post hoc tests revealing significant differences between two programs. Mean values found to significantly differ from at least one other program are bolded. ANOVA = analysis of variance; TC = teaching candidate; ELA = English language arts.

†

p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Clear Vision

With regard to a clear vision, results of the one-way ANOVA indicated that there were significant mean differences by program in teaching candidates’ perceptions that their program articulated a clear vision of teaching and learning, F(3, 301) = 2.87, p = .037. Post hoc comparisons using the Games–Howell test indicate that, in particular, teaching candidates from Oriole University (M = 3.34, SD = 0.54) were statistically significantly less likely than teaching candidates from Meadowlark University (M = 3.58, SD = 0.55) to perceive that their program articulated a clear vision of teaching and learning (see Table 3).

Analyses of interview data from 36 program directors, field placement coordinators, and methods instructors across the four programs support these findings. Tables 4 and 5 illustrate the differences in the proportions of Meadowlark and Oriole field placement coordinators and methods instructors whose comments aligned with their respective program directors regarding program goals. A majority of Meadowlark instructors discussed the foci of Meadowlark program on learning to teach content (87%), preparing teaching candidates to teach in any context (67%), providing candidates extensive opportunities to teach and connect coursework with practice (60%), and the importance of communication among instructors, mentor teachers, and university supervisors (73%).

Table 4.

Meadowlark Perceptions of Program Goals: Agreement Between Program Directors, Field Placement Coordinators, and Methods Instructors.

Participant	Program goals summarized from interview responses
Participant	Focus on teaching content (i.e., content-area methods courses)	Focus on learning to teach in any context (i.e., teaching diverse groups, students with special needs, teaching with technology, getting to know families and communities)	Focus on building instruction on children’s thinking	Focus on providing extensive opportunities for candidates to teach and connect coursework to practice	Importance of communicating with mentor teachers and university supervisors (e.g., written correspondence, classroom visits, etc.)
MD	X	X	X	X	X
MC1	X			X
MC2		X		X
MC3	X	X			X
MC4					X
ML1	X	X	X	X	X
ML2	X	X	X		X
ML3	X	X		X	X
ML4	X	X		X	X
ML5	X	X	X	X
MM1	X	X	X	X	X
MM2	X				X
MM3	X				X
MM4	X		X
MM5	X	X		X	X
Total	13/15 (87%)	10/15 (67%)	6/16 (40%)	9/15 (60%)	11/15 (73%)

Note. “D” indicates the position of director; “C” indicates the position of field placement coordinator; “L” indicates the position of literacy instructor; “M” indicates the position of math instructor.

Table 5.

Oriole Perceptions of Program Goals: Agreement Between Program Directors, Field Placement Coordinators, and Methods Instructors.

Participant	Program goals summarized from interviews
Participant	Focus on research-based practices	Importance of connections between courses and fieldwork	Focus on reflection	State requirements	Focus on content-specific knowledge (e.g., phonemic awareness, division, strategies)
OD	X	X	X	X
OC	X			X
OL1	X	X	X		X
OL2			X		X
OL3		X			X
OM1					X
OM2	X	X		X
OM3	X	X	X
Total	5/8 (62.5%)	5/7 (62.5%)	4/8 (50%)	3/8 (37/5%)	4/8 (50%)

In the Meadowlark program, coherence regarding the vision of teaching and learning focused on learning to teach content was shared by both mathematics and literacy methods instructors. These instructors talked about their efforts to prepare teaching candidates with the skills to effectively communicate content through their interactions with students. For example, one Meadowlark mathematics instructor talked about preparing teachers “who can position students as those who are autonomous doers of mathematics” so that they are not simply transferring knowledge but “communicating the ideas with students” and “having students feel they are actually doing mathematics (Meadowlark Math Instructor 5, or MM5). Similarly, a Meadowlark literacy methods instructor sought to prepare teaching candidates who understood how best to meet the literacy needs of their students by asking questions like “who is it that I’m teaching? What does the student need to learn about reading, writing, or speaking, or listening? How is my planning influenced by what I know about these kids?” (ML5). These comments highlight the ways that Meadowlark instructors across content areas shared a similar vision of teaching and learning that involved developing teaching candidates’ knowledge of mathematics and literacy content, their students’ learning needs, and how to teach content in ways that address those needs and facilitate students’ autonomy.

Nearly two-thirds of Meadowlark coordinators and instructors also made comments aligned with the program directors’ vision that the program aimed to prepare teachers to teach in any context. According to the program director, addressing this goal involved integrating content about teaching diverse groups of students, students with special needs, technology, and getting to know students and families in coursework throughout the program. All literacy methods instructors (n = 5) and 40% of the mathematics methods instructors (n = 2) made comments aligned with this vision. Instructors’ most frequent and in-depth comments focused on providing teaching candidates opportunities to learn about their students’ backgrounds and teaching diverse groups of students. As with the vision focused on teaching content, the vision of preparing teachers to teach in any context was present across both mathematics and ELA instructors. For example, instructors mentioned preparing teaching candidates who get “really immersed and engaged in the communities that they are situated in” (ML1), “understand about their background . . . understand about their family . . . understand about their home life” (ML2), and pay “really strong attention to their cultural community [and] funds of knowledge towards sort of equitable math instruction” (MM1). This particular vision was supported by assignments in which Meadowlark teaching candidates were required to conduct extensive explorations of students’ backgrounds and communities and demonstrate they were “able to adapt what they get in their methods classes to the context that they are placed in” (MC2).

A majority of Meadowlark program administrators and instructors also expressed a vision of teaching and learning in which candidates had extensive opportunities to connect coursework to teaching (n = 9). This approach is captured by comments from ML4, who explained, “for us, it’s about knowing what those essential skills, dispositions, and knowledge are and then being able to give the students opportunities to have experiences in which they can cultivate those.” Similarly, another instructor argued that showing videos and discussing particular teaching practices were important for candidates’ development, but not enough; in addition, this instructor sought to provide opportunities for teaching candidates to observe others teaching to “really see it and unpack it in the moment with someone who’s doing it” and then “get as close to the enactment of the kind of practice as we can” (ML5).

As noted above, quantitative results indicated that teaching candidates from Oriole University were significantly less likely than teaching candidates from Meadowlark University to perceive that their program articulated a clear vision of teaching and learning. Indeed, qualitative analyses revealed that compared with the Meadowlark program, smaller proportions of Oriole program administrators and methods instructors made comments that aligned with each other’s descriptions of the program goals focused on research-based practices (62.5%), connecting general and subject-specific methods and fieldwork (62.5%), reflection (50%), state requirements (37.5%), and content-specific knowledge (50%). On average, these percentages are roughly 13 points less than those we found among Meadowlark faculty, with some differences as great as 24.5 percentage-points less among Oriole faculty.

A majority of Oriole coordinators and instructors made comments aligned with a vision of teaching and learning focused on research-based practices (62.5%), although this particular vision seemed to be shared more by mathematics instructors (e.g., two of three math methods instructors versus one of three literacy methods instructors referred to research-based practices). An Oriole mathematics methods instructor described the use of concrete mathematical representations when teaching division and how those practices aligned

with how I believe [division] should be taught or how I believe children learn math . . . and it’s also aligned with things like the NCTM [National Council of Teachers of Mathematics] standards . . . [and] with the current ideas on best practices in math instruction. (OM2)

Another math methods instructor talked about a particular misconception teaching candidates often have regarding multiplication and how “that’s now one that I’m not willing to let go because those are explicitly stated in the standards” (OM1).

In addition, a majority of methods instructors at Oriole University expressed a vision of teaching and learning that included making connections between teaching methods and candidates’ fieldwork. Most instructors, however, did not speak extensively about this vision. For instance, one literacy instructor noted that when “we’re discussing a certain topic like writing conferences, I’ve always tried to ask them have you seen this? What have you seen there? How is it similar? How is different?” (OL3). This instructor also commented about ways in which the course was designed to facilitate connections between teaching methods and fieldwork by ensuring that candidates developed a broad range of experience through engagement with students at different locations and times of the day.

Supports for communication across programs

Building from our conceptual framework that emphasized structural coherence across courses, instructors, and field experiences, we also examined the program structures, connections, and supports at each institution to facilitate communication. Table 6 summarizes the communication structures described by the directors and field placement coordinators for each of the four programs.

Table 6.

Facilitating Communication Across Each Teacher Preparation Program.

Structure, connection, or support	Cardinal	Meadowlark	Oriole	Robin
Methods faculty meet together with program director	Monthly. Elementary faculty meet additional 2 times per semester	Monthly	Limited
Elementary methods faculty meet with university supervisors	None	1–2 times per month	None	None
University supervisors communicate with placement districts and/or classroom teachers	Ongoing	Ongoing	Orientation/training each semester.Graduate students visit classroom teachers.	Orientation and training at start of semester
Coordinating additional support for teaching candidates	Ongoing. Collaboration between director, academic advising center, and clinical faculty. Referral process to identify candidates in need of support.	Ongoing. Coordinated by field coordinators and university supervisors.		Methods faculty conduct student reviews once per semester

The Oriole director noted that “there is not a lot of formal coordination” across the Oriole program beyond some “meetings of methods instructors to discuss what they are doing in their methods classes” but that “there is not a lot of coordination by virtue of different places, different times, different teachers.” To support connections between the program and field placements, the Oriole program offered trainings for mentor classroom teachers and university supervisors. Overall, however, there was limited formal coordination among Oriole faculty. Without such formal coordination, it seems less likely that instructors across the program and content areas would share similar visions of teaching and learning.

For comparison, the Meadowlark faculty and director reported many structures in place to support communication and perhaps thereby supporting the development of a shared program vision. Specifically, the Meadowlark director met monthly with subject-area leaders—faculty leaders of literacy, math, science, and social studies content—along with field placement coordinators. Then, as often as twice each month, the subject-area leaders met with their respective university supervisor teams. The goal of these meetings was to ensure connections between faculty, staff, and students across courses, across course and field, and within the multiple sections of a course.

Program Coherence

With regard to program coherence, the one-way ANOVA revealed statistically significant differences between programs in terms of the extent to which teaching candidates reported getting to know the other candidates in their program well, F(3, 301) = 6.68, p < .001. In particular, post hoc comparisons revealed that candidates from Oriole University (M = 3.17, SD = 0.68) were significantly less likely than candidates from Robin (M = 3.59, SD = 0.58) or Meadowlark University (M = 3.51, SD = 0.59) to endorse this item (see Table 3). In addition, there were statistically significant differences between programs on the extent to which candidates felt part of a larger group of people who share common values, F(3, 301) = 4.70, p = .003, such that candidates from Oriole University (M = 3.27, SD = 0.65) were significantly less likely than candidates from Robin (M = 3.61, SD = 0.58) or Meadowlark University (M = 3.56, SD = 6.06) to endorse this item.

Role of program models in shaping candidates’ perceptions of cohesion

Although teaching candidates in both the Robin and the Meadowlark programs reported opportunities to get to know other candidates in their programs well, the two programs are quite different in terms of how groups of candidates move through them. In the Robin program, for example, candidates entered as a cohort in their junior year and took courses with the same candidates through their graduate year. Over the span of about six semesters, the cohort took five methods courses together as a group (three literacy methods courses and two math methods). In addition, the Robin cohort simultaneously engaged in field placements associated with those courses. The Robin program featured a developmental focus on literacy preparation. During their first practicum experience, all Robin candidates were placed in PreK–Grade 2 classrooms, followed by Grade 3–5 classroom placements for their second practicum experience. This sequencing of field placements may have contributed to the perceived cohesiveness of the cohort experience since candidates experienced similar classroom grade levels at the same time as fellow cohort members

By comparison, most Meadowlark teaching candidates were not part of a cohort; although “courses are in a prescribed sequence . . . it doesn’t mean that they move through in cohorts . . .” (MD). Instead, robust structures for communication present in the Meadowlark program, described above, may have contributed to candidates’ perception of getting to know their fellow candidates well. These structures included regular communication and coordination among Meadowlark’s director, field placement coordinators, and methods instructors. In addition, Meadowlark used a system of “subject-area leaders” for methods courses to help ensure all parts of the Meadowlark program were aligned both within and across subjects. The Meadowlark director summarized these efforts saying, “So, the idea is that we’re connecting across courses, across the course and the field, and then within courses—within the multiple sections of a course.”

In contrast, qualitative data from the Oriole program administrators support teaching candidates’ perceptions that there were likely fewer opportunities for them to get to know each other well. For example, as discussed above, describing the limited structures or supports the Oriole program had in place for communication, the director explained that there was limited coordination between methods instructors and field placements “by virtue of different places, different times, and different teachers.” The nature of Oriole’s diverse classroom placements resulted in fewer opportunities for coordination by instructors. In addition, the Oriole program director noted that the structure of the program encouraged candidates to take many of the same courses together, but due to program size and particular field placement requirements, there were multiple cohorts of candidates. Specifically, Oriole candidates comprised two different programs taking courses simultaneously: (a) 5-year undergraduate bachelor’s/master’s program (BA/MA) and (b) 2-year master’s in teaching (MAT). Despite different timelines of the two programs, some courses included candidates from both BA/MA and MAT programs mixed within sections.

Program Emphases

As noted within our conceptual framework, one way that a program may communicate a coherent vision of teaching and learning is through the specific strategies, approaches, or content emphasized across that program. Thus, we considered emphases perceived by teaching candidates from the four programs. Analyses revealed statistically significant differences between programs on all items regarding program emphases (see Table 3). For instance, teaching candidates from Meadowlark University reported significantly more program emphasis on equity and social justice than did those from either Oriole or Robin University, F(3, 301) = 10.33, p < .001. Also, candidates from Meadowlark and Cardinal Universities reported significantly more program emphasis on teaching in urban schools than did Robin and Oriole Universities, F(3, 301) = 35.08, p < .001. Candidates from Robin University reported significantly less program emphasis on teaching students with special needs than did the other programs, F(3, 301) = 12.07, p < .001. Looking across these analyses, findings suggest that candidates from Meadowlark and Cardinal Universities reported strong emphases (relative to one or more of the other programs) on all (Meadowlark) or most (Cardinal) areas covered by the survey, whereas Oriole and Robin University candidates reported emphases on a limited set of areas (e.g., ELA and special needs students at Oriole University, and math, equity, and rural schools at Robin University).

As with clear vision and program coherence, our qualitative analyses of program emphases support the quantitative findings. Teaching candidates’ perceptions of less program emphasis on ELA at Robin University may be related to a lack of conceptual coherence among the literacy faculty. Robin’s program director noted that candidates described how they “[had] a very different experience in the reading courses depending on the professor that [they had],” which has been “a challenge for the last several years in particular.”

That Oriole teaching candidates reported less program emphases on mathematics relative to the other three programs is somewhat surprising given the extent to which the two mathematics methods instructors expressed similar approaches to teaching. For example, they both explained their focus on making connections between representations and mathematical concepts, using manipulatives extensively, and following NCTM process standards. At the same time, as noted earlier, Oriole’s teacher education program director commented on a lack of coherence related to limited coordination across the program, which perhaps influenced candidates’ perception of less influence in mathematics. This finding may speak to the potential impact on candidates of facilitating program emphases both within and across courses.

Our findings related to program emphases also suggest that the four teacher preparation programs varied in terms of the emphasis they placed on preparing teaching candidates to teach diverse groups of students. For example, candidates perceived Oriole placed its greatest emphasis on working with students with special needs, while candidates perceived Robin’s greatest emphases were on social justice/equity and teaching in rural schools. Teaching candidates from both Cardinal and Meadowlark Universities perceived their programs emphasized working with students with special needs, teaching for social justice/equity, and teaching in urban and rural schools. In addition, Meadowlark candidates perceived their program emphasized disciplinary content (e.g., science, math), as well.

Table 7 illustrates our qualitative analysis regarding the four programs’ emphases on preparing teaching candidates to work with diverse groups of students by noting the program director, field placement coordinator, and instructor interviews and syllabi in which substantive comments related to the search terms in the left-hand column (i.e., equity, special needs, etc.) were identified. The percentages reflect the number of interviewees (and their associated documents) that referenced the specific search terms related to diverse groups of students. These results align with the range of program emphases described in the quantitative results above.

Table 7.

Interview References to Search Terms for Diverse Groups of Students.

Search terms	Percentage of method instructor interviews that included search term
Search terms	Cardinal (N = 5)	Meadowlark (N = 15)	Oriole (N = 8)	Robin (N = 7)
Equity, social justice (socially just)	20% (n = 1)	33% (n = 5)	0%	29% (n = 2)
Language learners (ELL)	20% (n = 1)	20% (n = 3)	50% (n = 4)	43% (n = 3)
Special needs, gifted, disabilities	40% (n = 2)	20% (n = 3)	13% (n = 1)	29% (n = 2)
Urban	40% (n = 2)	40% (n = 6)	0%	14% (n = 1)
Rural	0%	0%	0%	14% (n = 1)

Note. ELL = English language learner.

The approaches adopted by the four programs to prepare teachers for diverse groups of students can each be seen as affording teaching candidates different, but valuable, opportunities to learn. The Oriole program, for instance, provided its teaching candidates deep, concentrated opportunities to learn how to work with students with special needs. One Oriole ELA instructor talked at length about their efforts to introduce candidates to “English language learners . . . how they can group them in a classroom, what kinds of instructional strategies to use with them . . . and what kind of literature would be suitable to address their needs” (OL3). At Oriole, efforts to help teaching candidates learn about ELLs and develop strategies to effectively teach them were supported by their teaching placements. Oriole’s coordinator explained the program’s attention to placing teaching candidates in “schools that have . . . higher numbers of English language learners.”

In contrast to Oriole’s concentrated approach, Meadowlark and Cardinal appeared to distribute multiple emphases across their respective programs. The Meadowlark program explicitly utilized an integrative approach to preparing teaching candidates to teach diverse groups of students. The director described the approach as one in which there is not a specific “course called teaching with technology or teaching students with special needs” but where “we try to integrate those ideas into content-area methods courses.” In this approach, a mathematics methods course would include discussions about teaching math using technology and teaching math to ELLs or students with special needs. This approach is illustrated in Table 7 as nearly all of the search terms were identified in the interviews and syllabi. Indeed, mathematics and literacy methods instructors at Meadowlark talked about preparing teaching candidates for diverse contexts, from students’ “cultural community funds of knowledge” (MM1) to their “aptitudes, to attitudes, to gender and sexuality, and race, and socioeconomics, [and] ways of learning,” (ML4).

Although teaching candidates from the Cardinal program also perceived a diverse set of emphases, fewer search terms appeared across the university interviews. Specifically, Table 7 indicates that only one or two individuals from the Cardinal program mentioned any one of these terms. Examining the qualitative data for Cardinal University revealed that the range of Cardinal emphases perceived by candidates may be an implicit part of program in such a way that candidates experience the concepts, but methods instructors did not discuss them in interviews. For example, Cardinal elementary candidates reported emphases related to urban and rural schools, but Table 7 shows only minimal reference to these concepts by methods instructors, directors, or field placement coordinators. Although discussion of specific emphases in urban or rural districts was not explicit in the Cardinal interviews, these concepts were implicit in the structure of the university’s district partnership model, which was a focus across the program.

Discussion

Overall, our analyses revealed significant differences in elementary teaching candidates’ perceptions of coherence in their respective teacher preparation programs. In particular, we identified differences among candidates with regard to their perceptions of their program having a clear vision and program coherence, along with differences in their perceptions of their program emphases. We also found qualitative differences in the ways the four preparation programs addressed and supported conceptual and structural coherence.

Research suggests that conceptual coherence in the form of a clear and well-articulated vision of teaching and learning is critical for strong teacher education programs (Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2007). According to this line of research, a clear vision is explicit, specific, known and understood by faculty and teaching candidates, and includes strategies for enacting the vision (Hammerness & Klette, 2015). This study extends this work by highlighting the role of teacher education program directors in facilitating the development of a clear vision of teaching and learning and providing opportunities for that vision to be communicated across their respective programs. Furthermore, our findings suggest that the ways in which this vision is taken up by methods instructors and field placement coordinators may contribute to how elementary teaching candidates perceive the coherence of their program.

For example, the program directors for Meadowlark and Oriole both described their own clear visions for their respective programs. The Meadowlark methods instructors, however, more consistently expressed elements of a shared vision than did the Oriole methods instructors. These differences likely contributed to differences in candidates’ perceptions of conceptual coherence within their programs. Candidates who graduate from programs with limited conceptual coherence regarding teaching and learning tend to have difficulty articulating a clear vision of their own teaching practices and are more likely to leave the teaching profession (Hammerness, 2014). Therefore, working to ensure the alignment of a clear vision shared among program administrators, instructors, and candidates is an important consideration in the design and implementation of teacher education programs.

Prior research also suggests that coherence of vision should be supported by opportunities for engagement (i.e., structural coherence) within programs (Hammerness & Klette, 2015). We found considerable variation in the ways in which four teacher education programs arranged formal opportunities for methods instructors, field placement coordinators, and program directors to communicate and coordinate teaching candidates’ opportunities to learn. While we acknowledge that there are many approaches to teacher education and different approaches may be equally successful in promoting perceptions of coherence, in general, our findings suggest that methods instructors may be more likely to teach similar content in similar ways if they have participated in frequent, structured opportunities to discuss these matters with their colleagues. Furthermore, formal communication and coordination opportunities may also affect the ways in which methods instructors take up elements of the director’s vision for the program. For example, more frequent, structured opportunities for engagement between instructors, field placement coordinators, and program directors may influence the degree to which they adopt shared understandings of the program vision and how they might best enact that vision in course content, instruction, and field placements.

In addition, our findings highlight how the nature of teacher education program admission policies may contribute to candidates’ perceptions of program coherence. For example, we found that in programs striving to admit candidates with similar views about teaching and learning, those candidates were more likely to perceive their program as coherent.

This study also notes some potential barriers to efforts for coherence in some programs. Specifically, we identified diverse field placements, multiple instructors for various courses, and overlapping cohorts of candidates for different degree programs as potential sources for some teaching candidates’ perceptions of limited coherence across the four universities. At the same time, programs worked to address these potential barriers in different ways (e.g., Meadowlark’s well-structured opportunities for communication among faculty).

Another important difference we noted was the range of program emphases perceived by teaching candidates across the four programs. Teaching candidates in the Cardinal and Meadowlark programs perceived their programs to include many diverse emphases; in contrast, Oriole and Robin candidates perceived their programs as including fewer emphases. Considering the wide range of knowledge and skills needed to ambitiously teach elementary grades in various school and community contexts (Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2007), a program that emphasizes many concepts or strategies for teaching diverse groups of students could be seen as valuable. At the same time, a diverse set of emphases might also imply that the program is less coherent. However, perhaps defining or achieving an “optimal” degree of coherence should not be the goal of teacher education programs. Indeed, it can be argued that coherence should be understood as part of ongoing program revision, given that programs may struggle if they adhere to one narrow vision of teaching and learning and exclude opportunities for candidates to wrestle with alternative views.

Limitations

Although the data analyzed in this study included in-depth questionnaire and interview data from a relatively large sample of teacher education program directors, methods instructors, field placement coordinators, and teaching candidates, one limitation of the study is that these participants came from four mid-sized to large teacher education programs at large public universities. Therefore, while we are able to make substantiated claims about these four teacher education programs, we cannot generalize our findings to all preparation programs across the country. Institutions of different sizes and missions, for instance, may have different structures or strategies for facilitating conceptual and structural coherence, as well as different barriers to such coherence.

The second limitation is that our data do not illuminate teaching candidates’ interpretations of the visions of their programs. Additional information about how candidates interpreted the vision of teaching and learning of their program could inform our understandings of how coherence played out in each institution.

The third limitation is the fact that this study relied on self-reported data from participants. We did not observe, for example, any meetings to analyze whether, how, or under what circumstances program directors articulated a clear vision with methods instructors and field placement coordinators. Nor did we observe the ways in which methods instructors communicated this vision among themselves or integrated the vision in their courses. Furthermore, we were not able to observe the practices of candidates in their first years of teaching to identify associations between their instruction and the coherence of their preparation program. These limitations point to fruitful opportunities for future research.

Implications for Future Research

Teacher education program directors often have opportunities to interact with methods instructors and field placement coordinators across their programs. Program directors may be able to use those interactions to elicit and support conceptual coherence. Likewise, as they establish structures for communication and coordinate courses and placements, program directors may be able to influence structural coherence. Future research, therefore, might examine how program directors at institutions of various sizes, missions, and locations generate, communicate, and reinforce a clear vision of teaching and learning within their respective programs. Observations of faculty meetings and events could illuminate promising strategies for coherence and highlight persistent barriers to such efforts. Furthermore, such studies could offer insight into practices that develop coherence-as-process (Richmond et al., 2019) so that shared visions of teaching and learning are negotiated amid multiple viewpoints of all those involved.

In addition, longitudinal studies are needed to investigate how changes in program leadership or strategies may influence teaching candidates’ perceptions of coherence over time. Longitudinal studies could also examine relationships between program coherence or program emphases and the teaching practices and beliefs of program graduates. These studies could incorporate classroom observation data and interviews of beginning teachers to explore questions such as how do beginning teachers who were prepared in a program with a clear vision that emphasized teaching in any context actually teach across a range of diverse contexts? Or how do teaching practices of graduates from a preparation program that expressed clear shared visions differ from teaching practices of graduates from a program that expressed less coherence? A better understanding of the factors that support and inhibit program coherence could inform the design of teacher education programs and offer improved experiences for teaching candidates.

Supplemental Material

Teacher_Education_Program_Coherence_Revision_Appendices – Supplemental material for How Methods Instructors and Program Administrators Promote Teacher Education Program Coherence

Supplemental material, Teacher_Education_Program_Coherence_Revision_Appendices for How Methods Instructors and Program Administrators Promote Teacher Education Program Coherence by Jillian M. Cavanna, Lauren Molloy Elreda, Peter Youngs and James Pippin in Journal of Teacher Education

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) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This material is based upon work supported by the Spencer Foundation and the National Science Foundation under Grant No. DGE 1535024. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recomendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the funders.

ORCID iD

Jillian M. Cavanna

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

Author Biographies

Jillian M. Cavanna conducts research on teaching and learning to teach mathematics. Within this work, she focuses on mathematical discourse and how teachers understand and use evidence from their classrooms to improve instruction.

Lauren Molloy Elreda conducts research applying advanced methodologies to understand, evaluate, and improve educational settings for youth. Her recent work has been disseminated in the Journal of Early Adolescence, Journal of School Psychology, American Education Research Journal, and Prevention Science, among others.

Peter Youngs conducts research on teacher preparation, induction, and professional development. Recent publications have appeared in Elementary School Journal, Teachers College Record, and Teaching and Teacher Education.

James Pippin works as an Assessment Specialist and conducts research on the use of assessment data for faculty professional development.

References

Beck

Kosnik

(2001). From cohort to community in a preservice teacher education program. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(8), 925–948.

Boyd

D. J.

Grossman

P. L.

Lankford

Loeb

Wyckoff

(2009). Teacher preparation and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(4), 416–440.

Brouwer

Korthagen

(2005). Can teacher education make a difference? American Educational Research Journal, 42(1), 153–224.

Carlisle

J. F.

Kelcey

Rowan

Phelps

(2011). Teachers’ knowledge about early reading: Effects on students’ gains in reading achievement. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 4(4), 289–321.

Darling-Hammond

(2006). Constructing 21st century teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3), 300–314.

Darling-Hammond

Bransford

(Eds.). (2007). Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. Jossey-Bass.

Feiman-Nemser

(2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 1013–1055.

Feiman-Nemser

Tamir

Hammerness

(2014). Inspiring teaching: Preparing teachers to Succeed in mission-driven schools. Harvard Education Press.

Games

P. A.

Howell

J. F.

(1976). Pairwise multiple comparison procedures with unequal n’s and/or variances: A Monte Carlo study. Journal of Educational Statistics, 1(2), 113–125.

10.

Grossman

Hammerness

McDonald

Ronfeldt

(2008). Constructing coherence: Structural predictors of perceptions of coherence in NYC teacher education programs. Journal of Teacher Education, 59, 273–287.

11.

Hammerness

(2014). Visions of good teaching. In Feiman-Nemser

Tamir

Hammerness

(Eds.), Inspiring teaching: Preparing teachers to succeed in mission driven schools (pp. 103–121). Harvard Education Press.

12.

Hammerness

Klette

(2015). Indicators of quality in teacher education: Looking at features of teacher education from an international perspective. In LeTendre

G. K.

Wiseman

A. W.

(Eds.), Promoting and sustaining a quality teacher workforce (Vol. 27, pp. 239–277). Emerald Group.

13.

Howell

D. C.

(2009). Statistical methods for psychology. Cengage Learning.

14.

Kennedy

M. M.

(1998). Learning to teach writing: Does teacher education make a difference? Teachers College Press.

15.

Kennedy

M. M.

(2006). Knowledge and vision in teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3), 205–211.

16.

National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. U.S. Department of Education.

17.

Richmond

Bartell

Carter Andrews

D. J.

Neville

M. L.

(2019). Reexamining coherence in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 70(3), 188–191.

18.

Ronfeldt

Reininger

(2012). More or better student teaching? Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(8), 1091–1106.

19.

Ronfeldt

Reininger

Kwok

(2013). Recruitment or preparation? Investigating the effects of teacher characteristics and student teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(4), 319–337.

20.

Yin

R. K.

(2017). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). SAGE.

21.

Youngs

Frank

K. A.

Pogodzinski

(2012). The role of mentors and colleagues in beginning elementary and middle school teachers’ language arts instruction. In Kelly

(Ed.), Assessing teacher quality: Understanding teacher effects on instruction and achievement (pp. 161–181). Teachers College Press.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.26 MB