Equity-centered preparation builds novice teachers’ capacity to make meaningful instruction accessible to all students, particularly those historically excluded from high-quality learning experiences. Drawing on social learning theory, we examined Teacher Study Groups as a model for supporting preservice special educators’ development of equity-centered practices. We examined 60 preservice teachers’ instruction prior to and following study group participation, embedded in a fieldwork support course, alongside related artifacts shared during weekly sessions. Using a convergent mixed-methods approach, we analyzed quantitative and qualitative data separately and then integrated findings using joint display analysis; in doing so, we generated meta-inferences regarding how teachers’ attitudes mediated growth in practice. We uncovered salient participatory experiences that influenced—and hindered—professional growth. Our findings have implications for programs interested in structuring professional learning in a manner that builds foundations for an equity-centered practice.
AlimH. S.BaglieriS.Ladson-BillingsG.ParisD.RoseD. H.ValenteJ. M. (2017). Responding to “Cross-pollinating culturally sustaining pedagogy and Universal Design for Learning: Toward an inclusive pedagogy that accounts for dis/ability.”Harvard Educational Review, 87(1), 4–25. https://doi.org/10.17763/1943-5045-87.1.4
2.
AlimH. S.ParisD.WongC. P. (2020). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A critical framework for centering communities. In NasirN. S.LeeC. D.McKinneyM.Roystonde (Eds.), Handbook of the cultural foundations of learning (pp. 261–276). Routledge.
3.
AllenJ. P.GregoryA.MikamiA. Y.LunJ.HamreB.PiantaR. C. (2013). Observations of effective teacher-student interactions in secondary school classrooms: Predicting student achievement with the Classroom Assessment Scoring System Secondary. School Psychology Review, 42(1), 76–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2013.12087492
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council for Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Educational Research Association.
6.
AndersonL. M.StillmanJ. A. (2013). Student teaching’s contribution to preservice teacher development: A review of research focused on the preparation of teachers for urban and high needs contexts. Review of Educational Research, 83(1), 3–69. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312468619
7.
AnnammaS. A.FerriB. A.ConnorD. J. (2018). Disability critical race theory: Exploring the intersectional lineage, emergence, and potential futures of DisCrit in education. Review of Research in Education, 42(1), 46–71. http://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X18759041
8.
AnnammaS. A.HandyT. (2020). Sharpening justice through DisCrit: A contrapuntal analysis of education. Educational Researcher, 50(1), 41–50. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x20953838
9.
BannisterN. A. (2016). Breaking the spell of differentiated instruction through equity pedagogy and teacher community. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 11(2), 335–347. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-016-9766-0
10.
BasmaB.SavageR. (2023). Teacher professional development and student reading in middle and high school: A systematic review. Journal of Teacher Education, 74(3), 214–228. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224871231153084
11.
BrahierD. J. (2008). Teaching secondary and middle school mathematics (3rd ed.). Allyn and Bacon.
CarterP. L.WelnerK. G. (2013). Closing the opportunity gap: What American must do to give every child an even chance. Oxford Academic.
16.
ChoH. (2014). “Go for broke and speak your mind!” Building a community of practice with bilingual pre-service teachers. The Qualitative Report, 19(49), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2014.1293
Cochran-SmithM.EllF.GrudnoffL.HaighM.HillM.LudlowL. (2016). Initial teacher education: What does it take to put equity at the center?Teaching and Teacher Education, 57, 67–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.03.006
19.
CohenE. G.LotanR. A. (2014). Designing groupwork: Strategies for the heterogeneous classroom (3rd ed.). Teachers College Press.
20.
CollinsP. H. (2019). Intersectionality as critical social theory. Duke University Press.
21.
CreamerE. G. (2018). An introduction to fully integrated mixed methods research. Sage.
22.
CrenshawK. W. (2017). On intersectionality: Essential writings. The New Press.
23.
CreswellJ. W. (2014). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. Sage.
24.
CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. L. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage.
25.
CruzR. A.FirestoneA. R.LoveM. (2023). More than a seat at the table: Reimagining educational equity through critical inclusion [Special issue: A re-view of educational inequalities]. Educational Review. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2023.2173726
26.
CunninghamA. E.EtterK.PlatasL.WheelerS.CampbellK. (2015). Professional development in emergent literacy: A design experiment of Teacher Study Groups. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 31(2), 62–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.12.002
Darling-HammondL. (2015). Want to close the achievement gap? Close the teaching gap. American Educator, 38(4), 14–18.
29.
de BettencourtL. U.NagroS. A. (2019). Tracking special education teacher candidates’ reflective practices over time. Remedial and Special Education, 40(5), 277–288. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932518762573
30.
DesimoneL. M.GaretM. S. (2015). Best practices in teachers’ professional development in the United States. Psychology, Society & Education, 7(3), 252–163. https://doi.org/10.25115/psye.v7i3.515
31.
EkiciD. I. (2018). Development of pre-service teachers’ teaching self-efficacy beliefs through an online community of practice. Asia Pacific Education Review, 19(1), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-017-9511-8
32.
FettersM. D. (2020). The mixed methods research workbook: Activities for designing, implementing, and publishing projects (1st ed.). Sage.
33.
FirestoneA. R.CruzR. A.RodlJ. E. (2020). Teacher Study Groups: An integrative literature synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 90(5), 675–709. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654320938128
34.
GayG. (2018). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. Teachers College Press.
GorskiP. C.DaltonK. (2020). Striving for critical reflection in multicultural and social justice teacher education: Introducing a typology of reflection approaches. Journal of Teacher Education, 71(3), 357–368. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0022487119883545
37.
GreensteinA. (2016). Radical inclusive education: Disability, teaching, and struggles for liberation. Routledge.
38.
GregoryA.HafenC. A.RuzekE.MikamiA. Y.AllenJ. P.PiantaR. C. (2016). Closing the racial discipline gap in classrooms by changing teacher practice. School Psychology Review, 45(2), 171–191. https://doi.org/10.17105%2FSPR45-2.171-191
39.
GuettermanT. C.CreswellJ. W.KuckartzU. (2015). Using joint displays and MAXQDA software to represent the results of mixed methods research. In McCruddenM. T.SchrawG.BuckendahlC. (Eds.), Use of visual displays in research and testing: Coding, interpreting, and reporting data (pp. 145–175). IAP.
40.
GuettermanT. C.FabreguesS.SakakibaraR. (2021). Visuals in joint displays to represent integration in mixed methods research: A methodological review. Methods in Psychology, 5, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.metip.2021.100080
41.
GuettermanT. C.FettersM. (2020). Data visualization in the context of integrated results. In HitchcockJ.OnwuegbuzieT. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook for advancing integration in mixed methods research. (pp. 301–323) Routledge.
42.
GuettermanT. C.FettersM. D.CreswellJ. W. (2015). Integrating quantitative and qualitative results in health science mixed methods research through joint displays. The Annals of Family Medicine, 13(6), 554–561. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.1865
43.
HaberM. G.MazzottiV. L.MustianA. L.RoweD. A.BartholomewA. L.TestD. W.FowlerC. H. (2016). What works, when, for whom, and with whom: A meta-analytic review of predictors of postsecondary success for students with disabilities. Review of Educational Research, 86(1), 123–162. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315583135
44.
HafenC. A.HamreB. K.AllenJ. P.BellC. A.GitomerD. H.PiantaR. C. (2015). Teaching through interactions in secondary school classrooms: Revisiting the factor structure and practical application of the classroom assessment scoring system secondary. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 35(5–6), 651–680. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431614537117
45.
HallT. E.MeyerA.RoseD. H. (Eds.). (2012). Universal design for learning in the classroom: Practical applications. Guilford Press.
46.
HammernessK.Darling-HammondL.GrossmanP.RustF.ShulmanL. (2005). The design of teacher education programs. In Darling-HammondL.BransfordJ. (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 390–441). Jossey-Bass.
47.
HammondZ. (2014). Culturally responsive teaching and the brain: Promoting authentic engagement and rigor among culturally and linguistically diverse students. Corwin Press.
48.
HamreB. K.PiantaR. C.DownerJ. T.DeCosterJ.MashburnA. J.JonesS. M.BrownJ. L.CappellaE.AtkinsM.RiversS. E.BrackettM. A.HamagamiA. (2013). Teaching through interactions: Testing a developmental framework of teacher effectiveness in over 4,000 classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 113(4), 461–487. https://doi.org/10.1086/669616
49.
HawkinsS.RogersM. P. (2016). Tools for reflection: Video-based reflection within a preservice community of practice. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 27(4), 415–437. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-016-9468-1
50.
Haynes-BrownT. K.FettersM. D. (2021). Using joint display as an analytic process: An illustration using bar graphs joint displays from a mixed methods study of how beliefs shape secondary school teachers’ use of technology. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1609406921993286
51.
HillH. C.BeisiegelM.JacobR. (2013). Professional development research: Consensus, crossroads, and challenges. Educational Researcher, 42(9), 476–487. https://doi.org/10.3102%2F0013189X13512674
52.
Hill-JacksonV.CraigC. J. (2023). (Re)constructing teacher knowledge: Old quests for new reform. Journal of Teacher Education, 74(1), 5–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224871221137622
53.
JayanthiM.DiminoJ.GerstenR.TaylorM. J.HaymondK.SmolkowskiK.Newman-GoncharR. (2018). The impact of Teacher Study Groups in vocabulary on teaching practice, teacher knowledge, and student vocabulary knowledge: A large-scale replication study. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 11(1), 83–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2017.1327625
54.
KennedyM. M. (1999). The role of preservice teacher education. In Darling-HammondL.SykesG. (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 54–85). Jossey Bass.
55.
KennedyM. M. (2016). How does professional development improve teaching?Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 945–980. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315626800
KolluriS.TichavakundaA. A. (2022). The counter-deficit lens in educational research: Interrogating conceptions of structural oppression. Review of Educational Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543221125225
58.
KozleskiE. B. (2020). Disrupting what passes as inclusive education: Predicating educational equity on schools designed for all. The Educational Forum, 84(4), 340–355. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131725.2020.1801047
59.
Ladson-BillingsG.TateW. F.IV. (1995). Toward a critical race theory of education. Teachers College Record, 97(1), 47–68.
60.
LambertR. (2018). “Indefensible, illogical, and unsupported”: Countering deficit mythologies about the potential of students with learning disabilities in mathematics. Education Sciences, 8(2), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci8020072
61.
LambertR.TanP. (2017). Conceptualizations of students with and without disabilities as mathematical problem solvers in educational research: A critical review. Education Sciences, 7(51), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci7020051
62.
LeonardoZ.BroderickA. (2011). Smartness as property: A critical exploration of intersections between whiteness and disability studies. Teachers College Record, 113(10), 2206–2232.
63.
LiuM. H.KleinsasserR. (2015). Exploring EFL teachers’ knowledge and competencies: In-service program perspectives. Language Learning & Technology, 19(1), 119–138.
64.
MarkelzA.RidenB.ScheelerM. C. (2017). Generalization training in special education teacher preparation: Does it exist?Teacher Education and Special Education, 40(3), 179–193. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0888406417703752
65.
MarotoM.PettinicchioD.PattersonA. C. (2019). Hierarchies of categorical disadvantage: Economic insecurity at the intersection of disability, gender, and race. Gender & Society, 33(1), 64–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243218794648
66.
MilesM. B.HubermanM. A.SaldanaJ. (2020). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (4th ed.). Sage.
67.
MintropR. (2016). Design-based school improvement: A practical guide for education leaders. Harvard Education Press.
68.
MorrisE. W.PerryB. L. (2017). Girls behaving badly? Race, gender, and subjective evaluation in the discipline of African American girls. Sociology of Education, 90(2), 127–148. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0038040717694876
69.
MyersJ. (2012). Lesson study as a means for facilitating preservice teacher reflectivity. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 6(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2012.060115
70.
NewmanL.WagnerM.KnokeyA. M.MarderC.NagleK.ShaverD.WeiX., with CametoR.ContrerasE.FergusonK.GreeneS.SchwartingM. (2011). The post-high school outcomes of young adults with disabilities up to 8 years after high school: A report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NCSER 2011-3005). SRI International.
71.
NietoS. (2000). Placing equity front and center: Some thoughts on transforming teacher education for a new century. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(3), 180–187. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0022487100051003004
72.
NogueraP.Darling-HammondL.FriedlaenderD. (2015). Equal opportunity for deeper learning. Students at the Center: Deeper Learning Research Series. Jobs for the Future. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED560802.pdf
73.
OnwuegbuzieA. J.SlateJ. R.LeechN. L.CollinsK. M. (2007). Conducting mixed analyses: A general typology. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 1(1), 4–17. https://doi.org/10.5172/mra.455.1.1.4
74.
ParisD. (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A needed change in stance, terminology, and practice. Educational Researcher, 41(3), 93–97. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x12441244
ParksA. N. (2009). Collaborating about what? An instructor’s look at preservice lesson study. Teacher Education Quarterly, 36(4), 81–97.
77.
PiantaR. C.HamreB. K.HayesN.MintzS.LaParoK. M. (2008). Classroom Assessment Scoring System-Secondary (CLASS-S). University of Virginia.
78.
Ruiz-PrimoM. A.ShavelsonR. J.HamiltonL.KleinS. P. (2002). On the evaluation of systemic science education reform: Searching for instructional sensitivity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(5), 369–393. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10027
79.
SimsL.WalshD. (2009). Lesson study with preservice teachers: Lessons from lessons. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(5), 724–733. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2008.10.005
80.
SleeterC. E.OwuorJ. (2011). Research on the impact of teacher preparation to teach diverse students: The research we have and the research we need. Action in Teacher Education, 33(5–6), 524–536. https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2011.627045
81.
VaughnS.DanielsonL.ZumetaR.HoldheideL. (2015). Deeper learning for students with disabilities. Students at the Center: Deeper Learning Research Series. Jobs for the Future. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED560790.pdf
82.
VolkmannM.AbellS. K. (2003). Rethinking laboratories: Tools for converting cookbook labs into inquiry. The Science Teacher, 70(6), 38–41.
83.
WaitollerF. R. (2020). Why are we not more inclusive? Examining neoliberal selective inclusionism. In Boyle.C.MavropoulouS.AndersonJ.PageA. (Eds.), Inclusive education: Global issues and controversies (pp. 89–107). Sense.
84.
WaitollerF. R.KozleskiE. B. (2015). No stone left unturned: The emergence of New Capitalism in inclusive education reform. Education and Policy Analysis Archives, 23(37), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v23.1779
85.
WaitollerF. R.ThoriusK. A. K. (2016). Cross-pollinating culturally sustaining pedagogy and Universal Design for Learning: Toward an inclusive pedagogy that accounts for dis/ability. Harvard Educational Review, 86(3), 366–389. https://doi.org/10.17763/1943-5045-86.3.366
86.
WengerE. (1998). Communities of practice. Cambridge University Press.
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.
