A growing body of research has identified teacher residency’s potentials for improving and sustaining preservice teacher learning through a stronger district–university partnership. Drawing on sensemaking perspectives on education policy implementation, this qualitative case study examines how a variety of university and district stakeholders make sense of and implement a state-mandated teacher residency in Louisiana. Findings reveal that stakeholders are primarily making sense of the residency in isolation, leading to incoherent understandings and varied implementation practices. Opportunities to improve stakeholders’ collective sensemaking and collaborative implementation and to optimize the benefits and potentials of teacher residency partnerships are discussed. This study has implications for teacher education policy implementation and continuous inquiry into the complexities of teacher preparation.
AllbrightT. N.MarshJ. A.HallM.TobbenL.PicusL. O.LavadenzM. (2019). Conceptualizing equity in the implementation of California education finance reform. American Journal of Education, 125(2), 173–200. https://doi.org/10.1086/701247
2.
AllenC. D.PenuelW. R. (2015). Studying teachers’ sensemaking to investigate teachers’ responses to professional development focused on new standards. Journal of Teacher Education, 66(2), 136–149. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487114560646
3.
AnagnostopoulosD.SmithE. R.BasmadjianK. G. (2007). Bridging the university–school divide: Horizontal expertise and the “two-worlds pitfall.”Journal of Teacher Education, 58(2), 138–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487106297841
4.
BeckJ. S. (2016). The complexities of a third-space partnership in an urban teacher residency. Teacher Education Quarterly, 43(1), 51–70.
5.
BeckJ. S. (2020). Investigating the third space: A new agenda for teacher education research. Journal of Teacher Education, 71(4), 379–391. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487118787497
BrownC. P.EnglehardtJ.BarryD. P.KuD. H. (2019). Examining how stakeholders at the local, state, and national levels made sense of the changed kindergarten. American Educational Research Journal, 56(3), 822–867. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831218804152
8.
CoburnC. E. (2001). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate reading policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(2), 145–170. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737023002145
9.
CoburnC. E. (2006). Framing the problem of reading instruction: Using frame analysis to uncover the microprocesses of policy implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 43(3), 343–349. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312043003343
10.
Cochran-SmithM.BakerM.BurtonS.ChangW.-C.Cummings CarneyM.FernándezM. B.Stringer KeefeE.MillerA. F.SánchezJ. G. (2017). The accountability era in US teacher education: Looking back, looking forward. European Journal of Teacher Education, 40(5), 572–588. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2017.1385061
11.
Cochran-SmithM.VillegasA. M.AbramsL. W.Chávez-MorenoL. C.MillsT.SternR. (2016). Research on teacher preparation: Charting the landscape of a sprawling field. In GitomerD. H.BellC. A. (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching (5th ed., pp. 439–538). American Educational Research Association.
12.
CohenJ.HuttE.BerlinR. L.MathewsH. M.McGrawJ. P.GottliebJ. (2020). Sense making and professional identity in the implementation of edTPA. Journal of Teacher Education, 71(1), 9–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487118783183
13.
CorbinJ.StraussA. L. (2015). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (4th ed.). SAGE.
14.
CreswellJ. W.PothC. N. (2017). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE.
15.
CurranF. C.KelloggA. T. (2017). Sense-making of federal education policy: Social network analysis of social media discourse around the Every Student Succeeds Act. Journal of School Leadership, 27(5), 622–651. https://doi.org/10.1177/105268461702700502
16.
Darling-HammondL. (2014). Strengthening clinical preparation: The holy grail of teacher education. Peabody Journal of Education, 89(4), 547–561. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956x.2014.939009
17.
DwyerS. C.BuckleJ. L. (2009). The space between: On being an insider-outsider in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(1), 54–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690900800105
18.
Feiman-NemserS. (2001). Helping novices learn to teach: Lessons from an exemplary support teacher. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(1), 17–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487101052001003
19.
GardinerW. (2011). Mentoring in an urban teacher residency: Mentors’ perceptions of yearlong placements. The New Educator, 7(2), 153–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/1547688x.2011.574591
20.
GardinerW.SalmonD. (2014). Bridging the theory-practice gap in an urban teacher residency: Two interventions and a cautionary note. Journal of Urban Learning, Teaching, and Research, 10, 87–100.
GoodwinA. L.RoegmanR.ReaganE. M. (2016). Is experience the best teacher? Extensive clinical practice and mentor teachers’ perspectives on effective teaching. Urban Education, 51(10), 1198–1225. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085915618720
23.
GrossmanP. (2008). Responding to our critics: From crisis to opportunity in research on teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(1), 10–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487107310748
HammernessK.WilliamsonP.KosnickC. (2016). Introduction to the special issue on urban teacher residencies: The trouble with “generic” teacher education. Urban Education, 51(10), 1155–1169. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085915618723
HessF. M. (2009). Revitalizing teacher education by revisiting our assumptions about teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(5), 450–457. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487109348595
30.
HollinsE. R. (Ed.). (2015). Rethinking field experiences in preservice teacher preparation: Meeting new challenges for accountability. Routledge.
31.
The Holmes Group. (1986). Tomorrow’s teachers: A report of the Holmes Group.
32.
KleinE. J.TaylorM.OnoreC.StromK.AbramsL. (2013). Finding a third space in teacher education: Creating an urban teacher residency. Teaching Education, 24(1), 27–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2012.711305
33.
KonstantopoulosS. (2014). Teacher effects, value-added models, and accountability. Teachers College Record, 116(1), 1–21.
34.
LouisK. S.MayrowetzD.MurphyJ.SmylieM. (2013). Making sense of distributed leadership: How secondary school educators look at job redesign. International Journal of Educational Leadership and Management, 1(1), 33–68. https://doi.org/10.4471/ijelm.2013.02
MärzV.KelchtermansG. (2013). Sense-making and structure in teachers’ reception of educational reform. A case study on statistics in the mathematics curriculum. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29, 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.08.004
38.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M.SaldañaJ. (2019). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (4th ed.). SAGE.
39.
MourlamD. J.De JongD.ShudakN. J.BaronM. (2019). A phenomenological case study of teacher candidate experiences during a yearlong teacher residency program. The Teacher Educator, 54(4), 397–419. https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730.2019.1590750
40.
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2010). Transforming teacher education through clinical practice: A national strategy to prepare effective teachers.
41.
Orland-BarakL.WangJ. (2020). Teacher mentoring in service of preservice teachers’ learning to teach: Conceptual bases, characteristics, and challenges for teacher education reform. Journal of Teacher Education, 72(1), 86–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487119894230
42.
PapayJ. P.WestM. R.FullertonJ. B.KaneT. J. (2012). Does an urban teacher residency increase student achievement? Early evidence from Boston. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 34(4), 413–434. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373712454328
43.
RoegmanR.PrattS.GoodwinA. L.AkinS. (2017). Curriculum, social justice, and inquiry in the field: Investigating retention in an urban teacher residency. Action in Teacher Education, 39(4), 432–452. https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2017.1300956
44.
RussellJ. L.BrayL. E. (2013). Crafting coherence from complex policy messages: Educators’ perceptions of special education and standards-based accountability policies. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 21(12), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v21n12.2013
SoslauE.Gallo-FoxJ.ScantleburyK. (2019). The promises and realities of implementing a coteaching model of student teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 70(3), 265–279. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487117750126
SpillaneJ. P.ReiserB. J.ReimerT. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 387–431. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543072003387
49.
StosichE. L. (2016). Joint inquiry: Teachers’ collective learning about the common core in high-poverty urban schools. American Educational Research Journal, 53(6), 1698–1731. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831216675403
50.
SykesG.BirdT.KennedyM. (2010). Teacher education: Its problems and some prospects. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(5), 464–476. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487110375804
WeickK. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. SAGE.
53.
WeickK. E.SutcliffeK. M.ObstfeldD. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409–421. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0133
54.
YinR. K. (2017). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). SAGE.
55.
ZeichnerK. (2010). Rethinking the connections between campus courses and field experiences in college- and university-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1–2), 89–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487109347671
ZeichnerK. M.BierM. L. (2015). Opportunities and pitfalls in the turn toward clinical experience in U.S. Teacher education. In HollinsE. R. (Ed.), Rethinking field experiences in preservice teacher preparation: Meeting new challenges for accountability (pp. 20–46). Routledge.
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.
