BRIDGING THE THEORY-PRACTICE GAP
87
BRIDGING THE THEORY-PRACTICE GAP IN AN URBAN TEACHER RESIDENCY:
TWO INTERVENTIONS AND A CAUTIONARY NOTE
Wendy Gardiner
National Louis University
Diane Salmon
National Louis University
ABSTRACT
In 2001, National Louis University and the Academy for Urban School Leadership partnered to
create the country’s first Urban Teacher Residency (UTR) program. Ten years later, with the
assistance of Teacher Quality Partnership funding, the program quadrupled in size. As the UTR
expanded, an increasing theory-practice gap became apparent, reflecting a perennial problem in
teacher education (Darling-Hammond, 2006; Zeichner, 2010). A leadership team was formed to
address the growing gap and several smaller scale interventions were implemented to no real
avail. Subsequently, grant funding was allocated toward two interventions designed to increase
university faculty engagement in schools. This paper describes and analyzes those interventions:
1) faculty liaisons as an alternative to traditional supervision, and 2) faculty research residencies
to situate university faculty in high need schools for the dual purpose of engaged research and
curricular revision. Questions pertaining to post-grant sustainability are also raised.
Introduction
In 2001, National Louis University (NLU) and the Academy for Urban School
Leadership (AUSL) partnered to create the country’s first urban teacher residency (UTR)
program. At its inception, the UTR comprised one culturally and linguistically diverse “training
academy,” a small pool of university faculty who met on-site at training academies to deliver
coursework, and 32 teacher candidates (called “residents”). In 2011, the UTR comprised six
elementary and three secondary training academies, university faculty spanning six departments
who held classes on campus, and 112 residents. By 2011, university faculty rarely spent time in
training academies, where residents spent four days per week.
As our UTR expanded, we observed—and residents’ program exit data confirmed—an
increasing disconnect between their university coursework and their experiences in their training
academies, reflecting a perennial problem in teacher education (Darling-Hammond, 2006;
Zeichner, 2010). Additionally, university faculty increasingly reported a lack of knowledge about
the teaching practices enacted in the training academies—a frequently occurring problem, even
in the context of school-university partnerships (Bullough & Kauchak, 1997; Zeichner, 2010).
Problematically, this gap not only inhibits residents’ learning but also fails to capitalize on the
field-intensive program.
The purpose of this study is to describe and analyze the impact of two separate
interventions involving university faculty teaching in the UTR program. These interventions
were designed to bridge the theory-practice gap and inform other developing or expanding
UTRs. The interventions include: 1) faculty liaisons as an alternative to traditional supervision,
and 2) faculty research residencies to situate university faculty in high need schools for the dual
purpose of engaged research and curricular revision. The following research question guided the
analysis of this study: In what ways, if any, does faculty participation in the liaison or research
88
BRIDGING THE THEORY-PRACTICE GAP
residency role impact faculty members’ understanding of and ability to increase schooluniversity coherence?
Urban Teacher Residencies
Urban Teacher Residencies (UTRs) are a relatively recent teacher preparation innovation
designed to improve teaching and learning in high needs schools. UTRs involve collaboration
between school districts, universities, and non-profit organizations (Berry et al., 2008). UTRs
recruit socially motivated candidates who want to teach in urban schools; these programs
integrate theory and practice through a one-year “residency” with mentor teachers at “training
academies” while residents take graduate level coursework leading to a master’s degree and
certification. UTRs also help graduates secure teaching positions in the partnering district’s high
need schools and provide induction support to program graduates (Berry et al., 2008).
This comprehensive approach is intended to address issues pertaining to urban teacher
preparation, and teacher attrition and its impact on students’ experiences (Berry et al., 2008;
Solomon, 2009). Research indicates that UTRs demonstrate higher levels of new teacher
retention in hard to staff schools (Berry et al., 2008) and show promise as a reform intervention
(Berry et al., 2008; Gardiner & Kamm, 2010; Gatlin, 2009). However, reflecting research on
Professional Development Schools indicating uneven implementation and uneven results (Teitel,
1999), careful attention to the design and implementation of UTRs is critical if they are to be a
viable reform intervention.
Conceptual Framework
Proponents of field-intensive learning, such as UTRs, explicate the necessity of
establishing stronger connections between theory and practice (Darling-Hammond, 2010;
Hammerness et al, 2005; Wang et al., 2010) and recommend a more situated approach to teacher
learning in which university course content is specifically linked to and embedded in the actual
tasks and activities of teaching (Ball & Forzani, 2010; Lampert, 2010). Such an approach calls
for a fundamental reconceptualization in how schools and universities collaborate (DarlingHammond, 2010) and how teacher education coursework is designed and delivered (Ball &
Forzani, 2010; Lampert, 2010).
In his critique of the disconnect between campus-based and school-based components of
teacher education, Zeichner (2010) states that new roles and relationships need to be established
in order connect course and field experiences and improve teacher candidate learning. In
accordance with this stance, Ball and Forzani (2010) state that an essential task of teaching is
determining where learners encounter difficulties. In the context of teacher education, situating
university faculty in the classrooms where teacher candidates are learning to teach can provide
clarity about what practices are implemented, how they are implemented, and where teacher
candidates succeed and struggle. Optimally, such insights can be applied to establish a stronger
connection between theory and practice, and more supported learning experiences.
Yet, despite the press for greater full time faculty involvement in field-based components
of teacher education to help bridge the pervasive theory-practice gap, research indicates fulltime
university faculty maintain low involvement in school-based teacher education (Beck & Kosnik,
2002; Darling-Hammond, 2010; Zeichner, 2010). A number of factors serve to inhibit faculty’s
willingness and ability to invest in field-based teacher education, including the fact that field-
BRIDGING THE THEORY-PRACTICE GAP
89
based work is perceived as low status (Beck & Kosnik, 2002; Cucena et al., 2011; DarlingHammond et al., 2005) and the reality that university structures typically privilege publications
and tend to support faculty involvement in the field when this activity focuses on scholarship
(Darling-Hammond, 2010).
Methods
Background & Context
The UTR structure on which we focused for our study was a one-year program entailing
a clinical placement (residency) with an experienced mentor teacher in a training academy and
university coursework leading to a master’s degree and certification. Between June and August
residents took intensive summer coursework at the university, Monday through Friday from 9:00
am to 3:30 pm. From late August through June, residents were in classrooms with their mentors,
Monday through Thursday, and took coursework at the university on Friday. Upon program
completion, the UTR helped residents secure teaching positions in the district’s high needs
schools.
In 2009, the UTR had been in existence for eight years, quadrupled the number of
residents and mentors since its inception, added five new training academies, and retained no
original university faculty. Also in 2009, the Teacher Quality Partnership (TQP) grant was
awarded and provided funding for the UTR. The authors of this manuscript began attending
newly established monthly leadership meetings and also taught courses in the UTR program.
The leadership meetings were established to improve the coherence between the school
and university portions and improve resident learning. In this manner, monthly leadership
meetings were intended to identify and prioritize needs and problem solve. Participants in the
leadership meetings included four university faculty who taught in the program, the NLU-AUSL
liaison, the TQP grant manager, and the managing director and director of teacher education for
AUSL. Membership remained constant. Once a quarter, the dean or dean’s designee attended the
leadership meetings. Issues raised and discussed included the sequencing of coursework,
structural organization of the UTR model, recruiting university and school-based faculty to teach
in the program, ensuring that those who taught in the program understood the field intensive
model and the program’s curricular design, finding ways to increase coherence between
university coursework and field experiences, and improving university supervision, which was
reported to be inconsistent in quality.
The leadership team developed and facilitated a range of interventions between 20092011. These interventions appeared to add some value but did not fundamentally address the
theory-practice divide evidenced in residents’ exit data. For example, a two-hour onboarding
session for those new to teaching in the UTR was created to provide a program overview. Halfday faculty visits to training academies were established and led by the NLU-AUSL liaison for
university faculty. Supervisor sessions were held to bring supervisors, teaching faculty, and
mentor-resident coaches (each training academy had an AUSL employed mentor-resident coach
to support resident and mentor development) together to develop a shared understanding of the
program, residents’ supervisory needs, and shared expectations for supporting residents’
development. For one year, there were joint AUSL and NLU personnel meetings to develop
school-based professional development sessions for mentor teachers. While these steps appeared
to contribute to some improved coherence, they were insufficient in leading to substantive
90
BRIDGING THE THEORY-PRACTICE GAP
change and difficult to sustain because of the complex logistics they entailed.
Seeking to effect more substantive change to improve the coherence between the schooluniversity experiences, members of the leadership team identified and sought to address two key
issues: the quality of supervision and university faculty’s disengagement from school settings. To
this end, the members organized into small teams to create the faculty liaison model as an
alternative to traditional supervision and to create faculty research residencies to engage faculty
in school sites for the purpose of conducting research in order to redesign university coursework.
The first author was on both teams, and the second author was on the faculty research residency
team. Both interventions will be described more fully in the “Results” section. Additionally, both
interventions were funded through the Department of Education grants. The Teacher Quality
Partnership grant funded the faculty liaison model and the Fund for the Improvement of Post
Secondary Education funded the faculty research residency model.
Data Sources and Analysis
Two data sets were gathered, one pertaining to the faculty liaison model (2011-12) and
one pertaining to the faculty research residency project (2010-2014). For the faculty liaison
model, data included resident (n = 19) and mentor (n = 17) surveys at the end of the program
focusing on the benefits, limitations, and impact of the model. Structured interviews (Seidman,
1998) were also conducted with faculty liaisons who were full-time university faculty teaching in
the UTR program (n = 4) and mentor-resident coaches (MRC) who worked at training academies
to support mentor and resident development (n = 6). Interviews sought to understand the nature
of the work, participants’ perspectives on the liaison model, and recommendations for sustaining,
modifying, or eliminating the model. Surveys and the interview protocol for the faculty liaison
study are found in Appendix A.
For the faculty research residencies, data included participating faculty’s documents (e.g.,
revised syllabi, assignments, and other materials demonstrating course changes), structured
interviews (Seidman, 2013), and a pre- and post-residency surveys from faculty who engaged in
research residencies (n = 13). The interview protocol and the survey for the faculty research
residency study are found in Appendix B.
Each data set, liaison model, and faculty research residency model was analyzed
separately. Data analysis occurred through comparative analysis (Corbin & Strauss, 2008).
Repeatedly reading and discussing data established open codes (Corbin & Strauss, 2008) such as
“boundary crossing,” “communicate expectations,” and “competing pressures” for faculty liaison
data, and “new tool,” “theory to practice challenges, “understanding impact,” and “context
insights” for faculty research residency data. Through ongoing comparative analysis, we
continued to reread and discuss data, looking for conceptual and experiential similarities and
differences, in order to refine, revise, and synthesize codes into interpretive themes (Corbin &
Strauss, 2008; Miles & Huberman, 1994) such as “A More Holistic Lens to ‘Push Residents’
Growth’” and “Understanding Problems of Enactment.” Finally, we engaged in comparative
analysis across models to garner insights into if and how faculty participation in the two
models—liaison or research residency—impacted their understanding of and ability to increase
school-university coherence.
BRIDGING THE THEORY-PRACTICE GAP
91
Results
Faculty Liaison
The Faculty Liaison (FL) model was informed by Beck and Kosnik’s (2002) “professors
in the practicum” model. In an effort to better link school and university experiences, Beck and
Kosnik implemented an alternative supervision model in which full-time faculty supervised, but
did not evaluate, practicum students. In their school-based role, university faculty communicated
university expectations, connected coursework and field experiences, and provided instructional
feedback. Results indicated that the model strengthened university and school-based personnel’s
commitment to the partnership and improved teacher candidates’ experiences in university
coursework and field placements. University faculty noted that the model placed high demands
on time and that their academic community did not legitimize their in-school work. Beck and
Kosnick contend the benefits outweigh the limitations, but note that such limitations may hinder
subsequent implementation and transferability to other teacher education programs.
FLs were full time university faculty teaching in the UTR program. FLs were assigned to
schools rather than individual teacher residents. On average, FLs worked with five to eight
residents. FL expectations were to observe, provide feedback, evaluate resident performance, and
help connect coursework and classroom practice. Expectations were to spend, on average, two
half days in the school per month fall through spring. FLs also met monthly to problem solve and
refine and develop the model. FLs received the equivalent of one course release per training
academy for their work.
A More Holistic Lens to “Push Residents’ Growth”
Mentors, residents, and MRCs appreciated that FLs knew both university and classroom
expectations. In this manner, liaisons were able to “push residents’ growth” in ways that would
not be possible if liaisons were not situated in both university and training academy classrooms.
Mentors and MRCs described confusion in past years about course expectations, indicating a
limited capacity to support the university experience at the training academies. As one MRC
indicated, liaisons “brought clarity and information so that the resident can be developed more
holistically.” Each liaison stated that she made it a point to discuss coursework. Reflecting her
colleagues’ statements, one liaison said:
The MRC and mentors know that the residents are taking courses, but they don’t know
what they are or the effect on the knowledge and practice base of the residents…I share
syllabi at the beginning of the terms so mentors can plan ahead for what residents will
learn and need to do.
Mentors concurred, indicating that liaisons helped them understand the sequence of courses, the
content taught, and plan ahead for residents’ school-based assignments. Mentors appreciated the
advanced knowledge, stating that in years past residents would let them know they needed to
implement a project, and mentors would have to adjust already busy schedules to accommodate
course expectations. Mentors stated this knowledge helped them be able to plan more proactively
and effectively support residents’ university coursework in the classroom.
Liaisons stated that sustained time in the classrooms helped them build knowledge they
92
BRIDGING THE THEORY-PRACTICE GAP
did not previously possess about the practices implemented at training academies and the degree
of success residents had translating course content into practice. If a particular practice was not
implemented in a classroom because of grade level, content area, or other reasons, liaisons
coordinated with MRCs and/or mentors or modified their coursework to help ensure residents
had a fuller range of experiences. Additionally, liaisons noted that observing residents’ successes
and challenges provided them with insights into the problems of enactment residents encountered
that they had not previously obtained. As a result, liaisons stated that they drew upon these
insights to reteach or provide additional in-class practice opportunities, to model or bring in
videos to illustrate particular concepts or practices, and to discuss the nuances that could lead to
stronger implementation.
Connecting Courses and Context: “A More Coherent Experience”
Data indicates that the liaison role helped residents see the connections between courses
and classrooms, providing, as one mentor indicated, “a more coherent experience.” Each liaison
stated that helping residents see the connections between their coursework and residency
classroom was a critical aspect of the role. Reflecting her colleagues’ statements, one liaison
further noted, “I help residents see how the coursework they are taking can be implemented into
their work in the classroom, particularly when they are not seeing the connections on their own.”
Residents’ survey data consistently revealed that they valued having a professor in their
classroom. Residents stated that liaisons helped them “have a meta-view of the program” and
provided feedback and insights on how to implement or adapt practices to be effective in their
particular context. However, some residents indicated a theory-practice disconnect in some
courses in which professors were not in training academies.
Liaisons explained that time spent in classrooms improved their university teaching. Each
liaison discussed ways in which s/he specifically modified assignments and scaffolded course
content to better connect the assignment to residents’ context. Specifically, liaisons drew upon
their experiences in training academies to clarify and augment course content by collecting
samples of student work to analyze and discuss in class, capturing videos and/or photographs to
represent and concretize concepts, and developing case studies for residents to discuss and
analyze in class. Liaisons said that while they used video and student work samples in past
classes, they believed that residents appeared to be more engaged with and by examples that
were drawn from their actual context. Furthermore, liaisons stated that by regularly observing
residents’ teaching, they were better able to responsively adjust university coursework, such as
providing additional practice opportunities and/or readings and discussions when residents
struggled to implement certain practices.
Developing “A More Expansive Role”
The liaison role was developed and funded to not only support residents’ practice via
observation and feedback, but to also communicate university expectations and connect
experiences. In addition, each liaison found that they developed relationships with mentors and
MRCs that led them to contribute their disciplinary knowledge to the training academies.
Mentors and MRCs corroborated and stated that they appreciated liaisons’ “content knowledge
and expertise.”
To illustrate, one liaison worked weekly with struggling readers in a third grade
BRIDGING THE THEORY-PRACTICE GAP
93
classroom while another helped the MRC inventory and analyze the school’s science materials
and curriculum. Each liaison stated that they located research and other professional materials for
MRCs and mentors to help them respond to problems of practice. Liaisons stated that an
important aspect of the FL model was their ongoing presence in a school, which allowed them to
develop relationships and have a more “engaged” and expansive role than what they experienced
as traditional supervisors. Each liaison stated that contributing their expertise in the schools made
the role more interesting and fulfilling. As one MRC stated, “The liaison has a better sense of the
school as a whole, where the needs are, and where we can push not just this one resident, but the
whole building.”
Two tenure track liaisons also discussed the importance of connecting research to the role
if they were to comfortably continue in it. One discussed the need for “a more expansive role”
explaining, “Tenure track faculty need to do research…If not, it’s going to be hard to get people
to commit [to being liaisons]. We've started developing the relationships. My hope is next year,
I’ll be able to engage in research that is meaningful to the school and to me.”
Faculty Research Residencies
In the Faculty Research Residency (FRR) project, university faculty were situated in
UTR training academies to engage in a research project in their discipline and apply the
contextual knowledge gained from this in-depth experience to inform teacher preparation course
redesign. FRR projects spanned a year. The FFR project was funded through the Department of
Education’s Fund for the Improvement of Post Secondary Education (FIPSE) grant.
The FRR model was informed by and applied practice-based theory (Ball & Forzani,
2010; Grossman et al., 2009; Lambert, 2010). A shift to a practice-based design in teacher
learning requires that teacher educators deepen their participation within schools and redesign
university learning to explicitly explore the nexus of theory and practice (Darling-Hammond,
2010; Wang et al., 2010). The outcome of tighter integration between theory and practice is
better prepared teacher candidates who are more likely to overcome the challenges of
“enactment” in complex classroom environments and ultimately improve student learning
(Hammerness et al., 2005).
The FRR cycle began with a call for proposals in which individual faculty or faculty
teams identified a course or set of courses they wished to improve using practice-based
principles and developed a research proposal to be conducted in UTR training academies. The
leadership team (comprised of UTR and university personnel) reviewed proposals and
interviewed and selected faculty participants whose proposals showed promise of significant
curricular change and were a good fit for UTR classrooms. The leadership team also helped to
match faculty with mentors in training academies as needed (e.g. faculty studying assessment
were matched with mentors who demonstrated exemplary use of assessment to inform
instruction).
During the research residency year, faculty attended monthly seminars to read literature
pertaining to practice-based theory and collaborate around their research and course redesign. At
the end of the residency year, faculty presented research findings and course redesign to the
leadership team, UTR participants, the College of Education, and to other academic audiences.
The grant funded course reduction for faculty and honorariums for UTR participants (typically
classroom teachers). Examples of faculty projects included studying assessment principles,
BRIDGING THE THEORY-PRACTICE GAP
94
standards-based grading, science inquiry, and literacy practices (e.g. implementation of word
study and guided reading in high needs settings).
Understanding problems of enactment
Situating faculty in training academies revealed where enactment challenges occurred,
the contextual factors that contributed to those challenges, and provided insights into how course
content could be scaffolded to support resident learning. In one example, a faculty member
studying standards-based grading was matched with a training academy that had recently
adopted that practice. What he found was that mentors were struggling to implement standards
based grading practices. Through observations and interviews, the faculty member was able to
identify the challenges mentors faced and revise his course to specifically address these issues of
enactment. Without exception, faculty members discussed how being in classrooms helped them
see, and later change, their courses to respond to the myriad of challenges that residents face
when enacting student-centered practices. One faculty resident exploring inquiry science
explained, “Seeing the challenges teachers face in incorporating inquiry approaches: it was
sobering! The more I get out and work with teachers, the more of these realities I can bring in [to
my courses].”
Applying a Practice-Based Theory
Theoretically driven higher education coursework often represents teaching using
abstractions of concepts that are hard for novice teachers to translate into effective practice
(Grossman et al., 2009; Hammerness et al., 2005). By immersing themselves into training
academy classrooms, faculty were able to collect and create a range of artifacts that helped
concretize the theory and practices in their university courses such as case studies, student work,
and video exemplars. Faculty consistently stated that the course revisions improved resident
learning in that residents appeared to better understand and more effectively enact the practices
they taught.
To illustrate, the faculty member studying standards-based grading brought in more
readings to address knowledge gaps and used student work collected in training academies to
provide opportunities for residents to collaboratively discuss and practice standards based
grading in his university classes. A literacy methods instructor captured videos of exemplary
guided reading and word study practices at training academies, as well as interviews with
mentors explaining the thinking that goes into planning and executing successful lessons. These
videos were shown in the university classes where the faculty member and residents discussed
visible and invisible aspects of practice.
Later, residents would video their own word study and guided reading lessons and bring
them to class to share and analyze. Additionally, the science inquiry team developed and tested
an observation protocol to help residents identify the many steps and processes that go into
developing and executing successful inquiry lessons. Document analysis and interviews indicate
that faculty revised their courses based on insights derived from high needs settings. One faculty
member explained:
My syllabus is 100% different…We used to give them so many different things and
overwhelm them - and it's helping them be less overwhelmed. We’ve moved to “less is
BRIDGING THE THEORY-PRACTICE GAP
95
more”…No more doing something once. That’s not enough. Really going out into the
schools and trying these practices out in multiple iterations - doing it, seeing how you
did, then changing it as a result.
Discussion
The interventions described were designed to engage faculty in high needs, high poverty
training academies in order to bridge the theory-practice gap and improve teacher education in
the residency program. Situating university faculty in training academies as liaisons and research
residents appeared to deepen their understanding of school contexts and the demands of
schooling. In turn, faculty applied these insights to address theory-practice gaps and create a
more coherent experience between university and school-based experiences.
As such, both interventions reflect Wegner’s (1998) notions of boundary spanning,
providing the context to build new relationships and develop insights that can subsequently be
applied to create new and/or revise existing tools, artifacts, and documents. In the case of the
liaison and research residency models, university faculty’s presence in training academy
classrooms helped them develop insights into and responses to challenges of enactment. Liaisons
developed relationships with mentors and MRCs that helped bridge school-university
experiences. Liaisons and research residents drew upon experiences in training academy to
contextualize their content; create new artifacts such as case studies and video exemplars;
revise/update artifacts such as gathering authentic student work from training academies to
augment and contextualize coursework; revise documents such as syllabi and course
assignments; and develop new tools such as observational protocols.
Importantly, both interventions supported faculty presence in schools with the goal of
improving the residency experience and residents’ learning. To begin, faculty work in schools
was compensated as teaching via course release. Additionally, faculty knowledge building was
supported through monthly, collaborative meetings. While typical university structures tend to
dissuade faculty from engaging in schools for purposes beyond research (Darling-Hammond,
2010; Zeichner, 2010), both interventions sought to support and engage faculty in school-based
portions of teacher education.
Teacher education research aiming to bridge the pervasive theory-practice gap calls for
the design and implementation of new roles and structures that increase university faculty
engagement with and in field settings (Beck & Kosnik, 2002; Cucena et al., 2011; DarlingHammond, 2010; National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education [NCATE], 2010;
Zeichner, 2010). The faculty liaison and research residency models are promising roles and role
structures for teacher education faculty. With both interventions, university faculty deepened
their understanding of high needs schools and refined higher education courses in response to
their increased understanding of local school needs and contexts.
Teacher education has moved toward more field intensive models. The success of these
models is dependent, in part, on a strong intersection of theory and practice that helps resolve
problems of enactment. While partnerships may start off with strong theory-practice connections,
such coherence is challenging to sustain (Goodlad, 2004).
Creating, implementing, and sustaining faculty engagement in field-based portions of
teacher education is imperative if we are to address the perennial theory-practice gap. Clearly,
when structures are created and implemented, faculty are willing and able to invest in field-based
teacher education. The question is sustainability.
96
BRIDGING THE THEORY-PRACTICE GAP
What will happen to our UTR and other grant supported programs when the funding ends? Will
the innovative structures developed in such programs be sustained? Or will we look back upon
the movement toward field intensive teacher education as a movement that demonstrated, but did
not sustain, its promise?
References
Ball, D.L., & Forzani, F. M. (2010). The work of teaching and the challenge for teacher
education. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(5), 497-511.
Beck, C., & Kosnik, C. (2002). Professors and the practicum: Involvement of university faculty
in preservice practicum supervision. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 6-19.
Berry, B., Montgomery, D., Curtis, R., Hernandez, M., Wurtzel, J., & Snyder, J. (2008). Creating
and sustaining urban teacher residencies: A new way to recruit, prepare and retain
effective teachers in high-needs districts. The Aspen Institute/Centern for Teaching
Quality.
Retrieved
from:
http://www.eric.ed.gov:80/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/
3e/b8/0e.pdf
Bullough, R., & Kauchak, D. (1997). Partnerships between higher education and secondary
schools: Some problems. Journal of Education for Teaching, 23(3), 215-233.
Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research (3rd ed). Los Angeles: Sage.
Cucenca, A., Schmeichel, M., Butler, B., Dinkelman, T., & Nichols, J. (2011). Creating a “third
space” in student teaching: Implications for the university supervisor as outsider. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 27(7), 1068-1077.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Powerful teacher education: Lessons from exemplary programs.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). Teacher education and the American future. Journal of Teacher
Education, (61)1-2, 35-47.
Gardiner, W. & Kamm, C. (2010). Urban teacher residencies: Collaborating to reconceptualize
urban teacher preparation. In J. Slater & R. Ravid (Eds.), Collaboration in Education. (pp.
191-198). New York: Routledge.
Gatlin, D. (2009). A pluralistic approach to the revitalization of teacher education. The Journal of
Teacher Education, 60(5), 469-477.
Goodlad, J. I. (2004). A place called school (20th anniversary edition). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Grossman, P., Compton, C., Igra, D., Ronfeldt, M., Shahan, E., & Williamson, P. (2009).
Teaching practice: A cross-professional perspective. Teachers College Record, 111, 20552100.
Lampert, M. (2010). Learning teaching in, from, and for practice: What do we mean? Journal of
Teacher Education, 61(1-2), 21-34.
Hammerness, K., Darling-Hammond, L., Grossman, P., Rust, F., & Shulman, L. (2005). The
design of teacher education programs. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.),
Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do
(pp. 358-389). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2010). Transforming teacher
education through clinical practice: A national strategy to prepare effective teachers.
Washington,
DC:
Author.
Retrieved
from
BRIDGING THE THEORY-PRACTICE GAP
97
http://www.ncate.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=zzeiB1OoqPk%3d&tabid=715
Seidman, I. E. (2013). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education
and the social sciences (4th ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
Teitel, L. (1999). Looking toward the future by understanding the past: The historical context of
professional development schools. Peabody Journal of Education, 74(3&4), 6-20.
Wang, J, Spalding, E., Odell, S. Klecka, C., & Lin, E. (2010). Bold ideas for improving Teacher
education: What we see, hear, and think. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1-2), 3-15.
Zeichner, K. (2010). Rethinking connections between campus courses and field experiences in
college and university based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1-2),
89-99.
Appendix A
Resident Survey
1. How often did your liaison visit?
2. What other communication did you have (phone, email, etc.)? How often?
3. What did you typically do when you met?
4. What were the most important roles and/or tasks of the liaison?
5. Were there roles or tasks you felt were unnecessary?
6. Did your liaison impact your development as a resident? If so, how and in what ways? If not,
why not?
7. Are there other ways the liaison could have supported your development?
8. What were the benefits of working with your liaison?
9. What were the drawbacks?
10. To what extent did you feel that your liaisons’ advice & expectations were aligned to those of
the training academy?
11. What qualities do you think are most important in a liaison?
12. If we bring in new liaisons next year, what advice or suggestions do you have in terms of
supporting your learning and development?
Mentor Survey
1. Have your worked with a traditional supervisor? If so, please respond to the following:
a. In what ways do you see the role of the liaison being similar and/or different from a
traditional supervisor’s role?
b. What are the benefits of the liaison role in comparison to the traditional supervisor?
c. What are the drawbacks?
2. What are the most important roles and/or tasks of the liaison?
3. Were there unnecessary roles or tasks?
4. Has the liaison done anything to support you as a mentor?
5. Does the liaison’s work with residents supporting their learning and practice? If so, how and
in what ways? If not, why not?
6. Were there any challenges (expected and/or unexpected) as they pertain to the faculty liaison
role?
7. Would you recommend maintaining the liaison role next year? Why/why not?
8. Do you suggest any changes for the role?
98
BRIDGING THE THEORY-PRACTICE GAP
Faculty Liaison Interview Protocol
1. What drew you to become a liaison?
2. Have you been a traditional supervisor?
a. In what ways do you see the role of the liaison being similar or different from that of
supervisor?
3. How would you define the role of the faculty liaison?
4. What are the most important roles and/or tasks of the liaison?
5. Were there unnecessary roles or tasks?
6. Were there roles or tasks that you felt were particularly valuable?
7. Are there roles you didn’t have but would consider valuable?
8. Describe a typical visit to a training academy.
9. Approximately how much time per week did you spend on this role (average)? Was the time
allotted adequate to do the tasks required?
10. Describe some of the work you do outside of your visits.
11. In what ways do you feel your work with residents supported their learning and practice? If
so, how and in what ways? If not, why not? Is that similar to or different from your prior
supervisory work?
12. In what ways do you work with MRCs? Is that similar to or different from your prior
supervisory work?
13. In what ways did you work with mentors? Is that similar to or different from your prior
supervisory work?
14. What, if any, unexpected roles or tasks did you undertake?
15. Were there any challenges (expected and/or unexpected) as they pertain to the FL role?
Prompt if needed
16. Has being a liaison impacted the coursework you teach at NLU?
17. Were you able to bring your own areas of expertise to your work as a liaison? If so, what? If
not, why not?
18. What have been your most important insights about being a liaison in a training academy?
19. What advice would you give to others who are interested in becoming a faculty liaison?
20. Would you recommend maintaining the liaison role next year? Why/why not?
21. Do you recommend changes to the role?
22. Would you want to be a FL again next year? Why or why not? What would you similarly and
differently?
MRC Interview Protocol
1. Did you work with a supervisor previously as an MRC?
a. In what ways do you see the role of the liaison being similar or different from the supervisor?
b. Ask about benefits and drawbacks to the role
2. How often do you meet with the liaison for your site?
3. What other communication do you have (phone, email) and how often?
4. What do you typically do when you meet?
5. What are the most important roles and/or tasks of the liaison?
6. Were there unnecessary roles or tasks?
7. Has the liaison done anything to support you as an MRC? If MRC worked with supervisors,
ask: Is that similar to or different from your work with supervisors?
8. Can you describe how the liaison at your site worked with residents?
BRIDGING THE THEORY-PRACTICE GAP
99
9. Can you describe how the liaison at your site worked with mentors?
10. If MRC worked with supervisors in the past ask: Do you think the liaison added value to
residents’ learning in ways beyond what a supervisor would?
11. Would you recommend maintaining the liaison role next year? Why/why not?
12. Do you recommend changes to the role?
13. If we move forward with new liaisons next year, what advice or suggestions do you have in
terms of supporting your role and a mentor and residents’ learning?
Appendix B
Faculty Research Residency Post-Residency Interview Protocol
Curricular impact
1. As a result of this residency specifically, to what extent have you changed the way you
instruct your undergraduate or graduate students to be effective teachers in a HNS setting?
To a great extent
To some extent
To a very little extent
To no extent
What evidence would you site as examples of this change?
2. What “next steps” do you intend for this research/project?
3. If you could capture your most significant “lesson learned” from this residency, what would
it be? OR Please describe your key summary findings from the project:
Quality of the experience, residency structure and design
4. To what extent did your project differ from your original design or intention?
To a great extent
To some extent
To a very little extent
To no extent
Please describe:
5. What were the most significant challenges you faced throughout this project?
Could the project leadership team have solved this/these challenge(s) in any way? (In what
way can future residents learn from these challenges?) Please describe.
6. To what extent did the monthly seminars contribute to your professional growth and
development?
To a great extent
To some extent
To a very little extent
BRIDGING THE THEORY-PRACTICE GAP
100
To no extent
If great/some:
How did the monthly seminars contribute to your learning experience in this residency?
If none or little:
Why were the monthly seminars ineffective in contributing to your professional growth and
development? How could they be structured or enacted to be more effective?
7. What advice do you have for the next round of faculty residents?
8. What feedback do you have for the Project Leadership Team in selecting future residents?
Pre- and Post Survey
Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly No
agree
agree
disagree
disagree opinion
I have a thorough understanding of the
CPS turnaround school model
I have a good understanding of student
learning in a high-need, low-performing
school
After this residency, my professional
research interests will continue to be
focused on the high-need, lowperforming school setting
I have a good idea of how this
residency impacted my own teaching
practice
I feel like I am in touch with what is
happening in a high-need, lowperforming school
I have a good idea of how my residency
will now inform a practice-base theory
of teacher learning