Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Preparing teachers to advance equity through deeper learning and antiracist practices
(USC Thesis Other)
Preparing teachers to advance equity through deeper learning and antiracist practices
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Preparing Teachers to Advance Equity Through Deeper Learning and Antiracist Practices
by
Kelly Wilson
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
May 2021
© Copyright by Kelly Wilson 2021
All Rights Reserved
2021
The Committee for Kelly Wilson certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Linda Darling-Hammond
Kathy Stowe
Courtney Malloy, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
iv
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to better understand the extent to which alumni from the GSE
Teacher Residency Program (TRP) feel prepared to advance equity through deeper learning and
antiracist practices in their first year of teaching. The following research questions guided the
study: In what ways does the GSE TRP intend to prepare teachers to advance equity through
deeper learning and antiracist practices?, What are the perceptions of graduates regarding the
extent to which the GSE TRP prepared them to advance equity through deeper learning and
antiracist practices?, and What are the perceptions of graduates regarding opportunities for
program improvement? This study utilized both quantitative and qualitative data provided
through a faculty survey, alumni survey and interviews, and review of program materials and
artifacts. The five dimensions of preparing teachers for deeper learning provided a conceptual
framework for interpretation and analysis. Findings suggest that TRP alumni felt supported in
developing as anti-racist teachers, and grounded their learning in the awareness, appetite, and
application program framework. Alumni provided evidence of their ability to design deeper
learning experiences grounded in critical pedagogy and social justice, but lacked a framework for
deeper learning to ground their understanding. These findings indicate that an integrated
framework for anti-racist deeper learning might deepen the learning and development of novice
teachers in the program.
v
Acknowledgements
As a first-generation college student, I never dreamt that one day I would become the first
in our family to earn a doctoral degree. The process of pursuing a doctorate and writing a
dissertation is long and arduous -- a mountain I could not have climbed without the support of
my family and loved ones. First and foremost, I would like to thank my husband and children for
cheering me on every step of the way, and for giving me grace when I could not be fully present
as a wife and as a mother. Chad was unconditionally supportive from start to finish -- even when
that meant taking on a disproportionate amount of responsibility to meet the demands of
parenting and our home life. Our three children, Amoret, Sorelle, and Holden, shared curiosity
and excitement that like them, mommy was still learning too, and brought much needed joy with
their endless snuggles and laughter throughout my doctoral journey. Without my family’s love
and encouragement, I could not have persisted through the challenging moments or fully
celebrated the many milestones I accomplished along the way. I would also like to whole-
heartedly thank my parents, Dave and Virg, who instilled a love of learning in me from a young
age, and always encouraged me to pursue my passions.
I would be remiss to not also express my sincere gratitude for Dr. Malloy, my professor,
mentor, and dissertation chair extraordinaire. Without her expertise and guidance, I would not
have made it the finish line. Her passion for educational research is contagious, and inspired me
to think more critically about research design and methodology. My other two phenomenal
committee members, Dr. Darling-Hammond and Dr. Stowe, provided invaluable feedback on my
research along the way, which both deepened my understanding and improved the overall quality
of my work. Special thanks to Dr. Darling-Hammond for being an inspiration and mentor for so
many years, and providing the conceptual framework for this study through her work on
vi
preparing teachers for deeper learning. Finally, I would like to express my deep gratitude for my
colleagues and friends at the GSE, who continue to help me grow and learn every day.
vii
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... ii
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. ix
List of Figures .................................................................................................................................. x
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... iv
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study ........................................................................................... 1
Context and Background of the Problem ............................................................................ 2
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions .................................................................. 4
Importance of the Study ...................................................................................................... 5
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology ..................................................... 6
Definitions ........................................................................................................................... 8
Organization of the Dissertation .......................................................................................... 9
Chapter Two: Literature Review ................................................................................................... 11
Background on Teacher Preparation ................................................................................. 11
Advancing Equity Through Deeper Learning and Antiracist Practices ............................ 23
Theoretical and Conceptual Framework ........................................................................... 32
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 37
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 37
Overview of Design ........................................................................................................... 37
Research Setting ................................................................................................................ 39
The Researcher .................................................................................................................. 40
Data Sources ...................................................................................................................... 41
Validity and Reliability ..................................................................................................... 52
viii
Ethics ................................................................................................................................. 54
Chapter Four: Findings .................................................................................................................. 55
Participants ........................................................................................................................ 55
Findings ............................................................................................................................. 58
Summary .......................................................................................................................... 106
Chapter Five: Recommendations ................................................................................................ 110
Discussion of Findings .................................................................................................... 110
Recommendations for Practice ........................................................................................ 114
Limitations and Delimitations ......................................................................................... 120
Recommendations for Future Research ........................................................................... 121
Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 122
References ................................................................................................................................... 123
Appendix A: Alumni Survey ....................................................................................................... 135
Appendix B: Program Faculty Survey ........................................................................................ 139
Appendix C: Interview Protocol .................................................................................................. 142
ix
List of Tables
Table 1: Theoretical Framework - Five Dimensions of Teaching for Deeper Learning 33
Table 2: Data Sources 39
Table 3: Program Documents & Artifacts Analyzed Through the Lens of the Theoretical
Framework 52
Table 4: Pseudonyms and Descriptions of Alumni Interviewees 56
Table 5: Summary of Findings 59
Table 6: Faculty Survey Responses to the Question, “To What Extent Do the Courses You
Teach in the Teacher Residency Program…?” 74
Table 7: Alumni Survey Responses to the question: “To What Extent Did the Teacher
Residency Program Prepare You to Design Learning Experiences That…?” 95
Table 8: Average Faculty and Alumni Responses to Survey Questions Related to Each of
the Five Dimensions of Teaching for Deeper Learning in the Theoretical Framework 108
x
List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework - Advancing Equity through Deeper Learning and
Anti-Racist Practices 36
Figure 2: Gender Identity of Alumni Survey Respondents v. Total Alumni 43
Figure 3: Racial Identity of Alumni Survey Respondents v. Total Alumni 44
Figure 4: Gender Identity of Alumni Interviewees v. Total Alumni 48
Figure 5: Racial Identity of Alumni Interviewees v. Total Alumni 49
Figure 6: Response Means for Questions Coded to the Five Dimensions of Preparing
Teachers for Deeper Learning from the Faculty Survey (1 = Very Small Extent and
5 = Very Great Extent) 76
Figure 7: Response Averages for Questions Coded to the Five Dimensions of Preparing
Teachers for Deeper Learning from the Alumni Survey (1 = Very Small Extent and
5 = Very Great Extent) 98
1
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study
Despite decades of efforts to narrow inequitable educational outcomes for K–12 students
in California, significant gaps persist. While nearly 95% of White 19-year-olds have graduated
from high school, this rate drops to 86% and 88% for Latinx and Black students, respectively
(Siqueiros et al., 2018). After 6 years, the gap widens for young adults who have obtained a
bachelor’s degree or higher. In California, 32% of White 25-year-olds have a bachelor’s degree
compared to 23% of Black and 11% of Latinx adults. Similarly, students from high-income
backgrounds are more than twice as likely to complete college within 6 years than their low-
income peers nationally (McFarland et al., 2019). Underserved students often have less access to
educational environments that develop college and career readiness coupled with greater
financial pressure to begin working full time following graduation. While some argue that
college is not the only path towards a purposeful and prosperous life, research shows that adults
with a college degree earn nearly 75% more annually than those with a high school diploma
(Abel & Deitz, 2019). Conservative estimates place this wage gap at over $1.3 million over a
lifetime in addition to substantially better health and longevity experienced by college graduates
(Trostel, 2017).
While attaining a college degree is critical, students must also learn how to navigate the
complexity of a rapidly changing and increasingly diverse world impacted by globalization,
technology, automation, climate change, systemic racism and oppression, and myriad other
challenges. Beyond memorizing and recalling facts, students in the 21st century must learn
deeper learning competencies, such as mastering core academic content, thinking critically and
creatively to solve complex problems, working collaboratively, communicating effectively,
learning how to learn, and developing academic mindsets and dispositions (Hewlett Foundation,
2013). Through qualitative research, the American Institutes for Research found students who
2
attend high schools that cultivate these dimensions of deeper learning perform higher on the
PISA-based Test for Schools, an international test assessing cognition, critical thinking, and
problem-solving skills (Bitter & Loney, 2015). They also graduate from high school and enroll in
college at higher rates and report higher levels of collaboration skills, academic engagement,
motivation to learn, and self-efficacy (Bitter & Loney, 2015).
Every student deserves access to an education that fosters deeper learning through
meaningful, authentic work. Unfortunately, low-income and students of color have less access to
deeper learning and are more likely to attend schools that place greater emphasis on standardized
testing, low-cognitive demand tasks, and remedial, often scripted, courses of study (Noguera et
al., 2015). While these practices may be employed in the name of equity, it can be argued that
the differential treatment of already marginalized students in these and other harmful ways is
inherently racist. By contrast, anti-racist educators critically examine and dismantle practices and
policies that perpetuate racial inequities between racial groups, and reimagine ones which will
produce and sustain racial equity (Kendi, 2019). They engage students in work that matters,
using problem-posing learning experiences to heighten critical consciousness, activate students
to affect change in their world through social critique and political action, and further liberation
(Duncan-Andrade & Morelle, 2008; Freire, 1970). Pre-service program educators must better
understand how to prepare teachers to advance equity through both deeper learning and antiracist
practices to close gaps in educational and life outcomes for underserved students and further
economic and racial justice.
Context and Background of the Problem
The Freire Graduate School of Education (GSE) is the first in the nation to be fully
embedded within and emerge out of a K-12 organization. Developed by a coalition of San Diego
3
civic leaders and educators, Dewey Tech (DT) opened in September 2000 as a small public
charter high school with plans to serve approximately 450 students. DT has evolved into an
integrated network of 16 charter schools serving approximately 6,000 students in grades K–12
across four campuses. All DT schools share four connected design principles—equity,
personalization, authentic work, and collaborative design—that set aspirational goals and reflect
the organization’s core values. DT schools admit students through a blind, zip-code-based
lottery, and these schools are both diverse and integrated by design, serving approximately 62%
students of color and 43% students who qualify for free or reduced-price lunch. While DT might
be best known for innovation and project-based learning, the equity mission of providing access
and challenge to all learners undergirds its approach. All students complete the admission
requirements for California public universities, participate in academic internships, and 95% of
graduates report going to college (70% directly to a four-year college).
GSE emerged out of this K–12 context in 2007 with the mission to develop reflective
practitioner teachers and leaders who work effectively with colleagues and communities to create
and sustain innovative, authentic, and rigorous learning environments for all students. GSE’s
commitment to diversity, equity and integration is central to its mission, as are its aspirations to
serve as a hub for progressive practice and deeper learning within higher education. GSE exists
to develop teachers and leaders with the knowledge, skills and dispositions needed to disrupt
predictable student outcomes of failure and success by dismantling oppressive systems and
structures and designing equitable learning environments that engage all students through deeper
learning. Beyond memorizing and recalling facts, students in the 21st century must understand
how to apply content knowledge to real-world problems, think both critically and creatively,
collaborate and communicate effectively, develop academic mindsets, and be self-directed in
their learning. The DT network of schools provides a clinical context with tight alignment
4
between theory and effective K–12 practices for teaching, learning and leadership that advance
equity through deeper learning and antiracist practices.
The GSE Teacher Residency Program (TRP) was launched in 2018 to prepare novice
teachers to design equitable learning environments using constructivist, deeper learning
pedagogies. The program is designed to teach candidates how to develop meaningful
relationships with students grounded in shared purpose by engaging them in authentic work that
matters to both them and the world beyond school. Through dialogical and liberatory practices,
TRP seeks to help learners gain a deeper understanding of themselves while making meaning of
and tackling issues impacting their communities. TRP is grounded in Freire’s (1968) argument
that processes of teaching and schooling are never neutral, and each decision educators make has
the potential to either perpetuate or disrupt oppression and marginalization. This equity lens is at
the forefront of how candidates learn to design and facilitate antiracist, culturally responsive
classrooms driven by interdisciplinary, project-based learning. For the first year, TRP candidates
are embedded in one of the 16 DT schools while student-teaching and earning their preliminary
teaching credential and have the option to earn an M.Ed. in teaching and learning in their second
year while employed and serving as the teacher of record.
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
The purpose of this study was to better understand the extent to which GSE TRP alumni
feel prepared to advance equity through deeper learning and antiracist practices in their first year
of teaching. The following research questions will guide the study:
1. In what ways does the GSE Teacher Residency Program intend to prepare teachers to
advance equity through deeper learning and antiracist practices?
5
2. What are the perceptions of graduates regarding the extent to which the GSE Teacher
Residency Program prepared them to advance equity through deeper learning and
antiracist practices?
3. What are the perceptions of graduates regarding opportunities for program improvement?
Importance of the Study
It is critical to address the inequitable student outcomes that persist in California and
disrupt students’ predictable patterns of success and failure based on race as well as other factors
such as socioeconomic class, language, learning exceptionalities, gender identity, and sexual
orientation. Education can serve as a lever for social change and transform lives, yet too often,
students still experience schooling through the factory model that fails to personalize learning,
engage students in authentic work or “ensure each child receives what they need to develop to
their full academic and social potential” (National Equity Project, 2021, para.1). Deming states
that “every system is perfectly designed to get the results it gets,” challenging the field to
reconsider how we approach classroom and school design and thereby how we prepare educators
to lead that charge (as cited in Hanna, 1988, p. 38).
One of the most important school-related factors impacting students’ educational
outcomes is the quality of their teachers (Opper, 2012). Numerous studies have found that
teacher effectiveness matters more than any other school-related factor, including the school’s
resources, physical environment, and overall performance (Rivken et al., 2005). Teachers have
the opportunity to narrow achievement gaps for underserved students and level the playing field
by cultivating meaningful relationships, high-quality instruction designed for deeper learning,
and a social-justice orientation. Yet, too often, novice teachers emerge from preparation
programs lacking self-efficacy to advance equity through deeper learning and antiracist practices
because concerns about classroom management and discipline distract their attention from
6
instruction (Onafowora, 2005). This understanding has led practitioners, researchers, and policy
makers to scrutinize teacher preparation programs and search for more effective models.
Through a qualitative case study of seven effective teacher education programs, Darling-
Hammond and Oakes (2019) defined teacher preparation for deeper learning as learning that is
(a) developmentally grounded and personalized, (b) contextualized, (c) applied and transferred,
(d) occurs in productive communities of practice, and (e) is equitable and oriented to social
justice. While the GSE TRP was designed with these five dimensions, little is known about the
extent to which program graduates feel prepared to advance equity through deeper learning and
antiracist practices during their first year of teaching.
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
Darling-Hammond and Oakes (2019) developed the theoretical framework grounding this
study through case study research between 2015 and 2017 of seven transformative teacher
preparation programs educating for deeper learning, equity, and social justice. Darling-
Hammond and Oakes build on knowledge from the science of learning and development and
their own research to define teaching for deeper learning through the following five dimensions:
1. Learning that is developmentally grounded and personalized. Learning experiences build
on students’ prior knowledge and experience and ask them to actively construct new
knowledge. Learning is personalized by drawing from students’ experience and
scaffolded to meet their unique needs, attending to both cognitive and social-emotional
development.
2. Learning that is contextualized. Learning experiences leverage students’ personal,
cultural, and linguistic knowledge, recognizing that they draw from these contexts to
make sense of the world and their experiences in it. Students are asked to meaningfully
7
apply their learning to relevant contexts and the world beyond school, which is bolstered
by strong relationships between educators, caregivers, and the community.
3. Learning that is applied and transferred. Learning experiences ask students to think
critically to apply and transfer knowledge to novel and complex problems. Students
develop deeper learning competencies through challenging and authentic learning
experiences, actively constructing new knowledge in the process. Authentic formative
and summative assessments inform decisions about teaching and learning.
4. Learning that occurs in productive communities of practice. Learning experiences are
designed to support constructivist learning through active and interactive social learning.
Collaborative learning experiences are intentionally designed and facilitated to scaffold
learning and tend to issues of equity. Learning environments are cultivated to nurture an
ethic of caring, social and emotional development, and trusting relationships, and
restorative practices are used to build a positive learning community.
5. Learning that is equitable and oriented to social justice. Learning experiences are
designed to meet diverse students’ needs, provide access and challenge, and address
issues of equity. They are constructed with an awareness of race, class, gender, and other
social characteristics that shape students’ lived experiences. Students’ unique identities
are seen as strengths and resources to leverage, and teachers avoid deficit thinking while
taking a critical and active stance to disrupt inequity.
These five dimensions can be used in parallel to describe student novice teachers’ learning and
provide the theoretical framework for this study.
This study was conducted through mixed methods by collecting, analyzing, and
interpreting quantitative and qualitative data to better understand the extent to which TRP
graduates are prepared to advance equity through deeper learning and antiracist practices in their
8
first year of teaching. This methodology aligned with the study’s purpose because quantitative
methods allowed for gathering census data from the entire population, while qualitative methods
allowed for smaller, more purposeful sampling to make meaning and generate theory (Creswell,
2018). The specific strategy of inquiry employed was convergent parallel because quantitative
and qualitative data were collected and analyzed around the same time rather than having one
designed to lead to the other (Johnson & Christensen, 2015). A mixed-methods design also
contributed to the validity of the findings through data triangulation via surveys, interviews, and
program documentation.
Definitions
Several key concepts are critical to understanding how to best prepare teachers to
advance equity through deeper learning and antiracist practices and narrow gaps in student
outcomes:
• Antiracist Teaching refers to teaching practices and actions that confront and dismantle
racial inequities between racial groups and are designed to produce and sustain racial
equity (Kendi, 2019).
• Culturally Responsive Pedagogy involves Teaching practices that develop culturally and
linguistically diverse students’ capacity and skills to do rigorous work while centering,
celebrating, and sustaining their cultural ways of being (Hammond, 2014; Ladson-
Billings, 2014).
• Critical Pedagogy refers to teaching practices that use problem-posing learning
experiences to heighten students’ critical consciousness, activate them to affect change in
their world through social critique and political action, and further liberation (Duncan-
Andrade & Morell, 2008; Freire, 1970).
9
• DT is An acronym and pseudonym for Dewey Tech, a network of 16 K–12 schools that
are part of the focus of this study.
• Equity, in this study, “educational equity means each child receives what they need to
develop to their full academic and social potential” (National Equity Project, 2021, para.
1).
• Deeper Learning is engaging and innovative experiential learning paired with
challenging academic content that cultivates students’ abilities to think critically and
solve complex problems, work collaboratively, communicate effectively, learn how to
learn, and develop academic mindsets (Darling-Hammond & Oakes, 2019; Hewlett
Foundation, 2013).
• GSE is An acronym and pseudonym for Freire Graduate School of Education, a graduate
school of education embedded in a network of K–12 schools that is part of the focus of
this study.
• Project-based Learning is Experiential learning that engages students in shared purpose
through collaborative inquiry into authentic, complex questions or real-world problems,
often culminating in the creation of a final product that is shared publicly through
exhibition (Dewey, 1936; PBL Works, 2020).
• TRP is an acronym and pseudonym for the teacher residency program that is the focus of
this study.
Organization of the Dissertation
This study is organized in five chapters. Chapter One, or this chapter, provides the reader
an introduction to the problem of inequitable educational outcomes for K–12 students in
California. It also briefly frames the organizational context, the purpose and importance of the
10
study, guiding research questions, the theoretical framework, and key definitions. Chapter Two
provides a literature review of topics impacting inequitable student outcomes, including
preservice preparation for teachers to advance equity through deeper learning and anti-racist
practices. Chapter Three describes the mixed methodology research design. Chapter Four
presents the data, an analysis of the data, and the findings from the study. Chapter Five offers
recommendations to address opportunities for program improvement, including an integrated
implementation and evaluation plan.
11
Chapter Two: Literature Review
The literature review examines existing knowledge in the field of teacher preparation,
specifically on how to prepare teachers to advance equity through deeper learning and antiracist
practices. The review begins with a background on teacher preparation, including the need for
high-quality teachers, history of education and teacher preparation, and promising practices for
improving and diversifying teacher preparation. This is followed by a discussion of the need to
prepare novice teachers with the knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary to advance equity
through deeper learning and antiracist practices. Finally, the intersection of progressive
pedagogy and critical pedagogy is explored within the context of advancing equity and access to
deeper learning for all students.
Following a review of the literature, the theoretical framework grounding this research is
unpacked through the lens of the research questions and purpose of the study. The framework
was developed by Darling-Hammond and Oakes (2019) through a two-year case study analysis
of seven innovative teacher preparation programs designed to prepare teachers for deeper
learning and social justice. The five dimensions are grounded in theories of learning science and
development and apply to both K–12 students and novice teachers. Learning should be (a)
developmentally grounded and personalized, (b) contextualized, (c) applied and transferred, (d)
occur in productive communities of practice, and (e) be equitable and oriented to social justice.
Background on Teacher Preparation
Need for High-Quality Teachers
The transformative power of a highly effective teacher can have a lasting impact on a
child’s life, both academically and personally. Students might not remember all they learned
from a particular teacher, but they often remember how they felt. High-quality teachers cultivate
caring, high-trust relationships with students and develop students’ sense of belonging, agency,
12
and purpose through meaningful work (Farrington, 2013). They design culturally responsive
learning environments that center and celebrate their students’ unique identities, backgrounds,
and experiences and build from their strengths (Stronge, 2018). Effective teachers are also
skilled at facilitating engaging and relevant learning experiences while using authentic
assessment to monitor student learning and reflect on teaching practice along the way.
The impact of teaching effectiveness on student achievement has been a topic of debate
and research for many years, with a growing body of evidence suggesting that teacher quality
positively correlates to student learning (Akram, 2019; Darling-Hammond, 2000; Heck, 2009).
Research has found that the most powerful in-school influence on learning is the quality of
instruction students experience from their teachers (Opper, 2012; Rivkin et al., 2005). This
impact is additive and cumulative rather than compensatory, signaling the importance of access
to high-quality teachers year after year (Sanders & Rivers, 1996). Less-experienced and less-
qualified teachers are disproportionately concentrated in low-income schools serving higher
populations of students of color, perpetuating the negative impact on these populations of having
less access to high-quality teaching is compounded over time (Kini & Podolsky, 2016).
For decades, academics have investigated the relationship between years of teaching
experience and teaching effectiveness, and in more recent years, the “greening” of an expanding
teacher workforce has heightened interest (Ingersoll et al., 2014). Through a review of 30 studies
published in the past 15 years, Kini and Podolsky (2016) found that teaching experience is
positively associated with student achievement gains that are most steep in teachers’ initial years,
but continue to be significant as teachers reach the second, and often third, decades of their
careers. The US Department of Education’s Civil Rights Data Collection (2016) also shows that
Black, Latinx, American Indian, and Native Alaskan students are two to three times more likely
13
to attend schools with higher concentrations of first-year teachers than White students, further
contributing to equity gaps in educational and life outcomes.
While there are more than 3.7 million teachers in the U.S., more than all doctors, lawyers,
and engineers combined, half of them are baby boomers on the brink of retirement (DeMonte,
2015; National Center for Education Statistics, 2020). While teacher retirement does contribute
to teacher attrition rates, the primary cause of shortages is the leaky bucket phenomenon created
by high teacher turnover. Efforts to solve this problem that focus solely on recruiting novice
teachers do not address research indicating that 20% to 30% will leave within their first five
years of teaching, with even higher rates in hard-to-staff schools and districts serving the most
vulnerable students (Guha et al., 2016). Issues of retention are often impacted by low teacher
salaries and poor working conditions, resulting in approximately 109,000 uncertified teachers
filling positions in the U.S. in the 2017–18 school year (Sutcher et al., 2019). Over the next
decade, the school-aged population is expected to increase by roughly 3 million students, while
overall teacher attrition rates are predicted to continue to hover at 8% annually. Further
compounding the problem, between 2009 and 2014, enrollment in teacher preparation programs
declined by 35% and completion rates dropped by 23%, decreasing supply to the system.
The national teacher shortage has serious consequences. A lack of sufficient, qualified
teachers threatens student learning outcomes, imposes financial and human resource costs, and
burdens schools with other hidden costs that negatively impact the composition, development,
and quality of faculty over time (Sorensen & Ladd, 2020). Recruiting and developing diverse and
talented teachers is needed now more than ever, not only to address the current teacher shortage
but to prepare students to become active citizens in a rapidly changing and complex world.
14
History of Education and Teacher Preparation
Although 3 out of 4 teachers today are women, teachers in the first half of the 19th
century were mostly men who pursued teaching in addition to or as a stepping stone towards
what was considered a more lucrative or prestigious career (Lequire, 2014; National Center for
Education Statistics, 2020). Wealthy children of the elite were sent to private schools or educated
in their homes, while the majority of children simply did not go to school, receiving limited
education from their families or churches or learning a trade through an apprenticeship to a
craftsperson (Schneider, 2018). During this time, young women were typically not educated
alongside their male counterparts and learned to take care of the home or attended dame schools
in the neighborhood. Teacher certification in the 19th century has been described as “irregular
and diverse” (Ravitch, 2002, para. 8). Aspiring teachers might be required to persuade a local
school board of their moral character, pass a test of reading, writing, and arithmetic or other
general knowledge, or take short courses in educational methods in normal schools for teaching
training.
Around the turn of the 20th century, Horace Mann, often called the father of American
public schools, was the chief architect of an educational reform movement to make education
universally available to all children (Baines, 2006). The Common School movement led to three
basic public education principles: children should be required to attend school, school should be
free and supported by taxes, and teachers should receive training. Mann believed that education
was the antidote to social ills, such as poverty, crime, and poor health, and that to unify a diverse
and democratic nation, Americans must consider the public good in addition to their own
families. He was also the first president of Antioch, one of the few colleges to open admission to
men and women of all races in the 1850s (Baines, 2006). The proliferation of common schools
15
created a growing demand for teachers, opening the profession to women who were eventually
viewed as better suited for nurturing young people’s learning and development. Mann supported
the early idea of normal schools as vehicles for improving teacher preparation. During the early
20th century, the professionalism of teaching further developed through the establishment of
undergraduate and graduate schools of education, which often grew out of courses or small
departments focused on pedagogy (Ravitch, 2002; Schneider, 2018).
Educational leaders wanted the profession to be as recognized and respected for teachers
as medicine and law were for doctors and lawyers and developed professional standards for
teaching and pathways for licensure through certified programs (Ravitch, 2002). In the 1930s,
the American Council on Education established the first National Teachers’ Examination,
although it lost interest through the outbreak of World War II and ensuing national teacher
shortage. The National Education Association, established in 1857 as a policy-making
organization to inform the direction of schooling, also began to play a more significant role in
standardizing teaching and teachers’ preparation. By the middle of the 20th century, the vast
majority of states required a four-year degree for a teaching certificate, and practice teaching was
embedded into preparation programs alongside courses in content-specific pedagogy, the
emerging field of learning sciences, and in some cases, student culture and language (Schneider,
2018).
Prior to the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision declaring
separate was inherently unequal, and even after as schools and communities resisted the order to
desegregate schools, practice teaching for novice teachers often occurred in schooling contexts
that reinforced notions of superiority and inferiority based on race, class, language, and other
aspects of identity used for marginalization (Orfield et al., 2016). The 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson
16
Supreme Court decision legally upheld de jure school segregation of African Americans through
the Jim Crow era, and de facto segregation occurred for many other minority groups, such as
Mexican Americans, through housing and school policies at the local level (Donato & Hanson,
2012). Between 1880 and 1920, the U.S. experienced a wave of over 20 million immigrants who
were often expected to assimilate and abandon their home language and culture while at school
(Sassler, 2006). Native American children had also been forced to assimilate to dominant White
culture and reject their indigenous customs, traditions, and ways of knowing, often through
deliberate and inhumane processes in residential boarding schools (Little, 2017).
The Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s brought greater attention to issues of equity and
oppression of marginalized populations, catalyzing the fields of multicultural education and
critical educational research to emerge in the late 1970s and early 1980s (Cochran-Smith, 2020).
The role that schooling and teachers played in perpetuating inequitable student outcomes, either
by design or by default, became an issue of greater concern during this time. Building on the
notion that teaching is never neutral but, rather, politically shaped by structures and systems
designed to privilege some while harming others, many preparation programs began to take on
teachers’ development as agents of change to disrupt inequity (Cochran-Smith, 2020). The
factory model of schooling that had been designed during the Industrial Revolution to generate
workers perpetuated White supremacy culture and was at odds with the growing knowledge base
of how people actually learn: by actively constructing knowledge through social learning
experiences that build on students’ prior understanding and cultural backgrounds (Bada &
Olusegun, 2015; Bransford et al., 2000). Teachers needed to learn how to design and facilitate
constructivist, student-centered learning experiences while also leveraging students’ diverse
17
backgrounds and funds of knowledge and addressing issues of status and equity in their
classrooms (Moll et al., 1992).
In the late 20th century, more urgent attention was given to improving the quality of
teacher preparation, partially in response to the fear that the U.S. was not keeping pace with the
changing global economy, as declared in the report A Nation at Risk (National Commission on
Excellence in Education, 1983). The report highlighted that teachers were underqualified and
underpaid, catalyzing the creation of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards the
next year to provide a clearinghouse for the national recognition and certification of exemplary
teachers. The Carnegie Task Force on Teaching and the Holmes Group, informed by over 100
college deans, also released reports calling for higher professional standards for entry into the
field and evaluation of effective teaching practice, as well as the elimination of undergraduate
teacher education and the use of master’s degrees as the new entry-level credential (Holmes
Group, 1986; Task Force on Teaching as a Profession of the Carnegie Forum on Education and
the Economy, 1986). The field of teacher preparation has continued to revise the professional
standards over the past three decades through efforts to improve them, but the later
recommendations did not take hold. While over 57% of teachers now hold a master’s degree,
they are not typically required to obtain a graduate degree prior to entering the field and are
instead incentivized to do so by the teacher salary schedules’ design (National Center for
Education Statistics, 2015).
The turn of the 21st century sparked new thinking about the knowledge, skills, and
dispositions needed in a rapidly changing and complex world impacted by globalization,
automation, technology, climate change, educational and economic disparity, and other complex
factors (Darling-Hammond, 2015; Friedman, 2005). Around the same time, scrutiny of teacher
18
preparation heightened. Arthur Levine, former President of Teachers College at Columbia
University, released a policy report through the Education Schools Project about the state of the
1206 schools, colleges, and departments of education that existed at the time. While some
exemplary models were highlighted, Levine (2006) found that most of the nation’s teachers were
prepared through an outdated vision for teacher education in programs with low admissions and
graduation standards, insufficient fieldwork, and faculty who were disconnected from the reality
of teachers. Over 60% of teacher programs’ alumni reported feeling unprepared when asked to
assess 11 knowledge areas, and only 40% of principals described recent graduates as very well or
moderately well prepared. The National Council on Teacher Quality (2013), in reviews of
teacher preparation programs, claimed that traditional programs at universities and colleges had
become “an industry of mediocrity” (p. 1). The role of teaching had fundamentally changed from
teaching few to educating all at higher levels than ever expected before, and teacher educators
were called to reimagine what was needed to prepare talented and diverse teachers entering the
field.
Promising Practices for Improving and Diversifying Teacher Preparation
Practice-Based Teacher Education
While early teacher education focused primarily on pedagogy and practice, by the late
20th century, critics of teacher preparation programs had raised concerns that over time theory
had become divorced from practice, faculty were disconnected from the realities facing K–12
teachers, and clinical practice, or the opportunity to observe, practice, and reflect on teaching in
the field, was insufficient. In response, Ball and Cohen (1999) argued for practice-based teacher
education, or training that focused learning on professional performance while engaging novice
teachers in collaborative inquiry into critical, school-based problems of practice. While there is
19
still a lack of agreement of what practice-based teacher education means and how it should take
form, over the past two decades, there has been a strong movement to develop novice teachers
through professional training that focuses more centrally on the practice of teaching than
traditional academic or theoretical concepts (Ball & Forzani, 2011; Grossman et al., 2009).
Teachers are still expected to understand the theory underlying their pedagogical choices and
decision-making, but greater emphasis is placed on putting theory to practice in classrooms and
schools.
Rather than teaching novice teachers about practice in graduate coursework and then
asking them to implement what they learned in their clinical site with relatively little structure,
teacher educators argue that deliberate practice is needed (Ericsson, 2008). Deliberate practice is
grounded in the knowledge that expertise is developed through repetition of enactments that
deepen the complexity of novice teachers’ understanding over time. Scholars argue that more
deeply embedding teacher education in K–12 schools provides greater opportunity to scaffold
learning experiences for novices to observe and enact effective practice (Von Esch & Kavanagh,
2018). Lampert et al. (2013, p. 228) assert that teacher education programs should situate novice
teachers’ learning in communities of practice grounded in “cycles of enactment and
investigation” that include observation, collective analysis, preparation, rehearsal, classroom
enactment, feedback, and reflection. Rehearsals allow novice teachers to practice leading an
instructional activity with faculty and peers before teaching students at their clinical site.
Instructional routines often serve as containers that can be adapted for different learning
experiences, while communities of practice support novice teachers in developing an
understanding of when, why, and how to adapt them (Forzani, 2014; Lampert & Ghousseini,
2012). Communities of practice often embed the use of video or practices of Japanese lesson
20
study to examine different aspects of teaching and learning and strengthen novice teachers’
preparation (Fernández, 2005; Van Es & Sherin, 2008).
Teacher education programs have also grappled with how to prepare novice teachers for
intellectually ambitious instruction, a term coined by researchers from the Consortium on
Chicago School Research to describe teaching that results in deep learning and the development
of higher-order thinking skills, often by applying knowledge to real-world situations (Smith et
al., 2001). Ambitious learning goals are often grounded in a commitment to equity, or the
expectation that all students can and will develop higher-order thinking, reasoning, and problem-
solving skills (Forzani, 2014). This has led many teacher preparation programs to identify and
explicitly teach high-leverage practices that are most likely to affect student learning across
different content domains, cultural contexts, and grain sizes, such as making thinking visible and
asking questions that elicit student thinking (Ball & Forzani, 2011). Within the field, there
remains controversy as to how far to take a core practices model, with strong critique of
programs with an intense focus on specific, detailed practices that approach teaching as technical
rather than complex and adaptive. Teaching is rarely routine, and novice teachers must develop
the mindsets, knowledge, and skills to flexibly respond to diverse students’ needs and challenges
in the moment while also leveraging their strengths, interests, cultures, and backgrounds
(Darling-Hammond & Oakes, 2019).
Teacher Residency Programs
Less controversial is the idea that teacher preparation should tightly integrate theory and
practice and be deeply situated within the reality of K–12 schools. As early as the 1960s and
1970s, teacher preparation programs at elite universities such as Columbia, Harvard, Stanford,
and the University of Chicago began to include a full year of student-teaching with an
21
apprenticeship to a veteran teacher (Guha et al., 2016). However, the average length of clinical
experience for novice teachers today is still typically only three to four months (Ronfeldt &
Reininger, 2012). Inspired to address this gap and meet school districts’ hiring needs, TRPs
emerged in the early 2000s, modeled in part after the medical residency approach to training
doctors. While disagreement continues as to what can be labeled a TRP, the following elements
typically exist: a strong university and district partnership, recruitment of high-potential, diverse
candidates to meet district hiring needs, coursework tightly aligned to and integrated with
clinical practice, a year-long residency co-teaching with an expert cooperating teacher, and
ongoing mentoring and support for the cohort following graduation through induction (Guha et
al., 2016). Studies of well-designed and well-implemented residency programs, such as the
Boston TRP and Memphis TRP, have found that residency graduates have higher student
achievement gains than other beginning teachers. Furthermore, a study from the National Center
for Teacher Residencies (2017) found that over 90% of 73 principals from across 19 programs
reported that alumni hired from TRPs outperformed typical new teachers at their school and had
stronger learning and achievement gains for their students.
Residency programs provide a promising alternative to licensure by tightly integrating
coursework with a year-long residency and providing financial support, often in exchange for a
three- to five-year commitment to teach in a partner district or charter management organization
(Guha et al., 2016). Residents often receive a living stipend and either tuition reduction or loan
forgiveness to underwrite the cost of teacher preparation, increasing access for candidates of
color and from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. The more than 50 residency programs across
the U.S. enroll an average of 49% people of color and retain teachers at higher rates than
traditional programs (Guha et al., 2016). This represents a 250% increase from what is typically
22
seen in the teaching profession. While K–12 students in the United States have become
increasingly more diverse and over 50% identify as non-White, only 18% of teachers identify as
people of color (Boser, 2011). Teachers of color are 2 to 3 times more likely to teach in hard-to-
staff, urban and rural schools where retention issues are more severe, with over 50% leaving the
profession before teaching for five years (Guha et al., 2016; Ingersoll et al., 2017). Residency
programs provide a promising strategy for recruiting, preparing, and retaining diverse and
talented teachers while tightly integrating theory and practice through rich and immersive
clinical practice and support and mentoring following graduation.
Diversifying the Teaching Profession
Teachers of color have a positive impact on the academic performance, graduation rates,
and college aspirations of students of color, often serving as both role models and facilitators of
culturally responsive classrooms (Carver-Thomas, 2018). However, the National Education
Associations’ (2018) goal of ensuring every child’s “basic right to a great public school, with a
qualified and caring staff, including educators who look like them [and] who share similar
cultural experiences” is yet to be realized (para. 3). Too often, students of color still navigate
school systems designed to privilege dominant White culture without sufficient opportunities to
learn from and build relationships with teachers who look like them. Numerous studies have
found that teachers of color are more likely to hold higher expectations for their students, use
culturally responsive instructional practices, and have a greater likelihood of addressing issues of
racism and bias through antiracist practices (Carver-Thomas, 2018; Gasman et al., 2017;
Gershenson et al., 016).
Research has found that having even one teacher of color has a positive impact on
students. For example, Recent research from John Hopkins University found that low-income
23
Black students are 29% less likely to drop out of high school if they have just one Black teacher
in third through fifth grades (Gershenson et al., 2017). Teachers of color have been found to
increase the academic performance of students of color as well as boost their self-esteem and
sense of belonging in academic settings (Carver-Thomas, 2018; Villegas & Irvine, 2010).
Developing these non-cognitive factors, or academic mindsets, has been found to positively
impact students’ academic perseverance and performance as measured by course grades and
GPA (Farrington, 2013). Furthermore, the positive impact of teachers of color is not confined to
historically underserved student populations. King and Darling-Hammond (2018) assert that
seeing teachers of color as role models and leaders benefits all students. Also, using data from
the Measure of Effective Teaching study, Cherng and Halpin (2016) found that students on
average had more favorable perceptions of Latinx and Black teachers than White teachers. This
held true when disaggregated by race for both Asian American and White students. Addressing
the underrepresentation of teachers of color in the field through teacher preparation may advance
equity for students and counteract the feelings of isolation and othering teachers of color often
experience in schools.
Advancing Equity Through Deeper Learning and Antiracist Practices
Need for Advancing Equity
Inequality has been a persistent and pervasive aspect of the culture and history of the
United States. Even with significant progress made to narrow achievement gaps in education
since the 1954 Supreme Court ruling in Brown v. Board of Education that racial segregation is
unconstitutional, the disparity in educational outcomes persists. Results on the National
Assessment of Educational Progress, or the nation’s report card, reveal that White-Black and
White-Latinx achievement gaps in math and reading scores have narrowed by 30% to 40% since
24
the 1970s, but the remaining gaps are still large, ranging from 0.5 to 0.9 deviations (Center for
Education Policy Analysis, 2012). These achievement gaps strongly correlate with racial gaps in
income, poverty rates, unemployment rates, and educational attainment, but socioeconomic
factors do not explain the racial gaps entirely (Center for Education Policy Analysis, 2012). The
correlation for White-Latinx achievement gaps is 0.83–0.86 and lower for White-Black gaps at
0.61–0.68. This suggests other factors, such as access to early childhood education, the quality of
public schools, patterns of residential and school segregation, and state educational and social
policies may exacerbate racial achievement gaps and likely more so for Black students than their
Latinx counterparts. Finally, while Black and Latinx students make up over 40% of high school
students in the United States, the Learning Policy Institute’s analysis of U.S. Department of
Education data found that these sub-groups make up less than 20% of college graduates (Carver-
Thomas, 2018).
Ladson-Billings (2006) argues that conceptualizing these equity issues as racial
achievement gaps can lead to unfairly viewing students through a deficit lens, or as if students of
color are in some way lacking and need to catch up. Ladson-Billings suggests that the term
“educational debt” be used instead to acknowledge the accumulative factors of historical,
economic, and socio-political oppression experienced over time, such as slavery, exclusionary
housing practices, and police brutality. The education debt accrued from historic and
institutionalized racism is only made visible by these inequitable outcomes, which Ladson-
Billings argues represent symptoms of larger systemic issues. Kendi (2016, para. 13) further
challenges the academic achievement gap as a racist idea, asserting that “standardized tests have
become the most effective racist weapon ever devised to objectively degrade Black minds and
legally exclude their bodies.” Novice teachers should be taught to question grading policies and
25
testing practices that perpetuate inequity and learn how to decolonize curriculum and assessment
practices to honor different ways of learning and knowing. Nieto (2000) asserts that practices,
policies, structures, and systems “that devalue the identities of some students while overvaluing
others” must be critically examined and reimagined to ensure racial, economic, and educational
justice (p. 183).
Research has found that students of color who encounter challenges in academic settings
are more likely than their White peers to internalize those experiences as evidence that they do
not belong and be negatively impacted by stereotype threat (Steele, 2011). Steele and Aronson
(1995) found that when performing an explicitly academic task, the anxiety and fear Black
students experienced about confirming a negative societal stereotype impacted their intellectual
performance, as was later found true for females in math performance (Spencer et al., 1999).
This can become a cycle that harms students’ learning and development and is compounded
when teachers hold deficit views of marginalized populations. Teacher preparation programs
grounded in social justice are designed to support novice teachers in excavating, interrogating,
and disrupting their own biases and assumptions while examining why and how schools are
unjust for some students more than others (Wiedeman, 2002). Teachers must believe in each
child’s intellectual and creative capacities and develop the knowledge and skills to disrupt issues
of status and stereotype threat in real time in their classrooms through antiracist practices while
also critically examining the underlying root causes that lead to systemic inequality.
Kendi (2019) describes the work of anti-racism that can ground novice teachers’
development:
The opposite of racist isn’t ‘not racist.’ It is ‘antiracist.’ What’s the difference? One
endorses either the idea of a racial hierarchy as a racist, or racial equality as an antiracist.
26
One either believes problems are rooted in groups of people, as a racist, or locates the
roots of problems in power and policies, as an antiracist. One either allows racial
inequities to persevere, as a racist, or confronts racial inequities, as an antiracist. There is
no in-between safe space of ‘not racist.’ (p. 9)
Novice teachers in social-justice-oriented preparation programs learn that the processes of
teaching and schooling are never neutral; all decisions, pedagogical and otherwise, have the
potential to either perpetuate or disrupt patterns of inequity and marginalization. This way of
thinking can be challenging for novice teachers who have embraced a superficial, binary
understanding of racism: racist people are bad people, and not racist people are good people
(Saad, 2020). A desire to be seen as good, and therefore not racist, can unintentionally harm
students and maintain White supremacy culture. Avoiding the challenging work of investigating
how they as individuals may be unconsciously complicit limits novice teachers’ ability to impact
change, expand opportunities for the students they serve, and develop as anti-racist teachers.
The learning and unlearning of how racism shows up in the classroom are of particular
importance for novice White teachers. While significant effort has been made to diversify the
teaching profession, nearly 4 of every 5 teachers in the U.S. still identify as White (National
Center for Education Statistics, 2020). Because the idea of race was socially constructed through
racist practices and policies to maintain power and wealth for White people, individuals
belonging to this group benefit from unearned advantages and must understand to grow as
antiracist teachers (McIntosh, 2004). McIntosh describes White privilege as both unearned
entitlements that all people should have, but in reality do not, such as being valued for their
opinions or not having negative behaviors attributed to their race, and conferred dominance
which gives White people power over Black, Indigenous, and people of color.
27
White people are often unaware of or in denial of their privilege, ill-equipped to confront
racial tension, and quick to forfeit opportunities to learn from unease. DiAngelo (2015) argues
that White expectations for racial comfort and insulation from race-based stress lead to White
fragility, a term used to describe the range of defensive moves often displayed by White people
when exposed to minimal racial stress. Rather than demonstrating cognitive or affective skills
that allow for constructive dialogue across differences, White people often outwardly display
emotions such as anger, fear, and guilt, and behaviors such as violence, silence, and leaving the
stress-inducing situation. This right to comfort, along with other tenets of White supremacy, such
as power hoarding, paternalism, and sense of urgency, maintains power and privilege within
schools and other systems of oppression (Okun & Jones, 2000). Novice teachers from all
backgrounds must develop greater awareness of how race, racism, and White supremacy have
shaped their lived experiences and positionality.
To advance equity and prepare anti-racist teachers, preparation programs must ground
novice teachers in an understanding of liberatory practices, or what Hooks (1994, p. 13)
describes as “education as the practice of freedom.” The roots of liberatory education are often
accredited to Freire’s (1970) critique of traditional pedagogy. Freire argued that students are
unjustly treated as empty vessels waiting to be filled with knowledge like piggy banks, or what
he described as the banking model of education. The banking model is closely linked to
oppression, as power resides with all-knowing teachers while students are treated as passive and
inferior recipients of knowledge. Freire contrasts the dehumanization and objectification of
students through traditional pedagogy with a vision for critical pedagogy grounded in liberation
and freedom. Problem-posing learning experiences situate both students and teachers as learners
engaged in collaborative inquiry through cycles of dialogue, action, and reflection. Liberation is
28
catalyzed through critical analysis of identity, positionality, and issues of injustice coupled with
collaborative action by both the oppressed and their oppressors to reach the goal of
humanization. Duncan-Andrade and Morrell (2008) argue that teachers can use critical pedagogy
and liberatory practices to leverage students’ abilities to “take ownership of the knowledge
production process” (p. 55). Rooted in ideas of constructivism, they suggest that knowledge
should be created by students through learning experiences that ask them to critically analyze
issues of equity, such as educational inequality and racism, and take action to impact change.
Deeper Learning for All Students
Deeper learning is both a new and old idea rooted in the early work of progressive
educator and thought leader John Dewey. Building on the work of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and
Friedrich Froebel, Dewey proposed the idea of experiential education in the early 20th century.
In contrast to rote learning, students learn through experiences that promote critical thinking and
the creation and expression of ideas. Dewey argued that the purpose of education in democracy
is to realize one’s full potential and use one’s knowledge and skills for the greater good, rather
than learning a predetermined set of content and focusing on self-gain (Dewey, 1897, 1916).
Instead of asking students to use their minds to memorize facts or disciplining their bodies into
passive compliance, education should unleash their potential to self-actualize and contribute to
society in meaningful ways. While Dewey (1936) is often viewed as the father of progressive
education, he also cautioned that “the belief that all genuine education comes through experience
does not mean that all experiences are genuinely or equally educative” (p. 25). Dewey also
emphasized the importance of reflecting on experience to actuate learning and that without this
critical component, the power of experiential learning is diminished.
29
Building on Dewey’s argument for experiential education, Darling-Hammond and Oakes
(2019) describe deeper learning classrooms as those where “challenging academic content is
paired with engaging, experiential, and innovative learning experiences” (p. 4). They contend
that deeper learning leads to three important educational outcomes that encompass cognitive
abilities, social and emotional capabilities, and the moral and ethical dimensions of a purposeful
life: what students can do with what they know and learn, how they approach what they are
learning and doing, and why they are learning. Students come to understand concepts deeply
enough through inquiry-based, experiential learning that they can synthesize and apply them to
novel, complex problems in different real-world contexts. Deeper learning experiences cultivate
a deep understanding of transferable knowledge rather than inert knowledge that is unavailable
for later use (Darling-Hammond & Oakes, 2019, p. 205). Students also develop important co-
cognitive skills, such as learning how to organize and self-direct one’s own work, incorporate
feedback and critique from others to guide revision, and communicate and collaborate effectively
with others to produce meaningful work (Farrington, 2013). Transformative deeper learning
experiences cultivate shared purpose, or the “why” for students, while fostering their sense of
belonging and agency to make change. When deeper learning is grounded in both experiential
education inspired by Dewey and critical pedagogy inspired by Freire, young people develop a
strong sense of social justice and responsibility to improve both their own lives and the lives of
others.
The idea of deeper learning originally emerged in response to industrial-era education
and behavioral theories of learning that still permeate many schools. In the typical factory model
of schooling, teachers transmit knowledge to students in small chunks, provide reinforcement
through rewards or punishment, monitor and test whether the chunks of knowledge were learned,
30
and then reteach whatever was missed or move on (Tyack & Cuban, 1995). Beyond memorizing
and recalling facts, proponents of deeper learning argue that students should develop
competencies to master core academic content, think critically and creatively to solve complex
problems, work collaboratively, communicate effectively, learn how to learn, and develop
academic mindsets and dispositions, such as self-efficacy and a growth mindset (Hewlett
Foundation, 2013). Building on the research of Piaget and Vygotsky on the socio-cultural
context’s role in cognitive development, deeper learning provides opportunities for students to
make sense of their environments and their relationships with one another within social contexts
that promote critical inquiry, dialogue, and reflection (Blake, 2015). Qualitative research by the
American Institutes for Research Students found that students at high schools designed for
deeper learning perform higher on the PISA-based Test for Schools, an international test
assessing cognition, critical thinking, and problem-solving skills (Bitter & Loney, 2015). They
also graduate from high school and enroll in college at higher rates and report higher levels of
collaboration skills, academic engagement, motivation to learn, and self-efficacy (Bitter &
Loney, 2015).
Unfortunately, students from low-income and marginalized backgrounds typically have
less access to deeper learning and are more likely to attend schools that place greater emphasis
on standardized testing, low-cognitive demand tasks, and remedial intervention (Darling-
Hammond & Oakes, 2019; Noguera et al., 2015). As described by Haberman (1991) nearly 30
years ago as the pedagogy of poverty, economically disadvantaged students are more likely to
experience didactic, teacher-centered instruction with more lectures, demonstrations, closed-
ended, low-cognitive demand questioning. These students have less opportunity for student
choice, applied learning, and questioning that promotes higher-order thinking skills (Smith et al.,
31
2001). This critique was not new. At the turn of the 19th century, W.E.B. DuBois and his
colleagues at NAACP had argued for a liberal arts education for African American students
because of the dramatic difference in the way they were being educated in comparison to their
White peers. Since then, civil rights groups have battled against efforts to emphasize lower-level,
skills-based curriculum and teaching to the test in schools serving students predominantly of
color for decades.
More recently, Mehta (2014) argued that the deeper learning network of progressive
educators lacks diversity and a sufficient response to the concerns raised by many urban Black
and Latinx educators for how to embed basic or core knowledge and skills into inquiry-based,
hands-on learning. Nearly 30 years prior, Delpit (1986) described the skills dilemma she
experienced as a progressive Black educator while teaching writing. Delpit argued that meeting
the needs of poor students and students of color means writing programs must insist on skills
within the context of process-oriented approaches to teaching writing that develop critical and
creative thinking. Similar arguments have been made for infusing liberatory practices that have
an explicit focus on equity and social justice within deeper learning practices and projects. Fine
(2016, para. 5) contends that “deeper learning people” and “critical pedagogy people” are too
often siloed, forming echo chambers on either side of what she calls a Dewey-Freire divide.
Freire’s vision “insist(ing) that learners must be supported in learning to identify, critique, and
resist patterns of oppression and structural inequality” is often missing in projects held up as
models within the deeper learning community (para. 8). On the other hand, Fine argues that the
form of curriculum explicitly designed to critique issues of racism, classism, patriarchy, and
other “isms” through the perspectives of marginalized populations is often reduced to a read-
think-discuss-write format, limiting authentic opportunities for students to transfer their
32
knowledge and skills into meaningful projects that impact their communities. Transformative
teacher preparation programs, such as the TRP grounding this study, intentionally bridge this
divide by preparing novice teachers to advance equity through both deeper learning and
antiracist practices.
Theoretical and Conceptual Framework
Darling-Hammond and Oakes (2019) pose the following question to teacher educators:
How can we prepare those who enter the profession to teach for deeper learning and, in so doing,
to teach for equity and social justice as well? Darling-Hammond and Oakes developed the
theoretical framework grounding this study through case study research on seven transformative
teacher preparation programs educating for deeper learning and social justice. Building on
knowledge from the learning sciences and their own research, they define teaching for deeper
learning through five dimensions that can be used in parallel to describe student learning and the
learning of novice teachers in the TRP:
33
Table 1
Theoretical Framework - Five Dimensions of Teaching for Deeper Learning
Learning that is developmentally grounded and personalized.
Students. Learning experiences leverage
students’ personal, cultural, and linguistic
knowledge, recognizing that they draw from
these contexts to make sense of the world
and their experiences in it. Students are
asked to meaningfully apply their learning
to relevant contexts and the world beyond
school, which is bolstered by strong
relationships between educators, caregivers,
and the community.
Applications to TRP. Learning experiences
leverage candidates’ personal, cultural, and
linguistic knowledge, and use “experience
as text” to construct meaning through
dialogue and reflection. Candidates
experience practice-based teacher
preparation within a learning context that
integrates theory and practice and tightly
aligns coursework to clinical fieldwork.
Learning that is contextualized.
Students. Learning experiences leverage
students’ personal, cultural, and linguistic
knowledge, recognizing that they draw from
these contexts to make sense of the world
and their experiences in it. Students are
asked to meaningfully apply their learning
to relevant contexts and the world beyond
school, which is bolstered by strong
relationships between educators, caregivers,
and the community.
Applications to TRP. Learning experiences
leverage candidates’ personal, cultural, and
linguistic knowledge, and use “experience
as text” to construct meaning through
dialogue and reflection. Candidates
experience practice-based teacher
preparation within a learning context that
integrates theory and practice and tightly
aligns coursework to clinical fieldwork.
Learning that is applied and transferred.
Students. Learning experiences ask students to
think critically in order to apply and transfer
knowledge to novel and complex problems.
Students develop deeper learning
competencies through challenging and
authentic learning experiences, actively
constructing new knowledge in the process.
Authentic formative and summative
assessments inform decisions about teaching
and learning.
Applications to TRP. Learning experiences
ask candidates to apply their understanding
of theory to practice at their clinical sites,
and also reflect on how practice informs
theory through cycles of sustained inquiry.
Candidates engage in teaching rehearsals,
deliberate practice, and cycles of enactment
to practice and reflect on teaching, using
authentic assessment of student learning to
guide their decision-making along the way.
34
Learning that occurs in productive communities of practice.
Students. Learning experiences are designed
to support constructivist learning through
active and interactive social learning.
Collaborative learning experiences are
intentionally designed and facilitated to
scaffold learning and tend to issues of
equity. Learning environments are
cultivated to nurture an ethic of caring,
social and emotional development, and
trusting relationships, and restorative
practices are used to build a positive
learning community.
Applications to TRP. Learning experiences
are designed to support the construction of
knowledge through collaborative, social
learning. Communities of practice grounded
in high-trust, collegial relationships support
cycles of inquiry, action, and reflection, and
are embedded in both coursework and adult
learning provided by the clinical site.
Cooperating teachers and candidates engage
in reciprocal, cognitive coaching to promote
learning and growth.
Learning that is equitable and oriented to social justice.
Students. Learning experiences are designed
to meet diverse students’ needs, provide
access and challenge, and address issues of
equity. They are constructed with an
awareness of race, class, gender, and other
social characteristics that shape students’
lived experiences. Students’ unique
identities are seen as strengths and resources
to leverage, and teachers avoid deficit
thinking while taking a critical and active
stance to disrupt inequity.
Applications to TRP. Learning experiences
are designed to meet diverse candidates’
needs and leverage their unique identities,
backgrounds, and strengths. Candidates
learn how to cultivate culturally responsive
classrooms, design liberatory learning
experiences grounded in critical pedagogy,
and become antiracist teachers. Learning
experiences develop candidates’ critical
consciousness and ability to identify,
confront, and dismantle racial inequities.
The five dimensions of teaching for deeper learning provide this study’s theoretical
framework. The conceptual framework connects these five dimensions to concepts that undergird
the TRP’s approach to preparing novice teachers to advance equity through deeper learning and
anti-racist teaching practices. As seen in Figure 1, relationships are at the center of the
framework and provide the foundation for learning. Throughout the program, candidates are
taught how to create culturally responsive classrooms, design learning experiences grounded in
critical pedagogy, and develop as antiracist teachers. They learn to celebrate and leverage their
students’ unique identities, experiences, and strengths while also developing their critical
35
consciousness through learning experiences that ask them to critically analyze issues of equity
and take action to impact change. They learn to understand that the processes of teaching and
schooling are never neutral, and each decision they make as a teacher has the potential to either
perpetuate or disrupt inequity and marginalization. Candidates also learn how to engage students
in work that matters through inquiry-based, experiential learning experiences that develop deeper
learning competencies, such as mastering core academic content, thinking critically to solve
complex problems, working collaboratively, communicating effectively, learning how to learn,
and developing academic mindsets. They learn to design interdisciplinary, project-based learning
experiences that challenge students to create, synthesize, and apply knowledge to novel, complex
problems in different real-world contexts. Projects are designed with an authentic audience and
purpose for the work beyond school and typically culminate with a public presentation where
students share their learning and final product. TRP is unique in that it explicitly prepares
candidates to advance equity through both deeper learning and antiracist practices and to
understand where they intersect.
36
Figure 1
Conceptual Framework
Note. The conceptual framework was developed by Darling-Hammond & Oakes (2019) and
layered with theory undergirding the Teacher Residency Program’s approach to novice teacher
preparation.
37
Chapter Three: Methodology
The purpose of this study was to better understand the extent to which alumni from the
GSE TRP feel prepared to advance equity through deeper learning and antiracist practices. A
mixed-methods approach to data collection was implemented using surveys, interviews, and
review of program documents and artifacts, and the target population included alumni from the
first two cohorts of the program. Chapter Three provides an overview of the research questions,
design, and setting, the approach to data collection and analysis, and a discussion of issues of
validity, reliability, and the positionality of the primary investigator.
Research Questions
The following research questions guided this study:
1. In what ways does the GSE Teacher Residency Program intend to prepare teachers to
advance equity through deeper learning and antiracist practices?
2. What are the perceptions of graduates regarding the extent to which the GSE Teacher
Residency Program prepared them to advance equity through deeper learning and
antiracist practices?
3. What are the perceptions of graduates regarding opportunities for program improvement?
Overview of Design
The study used a mixed-methods research design to gain deeper insight into the research
questions through the integration of both quantitative (close-ended) and qualitative (open-ended)
data (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). A mixed-methods approach provided a more complete
understanding of the research questions posed, with greater opportunity for the nuances of
quantitative data collected to be explored through qualitative methods. Because the target
population was the GSE TRP alumni, a survey with closed-ended and open-ended questions was
administered to all program alumni, including approximately 18 novice teachers from the TRP
38
cohort in 2019–20 and 10 novice teachers from the TRP cohort in 2018–20. In addition to the
alumni survey, a program faculty survey with closed-ended and open-ended questions was
administered to better understand how the GSE TRP intends to prepare teachers to advance
equity through deeper learning and antiracist practices. Following survey data collection,
interviews were conducted with 12 alumni that represent the cohort’s demographics and
diversity. Finally, program documents and artifacts were reviewed to better understand how the
program is intentionally designed to prepare teachers to advance equity through deeper learning
and antiracist practices. This mixed-methods approach supported the program evaluation through
the lens of the research questions and led to deeper understanding of program participants’
multiple and diverse perspectives. Program document and artifact review occurred throughout
the study, and faculty and alumni surveys were administered before conducting interviews with
alumni.
An overview of the data collection methods is described in Table 2.
39
Table 2
Data Sources
Research Questions
Faculty
Survey
Alumni
Survey
Alumni
Interviews
Document
Review
RQ1: In what ways does the GSE
Teacher Residency Program intend to
prepare teachers to advance equity
through deeper learning and antiracist
practices?
X
X
RQ2: What are the perceptions of
graduates regarding the extent to
which the GSE Teacher Residency
Program prepared them to advance
equity through deeper learning and
antiracist practices?
X
X
RQ3:What are the perceptions of
graduates regarding opportunities for
program improvement?
X
X
Research Setting
The GSE TRP was launched in 2018 to prepare novice teachers to design equitable
learning environments using constructivist, deeper learning pedagogies and antiracist practices.
Candidates are embedded in one of the 16 DT schools for the first year of the TRP while student-
teaching and earning their preliminary teaching credential (multiple subject or single subject).
Candidates spend four days a week student-teaching in DT schools, with mentorship and
coaching provided by their cooperating teacher and faculty supervisor and are included in
professional learning offered by their school site. In addition to evening courses, candidates
spend one school day a week engaged in learning together as a cohort. In the second year,
40
candidates have the option to earn an M.Ed. in teaching and learning while employed and
serving as the teacher of record. The first cohort launched in 2018–19 with a pilot group of 10
students, and in 2019–20 the cohort grew in size to 18 students.
The Researcher
The principal investigator (PI) of this study is the dean of the GSE that offers the TRP.
While she had no formal power to evaluate study participants’ academic or professional
performance, program graduates may have perceived her status to be threatening or believed
there was risk involved if they are honest about their experiences. To mitigate these issues, the PI
informed alumni that their participation would pose no risk to their professional reputation,
academic performance in the program, or current or future employment and that confidentiality
would be maintained throughout the course of the study. Faculty received the same assurances.
Both the student and faculty surveys were anonymous, and confidentiality was maintained in the
final publication of this study.
The PI framed this research using a constructivist paradigm of inquiry, an interpretive
framework whereby individuals seek to make subjective meaning of their world through
experience (Creswell, 2014). Throughout qualitative data collection, the PI also served as the
primary instrument for data collection and analysis. This provided advantages such as the ability
to expand understanding through verbal and nonverbal communication, to process information
and quickly adapt, and to probe respondents to check for understanding or explore unanticipated
responses (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). However, the researcher’s positionality and bias had the
potential to contribute to the subjectivity of the research; therefore, it was acknowledged and
monitored throughout the study.
The PI of this study identifies as a first-generation, middle-class, White female. The PI
critically grappled with and analyzed the impact of power relations throughout the study,
41
particularly the impact of her identity on data collection (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). As a former
high school teacher and founding school principal who now works in higher education, the PI
may have had a mix of insider and outsider status in the participants’ view. These perceptions
had the potential to impact how vulnerable and/or marginalized participants perceived the
interview process, or the stories they chose to tell. Moreover, the researcher’s positionality likely
influenced how the data were collected. To attempt to mitigate these challenges, the PI tended to
issues of reflexivity, giving careful attention to the influence she might have on participants and,
simultaneously, the effect the research process and participants were having on her. Finally, the
PI used member checking to ensure the participants’ perspectives were accurately reflected in the
findings.
Data Sources
Through a mixed-methods approach, three data sources were used to develop deeper
understanding of the research questions: surveys, interviews, and review of program documents
and artifacts. Program document and artifact review began before other data were collected and
continued throughout the study. Surveys were administered to all 18 first-year teachers from
Cohort 2 and all 10 second-year teachers from Cohort 1, as well as all 10 program faculty who
were teaching courses. Interviews were then conducted with a representative sample of 12 of the
28 alumni. Data were collected from early December 2020 through late February 2021. This time
frame allowed alumni to reflect on their learning from TRP while putting into practice the
knowledge, skills, and dispositions they developed from the program. All alumni were teaching
via distance learning due to the Covid-19 pandemic during data collection.
42
Surveys
The alumni and program faculty surveys were adapted from validated instruments
Darling-Hammond and Oakes (2019) used in their two-year case study analysis of innovative
teacher education programs designed to prepare teachers for deeper learning and social justice.
The surveys were modified to address this study’s research questions, particularly the explicit
focus on deeper learning and anti-racist practices, and were aligned to the theoretical
framework’s five dimensions (Appendix A and B).
Participants
The target population for the alumni survey was the graduates from Cohort 1 and Cohort
2 of the GSE TRP. They were an appropriate population because the purpose of the study was to
better understand the extent to which program alumni feel prepared to advance equity through
deeper learning and antiracist practices. At the time of data collection, the total population of
alumni in their first year of teaching was 18, and the total population of alumni in their second
year of teaching was 10. Because of this small sample, all alumni were asked to complete the
survey (n = 28). A census approach ensured that everyone in the population would have the
opportunity to share their perspective, and a more robust data collection process could be
implemented (Robinson & Leonard, 2019).
Of the 28 alumni, 17 completed the survey, representing a 61% response rate. Of the 17
survey respondents, 41% identified as female, 35% as male, 6% as non-binary/third gender, and
18% preferred not to say. In Figure 2 the gender identity of survey respondents is compared with
all alumni from the first two cohorts.
43
Figure 2
Gender Identity of Alumni Survey Respondents v. Total Alumni
The alumni survey also asked graduates how they identify racially. Of the 17
respondents, 16 completed the survey question about racial identity: 44% identified as
White/Caucasian, 19% as Black/African American, 19% as Asian American, 13% as
Latinx/Hispanic, and 6% as two or more races. Figure 3 compares the racial demographics of
survey respondents that completed the question with all alumni.
6
7
1
3
12
14
2
0
0 5 10 15
Male
Female
Non-binary/third
gender
Prefer not to say
Frequency
Total Alumni (n=28)
Survey Respondents
(n=17)
44
Figure 3
Racial Identity of Alumni Survey Respondents v. Total Alumni
Because the survey was anonymous and sent to all alumni, a representative sample was
not purposefully selected. However, the survey respondents reflect the demographics of alumni
from the first two cohorts both by gender and racial identity.
Program faculty were also surveyed using a census approach (n = 10) to better understand
in what ways the GSE TRP intends to prepare teachers to advance equity through deeper
learning and antiracist practices. ALL 10 program faculty completed the survey, representing a
100% response rate. Of the faculty members, 70% identified as female and 30% identify as male.
Racially, faculty identify as 40% Black/African American, 30% White/Caucasian, 20% Asian
American, and 10% Latinx/Hispanic.
2
2
3
7
3
2
4
4
13
5
0 5 10 15
Black/African-American
Latinx/Hispanic
Asian American
White/Caucasian
Two or more races:
Frequency
Total Alumni (n=28)
Survey Respondents
(n=17)
45
Instrumentation
The alumni and faculty surveys include both close-ended questions and open-ended
questions. The closed-ended questions provided quantitative data using a Likert scale, while the
open-ended questions provide opportunities for qualitative, in-depth responses. Each of the
survey questions was aligned to one or more of the three research questions and/or one of the
theoretical framework’s five dimensions and were coded as presented below (Appendix A).
Coding for research questions:
R1. In what ways does the GSE Teacher Residency Program intend to prepare teachers to
advance equity through deeper learning and antiracist practices?
R2. What are the perceptions of graduates regarding the extent to which the GSE Teacher
Residency Program prepared them to advance equity through deeper learning and
antiracist practices?
R3. What are the perceptions of graduates regarding opportunities for program
improvement?
Coding for theoretical framework:
F1. Learning that is developmentally grounded and personalized.
F2. Learning that is contextualized.
F3. Learning that is applied and transferred.
F4. Learning that occurs in productive communities of practice.
F5. Learning that is equitable and oriented to social justice.
The intentional cross-walking of the survey questions to the research questions and theoretical
framework strengthened the validity of the research design and data collection.
Design thinking was applied to ensure a human-centered approach to survey development
by empathizing with participants, brainstorming and adapting potential questions, prototyping
46
and testing pilot surveys, and using feedback to iterate upon the survey design (Robinson &
Leonard, 2018). The pilot surveys were conducted in spring of 2020. Some questions were
adapted to better align to specific nomenclature used in the TRP to describe pedagogical
concepts in response to feedback generated from the test of the pilot surveys.
Data Collection Procedures
Alumni from TRP and program faculty were invited to participate via an individual email
that described the purpose of the study and shared human subjects research information required
and approved by the institutional review board (IRB), such as potential benefit or harm related to
their participation, efforts to ensure confidentiality, and opportunities for member checking
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Participants were provided an information sheet before completing
the survey. A deadline was provided for survey completion, and two reminders were sent before
the two-month window for the surveys closed (Robinson & Leonard, 2019). The surveys took
approximately 10 to 15 minutes to complete through USC Qualtrics, an online software tool used
to create and implement surveys. Alumni and program faculty’s language needs were assessed
beforehand through consultation with the program director, so that translation could be provided
if needed.
Data Analysis
Closed-ended survey questions were analyzed using Qualtrics and Microsoft Excel
through descriptive statistical analysis (e.g., frequencies, percentages) and graphical
representation. Responses to ordinal questions using a Likert scale were represented through
tables that show the percentage of respondents (Robinson & Leonard, 2019). Analysis of open-
ended survey questions involved a combination of a priori and open coding strategies.
Preliminary findings elicited slight revisions to the interview protocol so that more nuanced
understanding of the survey data could be elicited and triangulated (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
47
Interviews
Interviews were conducted with 12 of the 28 alumni from the TRP in January and
February of 2021. The interview questions aligned with the research questions and theoretical
framework guiding the study and were designed to elicit rich, descriptive responses from the
participants. The interview approach was semi-structured to ensure that specific topics were
addressed while also providing flexibility for the interviewer to probe and explore the
participants’ perspectives with greater depth and complexity throughout the interview (Creswell
& Creswell, 2018).
Participants
The target population for interviews was 12 of the 28 alumni from the GSE TRP. The
population was first stratified by racial and gender identity to ensure the sample was
representative of the proportion of individuals with these characteristics within the total
population (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Single-stage, heterogenous, purposive sampling was
then used to identify 12 alumni to interview who were representative of the total population
using guidance from the GSE TRP director. Finally, alumni were invited to participate via an
individual email that described the purpose of the study and information required by IRB, such
as potential benefit or harm related to their participation and efforts to ensure confidentiality.
Due to challenges presented by Covid-19 and new teachers feeling overwhelmed, not all
of the 12 selected alumni responded to the invitation and some declined to participate. The PI
invited all 28 alumni to interview over time before getting 12 to agree to participate. While the
final 12 alumni that were interviewed were not the same as the 12 selected through purposive
sampling originally, they still reflected the gender and racial diversity of the total population. Of
the 12 interviewees, 42% identified as female, 42% as male, 8% as male/transgender, and 8% as
48
non-binary/third gender. In Figure 4 the gender identity of interviewees is compared with all
alumni from the first two cohorts.
Figure 4
Gender Identity of Alumni Interviewees v. Total Alumni
For both non-binary/third gender and male/transgender, 4% of alumni identify this way
as compared to 8% of interviewees. Another 42% of alumni identify as male, which mirrors the
percentage of males interviewed, while 50% of alumni identify as female as compared to only
42% of interviewees.
The racial identity of interviewees was 50% White/Caucasian, 17% Asian American,
17% Latinx/Hispanic, 8% as two or more races, and 8% Black/African American. Figure 5
compares the racial demographics of interviewees with all alumni.
5
5
1
1
12
14
1
1
0 5 10 15
Male
Female
Male/transgender
Non-binary/third
gender
Frequency
Total Alumni (n=28)
Interviewees (n=12)
49
Figure 5
Racial Identity of Alumni Interviewees v. Total Alumni
Nearly 46% of alumni identified as White/Caucasian, as compared to 50% of
interviewees. The gaps for most teachers of color are also less than 5%: 14% of alumni identified
as Asian American and represent 17% of interviewees, 14% of alumni identified as
Latinx/Hispanic and represent 17% of interviewees, and 7% of alumni identified as African
American and represent 8% of interviewees. The largest gap is found for alumni who identified
as two or more races, who represent 8% of interviewees as compared to 18% of total alumni.
Instrumentation
The interview protocol included primarily open-ended questions designed to elicit rich,
in-depth responses, as well as two close-ended questions to collect demographic data. Similar to
the survey, the interview protocol was adapted from a validated instrument used in Darling-
Hammond and Oakes (2019) research. Each of the interview questions was aligned to one or
1
2
2
6
1
2
4
4
13
5
0 5 10 15
Black/African-American
Latinx/Hispanic
Asian American
White/Caucasian
Two or more races:
Frequency
Total Alumni (n=28)
Interviewees (n=12)
50
more of the three research questions and the conceptual framework. The intentional cross-
walking of the interview questions to the research questions strengthened the validity of the
research design and data collection (Appendix C).
Drawing from Patton’s (2002) framework for interview instrumentation, the interview
approach combined the conversational and adaptive nature of the interview guide approach,
where the interviewer may alter the language used to ask the question or the order of the
questions based on what they observe during the interview, with the systematic approach of the
standardized open-ended interview, where the language and order of each question has been
thoughtfully preplanned and piloted to ensure each topic is covered. Patton’s six categories for
interview questions were also referenced while designing the interview protocol, including open-
ended questions that elicit participants’ experiences and behaviors, opinions and values, and
knowledge and feelings.
Data Collection Procedures
The interview data were collected in January and February of 2021, and each interview
took approximately 30 to 45 minutes to conduct. The researcher used Zoom to support the
interview process remotely due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Before beginning the interview, the
researcher provided an information sheet with an overview of the study’s purpose and relevant
IRB information related to human subjects and then asked permission to record the interview. A
third-party service transcribed the audio files, and the researcher analyzed the transcripts.
A combination of open and a priori approaches were used to analyze the interview data.
All interview data were organized, managed, and analyzed using the qualitative data analysis
program Atlas.ti. Interview findings were triangulated with the survey data and review of
program documents and artifacts (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Theoretical coding helped
51
identify themes and patterns in relation to the grounding framework and research questions
(Gibbs, 2018). Eight a priori codes were used initially, one for each of the three research
questions and one for each of the five dimensions for preparing teachers for deeper learning in
the conceptual framework. Emergent codes were used to further analyze the data using theories
undergirding the theoretical framework, such as anti-racist teaching, critical pedagogy, culturally
responsive pedagogy, deeper learning, and project-based learning.
Program Documents and Artifacts
Program documents and artifacts were reviewed to address the first research question and
better understand how the GSE TRP intends to prepare teachers to advance equity through
deeper learning and antiracist practices. This included a review of program materials, course
syllabi, digital portfolios of student work, and accreditation reports. The documents and artifacts
provided valuable information about the program and instructional design, which could then be
triangulated with other data collected through the study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Below is a summary of how program documents and artifacts were examined through the
lens of the theoretical framework. Program materials and artifacts were analyzed for evidence of
each of the five dimensions of the conceptual framework as well as the three research questions
guiding this study.
52
Table 3
Program Documents & Artifacts Analyzed Through the Lens of the Theoretical Framework
Learning
that is…
develop-
mentally
grounded and
personalized
context-
ualized
applied and
transferred
occurs in
productive
communities
of practice
equitable and
oriented to
social justice
Curricular
elements of
the program
Syllabi
Program
materials
Syllabi
Program
materials
Syllabi
Program
materials
Syllabi
Program
materials
Syllabi
Program
materials
Pedagogies of
the
instructors
Syllabi
Class
agendas
Syllabi
Class
agendas
Syllabi
Class
agendas
Syllabi
Class
agendas
Syllabi
Class
agendas
Clinical
practice
through
residency
Syllabi
Student
digital
portfolios
Syllabi
Student
digital
portfolios
Syllabi
Student
digital
portfolios
Syllabi
Student
digital
portfolios
Syllabi
Student
digital
portfolios
Mentoring
and
coaching
from
cooperating
teacher
(CT)
Program
materials
Agendas
from
monthly CT
retreats
Program
materials
Agendas
from
monthly CT
retreats
Program
materials
Agendas
from
monthly CT
retreats
Program
materials
Agendas
from
monthly CT
retreats
Program
materials
Agendas
from
monthly CT
retreats
Professional
learning
from school
site context
School site
website
Profession-
al learning
plan
School site
website
Profession-
al learning
plan
School site
website
Profession-
al learning
plan
School site
website
Profession-
al learning
plan
School site
website
Profession-
al learning
plan
Validity and Reliability
Accurate measurement, or validity, was examined throughout the research process
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018). This study’s survey and interview questions were adapted from a
validated instrument developed by Darling-Hammond and Oakes (2019). These questions align
53
with the theoretical framework’s five dimensions and address the research questions. These
constructs were clear, well-defined, and grounded in theory, and each of the five dimensions of
deeper learning were cross-walked to each survey question and interview question.
The reliability, or repeatability and consistency, of the data collection instruments was
also considered (Robinson & Leonard, 2019). Over 294 participants completed the original
surveys adapted for this study, providing rich data to guide future iterations and strengthen
reliability across participants. The adapted surveys were also piloted with at least four
participants prior to use in this study to revise questions that were unclear or double-barreled. As
noted earlier, a deadline was provided for survey completion, and two reminders were sent
before the two-month window for the surveys closed to maximize response rates. The interview
was also adapted from Darling-Hammond and Oakes (2019) study on preparing teachers for
deeper learning and piloted before use to eliminate redundancy in questions and participant
confusion.
To ensure credibility and trustworthiness of the interview findings, the data were
triangulated with the primary survey data and secondary program documentation data (Merriam
& Tisdell, 2016). Evidence from multiple data sources substantiated each of the findings induced
from the study. Triangulation ensured that anecdotal evidence was not used to make broad
claims or weaken the validity of the research. Preliminary findings were also shared with
participants for member checking to ensure their perspectives were accurately captured and
interpreted (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Finally, the researcher’s role as the primary instrument
for data collection and analysis was interrogated throughout to minimize the impact of
positionality or bias on the study’s validity.
54
Ethics
A mixed-methods study relies on quantitative and qualitative methods, both of which
must be guided by the researcher’s integrity to ensure the results’ trustworthiness. Human
subjects must provide informed consent along the way and understand the purpose of the
research as well as potential risks and harms if they participate (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Alumni and faculty participants were informed of their and the data’s confidentiality as well as
of data security measures. They were also informed that participation was voluntary and that
they could withdraw from the study at any time. All data were confidential, and pseudonyms
were used for the names of the participants and the schools. Participants received this
information, which was approved by the USC IRB, before completing the survey or conducting
the interview. The researcher also asked participants for permission first before recording the
interview.
55
Chapter Four: Findings
The purpose of this study was to better understand the extent to which GSE TRP alumni
feel prepared to advance equity through deeper learning and antiracist practices in their first year
of teaching. The theoretical framework for this study was developed by Darling-Hammond and
Oakes (2019) and defined teaching for deeper learning through the following five dimensions:
learning that is (a) developmentally grounded and personalized, (b) contextualized, (c) applied
and transferred, (d) occurs in productive communities of practice, and (e) is equitable and
oriented to social justice. These five dimensions are grounded in theories of learning science and
development and apply to both K-12 students and novice teachers. In this chapter, findings for
the following three research questions are discussed:
1. In what ways does the GSE Teacher Residency Program intend to prepare teachers to
advance equity through deeper learning and antiracist practices?
2. What are the perceptions of graduates regarding the extent to which the GSE Teacher
Residency Program prepared them to advance equity through deeper learning and
antiracist practices?
3. What are the perceptions of graduates regarding opportunities for program improvement?
Findings are substantiated by an analysis of data collected through a faculty survey, alumni
survey, and alumni interviews, along with analysis of program documents and materials, course
syllabi, student digital portfolios, and accreditation reports. A summary of the findings can be
found in Table 5, following a description of study participants.
Participants
Surveys were administered to all 18 first-year teachers from Cohort 2 and all 10 second-
year teachers from Cohort 1. Of the 28 alumni invited to participate, 17 completed the alumni
survey, representing a 61% response rate. All 10 program faculty were also invited to participate,
56
and all completed the faculty survey, representing a 100% response rate. Interviews were then
conducted with a representative sample of 12 of the 28 alumni. Table 4 provides the pseudonym
of each interviewee along with a brief description.
Table 4
Pseudonyms and Descriptions of Alumni Interviewees
Pseudonym Description
Asa
Asa identifies as a White male and is in his second year of teaching humanities
at a Dewey high school. He was interested in child and adolescent
development and worked in traditional schools before seeking an education
grounded in project-based learning.
Ashlyn
Ashlyn identifies as a White female and is in her first year of teaching math and
science at a Dewey middle school. She taught English abroad and supported
high school college advising for migrant working families before becoming an
academic coach at a Dewey school and pursuing education.
Eames
Eames identifies as a White male and is in his second year of teaching English
at a non-Dewey high school. He pursued journalism following college and
became passionate about project-based learning and becoming a teacher after
getting involved with First robotics.
Eric
Eric identifies as an Asian-American male and is in his first year of teaching
math at a Dewey high school. He planned to become an engineer, but decided
to pursue education after becoming a mentor and teaching assistant in college.
He also had a student teaching experience at a Dewey high school and served
as an academic coach before the program.
Fatima
Fatima identifies as an African-American female and supported summer school,
SAT prep, and a long-term sub position in humanities at a Dewey middle
school following the program. Due to the pandemic, she chose to take a break
from teaching to focus on her family and mental health this year. Fatima
studied Africana studies in college and was interested in becoming a professor
before working as an academic coach at a Dewey school and choosing to
focus on K-12.
57
Pseudonym Description
Greyson
Greyson identifies as a White, transgender male, and is an alumni of Dewey
schools, which inspired him to become a teacher. He also supported students
as an academic coach at a Dewey school before starting the program. Greyson
is in his first year of teaching, and co-teaches history with a focus on
supporting neurodiverse students at a non-Dewey high school.
Jaime
Jaime identifies as a Latino male and is in his first year of teaching humanities
at a Dewey middle school. Jaime served in the military and then as an
academic coach and ELL support in a Dewey school before becoming a
teacher.
Law
Law identifies as a first-generation, non-binary Filipino and is in their first year
of teaching math at a non-Dewey high school. Law knew they wanted to
become a teacher, but considered engineering in college and in their early
career before pursuing education.
Lillian
Lillian identifies as a White female and following the program chose to support
a small pod of elementary students in distance learning during the pandemic.
She was inspired to become a teacher after becoming a mom and having a
child with a disability. Lillian wanted to be able to advocate for and support
her son, as well as other children like him.
Rodrigo
Rodrigo identifies as a Latino male, yet identifies more culturally as White, and
is in his first year of teaching math and science at Dewey middle school.
Rodrigo knew he wanted to become a teacher, but took time to travel, teach
English abroad, and work in other industries before becoming an academic
coach at a Dewey school and pursuing education.
Siena
Siena identifies as a White female and is in her first year of teaching humanities
at a Dewey high school. She worked in nonprofit development and social
work before pursuing education, and comes from a family of teachers.
Yesenia
Yesenia identifies as a Latina female and is in her first year of teaching at a
Dewey elementary school. She stayed home with her children when they were
young, and decided to become an academic coach at a Dewey elementary
school, and later a teacher, after being inspired by the education her own
children were receiving through the Dewey schools.
Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, all alumni were teaching via distance learning at the time
of the survey collection and interviews, which began in early December 2020 and were
58
completed by the end of February 2021. The 10 alumni from Cohort 1 began their first year of
teaching face-to-face in the 2019–2020 school year and moved to distance learning in March of
2020. The 18 alumni from Cohort 2 began their first year of teaching in the 2020–21 year
entirely online via distance learning. All 12 alumni interviewed were engaged in member
checking to ensure their identity and the information they shared were represented accurately.
Findings
This section details the findings for the study, organized by each research question. A
summary of the findings can be found in Table 5. Each finding related to each of the three
research questions is discussed in greater depth in the following section.
59
Table 5
Summary of Findings
Research Question Findings
In what ways does the
GSE Teacher
Residency Program
intend to prepare
teachers to advance
equity through
deeper learning and
antiracist practices?
Finding 1: The year-long series of EDU 505 courses, which focus on
Self, Schools, and Society, Culturally Responsive Pedagogy, and
Critical Pedagogy over three 12 week terms, is intended to provide a
strong foundation in anti-racist teaching, which could be more deeply
embedded and reinforced in other courses in the program.
Finding 2: The 12-week course EDU 510: Design for Deeper Learning
is intended to support candidates in designing deeper learning
through projects. Deeper learning is also modeled in other courses
and reinforced at the school sites, however faculty lacked a shared
and coherent vision for deeper learning.
Finding 3: Faculty perceptions of program instructional practices align
with the theoretical framework for preparing teachers for deeper
learning, with opportunities to strengthen the use and modeling of
restorative practices and making learning public through authentic
projects.
What are the
perceptions of
graduates regarding
the extent to which
the GSE Teacher
Residency Program
prepared them to
advance equity
through deeper
learning and
antiracist practices?
Finding 4: Alumni connected anti-racist teaching to the awareness,
appetite, and application framework, and most felt well supported in
developing anti-racist mindsets and teaching practices through the
program.
Finding 5: While most alumni shared powerful examples of facilitating
deeper learning grounded in equity with their own students, they
shared myriad responses for how they defined deeper learning and
how the program prepared them to design it.
Finding 6: Alumni perceptions of the extent to which the program
prepared them to teach for deeper learning aligned to the theoretical
framework, with opportunities to strengthen learning that is applied
and transferred and occurs in communities of practice.
What are the
perceptions of
graduates regarding
opportunities for
program
improvement?
Finding 7:Graduates were eager for continued support following the
teaching residency year, including how to navigate challenging
school site dynamics.
Finding 8: Graduates felt they could be better supported in building
and maintaining relationships with families/guardians, as well as
navigating challenging issues that arise.
60
Research Question 1: Preparation of Teachers
The first research question was focused on the ways in which the GSE TRP intended to
prepare teachers to advance equity through deeper learning and antiracist practices. Three
findings emerged for the first research question based on an analysis of the faculty survey data
and review of program documents and materials, course syllabi, student digital portfolios, and
accreditation reports.
Finding 1: The Year-Long Series of EDU 505 Courses, Which Focus on Self, Schools, and
Society, Culturally Responsive Pedagogy, and Critical Pedagogy Over Three 12 Week Terms,
Is Intended to Provide a Strong Foundation in Anti-Racist Teaching, Which Could Be More
Deeply Embedded and Reinforced in Other Courses in the Program
During the teacher residency year, TRP candidates take a year-long series of EDU 505
courses designed to “support candidates in developing and deepening their practice as anti-racist
educators working in culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms.” The learning outcomes
stated in the syllabi for these courses support the development of the dispositions, knowledge,
and skills needed for anti-racist teaching:
1. Awareness: Candidates will develop deep understandings of how race and racism have
shaped—and continue to shape—our society, our schools, and our own positionalities.
2. Appetite: Candidates will develop enduring commitments to undertaking anti-racist work
in the context of their classrooms, schools, and lives.
3. Application: Candidates will encounter, practice, refine, and reflect on pedagogical tools
which allow them to engage in anti-racist work in the context of their classrooms.
The review of course syllabi found that candidates explore their own identity and positionality
while learning about the social construction and history of race and its harmful impact on
individuals, schools, and society. The courses are designed to integrate theory and practice by
61
utilizing course readings and activities that help candidates understand the historical, theoretical,
and empirical warrants for engaging in anti-racist work, or the “why,” and weekly “Put it to
Practice” assignments to explore the “how.” Candidates apply and transfer knowledge and skills
about anti-racist teaching to the instructional design and facilitation of learning in their residency
school site, grounding their practice in a theoretical understanding of culturally responsive and
sustaining pedagogy, critical pedagogy, and critical constructivism.
During the year-long series of courses, TRP candidates experience learning designed to
model anti-racist deeper learning in schools. According to course syllabi, candidates are asked to
interrogate their own bias and positionality while engaging in intensive learning related to
diversity, equity, and inclusion through critical constructivist pedagogy and then apply this
learning to observations and activities at their school site. For example, candidates use equity
tracking tools to observe patterns of interaction in the classroom and conduct empathy interviews
with students from linguistic and cultural backgrounds different from their own. They also
practice how to interrupt microaggressions as they happen in the classroom and facilitate focus
groups with students to better understand how home expectations for how to be/behave/speak
might be similar or different from what they experience at school. Learning is designed to be
contextualized, leveraging the personal, cultural, and linguistic knowledge of individuals within
the cohort to make meaning, and is applied and transferred through opportunities to practice and
reflect on anti-racist teaching at their school site.
While many programs support teaching candidates in designing learning that is equitable
and oriented to social justice, the TRP has an explicit focus on anti-racist teaching. In the survey,
faculty were asked, “What does anti-racism mean to you?” While responses varied, there was a
clear shared vision that aligned to the EDU 505 series’ learning outcomes that relate to
62
awareness, appetite, and application. Evidence for this finding is presented for each of three anti-
racist learning outcomes in the following section.
Awareness. In program documents, the TRP defines awareness as “develop[ing] deep
understandings of how race and racism have shaped—and continue to shape—our society, our
schools, and our own positionalities.” Five of the 10 faculty members elaborated on awareness
in their description of anti-racism through the survey and shared that it involved both deeper
understanding and active disruption of existing systems, as well as self-reflection. One faculty
member responded, “To me, antiracism means awareness of the many ways that racism shows up
in internalized, interpersonal, institutional, and systemic ways, and active disruption of thoughts,
language, actions, systems, and structures that perpetuate oppression.” The use of the phrase
“active disruption” suggests an appetite for applying that awareness to anti-racist action and
acknowledges awareness, or critical consciousness, as an essential component. Another faculty
member emphasized the importance of self-work in raising awareness about anti-racism:
Anti-racism means the act of being aware and working towards anti-racist beliefs and
practices. I believe a person who understands that they need to go through a process of
unlearning of their racist beliefs that have been internalized begins to develop their
cultural competence is an individual who is actively anti-racist. We are all on a journey,
which means we will slip up and make mistakes, but the want to do better and right by
everyone is someone I consider to be anti-racist.
Developing candidate’s awareness of their internalized racist beliefs can lead to a desire to do
better and fuel their appetite for engaging in anti-racist work both inside and outside of school.
While the other five faculty members did not share responses that explicitly included language
about developing candidates’ awareness, it was reflected throughout the syllabi and course
designs. For example, candidates explore how systemic racism and oppression have negatively
63
impacted various aspects of schooling, from aligning expectations for behavior to White
dominant culture to viewing students of color through a deficit lens.
Appetite. In program documents, the TRP defines appetite as “develop[ing] enduring
commitments to undertaking anti-racist work in the context of their classrooms, schools, and
lives.” Two of the 10 faculty members cast a vision of anti-racism that implies appetite is
developed when candidates understand how they consciously or unconsciously contribute to
oppressive systems. For example, one faculty member made an argument for appetite by rooting
the definition of anti-racism in the language of oppression and liberation (Freire, 1970):
Anti-racism work is grounded in love, hope, truth, and liberation…yet too often,
educators equate loving students as the sole foundation of anti-racist work. While we
cannot do this work without love, love and silence are contradictory. You can still be an
oppressor of someone you love. You must begin this work looking critically at yourself,
your beliefs, your biases, and your behaviors. It’s about recognizing the many hidden but
intentional ways that our society, including schools, have been structured to uphold
White supremacy culture. As we do this work, we often recognize the ways in which we
have likely reinforced and benefited from these structures of oppression. The hard work
comes in naming and owning our impact, regardless of our intent.
This definition builds on the idea that supporting candidates in self-work can develop awareness
and that appetite can be cultivated through acknowledgement and taking responsibility. As
another faculty member shared, “Anti-racism means understanding [the] ways in which racism
has been pervasive in society and in schools, and working to dismantle [it].” If candidates come
to understand themselves as part of systems that privilege some while harming others and that
their own biases, actions, and inactions contribute to those systems, they accelerate from a state
64
of awareness to an appetite to take action. While eight faculty members shared responses that
had a less direct connection to building candidates’ appetite, all faculty responses focused on
application, which implies an appetite to act and engage in anti-racist work.
Application. In program documents, the TRP defines application as “ encounter[ing],
practic[ing], refin[ing], and reflect[ing] on pedagogical tools which allow them to engage in anti-
racist work in the context of their classrooms.” This implies an active anti-racist stance. All 10
faculty members used language of action and application when asked about their definitions of
anti-racism; however, responses on what constituted action varied from tolerance to active
disruption. One faculty member described anti-racism as “promoting racial tolerance,” which
might provoke a lively debate among faculty about whether or under what circumstances
“tolerance” might be considered an anti-racist act. Another faculty member referenced Austin
Channing Brown (2018) and described anti-racism as the act of being a better human to other
humans. They went on to describe anti-racist teaching as “actively disrupting tenets of White
dominant culture, patriarchy, and other mechanisms of systemic oppression, and creating
learning experiences that allow students to show [up] as their full, unapologetic selves.” Other
faculty members described anti-racist action as “proactively engaging in actions, speech,
thoughts, advocacy, and co-conspiratorship that directly counteracts systemic racism within our
systems and within our lives professionally and personally” and “counteracting, pushing against,
identifying, and directly challenging the structures, assumptions, and individual prejudices that
uphold and perpetuate white supremacy, including within myself.” Through coursework, faculty
emphasize to candidates that the processes of teaching and schooling are never neutral and each
decision made has the potential to either perpetuate or disrupt inequity, including the decision
65
not to act. Inaction is an action in and of itself and has the potential to cause harm to students,
colleagues, and other stakeholders.
Anti-Racist Teaching Practices. While anti-racist teaching focused on awareness,
appetite, and commitment to act is a clear throughline in the year-long series of EDU 505
courses, faculty described many other specific ways in which the courses they teach prepare
candidates to become anti-racist teachers, including
● Making explicit how each class session is designed to address issues of equity and access
for marginalized groups
● Making visible and disrupting aspects of course content and that might privilege
dominant culture (e.g., “white centering in disability studies”)
● Developing classroom cultures that invite students to bring their whole and authentic
selves, develop their sense of belonging and agency, and nurture their social, emotional,
and academic growth
● Designing learning experiences that elevate the status of students with marginalized
identities and noticing and disrupting status issues that emerge within the classroom in
real time
● Using lesson study cycles to reflect on the design and facilitation of anti-racist
pedagogies, such as universal design of learning, culturally relevant pedagogy, and social
justice pedagogy, with a focus on achieving equitable outcomes for students
● Creating assignments and projects that ask candidates to design equitable learning
experiences by focusing on providing access for students with specific backgrounds or
learning profiles (e.g., an emerging bilingual student, neurodiverse student, etc.)
66
● Modeling anti-racist teaching routines that foster equity and inclusion, such as classroom
circles, think-pair-shares, collaborative groupwork structures, and Socratic seminars
These examples were shared in faculty survey responses and were also evident in course syllabi.
While most faculty members shared specific examples of how their courses supported
anti-racist teaching, two were not as sure. One stated, “I myself have never received some sort of
training on behalf of the GSE on how to prepare candidates to be antiracist teachers, besides
what is common sense and common decency.” While some of the pedagogical approaches in this
faculty member’s course might be considered antiracist teaching, they seemed less confident
about using this term to describe them. A different faculty member shared,
Historically, this hasn’t been built into the structure of our course. Our course follows
courses in which anti-racist practice is explicitly centered in the curriculum, and our
course is focused on students designing their own projects, which have tended to be
designed with anti-racism in mind. As a result, anti-racism has been a big part of the
class, but if students weren’t bringing that into it, the class itself wouldn’t provide it,
which is a shortcoming to consider.
This comment suggests that candidates are applying and transferring learning from other courses
to project design and perhaps taking an anti-racist, social justice lens to project-based learning,
but perhaps are not being explicitly taught how to connect critical pedagogy with deeper
learning. These faculty responses, along with the review of course materials, suggest there may
be room for program improvement in this area.
67
Finding 2: The 12-Week Course EDU 510: Design for Deeper Learning is Intended to
Support Candidates in Designing Deeper Learning Through Projects. Deeper Learning Is
Also Modeled in Other Courses and Reinforced at the School Sites; However, Faculty Lacked
a Shared and Coherent Vision for Deeper Learning
The TRP has an explicit focus on both antiracist teaching and deeper learning. A core
value stated in the program documents is that “children deserve a space where they can bring
their full selves and develop as curious, critical, and creative human beings.” As part of the
program design, teaching residents learn to co-design deeper learning experiences, including
interdisciplinary projects, in collaboration with their cooperating teachers and teaching teams at
their school sites. In the spring of the teaching residency year, candidates take EDU 510, which
culminates in the design of a project which they facilitate during their takeover in the spring.
According to program materials, candidates reflect and curate their learning from this experience
on their digital portfolio, along with images, videos, and other artifacts that capture their learning
from the program and teaching residency and share it during their oral portfolio defense at the
end of the year. The digital portfolio and oral defense are assessed by the candidate’s support
team, which is composed of the candidate’s cooperating teacher, faculty supervisor, and a
discipline-specific faculty lead, using specific criteria related to the following areas:
craftsmanship, equity orientation, design, and facilitation of deeper learning, and reflective
practice.
The 12-week EDU 510 leading up to the defense is designed to “support candidates in
developing and deepening their practice as project designers with a focus on high-quality
instruction, both on a month-to-month and minute-to-minute scale.” Program materials indicate
that the course draws from Berger’s (2003) PBL framework, which focuses on the creation of
68
beautiful work through projects that are authentic, complex, and focused on craftsmanship
through the process of critique and revision. Projects typically have an audience and purpose
beyond school, and students have the opportunity to share their learning through presentations of
learning and public exhibitions. Berger later emphasized the importance of beautiful lessons that
promote student-centered, deeper learning throughout the project, emphasizing the importance of
both process and product. The stated learning outcomes on the syllabus are for candidates to:
1. Learn how to design a project that provides an authentic purpose for learning over an arc
of weeks or months.
2. Learn how to design individual lessons that make your project’s goals a reality in real
time for all students.
3. Learn how to make adjustments mid-class when it transpires that your plans will not meet
your students’ needs and/or conditions change abruptly.
The terms “deeper learning” and “equity” are not explicitly used to describe the course
learning outcomes; however, both show up in the materials used to scaffold the final project.
According to the course syllabi, candidates use a project planning tool commonly used by
teachers at Dewey schools but adapted for the TRP. As part of backward-planning, candidates
are guided to intentionally scaffold for deeper learning and high-quality work, as well as equity,
by differentiating learning for neurodiverse students, emerging bilinguals, and students who may
need additional challenges throughout the project. However, deeper learning competencies, such
as mastering core academic content, thinking critically and creatively to solve complex
problems, working collaboratively, communicating effectively, learning how to learn, and
developing academic mindsets and dispositions, are not explicitly named in the project planning
tool, nor are explicit connections made between equity, critical pedagogy, and project design.
69
Deeper Learning Competencies. In contrast to a more strongly aligned faculty vision
for anti-racist teaching, faculty shared myriad responses when asked, “What does deeper learning
mean to you?” Seven of the 10 faculty members used language that showed some alignment with
the deeper learning framework developed by Hewlett (2013) and the deeper learning network of
schools, such as, “Deeper learning can happen when you are thinking critically and solving
complex problems. It can happen while working collaboratively with a partner/partners and
communicating shared ideas.” One faculty member described deeper learning by elaborating on
what “learning how to learn” looks like in practice:
Deeper learning means that students learn more than content mastery. They learn how to
learn, how to ask questions, how to set goals, how to make choices that help them or
others achieve their goals, how to advocate for themselves and their communities, how to
communicate and collaborate, and how to use feedback and iteration to create quality
work.
Another faculty member highlighted that deeper learning happens for both candidates and
instructors when it is grounded in shared inquiry: “Deeper learning means that myself as well as
students are actively utilizing the six deeper learning competencies to engage in inquiry-based
learning that leads to enduring understanding and meaningful progress.” Other faculty members
shared that deeper learning cultivates “independent learners” and supports students in “making
meaning that is personal and relevant to them.” While each response reflects the program’s
values, the data suggests that faculty need further support crafting a shared vision for deeper
learning.
Analysis of program documents, however, found a focus on deeper learning evident
throughout many faculty-designed program syllabi, such as that of EDU 555: Foundations of
70
Student-Centered Pedagogy and the EDU 560 discipline-specific courses for single and multiple-
subject. This focus is modeled at the launch of the program through the week-long Odyssey for
new Dewey teachers and TRP candidates. Participants experience deeper learning through a
project slice facilitated over two days by veteran Dewey teachers and unpack their learning’s
design and facilitation while taking a critical lens to both equity and deeper learning. Project
slices ask participants to engage in collaborative inquiry through essential questions that ask
them to think critically and creatively about real-world problems, often with a focus on issues of
justice. Facilitators model deeper learning pedagogies, such as fieldwork, empathy interviews,
and the process of critique and revision, and participants are asked to create meaningful products
and then share their learning publicly through an exhibition. For example, one group interviewed
refugee and asylum seekers from within the Dewey schools community and created podcasts
about their stories and journeys to the United States.
Advancing Equity Through Deeper Learning. While not asked to address this
explicitly through the faculty survey, only three of the 10 faculty members made connections
between deeper learning and an orientation towards equity and social justice. One argued that
deeper learning provides students with the tools needed to become “critical thinkers and change
agents.” Another described deeper learning as constructivist and grounded in relationships;
therefore, it happens through “dialogue, collaboration, shared work, critique, and problem
solving.” They then argued that the identification of problems can lead to heightened awareness
of equity issues and an appetite for action. One faculty member made a quite powerful statement
about the connection between deeper learning and critical pedagogy:
Deeper learning is an active and life-worthy pursuit. It requires that we as teachers give
students opportunities to do real work that is consequential. I used to think deeper
71
learning happened mostly through projects, but now I recognize that there are many ways
to learn deeply. In our schools, we talk about curating beautiful work from projects, but
this can only happen with beautiful daily instruction and beautiful, trusting relationships
between teachers and students.
Building off Mehta and Fine’s (2019) definition of deeper learning, I see deeper learning
emerging at the intersection of mastery, identity, and creativity. Yet, I also believe that
deeper learning should further our collective knowledge and move us towards liberation.
Therefore, I see deeper learning and critical pedagogy as being codependent. To add, I
believe that a learners’ lived experience [e.g., identity, learner identity, identity
contextualization, and socio-political factors] are integral to fostering deeper learning and
teaching.
This response articulates the intersection of deeper learning and critical pedagogy and
illuminates what deeper learning looks like when it is developmentally grounded and
personalized, contextualized, applied and transferred, occurs in productive communities of
practice, and is equitable and oriented to social justice. By contrast, another faculty member
shared a much more vague response about the meaning of deeper learning: “Being intentional in
our learning, making time to be deliberate in our teaching and learning.” Perhaps survey fatigue
resulted in a brief, quickly-formed response; nonetheless, data suggest that faculty could benefit
from articulating a shared vision for deeper learning that explicitly connects with equity, anti-
racism, and critical pedagogy. For example, the PBL Leadership Academy offered by the GSE
explains that PBL is the “what,” and equity is the “why.” Drawing these explicit lines between
progressive pedagogy and anti-racist teaching, as well as including explicit instruction for the
“how” throughout the program, is important for candidates.
72
Deeper Learning Teaching Practices. While the 12-week EDU 510 course is the only
course focused explicitly on deeper learning through projects, faculty described many specific
ways in which the courses they teach prepare candidates to design instruction for deeper
learning:
● Asking higher-order questions that develop students’ critical thinking
● Designing experiential learning that asks students to make meaning and construct
knowledge through dialogue and reflection
● Providing opportunities, such as Put it to Practice assignments, that ask students to
transfer and apply knowledge to practice at their school site, and then to reflect on their
learning experience
● Leveraging anticipatory planning as a tool for thinking deeply and critically about what
students might think or do to support instructional design
● Designing structures for student-centered learning that allow students to tap into prior
knowledge, build understanding, engage in high-cognitive-demand tasks, increase talk
time and cognitive discourse, and collaborate with others
● Supporting the design of projects that create conditions for deeper learning, modeling
collaboration structures such as project tunings, critique sessions, and dilemma
consultancies, and asking candidates to create a prototype, or “do the project yourself
first”
● Asking students to make their learning public through digital portfolios, presentations of
learning, and public exhibitions
● Using lesson study to promote cycles of inquiry: designing a research question,
developing a theory of action to advance equity and improve student outcomes,
73
implementing research-based change ideas, and collecting and analyzing data to guide
continuous improvement (i.e., “become students of our students’ thinking”)
The instructional strategies faculty shared through the survey align with the deeper learning
competencies and evidence provided by course syllabi.
Finding 3: Faculty Perceptions of Program Instructional Practices Align to the Theoretical
Framework for Preparing Teachers for Deeper Learning, With Opportunities to Strengthen
the Use and Modeling of Restorative Practices and Making Learning Public Through
Authentic Projects
The theoretical framework used as an inquiry lens for this study defines teaching for
deeper learning through the following five dimensions (Darling-Hammond & Oakes, 2019), or
learning that is
1. developmentally grounded and personalized
2. contextualized
3. applied and transferred
4. occurs in productive communities of practice and
5. is equitable and oriented to social justice
The faculty survey adapted questions from the validated survey used to develop this framework.
Table 6 shows the faculty responses to the question: “To what extent do the courses you teach in
the Teacher Residency Program…?” Each question is coded to one of the five dimensions for
preparing teachers for deeper learning, and the highest frequency responses are highlighted in the
table.
74
Table 6
Faculty Survey Responses to the Question: “To What Extent Do the Courses You Teach in the
Teacher Residency Program…?”
to a…
Very Small
Extent
Small
Extent
Moderate
Extent
Great
Extent
Very Great
Extent
Ask students to actively
construct new knowledge (3)
0% 0% 10% 60% 30%
Build on students’ prior
knowledge, experiences, and
interests to personalize
learning (1)
0% 0% 0% 70% 30%
Attend to students’ cognitive,
social, and emotional
development (1)
0% 0% 0% 50% 50%
Differentiate instruction to meet
the diverse needs of students
(1)
0% 0% 20% 80% 0%
Use culturally responsive
practices to leverage students’
funds of knowledge (personal,
cultural, linguistic, etc.) (2)
0% 0% 20% 60% 20%
Ask students to think critically
and creatively to solve
complex, real-world problems
(3)
0% 0% 0% 40% 60%
Actively address issues of
racism and oppression that are
perpetuated through schooling
(5)
0% 0% 20% 70% 10%
75
to a…
Very Small
Extent
Small
Extent
Moderate
Extent
Great
Extent
Very Great
Extent
Engage students in shared
purpose through authentic
projects that are perpetuated
through schooling (5)
0% 0% 30% 40% 30%
Support social learning through
equitable structures for
collaboration and group work
(4)
0% 0% 20% 50% 30%
Provide opportunities for
students to revise their work
based on critique and feedback
(4)
0% 0% 0% 80% 20%
Foster meaningful, high-trust
relationships with students (2)
0% 0% 10% 50% 40%
Actively address status issues
that perpetuate inequitable
student outcomes (5)
0% 0% 0% 80% 20%
Ask students to make their
learning public through
presentations of learning or
exhibitions (3)
10% 20% 0% 20% 50%
Build on understanding of how
race, class, gender, and other
aspects of identity shape
students’ lived experiences (5)
0% 0% 10% 70% 20%
Use restorative practices to
build community, repair harm,
and promote healing (4)
0% 40% 40% 20% 0%
Of the 15 statements to which faculty were asked to respond, 12 resulted in 80% or more
of faculty selecting to a “great extent” or “very great extent.” Three statements produced more
76
variation in faculty responses. Eighty percent of faculty selected to a “small extent” or “moderate
extent” for the statement that their course uses “restorative practices to build community, repair
harm, and promote healing.” The other two statements with varying responses were related to
project-based learning and making learning public. Thirty percent of faculty selected to a
“moderate extent” for the statement that their course “engages students in authentic projects that
connect to the world beyond school,” and 30% of faculty selected to a “very small extent” or
“small extent” for the statement that their course asks, “students to make their learning public
through presentations of learning or exhibitions.” These responses might provoke further faculty
discussion about how to model deeper learning through projects in the context of higher
education and teacher development and how to more deeply embed this focus across the
program.
Finally, Figure 6 shows that each of the five dimensions of preparing teachers for deeper
learning received a relatively high composite score from the faculty survey.
Figure 6
Response Means for Questions Coded to the Five Dimensions of Preparing Teachers for Deeper
Learning from the Faculty Survey (1 = Very Small Extent and 5 = Very Great Extent)
4.1
3.7
4.2
4.1
4.2
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
5) Equitable and Oriented to
4) Productive Communities of
3) Applied and Transferred
2) Contextualized
1) Developmentally Grounded
Mean
77
On a 5-point scale, learning that is developmentally grounded and personalized scored
4.2, contextualized scored 4.1, applied and transferred scored 4.2, occurs in productive
communities of practice scored 3.7, and is equitable and oriented to social justice scored 4.1.
While learning that occurs in productive communities of practice scored lower, the composite
score was greatly impacted by the statement about restorative practices.
Research Question 2: Perceptions of Graduates Regarding Preparation
The second research question was designed to uncover graduates’ perceptions regarding
the extent to which the GSE TRP prepared them to advance equity through deeper learning and
antiracist practices. Three findings emerged based on analysis of data gathered through the
alumni survey, alumni interviews, and alumni digital portfolios of student work.
Finding 4: Alumni Connected Anti-Racist Teaching to the Awareness, Appetite, and
Application Framework, and Most Felt Supported in Developing Anti-Racist Mindsets and
Teaching Practices
Through both the survey and the interviews, alumni from the first two cohorts spoke to
the program’s transformative impact on their development as anti-racist teachers. Many spoke
directly to the power of the year-long series of anti-racist teaching courses, while others
highlighted how anti-racist teaching was embedded throughout the program. One graduate
shared through the survey that the program “helped me develop as a more anti-racist, culturally
responsive, and critically thinking teacher and human,” while another claimed that exploring “the
history of racism and oppression in American education was a catalyst for me in my personal
learning.” During his interview, Greyson described the year-long series of equity courses as
“mind-blowingly life-changing,” and that he had not had the opportunity to explore critical race
theory in his undergraduate studies. Graduates shared how the program impacted their
78
awareness, appetite, and application of anti-racist teaching, including how their mindsets and
practices shifted over time.
Awareness. A stated learning outcome from the year-long series of EDU 505 courses is
for candidates to “develop deep understandings of how race and racism have shaped—and
continue to shape—our society, our schools, and our own positionalities.” Developing awareness
of self, positionality, and the impact of historical and current racism and oppression on society
was explicitly addressed in 67% of the alumni survey responses to the two questions addressing
anti-racism: “What does anti-racism mean to you?” and “In what specific ways did the program
prepare you to become an anti-racist teacher?” Graduates from the first two cohorts shared that
the program helped them to “explore and question their own experience and bias,” “identify
ways in which [they] replicate oppressive patterns,” and included “highly effective and engaging
mirror work.” One graduate described their learning in this way:
The TRP has prepared me to be an antiracist teacher by allowing me to delve into my
own experiences with race and racism, understand how racism manifests in the classroom
and education, and give me the language and tools to understand racism [to] critique the
systems that I am a part of and how they may perpetuate racism.
Another graduate highlighted the importance of starting with awareness of self: “Anti-racism
means starting with self and reflecting on the biases we bring to the classroom and understanding
how those biases confirm oppressive practices.” Other graduates spoke to the need to raise
awareness about racist systems, structures, and practices to identify, dismantle, and redesign
them.
Alumni interviewees shared that the self-work needed to heighten awareness was
mediated by the high-trust relationships they built with one another in the cohort as well as by
being part of a courageous and caring community of practice. Law shared that the “anti-racism
79
101” courses, or EDU 505 series, allowed them to do important self-work and be vulnerable
within their cohort:
Those classes were very transformative and informative of where I was at, especially
with my gender identity too. I think without the Teacher Residency Program in my first
year, I would not have felt comfortable being gender-neutral or know that in the
workplace, I want to present myself as gender binary, which is why I went with the
gender-neutral pronouns. And, now, I feel more confident in my current workplace to
continue using gender-neutral pronouns.
They described anti-racist teaching as ensuring that “trauma doesn’t happen behind closed
doors” and their desire to show up as a “co-conspirator” to support the healing work needed to
ensure that students can succeed academically. Law emphasized that the small cohort allowed
them to be “seen” and to feel safe sharing what they were going through. Yesenia said that the
one thing she hopes never changes about the program is the community, as it provided a safe
space for her to be vulnerable and develop her voice and confidence, which she hopes to create
for her students.
Other graduates described how the implicit-bias work impacted their thinking and growth
as anti-racist teachers. During his interview, Eric described how the mirror work facilitated in the
equity courses helped him to identify how bias had been present in his practice:
I had internalized the fact that, as a student myself, I had equated whiteness as success.
As an Asian American, I was like, “Oh, I need to appear as white as possible in order to
succeed well and go to college.” But that’s something I had not realized until I had gone
through the program. And I realized that that thought, of course, was subconsciously
80
affecting my view of students and how I interacted with them, as well as what I perceived
success to be.
Eric talked about issues of status in the classroom and his concern that some students enter his
classroom thinking, “I’m not a math person.” He saw anti-racist teaching as “uplifting students
who have not historically had status” and expanding what the definition of success looks like. He
tells his students that math is not about “getting all the numbers right,” but rather interacting with
and making sense of the world. Eric’s conscious efforts to redefine success and elevate the status
of marginalized students by making thinking visible counteracts status issues that can negatively
impact their sense of belonging and success in the classroom.
Appetite. Through heightened awareness of self, positionality, and the impact of
historical and current racism and oppression on schools and society, candidates develop an
appetite for engaging in anti-racist work. A stated learning outcome from the EDU 505 series of
courses is that candidates “will develop enduring commitments to undertaking anti-racist work in
the context of their classrooms, schools, and lives.” While alumni did not explicitly proclaim
their commitment to anti-racist teaching, their survey and interview responses reflected an
appetite for it, and their teaching philosophy statements on their digital portfolios often described
it in great detail. For example, one graduate shared,
I strive to be a culturally responsive teacher who works to capitalize on my students’
various funds of knowledge and backgrounds. This means examining each student’s
individual hurdles and providing support that they may need to accomplish their
individual goals. This means loving all students equally and highlighting their
uniqueness. As an anti-racist teacher, [I] do not ignore the problem of race. I study and
teach critical history that isn’t always the mainstream story and dig deeper until I come
81
closer and closer to the truth. I challenge my students to question what they learn and
always be proud of who they are. I use texts, videos, and guest speakers that embody the
many cultures of our students and the world because I believe that positive exposure to
other cultures is important for every student and that each student should learn about
incredible people that look like they do.
She highlighted how antiracist teaching is disrupting practices and policies that perpetuate
racism, leveraging students’ unique identities, cultures, and backgrounds, and providing
windows that positively impact their sense of self and possibilities for their future.
A commitment to anti-racist teaching was evident in many other ways throughout
candidates’ digital portfolios. For example, one graduate described himself in his bio as a
“passionate educator who believes in anti-racist practices, learning and growing from students,
and joyful learning.” Another focused on the following inquiry question for one of her three
lesson study projects: “How can I develop early elementary students’ critical consciousness
around societal patterns of oppression in a developmentally appropriate way?” For other
graduates, a commitment to anti-racist teaching was evident in the projects they designed and
facilitated with students. For example, one project asked students to investigate the impact of fast
fashion on environmental, economic, and racial justice. Another project asked students to design
a more just world by creating policy proposals that were ultimately presented to local officials
and change-makers. In addition to project design, graduates highlighted how anti-racist teaching
manifests daily in their classrooms through discretionary spaces (Ball, 2018). One shared, “I
understand that each discretionary decision I make in the classroom will be colored by my
perspectives and biases. To disrupt these biases, I commit to continuously auditing my practice
for equity and building empathetic relationships with all students.” This statement demonstrates
82
her commitment to anti-racist teaching as well as her understanding that it applies to both
instructional design and moment-to-moment decisions made every day in the classroom. Ball
argues that these discretionary spaces have the power to elevate or, conversely, stifle students
and further marginalization.
Application. A learning goal from the EDU 505 series of anti-racist teaching courses
related to the concept of application states that candidates will “encounter, practice, refine, and
reflect on pedagogical tools which allow them to engage in anti-racist work in the context of
their classrooms.” All but one of the alumni survey responses about what anti-racism means to
them included descriptions of action and examples of application. Graduates described anti-
racism as “active engagement in disrupting structures and thought processes that support
eurocentrism,” “consistent effort to remove and deconstruct racism in every element of society,”
and “actively working to confront and dismantle systems of oppression.” One graduate made
clear that anti-racism is markedly different from “not racist, which is a passive acceptance of
racism.” Graduates were also asked to share specific ways the program prepared them to be anti-
racist teachers. All of the responses spoke to pedagogical practices modeled in class that could be
transferred and applied to practice at their school site. For example, one graduate shared that the
program provided many opportunities to role play and practice disrupting microaggressions and
racist comments that might occur in class. Another explained that specific anti-racist protocols
were used to ensure equity in group work and that receiving coaching and feedback with a strong
anti-racist lens from supervisors was particularly helpful. One graduate noted that “having
multiple instructors who were anti-racist people of color” mattered, as they effectively modeled
culturally responsive, anti-racist pedagogy in impactful ways. Finally, another alum shared that
the program taught them about the “institutional structures that have kept racism alive and
83
prepared me to have open and honest conversations with students about the importance of living
up to our American values of equity and dignity in all life.”
Many graduates highlighted the importance of building community and relationships with
their students as anti-racist teaching. When asked which specific readings or learning
experiences from the program helped her grow as an anti-racist educator, Ashlyn shared,
I’ve relied a lot on Zaretta Hammond’s Culturally Responsive Teaching and The Brain
for my own practice, and I’ve also shared parts of it with the kids so that I can bring
science into the reasons why we do the things that we do. For example, for the first week
of school, we did a lot of culture building, and I was getting questions from the kids like,
when are we going to do math? Or when are we going to do real school work? And so it
was helpful to ground myself in knowing that I was doing the right things and to share
with them there’s a reason why it’s important that we build culture: it actually helps your
brain grow so that you feel safe and so that you can learn.
Graduates sometimes used the terms “anti-racist teaching” and “culturally responsive pedagogy”
interchangeably, and in many cases, they were referring to instruction that supported students
that have been historically marginalized or harmed by schooling. In other cases, graduates
highlighted that anti-racist teaching benefits all students, as Ashlyn did during her interview. The
conflation of the terms culturally responsive pedagogy and anti-racist teaching suggests a need to
distinguish culturally responsive pedagogy as an example of anti-racist teaching, but not the only
form.
Rodrigo emphasized the importance of building relationships with students during his
interview and made connections to anti-racist teaching. He shared that one of the best things the
program asked residents to do was conduct empathy interviews with students, families, and
colleagues at their school site. He found it “mind-blowing” that something this simple could
84
have such a powerful impact on building trust and meaningful relationships and ultimately
advance equity for students. He shared, “It’s impossible to be equitable if I don’t know who you
are, I don’t know what your background is, and I don’t know what your previous experiences
have been.” He shared that rather than making assumptions and blaming students when they are
struggling in his class, he tried to learn more about what is happening and what they need to be
successful. Rodrigo gave other specific strategies for supporting students, such as providing
think time, honoring the way students express themselves, and giving students opportunities to
talk in small groups before opening whole-class discussions. He also shared how he was
grappling with how to approach assessment as an anti-racist teacher, such as honoring learning
over grades and providing students multiple opportunities for feedback and revision.
Through the alumni survey, interviews, and work archived on digital portfolios, the data
suggest that the majority of graduates felt deeply supported in developing as anti-racist teachers.
They shared specific ways in which their mindsets and practices had shifted, and while they did
not name the awareness, appetite, and application framework explicitly, it was embedded in their
thinking and how they approached the design of equitable learning oriented to social justice.
While this pattern was reinforced throughout the data, Fatima shared a very different perspective
than those shared by her peers during her interview. One of two alumni who identify as Black,
she shared,
I felt like it was step one. For one, I’m not the audience for it. It wasn’t for me because
step one is just realizing there’s a problem. And I felt the entire time it was realizing that
there is a problem…I learned new teaching techniques, but I didn’t have to be convinced
there was a problem. I’m an educated Black woman. I didn’t hear anything new.
85
Fatima had a high level of awareness and appetite to advance equity through anti-racist teaching
before starting the program. As a former Africana studies major and who had both lived and
academic experience to draw from, she was most eager to learn teaching strategies.
When asked how the program prepared her as an anti-racist teacher, Fatima spoke to the
value of learning how to leverage students’ funds of knowledge and use universal design of
learning to design instruction. While she found both approaches helpful, what actually stood out
to her about the program was that it “was too much of a safe space.” Fatima felt that she and the
cohort were “not pushed far enough to become really anti-racist teachers or really to ensure
equity in the classroom,” which she shared might be more of a reflection of the culture of
autonomy and right to comfort in Dewey schools than a critique of the program. She shared, “I
don’t think our institution, or Dewey schools in general, support that type, that level of honesty,
and the level of confrontation that is needed to get there.” She suggested that, for example,
rather than providing candidates the choice to design lessons that address race and racism, this
should be the expectation.
When asked how the program could improve, Fatima argued that the TRP needs to ask
itself how it can disrupt the culture of Dewey schools and address the gap in teachers of color
working at the organization. She felt that TRP could become the program “that holds Dewey
schools accountable, and really pushes [them] to be everything that they say they’re going to be.
Why is it that our teacher body does not reflect our student body? That needs to change.” Fatima
shared her personal experience as a Black member of her cohort and how that impacted her
willingness to share honestly and openly at times. Her point was well-taken: For the program to
achieve its goal of preparing anti-racist teachers, it must continue to address issues related to
86
diversity, equity, and inclusion, as well as the organizational climate, both within the GSE and
K–12 schools.
Finding 5: While Most Alumni Shared Powerful Examples of Facilitating Deeper Learning
Grounded in Equity With Their Own Students, They Shared Myriad Responses for How They
Defined Deeper Learning and How the Program Prepared Them to Design It
Most alumni survey responses about what learning experiences from the program best
prepared them to advance equity through deeper learning and anti-racist practices spoke to the
power of the anti-racist throughline of the program and the power of being able to “put into
practice” ideas they learned in class immediately at their school site. However, only two
responses spoke directly to deeper learning or PBL. One graduate appreciated the opportunities
to transfer and apply knowledge: “It’s different to read about project planning and equitable
participation practices and actually realize them in the classroom.” Another graduate shared,
Being placed with a veteran teacher that had extensive knowledge of project-based
learning practices, as well as a desire to incorporate anti-racist practices inside of their
curriculum, was very helpful. It allowed us both to learn new techniques, as well as
discuss ideas for future projects.
This graduate’s reflection suggests that their learning about anti-racist teaching may have also
supported the growth of their cooperating teacher, implying a reciprocal learning relationship
that benefits the schools and the graduate school community. Still, it was surprising that more
graduates did not speak to the program’s deeper learning focus.
Deeper Learning Competencies. When asked what deeper learning means to them,
graduates shared a wide range of survey responses. Alumni responses mirrored the faculty
responses regarding lack of coherence around a shared vision for deeper learning. Some
demonstrated their understanding of deeper learning competencies as described by Hewlett
87
(2013) and the deeper learning network of schools, while others described pedagogical
approaches, such as project-based learning, that create conditions for deeper learning. Over 50%
of the responses described deeper learning as being embedded in “real-world contexts” or
grappling with “real-world problems.” They described students as having agency to “create
change in their community” and that student work is meaningful when it has an authentic
purpose and audience beyond school. One shared, “we create multiple drafts based on critique,
and then implement or exhibit that work in a public way.” Other graduates talked about “going
beyond surface information” or “memorization and regurgitation” and engaging students’ higher-
order thinking skills, such as “application, analysis, and evaluation.” One response summarized
deeper learning as “students participating in critical thinking and problem-solving through
engaging activities and lessons that allow them to create their own understanding.” Yet another
insisted that deeper learning must draw from students’ experiences and interests.
Alumni were also asked through the survey to share “specific ways, if at all, the program
prepared them to design instruction for deeper learning. Two of the respondents highlighted
strategies that help students learn how to think critically, such as using Bloom’s revised
taxonomy of learning to guide instructional planning and creating learning experiences that
develop students’ “in-depth understanding” through high-cognitive-demand tasks. Four other
graduates highlighted that they had the opportunity to practice facilitating deeper learning at their
schools that was modeled first by their instructors. One shared,
I think I saw design for deeper learning modeled by instructors in their reflection on
being a PBL teacher. I was prepared to design for deeper learning by being taught to be
flexible with my pedagogy and to follow students’ lead.
Another shared that they had “opportunity to experience deeper learning” throughout the
program and that it should be guided by “student voice, passion, and direction.” Two other
88
graduates shared that their instructors “provided examples of lesson plans and helpful strategies
to use in the classroom” and “pushed [them] to constantly practice ‘teacher moves’ that could
promote deeper learning.” Interestingly, graduates did not explicitly mention other deeper
learning competencies, such as mastering academic content, working collaboratively,
communicating effectively, or learning how to learn.
Given the embedded nature of the TRP in Dewey schools, graduates did speak to project-
based learning and the mentorship they received from their cooperating teacher. One graduate
shared through the survey that “examples set by [their] mentor teacher” helped prepare them to
design instruction for deeper learning, while another appreciated that “the program allowed me
to observe my master teacher(s) for extended periods of time.” Another highlighted the
significance of being embedded in project-based learning schools for their teacher residency:
Well, in a lot of ways, this is why people would want to do a grad program at [Dewey]
schools. Just by being connected and doing our student-teaching here, ideally, we are
working with teachers who are going through the deeper learning process with their
students.
Similarly, one graduate stated, “At [Dewey] schools, students engage in project-based learning.
We are taught that projects have the potential to produce these deeper learning outcomes.” They
went on to share that the spring EDU 510 course taught them the “ins and outs of project-based
learning” and was instrumental in supporting their growth as a project-based teacher. During
their interview, Law shared that in addition to the deeper learning course and mentorship from
their cooperating teacher, they learned how to design deeper learning experiences for students
through professional development for teachers offered at their school site and through the three
equity and innovation days supporting learning across the network of schools.
89
Advancing Equity Through Deeper Learning. While the survey data were less clear
about how alumni made connections between equity and deeper learning, graduates provided
evidence of their thinking and practice throughout the interviews. During Jaime’s interview, he
was asked to share a moment that stood out where he felt deeper learning was happening in his
classroom. He shared the following about his seventh grade students:
We were [studying] redlining and gentrification and also environmental racism, which is
something new for the students. And upon going over some videos and some readings on
environmental racism, my students started making the connections. All these places that
are facing pollution and where residents have cancer are places that are mostly populated
by people of color. And they were making those connections by themselves and then
getting to the bigger picture. What’s in place to have all these people of color living in
these areas? Why is nobody defending them? Why are these policies in place?
Jaime was struck by the depth of his students’ critical thinking and inspired by their desire to
engage in sustained inquiry. He shared that his students wanted to learn more and often came to
class with articles to share that they had found on their own.
Alumni shared that it was important to learn from cooperating teachers that approached
instructional design and project-based learning through a critical pedagogy lens. Eric’s
cooperating teacher modeled this through a water treatment project that asked students to test
water around the county and present an equitable health and safety plan to their school
community and officials at city hall. Ashlyn shared during her interview that she and her
cooperating teacher co-facilitated a critical history lesson that asked students to research the most
important events in history and then put them onto a timeline displayed in the classroom. After
students completed the assignment, she and her cooperating teacher amplified marginalized
90
voices and untold histories by layering them onto the timeline before the students returned to
class. This provoked a lively discussion and critical discourse about how racism and oppression
have impacted how history is created and told and pushed students to think more critically about
these issues, as well as how to ground their research in credible sources and multiple
perspectives. Afterwards, students were asked to write and reflect on “the way that we collect
history and what it means for something to be important history,” which pushed them to
“interrogate all of the things that they thought they knew and had been taught before.” Students
developed a stronger social justice lens along with other important deeper learning competencies
through this experience, such as how to think critically, collaborate with others, and be self-
directed in their learning.
Alumni also shared examples during the interviews of how they think about advancing
equity and promoting deeper learning through project design. In her first year of teaching, Siena
developed a project where her tenth grade students studied folklore traditions from different
cultures and then wrote their own stories to address “a big issue in the world that they care
about.” Students wrote stories about different issues, from racial discrimination and gender
disparity to climate change. At the end of the project, students performed their stories for third,
fourth, and fifth graders through an online exhibition of learning, or “storytelling symposium.”
Siena shared,
One of my students wrote a [fairytale] story about a character who was non-binary and
fell in love with another character that had the same birth gender. They fell in love and
got married. Some of the third graders were like, “Wait, are both of the characters boys?”
And then the [student] who had written and performed the story got to explain that one
was non-binary and why they did that.
91
Siena emphasized the importance of her students making their learning public through a live
exhibition: “making it high stakes so that students really rise to the level that you’re asking them
to in that situation.” Eames’ project on social media redesign also leveraged exhibition to
promote deeper learning for students. After studying the impacts of social media and smartphone
use, his students pitched app ideas to improve mental health to professionals from technology
and marketing fields.
During his interview, Rodrigo cast a compelling vision for deeper learning and shared a
project he was excited about launching in the spring. He described deeper learning in two words:
Transformative experiences. I think that’s deeper learning in a nutshell. Does a kid walk
away from this project not saying that they have learned new facts but that they are
thinking about the world differently? Are they thinking with a more critical lens?
For his next project, Rodrigo’s students will take a critical lens to plastic use and issues of
environmental justice. Rather than saying to his students, “Hey, we’re doing this [to] break up
the current status quo,” Rodrigo feels there is “a little bit more of a secret sauce to it.” Students
make meaning and construct their own knowledge through well-designed projects that ask them
to think critically about the world around them and teach them how to think rather than what to
think. Lillian also believes learning should have a lasting impact on her students, their
community, and society. She feels deeper learning “goes hand in glove with anti-racist teaching”
and moves beyond learning rote facts and memorizing equations.
While graduates shared myriad definitions of deeper learning, it was clear through the
interviews that many alumni had learned how to transfer their understanding of advancing equity
through deeper learning to the design of critical pedagogy and projects. However, five of the
alumni survey responses to the question regarding what specific ways, if at all, the program
92
prepared them to design instruction for deeper learning shared more critical reflections. One
graduate simply stated, “I do not feel very prepared for this.” Another said, “Deeper learning felt
a lot less clear to me than the idea of anti-racist teaching. I think we talked a lot more about anti-
racist teaching than deeper learning.” Another graduate’s response suggests that faculty might
make instruction designed to help candidates learn how to teach for deeper learning more
explicit:
I think we had the opportunity to experience deeper learning. I think we had models of
this experience. I don’t know if the program made designing instruction [for deeper
learning] explicit for me to name in specific ways. The opportunity to do my project
before my students did was cool. I had the lens to make the experience deeper for my
students.
This response aligns with other data suggesting that common language for deeper learning might
provide a helpful schema for anchoring candidates’ learning. One graduate noted that the timing
of EDU 510: Design for Deeper Learning was challenging for the second cohort because of the
pandemic and instruction in the program and at their school site moving online. They shared, “to
no one’s fault, the course wasn’t as rich with the switch to online,” and “I feel as though I am
still emerging in my project planning proficiency and ability to engage students in critical
pedagogy in a math/science classroom.” Other graduates from Cohort 2 shared that the move to
online compromised their takeover in the spring, giving them less time to facilitate the project
they had designed through the course. Finally, during one interview, a graduate shared that it was
hard for him to say what the program was doing because he felt “the biggest things that have
helped me design for deeper learning didn’t come from the program. They came from other
practitioners of amazing project-based work” at his school site. This affirms other graduates’
93
perspectives that much of their learning as project-based teachers is supported through the
teaching residency aspect of the program at Dewey schools.
When faculty were asked on the survey in what ways the program could better prepare
candidates to advance equity through deeper learning and anti-racist practices, one response
captured the feedback from alumni:
I think more clarity around the role PBL plays in anti-racism and deeper learning would
be helpful. Very little coursework focuses directly on PBL, so the candidates’ experience
of PBL happens solely through their partnerships with our K–12 schools. I think more
focused training around equity-driven PBL practices would help them a ton AND bolster
the quality of PBL happening across our schools.
While Dewey schools have been seen as leaders in project-based learning for over 20 years,
internally, there continues to be critical dialogue about how to design transformative projects that
tend to issues of equity and embody anti-racist, critical pedagogies. The faculty member’s
comment suggests that both the K–12 and GSE community could benefit from more explicit
attention in this area and even bolster the quality of PBL happening across Dewey schools.
Another faculty recommended having an “advancing equity through deeper learning course
audit” and getting feedback so that instructors can continue to improve in this area.
Finding 6: Alumni Perceptions of the Extent to Which the Program Prepared Them to Teach
for Deeper Learning Aligned to the Theoretical Framework, With Opportunities to Strengthen
Learning That Is Applied and Transferred and Occurs in Communities of Practice
The sixth finding was that alumni’s perceptions of the extent to which the program
prepared them to teach for deeper learning aligned to the theoretical framework, with
opportunities to strengthen learning that is applied and transferred and occurs in communities of
94
practice. In the alumni survey, graduates were asked, “To what extent did the Teacher Residency
Program prepare you to design learning experiences that…?” The same statements were used on
the faculty survey, align with the theoretical framework, and describe the five dimensions for
teaching for deeper learning. Table 7 shows the alumni responses. The highest frequency
responses are highlighted in the table, and each question is coded to one of the five dimensions
for preparing teachers for deeper learning, or learning that is:
1. developmentally grounded and personalized
2. contextualized
3. applied and transferred
4. occurs in productive communities of practice
5. equitable and oriented to social justice
95
Table 7
Alumni Survey Responses to the Question, “To What Extent Did the Teacher Residency Program
Prepare You to Design Learning Experiences That…?”
to a…
Very Small
Extent
Small
Extent
Moderate
Extent
Great
Extent
Very
Great
Extent
Ask students to actively
construct new knowledge (3)
0% 6% 23% 65% 6%
Build on students’ prior
knowledge, experiences, and
interests to personalize
learning (1)
0% 0% 24% 41% 35%
Attend to students’ cognitive,
social, and emotional
development (1)
0% 0% 12% 41% 47%
Differentiate instruction to meet
the diverse needs of students
(1)
0% 0% 18% 29% 53%
Use culturally responsive
practices to leverage students’
funds of knowledge (personal,
cultural, linguistic, etc.) (2)
0% 0% 18% 29% 53%
Ask students to think critically
and creatively to solve
complex, real-world problems
(3)
0% 6% 41% 24% 29%
Actively address issues of
racism and oppression that are
perpetuated through schooling
(5)
0% 0% 18% 29% 53%
96
Engage students in shared
purpose through authentic
projects that connect to the
world beyond school (2)
0% 0% 29% 47% 24%
Support social learning through
equitable structures for
collaboration and group work
(4)
0% 6% 18% 53% 23%
Provide opportunities for
students to revise their work
based on critique and feedback
(4)
0% 12% 24% 47% 18%
Foster meaningful, high-trust
relationships with students (2)
0% 0% 14% 29% 57%
Actively address status issues
that perpetuate inequitable
student outcomes (5)
0% 14% 7% 43% 36%
Ask students to make their
learning public through
presentations of learning or
exhibitions (3)
0% 14% 21% 36% 29%
Build on understanding of how
race, class, gender, and other
aspects of identity shape
students’ lived experiences (5)
0% 0% 14% 43% 43%
Use restorative practices to
build community, repair harm,
and promote healing (4)
0% 0% 29% 57% 14%
97
In the faculty survey, 12 of the 15 statements resulted in 80% or more of faculty selecting
to a “great extent” or “very great extent” when asked, “To what extent do the courses you teach
in the Teacher Residency Program…?” Conversely, only 3 of the 15 statements resulted in 80%
or more of students selecting to a “great extent” or “very great extent” when asked, “To what
extent did the Teacher Residency Program prepare you to design learning experiences that…?
These statements included “foster meaningful, high-trust relationships with students,” “attend to
students’ cognitive, social, and emotional development,” and “use culturally responsive practices
to leverage students’ funds of knowledge (personal, cultural, linguistic, etc.).” Also, 79% of
alumni also selected to a “great extent” or “very great extent” for “actively address issues of
racism and oppression that are perpetuated through schooling.” These statements fell under the
dimensions of learning that are grounded and personalized, contextualized, equitable, and
oriented to social justice, as did many of the other highly rated statements. These data align with
the qualitative survey responses and alumni interview data, where graduates frequently
highlighted the transformative impact of the program because of its focus on equity and anti-
racist teaching.
When the average composite scores are shown for each of the five dimensions for
preparing teachers for deeper learning, it becomes clear that graduates reported lower scores for
learning that is applied and transferred and occurs in productive communities of practice (Figure
7).
98
Figure 7
Response Averages for Questions Coded to the Five Dimensions of Preparing Teachers for
Deeper Learning From the Alumni Survey (1 = Very Small Extent and 5 = Very Great Extent)
While numerous graduates reported through the surveys and interviews that a strength of
the program is the opportunity to apply and transfer what they are learning in their coursework
directly to the classroom the next day, the statements in the survey asked alumni the extent to
which the program prepared them to design instruction that promotes deeper learning for
students. For example, only 53% of alumni reported that the program prepared them to a “great
extent” or “very great extent” to “ask students to think critically and creatively to solve complex,
real-world problems,” and 65% for “ask students to make their learning public through
presentations of learning and exhibitions.” When graduates were asked to describe what deeper
learning means to them in the survey and during the interviews, their responses included similar
language as the statements under this dimension. They described deeper learning experiences as
those that asked students to construct new knowledge, think critically to solve real-world
problems and make learning public. However, in relation to designing learning that is
4.1
3.8
3.8
4.2
4.2
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
5) Equitable and Oriented to
Social Justice
4) Productive Communities of
Practice
3) Applied and Transferred
2) Contextualized
1) Developmentally Grounded
and Personalized
Mean
99
personalized, contextualized, equitable, and oriented to social justice, graduates reported feeling
less prepared to design deeper learning for students. While the average faculty rating for the
statements under learning that is applied and transferred was 4.2, alumni reported an average
rating of 3.8.
The other dimension that received a lower average composite score on the alumni survey,
also a 3.8, was learning that occurs in productive communities of practice. As stated before,
numerous alumni emphasized through the qualitative survey questions and during the interviews
how powerful and supportive the learning community was in nurturing their growth and
development. However, the statements in the survey asked alumni the extent to which the
program prepared them to design learning experiences that develop productive communities of
practice for students, such as collaborative group work, critique and feedback, and restorative
practices. For example, only 65% of alumni reported that the program prepared them to a “great
extent” or “very great extent” to “provide opportunities for students to revise their work based on
critique and feedback,” and 71% for “use restorative practices to build community, repair harm,
and promote healing.” The first statement and “support social learning through equitable
structures for collaboration and group work” connect to designing instruction for deeper learning
and are practices commonly used in Dewey schools within the context of project-based learning.
Faculty may want to explore the extent to which these practices are explicitly taught and
reinforced throughout the program to support alignment. Interestingly, program support for using
“restorative practices to build community, repair harm, and promote healing” was rated to a
“great extent” or “very great extent” by 71% of alumni, as compared to only 20% of faculty.
While graduate perceptions are less critical than those of faculty, this suggests that faculty and
candidates agree that there is an opportunity for the program to include more explicit instruction
in the area of restorative practices and repairing harm.
100
Research Question 3: Opportunities for Program Improvement
Research question 3 was focused on uncovering graduates’ perceptions regarding
opportunities for program improvement. Alumni from the first two cohorts of the program
shared overwhelmingly positive feedback about their experience in the program. They described
the program as “life-changing,” “transformative,” and “powerful.” One graduate shared,
I’m eternally grateful to the [TRP] for the work you have all done for me and for this
world. I feel stronger, more loving, and more able to see and call out racism and
oppression in education and in my life. I also feel so deeply loved. Thank you, thank you,
thank you.
Another graduate shared in a video reflection about the program posted on her digital portfolio
that she will “most likely name one of her children” after the program director because it was so
transformative, while many others called out specific instructors who had made a lasting impact
on their lives. Even so, in both the alumni survey and the alumni interviews, graduates were
explicitly asked, “In what ways could the Teacher Residency Program have better prepared you
to advance equity through anti-racist and deeper learning practices?” While many graduates
hesitated to give extensive feedback on the program, two findings emerged from the data
analysis and are shared below.
Finding 7: Graduates Were Eager for Continued Support Following the Teaching Residency
Year, Including How to Navigate Challenging School Site Dynamics
Following the teaching residency year, most graduates complete the second year of the
program and earn their M.Ed. in teaching and learning while in their first year of teaching full
time. For their capstone experience, candidates use lesson study cycles to reflect on the design
and facilitation of anti-racist pedagogies, such as universal design of learning, culturally relevant
pedagogy, and social justice pedagogy, all with a focus on achieving equitable outcomes for their
101
students. Candidates learn the tools of continuous improvement and ground their change ideas in
research-based practices. Cycles of inquiry, action, and reflection are guided by the data they
collect about their students’ learning. Through the survey and interviews, graduates shared
universally positive feedback about the value of this learning experience, yet many were hungry
for additional opportunities for mentorship, coaching, and support.
Ashlyn was assigned a mentor from her school site and shared that this has been “the
most helpful thing” in her first year of teaching. She wondered if more of her peers from the
program could get this support, as even within Dewey schools, this practice is not consistent.
Ashlyn had asked if she could observe a colleague teaching a lesson on Zoom at the start of the
year, which organically led to her director formalizing a mentoring relationship between her and
the other teacher. However, as a new teacher, she wished had been better equipped by the
program with how to “reach out when you need support from admin, or navigate difficult
conversations with admin or colleagues related to anti-racist practices, or just pushing back on
things that I see that our school could do better.” Ashlyn was also eager to get involved in
teacher leadership but was still struggling to find her voice and felt she had been “kind of quiet.”
She shared, “I have all of these tools and opinions, and I wish that I felt better about sharing
them at our schools.”
During her interview, Siena shared that she has “felt a little bit out on an island” and that
her first year of teaching has felt very “isolating,” a term used by other graduates as well. She
said, “New teachers often feel like they are not as connected as they want to be, and they’re not
collaboratively developing their practice as much as they would like to be.” Unlike Ashlyn,
Siena did not have a mentor assigned to her through her school but did have a mentor through the
induction program:
102
I have an induction mentor, but it feels very…cursory and obligatory. You’re definitely
doing it to check the box that you need to. And so our meetings are shoved in between
stuff where they can be, and they’re extremely brief. And it never feels like the amount of
time that you need to actually get into the stuff that you actually need help with.
She suggested building mentorship into the second year of the TRP through critical friend
partnerships, or what she described as “mandatory partnerships between people who are in the
program, where you just have time built into the schedule to design lessons and to design
projects.” Siena joked that, instead, she is driving her fiance crazy by constantly bouncing ideas
off of him. For her, the challenge has been “having so much support in year one and then not
having that support in year two.” She shared that they still have grad school classes but that they
are “very much designed with the purpose of doing lesson study, and the focus is definitely not
on your day-to-day classes and the projects that you’re designing.” Other graduates
recommended that they continue to work with their supervisor in year two of the program and
wished they had more opportunities for observation and coaching.
Graduates teaching at schools outside of the network of Dewey schools shared unique
challenges they were facing as they tried to translate their learning from the program to contexts
that were less values-aligned. For example, Greyson thought that the school he got hired at was
going to be more progressive and was surprised by the standards-driven, data-driven culture
when he arrived, or what he called a culture of “assimilationist robots.” As a new teacher that
identifies as White supporting predominantly students of color, he has questions about how to
navigate what he sees as oppressive structures at the school, such as “requiring students to raise
their hand to stand up at lunch or giving students demerits for not being prepared for class or
having their shirt tucked in.” However, Greyson shared that he would not be able to navigate
103
these obstacles as well if it weren’t for the program and has already found ways to positively
impact the culture of the school, such as starting affinity groups. Greyson was also excited about
his next lesson study cycle and decided to focus his research question on how to support
academic confidence in language fluency utilizing standards while teaching a series of lessons of
fascism. He wanted to “lean into his discomfort with standards so that he could learn something
from it” while also designing a learning experience that engaged students’ curiosity, critical
thinking, and creativity.
Eames experienced a different set of challenges at the non-Dewey school he began
teaching at following the teaching residency year. Even though it was a project-based school that
prided itself on being highly collaborative, he described it as “one-tenth the level of collaboration
at [Dewey] schools.” Teaching team structures that supported the collaborative design of
interdisciplinary projects at Dewey schools did not exist; therefore, he did not share the same
group of students with teachers in other disciplines. Even when he tried to design
interdisciplinary projects within his own classroom, there were fewer structures in the school to
support collaboration, critique, and feedback. He described the experience in this way:
But doing that by myself, without a lot of feedback from the other people at my school,
was kind of like, “Am I doing this right? What the heck? Why is there no feedback or no
ability to see what other people are doing?” And I’ll reiterate that at our school, there is
way more collaboration and ability to interact with others than in most other schools,
[but]... there are few schools that have the degree of collaboration that [Dewey] does,
right?
Eames suggested that the program consider how to prepare graduates for two challenges they
might encounter in other school contexts: (a) “how to operate more independently” and (b)
104
“how to teach at a school that has no guidelines.” He shared that his school administration
vacillated between providing a pre-packaged curriculum and telling him he could do anything he
wants, in part because the curriculum did not arrive on time.
As candidates navigate their first year of teaching while in the second year of the
program, their learning and growth might benefit from additional supports beyond the capstone
lesson study cycles, such as mentoring, coaching, critical friend partnerships, and opportunities
for observation and feedback. Graduates also shared that it could be helpful to explore some of
the challenges they might face in their first year of teaching during year one of the program
through case studies, role plays, and other instructional activities.
Finding 8: Graduates Felt They Could Be Better Supported in Building and Maintaining
Relationships With Families/Guardians, as Well as Navigating Challenging Issues That Arise
During the alumni interviews and through the survey, graduates shared that they would
have liked more support in building meaningful relationships with families/guardians. One
survey respondent shared, “I think I could have been better prepared for building and
maintaining relationships with families. I felt that the program was really focused on student-
teacher and student-student relationships, but did not prepare me particularly well for teacher-
family relationships.” Another shared that the program emphasized the importance of bringing
families into the school and celebrating students’ home lives, communities, and cultures within
the classroom, but then went on to say, “So we talked about it, but then I don’t feel like I was
ever sure about how to do it well.” The graduate would have “loved some more concrete support
or explicit instruction” on how to do it well, in particular at the high school level.
In addition to building positive relationships with families/guardians and honoring their
identity, culture, and lived experiences, graduates wanted more support navigating challenging
dynamics they might encounter given their commitment to advancing equity through anti-racist
105
and deeper learning practices. One survey respondent stated it simply, “more opportunities to
understand how to better face push back from parents.” During his interview, Rodrigo shared
that one of the things on his mind as a new teacher at a Dewey middle school is that this is a
“very progressive style of education.” He went on to say,
The rest of the world, including parents, is not really…It takes a lot of me expressing to
parents, especially parents that are well-to-do financially and have a lot of…They expect
the drill and kill. They expect all these things. And I think that I spend a lot of my time,
sometimes, expressing to families that, hey, the reason why we do this is that it’s
research-based.
Rodrigo shared that it might be beneficial for the program to better prepare graduates for these
dynamics, to share that what they are doing may “be foreign to families,” and that there are
going to be families that “second-guess you, especially as a first-year teacher.” He found it
helpful to have research ready to back his inquiry-based approach to mathematics and
recommended that new teachers be prepared to do the same.
Rodrigo also shared that some of his peers from the program were “getting a lot of
pushback from families when it comes to equity conversations.” Rodrigo emphasized the
importance of new teachers being able to articulate that they are not trying to teach students what
to think but how to think critically and draw their own conclusions. Jaime confided that parents
had voiced concerns that “you’re teaching one side of the story,” but then said confidently,
“we’re really not.” He highlighted the importance of amplifying marginalized perspectives to
balance out the fact that those stories have not been told as often. Jaime was able to share this
dilemma with his director and receive support:
106
I feel that I also have the support of my administration, like my director. I asked, “A
few parents complained, should I change the curriculum?” My director was like, “No,
just stand. Just keep going, just keep at it, and I’ll have your back.”
However, not all graduates have the relational trust built with their administrators to share these
types of dilemmas and may not receive the same level of support if they do. Graduates
recommended using case studies and role-playing some of these scenarios while in the first year,
and embedding structures for support in the second year while they begin their first year of
teaching that they could lean on when they need help.
Summary
Alumni from the first two cohorts of the TRP felt highly supported in advancing equity
through anti-racist teaching and spoke frequently to the transformative impact of the program.
Both alumni and faculty articulated a compelling shared vision for how anti-racist teaching is
approached throughout the program: by developing candidates’ (a) awareness of how race and
racism have and continue to impact self, schools, and society, (b) appetite and commitment for
engaging in anti-racist work both professionally and personally, and (c) ability to transfer and
apply their knowledge of anti-racist pedagogies to the classroom. Data suggests that the
relationships developed within the cohort promoted vulnerability and open, courageous
conversations about race and that the diversity of the candidates and faculty matters.
Alumni shared many powerful examples of how they designed deeper learning to
advance equity through both instructional design and project-based learning and also reported
that deeper learning was modeled by faculty throughout the program. However, both alumni and
faculty shared a wide range of responses when asked to define deeper learning, which often
lacked explicit connections to equity or an orientation to social justice. In both the survey and
107
interviews, alumni showed less confidence in their ability to design deeper learning experiences,
which may reflect the need for more explicit language articulating the program’s vision for
deeper learning. For example, when probed during the interviews, all 12 alumni were ultimately
able to reflect on deeper learning experiences they had designed for their students, suggesting
that the range of perceptions alumni hold about the extent to which the program prepared them
may reflect a less developed schema for deeper learning rather than a lack of preparation. A
deeper learning framework with related learning outcomes might benefit the learning of both
candidates and faculty and could be referenced as deeper learning strategies are modeled
throughout coursework and reinforced through program assignments and projects. The deeper
learning framework might take an approach similar to the awareness, appetite, and application
anti-racist framework used across multiple courses, or faculty might consider how to bring these
ideas together through an anti-racist deeper learning framework which is used more holistically
throughout the program.
In both surveys, faculty and alumni were asked to reflect on the five dimensions of
teaching for deeper learning in the theoretical framework. They were both asked to rate 15
statements on a scale of 1 (to a very small extent) to 5 (to a very great extent): faculty in response
to the prompt on the extent to which the courses they teach and alumni in response to the prompt
on the extent to which the program prepared them to design learning experiences. Table 8
presents a comparison of the average faculty response and average student response for the three
questions related to each of the five dimensions.
108
Table 8
Average Faculty and Alumni Responses to Survey Questions Related to Each of the Five
Dimensions of Teaching for Deeper Learning in the Theoretical Framework
Learning that is...
Average
Faculty Response
Average
Alumni Response
Developmentally Grounded and Personalized 4.2 4.2
Contextualized 4.1 4.2
Applied and Transferred 4.2 3.8
Occurs in Productive Communities of Practice 3.7 3.8
Equitable and Oriented to Social Justice 4.1 4.1
Faculty and students shared similar perceptions for four of the five dimensions of deeper
learning, with higher ratings for learning that is developmentally grounded and personalized (4. 2
for both), contextualized (4.1 and 4.2 respectively), and equitable and oriented to social justice
(4.1 for both), and lower ratings for learning that occurs in productive communities of practice
(3.7 and 3.8 respectively). Faculty and alumni ratings for learning that is applied and transferred
showed the greatest discrepancy (4.2 and 3.8, respectively). Lower alumni ratings for individual
statements, such as asking students to actively construct new knowledge, think critically and
creatively to solve complex, real-world problems, and make their learning public through
presentations of learning and exhibitions, affirmed qualitative survey and interview data suggest
that the vision for preparing teachers for deeper learning could be more clearly articulated and
supported throughout the program.
Alumni were also asked to share their suggestions for program improvement in both the
survey and interviews. Graduates were eager for continued support following the teaching
109
residency year, including on how to navigate challenging school site dynamics, and felt they
could be better supported in building and maintaining relationships with families/guardians. Both
alumni and faculty shared that the program could better support the use of restorative practices to
build community, repair harm, and promote healing, which could benefit graduates’ work with
students, families/guardians, and colleagues. A common thread of alumni feedback also spoke to
the embedded nature of the GSE in Dewey K–12 schools. Because candidates spend 4 days per
week embedded in one of the 16 schools learning alongside a cooperating teacher and other
Dewey colleagues, their learning experience in the program is deeply influenced by this context.
The underlying beliefs, mindsets, and practices modeled by cooperating teachers and other
colleagues at the school site context to advance equity for students through deeper learning and
anti-racist teaching impact how theory is put to practice in the classroom. The synergistic
relationship and alignment between the GSE and K–12 schools is critical, as is the dynamic
between the cooperating teacher and candidate as they have freedom to design and facilitate anti-
racist deeper learning for students with more independence over time.
110
Chapter Five: Recommendations
The purpose of this study was to better understand the extent to which alumni from the
GSE TRP feel prepared to advance equity through deeper learning and antiracist practices in
their first year of teaching. Chapter 4 discussed findings for the following three research
questions:
1. In what ways does the GSE Teacher Residency Program intend to prepare teachers to
advance equity through deeper learning and antiracist practices?
2. What are the perceptions of graduates regarding the extent to which the GSE Teacher
Residency Program prepared them to advance equity through deeper learning and
antiracist practices?
3. What are the perceptions of graduates regarding opportunities for program improvement?
The findings were grounded in Darling-Hammond and Oakes (2019) fives dimensions for
teaching for deeper learning, or learning that is (a) developmentally grounded and personalized,
(b) contextualized, (c) applied and transferred, (d) occurs in productive communities of practice,
and 5) is equitable and oriented to social justice. Chapter Five provides a discussion of the
findings, recommendations for practice, including how to address opportunities for program
improvement, and suggestions for future research.
Discussion of Findings
The findings illuminated how the five dimensions of preparing teachers for deeper
learning are reflected in the program design of the TRP and perceived by graduates. Both faculty
and alumni reported that the program strongly supports novice teachers in designing learning that
is equitable and oriented to social justice and spoke powerfully to the clear focus on anti-racist
teaching. Alumni developed greater awareness about how race and racism have shaped—and
continue to shape—their own identity, bias, and positionality as well as how to implement anti-
111
racist teaching in the classroom. They discussed teaching practices and actions that confront and
dismantle racial inequities between racial groups (Kendi, 2019), such as culturally responsive
pedagogy and critical pedagogy. Alumni interviewees shared teaching practices that develop the
capacity and skills of culturally and linguistically diverse students to do rigorous work while
centering, celebrating, and sustaining their cultural ways of being (Hammond, 2014; Ladson-
Billings, 2014). They also shared examples of projects that used problem-posing learning
experiences to heighten students’ critical consciousness, activate them to affect change in their
world through social critique and political action, and further liberation (Duncan-Andrade &
Morelle, 2008; Freire, 1970). The appetite to engage in anti-racist action through the design and
facilitation of learning was evident, as was the shift in their awareness and mindsets.
Faculty and alumni shared positive alignment in two other dimensions of preparing
teachers for deeper learning: learning that is developmentally grounded and personalized and
learning that is contextualized. Consistent with the literature, TRP alumni understand the unique
identities and cultural backgrounds of their students, or funds of knowledge, are strengths and
resources to leverage (Cohen & Goodlad, 1994; Moll et al., 1996). Equity and personalization
are design principles of Dewey schools, as was evident in the alumni data collected through
surveys and interviews. Graduates shared examples of how they designed projects by drawing
from students’ backgrounds, interests, and lived experience, and then personalized and
scaffolded learning to meet their unique learning needs, attending to both cognitive and social-
emotional development (Melnick & Martinez, 2019). Projects designed by TRP alumni ask
students to make sense of their world, and their experiences in it through experiential learning
grounded in relevant contexts and constructivist dialogue (Dewey, 1936). Rather than doing
112
school to students, TRP alumni co-designed learning experiences with students, engaging them
in personalized learning with meaningful opportunities for inquiry, voice, and choice.
Two of the five dimensions for preparing teachers for deeper learning, learning that is
applied and transferred and learning that occurs in productive communities of practice,
illuminated opportunities for program improvement. Faculty perceived the program to prepare
alumni to design learning that is applied and transferred to a great extent, while alumni did less
so. Although many alumni shared examples of deeper learning experiences that asked students to
think critically and apply knowledge to novel and complex problems (Dewey, 1936; Hewlett,
2013), they shared in both the alumni survey and interviews that they felt less confident in their
ability to design them. Both faculty and alumni shared myriad responses for how they define
deeper learning, suggesting that the program could benefit from developing a shared vision with
related outcomes for candidates.
Alumni also had questions about how to make their students’ learning public through
presentations of learning and public exhibitions (Fehrenbacher & Scherer, 2017; PBL Works,
2020). This may reflect the impact of teaching via distance learning through the Covid-19
pandemic or the events that happened at the end of the teacher residency year for Cohort 2. For
example, the EDU 510: Design for Deeper Learning course was moved online at the start of the
pandemic in early spring 2020, and candidates were not able to do their takeover in late spring
face-to-face, which would have entailed facilitating a project they had designed through the
course. Both faculty and alumni also rated learning that occurs in communities of practice lower
than other dimensions, highlighting opportunities for growth in structures that support rich
project-based learning, such as designing equitable structures for collaboration and group work
(Cohen & Lotan, 2013) and supporting the process of critique and revision (Berger, 2003). These
113
findings suggest that more explicit instruction related to deeper learning through projects with a
strong critical pedagogy lens could more tightly align candidates’ learning through courses with
learning at their school site.
Numerous studies have found that restorative practices advance equity in schools by
deepening student-teacher relationships, improving school climate, decreasing racial discipline
and suspension gaps, and supporting students’ academic, cognitive, and social-emotional growth
and mental well-being (Gregory et al., 2016; Augustine et al., 2018). Black, Latinx, and Asian
American families, as well as other marginalized groups, have been disproportionately impacted
by historic and present-day structural inequities recently amplified by recent police shootings,
violent hate acts, and the disproportionate impact of Covid-19 on low-income families and
communities of color. Faculty and alumni both expressed a need for more instruction on using
restorative practices to build community, repair harm, and promote healing as well as how to
work closely with families/guardians to support students.
Depaoli et al. (2021) urge educators to meet this moment by addressing the acute,
trauma-related needs of young people and advancing long-needed changes to transform schools
into “nurturing communities committed to equity, diversity, and anti-racism.” They argue that
anti-racist schools are grounded in restorative practices and use strategies like advisory, home
visits, positive discipline, culturally responsive teaching, and social-emotional learning to deepen
relationships and nurture students’ sense of self and belonging. The TRP might sharpen its focus
on restorative practices throughout the program and ground existing practices within Dewey
schools in theory explored through coursework.
114
Recommendations for Practice
The following sections describe the three recommendations to arise from this research.
The first is the development of an anti-racist framework. The second is to embed instruction on
the use of restorative practices. The third is to embed opportunities for collaboration, coaching,
and mentorship.
Recommendation 1: The Teacher Residency Program Should Develop an Anti-Racist
Deeper Learning Framework to Guide Student Learning Throughout the Program
The first recommendation is for the TRP to develop an anti-racist deeper learning
framework to guide student learning throughout the program. While both alumni and faculty
reported that anti-racist teaching was a strong throughline of the program, responses for
questions related to deeper learning showed myriad responses. For example, when alumni were
asked through the survey about what learning experiences from the program best prepared them
to advance equity through deeper learning and anti-racist practices, most spoke to the
transformative impact of their development as anti-racist teachers, while only two of the 17
responses spoke directly to deeper learning or PBL.
Furthermore, five of the alumni responses were more critical when responding to the
survey question about specific ways the program prepared them to design instruction for deeper
learning. One graduate simply stated, “I do not feel very prepared for this,” while another shared,
“Deeper learning felt a lot less clear to me than the idea of anti-racist teaching. I think we talked
a lot more about anti-racist teaching than deeper learning.” One faculty member echoed this
sentiment: “ I think more clarity around the role PBL plays in anti-racism and deeper learning
would be helpful.” Both faculty and alumni shared stronger alignment in the language they used
to describe anti-racist teaching, in contrast to a wide range of responses shared for how they
115
defined deeper learning. Given the stickiness of the framework used for anti-racist teaching, or
“awareness, appetite, and application,” faculty should consider evolving this framework into one
that incorporates anti-racist deeper learning.
Fine (2016) contends that “deeper learning people” and “critical pedagogy people” are
too often siloed, forming what she calls a Dewey-Freire divide. She argues that projects held up
as models within the deeper learning community often fail to reflect Freire’s (1970) vision
“insist(ing) that learners must be supported in learning to identify, critique, and resist patterns of
oppression and structural inequality” (para. 8). Shortly after this piece was published, Bakhai
(2017) claimed that Dewey needs Freire, but not vice versa, arguing that critical pedagogy is
already a form of deeper learning. While this framing captures values embedded in the GSE,
only three of the 10 faculty members made explicit connections between deeper learning and
critical pedagogy, equity, or social justice in their survey responses. While it is possible that the
program could develop a deeper learning framework in parallel to the awareness, appetite, and
application already developed for anti-racist teaching, the development of an anti-racist deeper
learning framework that also connects explicitly to critical pedagogy and project-based learning
would strengthen the cohesion across courses and bridge the potential Dewey-Freire divide. An
anti-racist framework would also provide a schema for candidates to anchor their learning onto
and promote deeper understanding of theory and practice explored throughout the program
(McVee et al., 2005). Furthermore, alignment to program learning outcomes and course-level
student learning outcomes and assessment would ensure that the focus on anti-racist teaching and
deeper learning is embedded within each course.
116
Recommendation 2: The Teacher Residency Program Should Embed Instruction on the
Use of Restorative Practices to Advance Equity Throughout the Program
The second recommendation is for the TRP to embed instruction on the use of restorative
practices to advance equity throughout the program. Both faculty and alumni shared feedback
that the use of restorative practices could be more explicitly taught and reinforced throughout the
program. Eight of the 10 faculty survey respondents, selected to a “small extent” or “moderate
extent” for the statement that their course uses “restorative practices to build community, repair
harm, and promote healing.” The average score on a 5-point scale was 2.8, the lowest score for
any of the 15 statements aligned to the conceptual framework. Interestingly, the average score
for alumni was higher at 3.9, but this was still low relative to other alumni ratings for the 15
statements. During the alumni interviews and through the survey, graduates also shared that they
would have liked more support in building meaningful relationships with families/guardians and
navigating challenging situations. One survey respondent shared, “I think I could have been
better prepared for building and maintaining relationships with families.” Another shared that the
program emphasized the importance of bringing families into the school and celebrating
students’ home lives, communities, and cultures within the classroom, but then went on to say
candidates needed “more concrete support or explicit instruction” to feel confident in how to do
this well. Other alumni brought up challenges with student discipline, particularly those working
in non-Dewey schools following graduation. Across school Dewey and non-Dewey contexts,
graduates shared a desire to have “more opportunities to understand how to better face push back
from parents,” in particular when deeper learning or anti-racist teaching did not align with
families/guardians’ own experiences or values.
117
Restorative approaches to classroom practice, school-wide discipline, and family
engagement positively impact relational trust and outcomes for students in school (Gregory et
al., 2016; Augustine et al., 2018). Students from historically marginalized backgrounds are
disproportionately impacted when learning does not tend to the whole child, cognitively,
socially, and emotionally, and discipline practices are punitive, fueling the school-to-prison
pipeline. Both students and families/guardians must feel they belong and that the rich and
complex identities and cultures they bring to school are honored and celebrated (Hammond,
2014). Practices and structures such as home visits, advisory, and restorative circles can deepen
meaningful and authentic relationships between students and students, students and teachers, and
teachers and families/guardians, and nurture students’ opportunity to thrive. Many of these
restorative practices are present in Dewey schools, and the TRP can ensure that coursework
supports candidates learning and reinforcement in this area and also share research-based best
practices with the schools.
As Dewey schools begin to reopen after engaging students via distance learning, low-
income and students of color will need greater support due to long-standing structural inequities
heightened by the Covid-19 pandemic, such as higher infection and mortality rates,
unemployment, and housing and food instability, and less access to technology and the internet
(Depaoli et al., 2021). The TRP can meet the demands and responsibility of this moment by
ensuring that novice teachers are skilled at using restorative practices in their classroom and
understand how to shift from trauma-informed practice to healing-centered engagement with
both students and their families/guardians (Ginwright, 2018). Students will need to heal, but they
are not broken, and their resilience can be highlighted and leveraged as a strength moving
forward.
118
Recommendation 3: The Teacher Residency Program Should Embed Opportunities for
Collaboration, Coaching, and Mentorship Into the Second Year of the Program and
Beyond
The third recommendation is for the TRP to embed opportunities for collaboration,
coaching, and mentorship into the second year of the program and beyond. Through the
interviews, many alumni shared that they were eager for continued support following the
teaching residency year. In the second year of the program, candidates typically teach full-time
while completing their M.Ed. in Teaching and Learning. For their capstone experience,
candidates use lesson study cycles to reflect on the design and facilitation of anti-racist
pedagogies, such as universal design of learning and culturally relevant pedagogy, with a focus
on achieving equitable outcomes for students. Graduates shared universally positive feedback
about the value of this learning experience through the alumni survey and interviews, yet many
were hungry for additional opportunities for collaboration, coaching, and mentorship. Alumni
reported feeling “a little bit out on an island” and “isolated,” a common feeling for new teachers
that was likely heightened by the pandemic and need for distance learning. One graduate shared,
“New teachers often feel like they are not as connected as they want to be, and they’re not
collaboratively developing their practice as much as they would like to be.” She wondered how
mentorship could be built into the second year of the program and how collaboration and
coaching might be supported through continued work with their program supervisors or even a
critical friend from the program. Other graduates described challenges they were encountering
with supporting specific students, navigating challenging dynamics with colleagues, or
addressing concerns shared by families/guardians. Many alumni were eager to have more
119
opportunities to puzzle through dilemmas they were having in their practice with program peers
and faculty in real time.
Teaching is an incredibly purpose-driven and rewarding profession and also one that
struggles with teacher retention, or what some call the “leaky bucket phenomenon.” Anywhere
from 20% to 30% of new teachers leave the profession within their first five years of teaching,
with 1.5 times higher rates in hard-to-staff schools and districts serving the most vulnerable
students (Guha et al., 2016). Teachers of color are 2 to 3 times more likely to teach in hard-to-
staff schools where retention issues are more rampant and leave the profession at higher rates
than their White counterparts (Ingersoll et al., 2017). Given its commitment to recruiting,
preparing, and sustaining teachers of color in the field, the TRP must develop ways to embed
support for collaboration, coaching, and mentoring into the second year of the program and
beyond. Alumni have access to a two-year, online induction program offered by Dewey schools,
which provides mentorship and monthly meetings to support lesson study grounded in
improvement science and collegial coaching. However, most alumni wait to begin induction until
after completing their master’s degree in the second year of the program. As TRP faculty
consider how to best support new teachers following the teaching residency year, they must
consider what structures and practices to embed into the second year of the program as well as
what might be needed to supplement the support provided through induction in following years.
Residency programs have been found to retain teachers in the profession at higher rates,
in part because of the ongoing support and mentoring for graduates (Guha et al., 2016). While a
teacher shortage existed before the pandemic, the issue appears to be heightening due to rising
early retirements and resignations along with a reduced pipeline of incoming teachers (Carver-
Thomas et al., 2021). The TRP is well positioned to address this problem; however, it must
120
continue to strengthen its support for alumni following the program, including when they earn
their master’s degrees and complete induction.
Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations, or the influences on the study that the researcher could not control, may have
impacted the study's outcomes (Creswell, 2014). The participants may not have responded to
survey or interview questions truthfully due to their positionality or bias, fear of retribution or
offending faculty, or difficulty recalling their experience in the program. Borg and Mohler
(2011) found that the respondents’ current state of mind, cognition, or interaction with the PI can
also limit the data’s validity. Faculty and alumni may have suffered from adverse experiences
due to the Covid-19 pandemic that impacted their ability to participate or the ways in which they
responded if they did participate. While 100% of faculty completed the survey, only 61% of
alumni responded to the survey, and it was challenging to find 12 alumni who were able and
willing to interview. Furthermore, alumni may have felt more comfortable sharing their
perspectives anonymously through the survey, rather than through the interview, in part because
of the PI’s positionality as dean of the GSE.
Delimitations, or influences on the study that the researcher can control, included a
mixed-methods approach using surveys, interviews, and review of program documentation and
artifacts to address the research questions. However, a deeper, more nuanced understanding of
how prepared alumni are to advance to equity through deeper learning and antiracist practices in
their first year of teaching might have been accomplished with additional data collection. For
example, the PI may have developed in-depth case studies of alumni and collected field notes
through observation in their classrooms. Students of the novice teachers might have been
interviewed, and their work in the classroom could have been reviewed. Due to the limited
timeline for completion and challenges related to the pandemic, the researcher did not pursue
121
these options. Nonetheless, the study as designed still offers sound recommendations for
improving the TRP and may provide a springboard for further investigation.
Recommendations for Future Research
Future research is needed to better understand how the field can best prepare teachers to
advance equity through both deeper learning and anti-racist practices. The dueling pandemics of
Covid-19 and racial justice have inspired educators to learn, unlearn, and reimagine what might
be done differently to advance equity for our most vulnerable students. Inequities heightened by
the Covid-19 pandemic, such as racial, economic, and housing injustice will only be perpetuated
if educators reopen schools with a status quo approach. Transforming outcomes for underserved
students requires redesigning schools to authentically engage all students in meaningful work for
a more just and sustainable world. Additional research is needed to better understand how to
equip novice teachers with the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to design and facilitate anti-
racist deeper learning within their classroom and beyond, including a schema or framework that
makes explicit connections between the two. Future studies might explore how teacher
preparation programs and clinical sites can work collaboratively to craft a shared vision for anti-
racist deeper learning that guides both instructional and school-wide practices. Furthermore,
research on faculty development needed to prepare teachers to advance equity through deeper
learning and anti-racist practices is critical. Further inquiry should explore how teacher educators
model anti-racist deeper learning in teacher preparation programs and make explicit how novice
teachers can implement similar practices in their classrooms and through teacher leadership at
the school-wide level.
122
Conclusion
Central to racial justice is engaging young people in work that matters. As teacher
educators, we must better understand how to prepare novice teachers who can design and
facilitate deeper learning experiences that are equitable, liberatory, and unapologetically anti-
racist. Social justice schools that do not promote deeper learning are not anti-racist, nor are
deeper learning schools that do not focus on equity. As we consider what is needed in this
moment, we must reimagine schools alongside reimagining teacher preparation. Graduate
schools of education embedded in the reality of K–12 schools, with tight alignment in shared
values around deeper learning and anti-racist teaching, provide hope and promise for a brighter
future.
123
References
Abel, J. R., & Deitz, R. (2019, June 5). Despite rising costs, college is still a good investment.
Federal Reserve Bank of New York. https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2019/
06/despite-rising-costs-college-is-still-a-good-investment.html
Akram, M. (2019). Relationship between students’ perceptions of teacher effectiveness and
student achievement at secondary school level. Bulletin of Education and Research,
41(2), 93.
Arnett, T. (2015). Startup teacher education: A fresh take on teacher credentialing. Clayton
Christensen Institute for Disruptive Innovation.
Bada, S. O., & Olusegun, S. (2015). Constructivism learning theory: A paradigm for teaching
and learning. Journal of Research & Method in Education, 5(6), 66–70.
Baines, L. (2006). Does Horace Mann still matter? Educational Horizons, 84(4), 268–273.
Ball, D. (2018, May 4). Presidential Address. AERA Annual Meeting.
https://www.aera.net/Events-Meetings/2018-Annual-Meeting
Ball, D., & Cohen, D. (1999). Toward a practice-based theory of professional education:
Teaching as the learning profession. Jossey-Bass.
Ball, D. L., & Forzani, F. M. (2011). Building a common core for learning to teach: And
connecting professional learning to practice. American Educator, 35(2), 17.
Berger, R. (2003). An ethic of excellence: Building a culture of craftsmanship with students.
Heinemann.
Bitter, C., & Loney, E. (2015). Deeper learning: Improving student outcomes for college, career,
and civic life. Education Policy Center at American Institutes for Research.
124
Blake, B. (2015). Developmental psychology: Incorporating Piaget’s and Vygotsky’s theories in
classrooms. Journal of Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives in Education, 1(1), 59–67.
Borg, I., & Mohler, P. P. (2011). Trends and perspectives in empirical social research. Walter de
Gruyter.
Boser, U. (2011). Teacher diversity matters: A state-by-state analysis of teachers of color. Center
for American Progress.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn (Vol. 11). National
Academy Press.
Brown, A. C. (2018). I’m still here: Black dignity in a world made for whiteness. Convergent
Books.
Carver-Thomas, D. (2018). Diversifying the teaching profession: How to recruit and retain
teachers of color. Learning Policy Institute.
Center for Education Policy Analysis. (2012). The Educational Opportunity Monitoring Project.
https://cepa.stanford.edu/educational-opportunity-monitoring-project/achievement-
gaps/race/
Cherng, H.-Y. S., & Halpin, P. F. (2016). The importance of minority teachers: Student
perceptions of minority versus White teachers. Educational Researcher, 45(7), 407–420.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X16671718
Cochran-Smith, M. (2020). Teacher education for justice and equity: 40 Years of advocacy.
Action in Teacher Education: Professionalizing Teacher Preparation for Diversity and
Equity: Accountability, Partnership, and Advocacy in a Globalized Society, 42(1), 49–59.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2019.1702120
Creswell, J. W. (2014). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. Sage Publications.
125
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Sage Publications.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy
evidence. Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2015). The flat world and education: How America’s commitment to
equity will determine our future. Teachers College Press.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Oakes, J. (2019). Preparing teachers for deeper learning. Harvard
Education Press.
Delpit, L. (1986). Skills and other dilemmas of a progressive black educator. Harvard
Educational Review, 56(4), 379–386.
https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.56.4.674v5h1m125h3014
DeMonte, J. (2015). A million new teachers are coming: Will they be ready to teach? American
Institutes for Research.
Dewey, J. (1897). My pedagogic creed (No. 25). EL Kellogg & Company.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education.
Macmillan.
Dewey, J. (1936). Experience and education. Taylor & Francis Group.
DiAngelo, R. (2015). White fragility: Why it’s so hard to talk to White people about racism. The
Good Men Project.
DiAngelo, R. J. (2018). White Fragility: Why it’s so hard for white people to talk about racism.
Beacon Press.
126
Donato, R., & Hanson, J. (2012). Legally White, socially “Mexican”: The politics of de jure and
de facto school segregation in the American Southwest. Harvard Educational Review,
82(2), 202–225. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.82.2.a562315u72355106
Duncan-Andrade, J. M. R., & Morrell, E. (2008). The art of critical pedagogy: Possibilities for
moving from theory to practice in urban schools (Vol. 285). Peter Lang.
https://doi.org/10.3726/b12771
Ericsson, K. (2008). Deliberate practice and acquisition of expert performance: A general
overview. Academic Emergency Medicine, 15(11), 988–994.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1553-2712.2008.00227.x
Farrington, C. A. (2013). Academic mindsets as a critical component of deeper learning.
Consortium on Chicago School Research.
Fernández, M. L. (2005). Learning through microteaching lesson study in teacher preparation.
Action in Teacher Education, 26(4), 37–47.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2005.10463341
Fine, S. (2016, November 29). Why Dewey needs Freire, and vice versa: A call for critical
deeper learning. EdWeek. https://www.edweek.org/education/opinion-why-dewey-needs-
freire-and-vice-versa-a-call-for-critical-deeper-learning/2016/11
Forzani, F. M. (2014). Understanding “core practices” and “practice-based” teacher education:
Learning from the past. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(4), 357–368.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487114533800
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed (MB Ramos, Trans.). Continuum.
Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century. Macmillan.
127
Fronberg, K., Weinberger, G., Hunter, G. P., & Chambers, J. (2018). Improving teaching
effectiveness: Final report. Rand Corporation.
Garcia, E., & Weiss, E. (2019). The teacher shortage is real, large and growing, and worse than
we thought. Economic Policy Institute.
Gasman, M., Samayoa, A. C., & Ginsberg, A. (2017). Minority serving institutions: Incubators
for teachers of color. Teacher Educator, 52(2), 84–98.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730.2017.1294923
Gershenson, S., Hart, C. M. D., & Lindsay, C. A. (2017). With just one Black teacher, Black
students more likely to graduate. John Hopkins University.
Gershenson, S., Holt, S. B., & Papageorge, N. W. (2016). Who believes in me? The effect of
student–teacher demographic match on teacher expectations. Economics of Education
Review, 52, 209–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2016.03.002
Gibbs, G. R. (2018). Analyzing qualitative data (Vol. 6). Sage.
Grossman, P., Hammerness, K., & McDonald, M. (2009). Redefining teaching, re-imagining
teacher education. Teachers and Teaching, 15(2), 273–289.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13540600902875340
Guha, R., Hyler, M. E., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2016). The teacher residency: An innovative
model for preparing teachers. Learning Policy Institute.
Haberman, M. (1991). The pedagogy of poverty versus good teaching. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(4),
290–294.
Hammond, Z. (2014). Culturally responsive teaching and the brain: Promoting authentic
engagement and rigor among culturally and linguistically diverse students. Corwin Press.
Hanna, D. P. (1988). Designing organizations for high performance. Prentice Hall.
128
Heck, R. H. (2009). Teacher effectiveness and student achievement: Investigating a multilevel
cross-classified model. Journal of Educational Administration, 47(2), 227–249.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230910941066
Hewlett Foundation. (2013). Deeper Learning Competencies. hewlett.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/08/Deeper_Learning_Defined__April_2013.pdf
Holmes Group. (1986). Teachers for tomorrow’s schools.
Hooks, B. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. Journal of
Leisure Research, 28(4), 316.
Ingersoll, R., May, H., & Collins, G. (2017). Minority teacher recruitment, employment, and
retention: 1987 to 2013. Learning Policy Institute.
Ingersoll, R., Merrill, L., & Stuckey, D. (2014). Seven trends: The transformation of the teaching
force. Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. B. (2015). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative,
and mixed approaches. (5
th
ed.). SAGE.
Kendi, I. X. (2016). Why the academic achievement gap is a racist idea. Black Perspectives.
Kendi, I. X. (2019). How to be an antiracist. One World.
King, J., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2018). We’re not doing enough to support teachers of color.
Hechinger Report. https://hechingerreport.org/opinion-we-arent-doing-enough-to-
support-teachers-of-color/
Kini, T., & Podolsky, A. (2016). Does teaching experience increase teacher effectiveness: A
Review of the Research. Learning Policy Institute.
129
Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding
achievement in US schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3–12.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X035007003
Ladson-Billings, G. (2014). Culturally relevant pedagogy 2.0: Aka the remix. Harvard
Educational Review, 84(1), 74–84. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.84.1.p2rj131485484751
Lampert, M., Franke, M. L., Kazemi, E., Ghousseini, H., Turrou, A. C., Beasley, H., Cunard, A.,
& Crowe, K. (2013). Keeping it complex: Using rehearsals to support novice teacher
learning of ambitious teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(3), 226–243.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487112473837
Lampert, M., & Ghousseini, H. (2012). Situating mathematics teaching practices in a practice of
ambitious mathematics teaching. Investigação em Educação Matemática, 5–29.
Lequire, S. (2014, May 5). The history of women as teachers. The Western Carolina Journalist.
https://www.thewesterncarolinajournalist.com/2016/05/04/the-history-of-women-as-
teachers/
Levine, A. (2006). Educating school teachers. Education Schools Project.
Little, B. (2017). How boarding schools tried to ‘kill the Indian through assimilation.
https://www.history.com/news/how-boarding-schools-tried-to-kill-the-indian-through-
assimilation
McFarland, J., Hussar, B., Zhang, J., Wang, X., Wang, K., Hein, S., Diliberti, M., Cataldi, E. F.,
Mann, F. B., & Barmer, A. (2019). The condition of education 2019. National Center for
Education Statistics.
130
McIntosh, P. (2004). White privilege: Unpacking the invisible knapsack. In P. S. Rothenberg
(Ed.), Race, class, and gender in the United States: An integrated study (pp. 177–182).
Worth Publishers.
Mehta, J. (2014, June 20). Deeper learning has a race problem [blog post]. Education Week -
Learning Deeply. https://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/learning_deeply/2014/06/
deeper_learning_has_a_race_problem.html
Mehta, J., & Fine, S. (2019). In search of deeper learning: The quest to remake the American
high school. Harvard University Press.
Mendro, R. L. (1998). Student achievement and school and teacher accountability. Journal of
Personnel Evaluation in Education, 12(257–267), 262.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. Jossey-Bass.
Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching:
Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice,
31(2), 132–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849209543534
National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). Teacher qualifications.
https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=58
National Center for Education Statistics. (2020). Public and private elementary and secondary
teachers, enrollment, pupil/teacher ratios, and new teacher hires: Selected years, fall
1955 through fall 2028. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d18/tables/dt18_208.20.asp
National Center for Teacher Residencies. (2017). National Stakeholder Report.
https://nctresidencies.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/June-2018_NCTR-Stakeholder-
Report-Final.pdf
131
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for
educational reform. The Elementary School Journal, 84(2), 113–130.
https://doi.org/10.1086/461348
National Council on Teacher Quality. (2013). Teacher prep review: A review of the nation’s
teacher preparation programs. https://www.nctq.org/dmsView/Teacher_Prep_Review
_executive_summary
National Education Association. (2018). Teacher diversity: A need for a diverse teaching staff.
http://www.nea.org/home/15200.htm
National Equity Project. (2021, March 8). Educational equity: A definition.
https://www.nationalequityproject.org/education-equity-definition
Nieto, S. (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/10.1177/0022487100051003004
Noguera, P., Darling-Hammond, L., & Friedlaender, D. (2015). Equal opportunity for deeper
learning. Deeper Learning Research Series. Jobs for the Future.
Okun, T., & Jones, K. (2000). Dismantling racism: A workbook for social change groups.
dRworks.
Onafowora, L. L. (2005). Teacher efficacy issues in the practice of novice teachers. Educational
Research Quarterly, 28(4), 34–43.
Opper, I. (2012). Teachers matter: Understanding teachers’ impact on student achievement.
Rand Corporation.
Orfield, G., Ee, J., Frankenberg, E., & Siegel-Hawley, G. (2016). “Brown” at 62: School
segregation by race, poverty and state. Civil Rights Project-Proyecto Derechos Civiles.
132
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Two decades of developments in qualitative inquiry: A personal,
experiential perspective. Qualitative Social Work: Research and Practice, 1(3), 261–283.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325002001003636
PBL Works. (2021, March 24). What is PBL? https://www.pblworks.org/what-is-pbl
Ravitch, D. (2002). A brief history of teacher professionalism. White House Conference on
Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers. https://www2.ed.gov/admins/tchrqual/learn/
preparingteachersconference/ravitch.html
Rivkin, S. G., Hanushek, E. A., & Kain, J. F. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic
achievement. Econometrica, 73(2), 417–458.
Robinson, S. B., & Leonard, K. F. (2018). Designing quality survey questions. Sage
Publications.
Ronfeldt, M., & Reininger, M. (2012). More or better student teaching? Teaching and Teacher
Education, 28(8), 1091–1106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.06.003
Saad, L. (2020). Me & White supremacy: Combat racism, change the world, and become a good
ancestor. Sourcebooks.
Sanders, W. L., & Rivers, J. C. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future
student academic achievement. University of Tennessee Value-Added Research and
Assessment Center.
Sassler, S. L. (2006). School participation among immigrant youths: The case of segmented
assimilation in the early 20th century. Sociology of Education, 79(1), 1–24.
https://doi.org/10.1177/003804070607900101
133
Schneider, J. (2018). Marching forward, marching in circles: A history of problems and
dilemmas in teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 69(4), 330–340.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487117742904
Siqueiros, M., Dow, A., Bell, A., Christeson, R., Clark, J., Kelly, P., & Jones, D. (2018).
California higher education report card, 2018. Campaign for College Opportunity.
Smith, J. B., Lee, V. E., & Newmann, F. M. (2001). Instruction and achievement in Chicago
elementary schools. Improving Chicago’s Schools.
Sorensen, L. C., & Ladd, H. F. (2020). The hidden costs of teacher turnover. AERA Open, 6(1).
https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858420905812
Spencer, S. J., Steele, C. M., & Quinn, D. M. (1999). Stereotype threat and women’s math
performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35(1), 4–28.
https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1998.1373
Stecher, B. M., Holtzman, D. J., Garet, M. S., Hamilton, L. S., Engberg, J., Steiner, E. D.,
Robyn, A., Baird, M. D., Gutierrez, I. A., Peet, E. D., Brodziak de los Reyes, I., & Steele,
C. M. (2011). Whistling Vivaldi: And other clues to how stereotypes affect us and what
we can do. WW Norton & Company.
Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of
African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 797–811.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.5.797
Stronge, J. H. (2018). Qualities of effective teachers. ASCD.
Sutcher, L., Darling-Hammond, L., & Carver-Thomas, D. (2019). Understanding teacher
shortages: An analysis of teacher supply and demand in the United States. Education
Policy Analysis Archives, 27(35), 35. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.27.3696
134
Task Force on Teaching as a Profession. (1986). A nation prepared: Teachers for the 21st
century. Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy.
Trostel, P. (2017, January 29). Beyond the college earnings premium. Way beyond. The
Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/beyond-the-college-
earnings-premium-way-beyond/
Tucker, P. D., & Stronge, J. H. (2005). Linking teacher evaluation and student learning. ASCD.
Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering towards Utopia. Harvard University Press Cambridge.
U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights. (2016). Key data highlights on equity and
opportunity gaps in our nation’s public schools. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/
ocr/docs/2013-14-first-look.pdf
van Es, E. A., & Sherin, M. G. (2008). Mathematics teachers’ “learning to notice” in the context
of a video club. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 244–276.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.11.005
Villegas, A. M., & Irvine, J. J. (2010). Diversifying the teaching force: An examination of the
major arguments. The Urban Review, 42(3), 175–192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-
010-0150-1
Von Esch, K., & Kavanagh, S. S. (2018). Preparing mainstream classroom teachers of English
language learner (EL) students: Grounding practice-based designs for teacher learning in
theories of expertise development. Journal of Teacher Education, 69(3), 239–251.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487117717467
Wiedeman, C. R. (2002). Teacher preparation, social justice, equity: A review of the literature.
Equity & Excellence in Education, 35(3), 200–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/713845323
135
Appendix A: Alumni Survey
GSE Teacher Residency Program
Q1 To what extent did the GSE Teacher Residency prepare you to design learning experiences
that:
To a very
small
extent
(1)
To a
small
extent
(2)
To a
moderate
extent
(3)
To a
great
extent
(4)
To a
very
great
extent
(5)
Ask students to actively construct new
knowledge (F3)
Build on students’ prior knowledge,
experience, and interests to
personalize learning (F1)
Attend to students’ cognitive, social
and emotional development (F1)
Differentiate instruction to meet the
diverse needs of students (F1)
Use culturally responsive practices to
leverage students’ funds of
knowledge (personal, cultural,
linguistic, etc.) (F2)
Ask students to think critically and
creatively to solve complex, real-
world problems (F3)
Actively address issues of racism and
oppression perpetuated through
schooling (F5)
Engage students in shared purpose
through authentic projects that
136
connect to the world beyond school
(F2)
Support social learning through
equitable structures for collaboration
and group work (F4)
Provide opportunities for students to
revise their work based on critique
and feedback (F4)
Foster meaningful, high-trust
relationships with students (F2)
Actively address status issues that
perpetuate inequitable student
outcomes (F5)
Ask students to make their learning
public through presentations of
learning or exhibitions (F3)
Build on understanding of how race,
class, gender, and other aspects of
identity shape students’ lived
experiences (F5)
Use restorative practices to build
community, repair harm, and
promote healing (F4)
Anti-racism
Q2 What does anti-racism mean to you? (R1)
Q3 In what specific ways, if at all, did the program prepare you to be an antiracist teacher? (R1)
Deeper Learning
Q4 What does deeper learning mean to you? (R1)
137
Q5 In what specific ways, if at all, did the program prepare you to design instruction for deeper
learning? (R1)
138
Overall Program Experience
Q6 What learning experiences from the GSE Teacher Residency Program best prepared you to
advance equity through deeper learning and anti-racist practices? (R2)
Q7 In what ways could the GSE Teacher Residency Program have better prepared you to achieve
this goal? (R3)
Q8 Is there anything else you would like to share?
Demographic Data
Q9 Do you consider yourself to be? (one option selection)
o Female (1)
o Male (2)
o Non-binary/third gender (3)
o Prefer to self-describe: ____________ (4)
o Prefer not to say (5)
Q10 What is the primary cultural background with which you most closely identify? (one option
selection)
o Black/African American (1)
o Latinx/Hispanic (2)
o Asian American (3)
o Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (4)
o American Indian/Alaska Native (5)
o White/Caucasian (6)
o Two or more races: ___________ (7)
o Prefer to self-describe: ___________ (7)
o Prefer not to say (7)
139
Appendix B: Program Faculty Survey
GSE Teacher Residency Program
Q1 To what extent do the courses you teach in the GSE Teacher Residency program:
To a very
small
extent
(1)
To a
small
extent
(2)
To a
moderate
extent
(3)
To a
great
extent
(4)
To a
very
great
extent
(5)
Ask students to actively construct new
knowledge (F3)
Build on students’ prior knowledge,
experience, and interests to
personalize learning (F1)
Attend to students’ cognitive, social
and emotional development (F1)
Differentiate instruction to meet the
diverse needs of students (F1)
Use culturally responsive practices to
leverage students’ funds of
knowledge (personal, cultural,
linguistic, etc.) (F2)
Ask students to think critically and
creatively to solve complex, real-
world problems (F3)
Actively address issues of racism and
oppression perpetuated through
schooling (F5)
Engage students in shared purpose
through authentic projects that
connect to the world beyond school
(F2)
140
Support social learning through
equitable structures for collaboration
and group work (F4)
Provide opportunities for students to
revise their work based on critique
and feedback (F4)
Foster meaningful, high-trust
relationships with students (F2)
Actively address status issues that
perpetuate inequitable student
outcomes (F5)
Ask students to make their learning
public through presentations of
learning or exhibitions (F3)
Build on understanding of how race,
class, gender, and other aspects of
identity shape students’ lived
experiences (F5)
Use restorative practices to build
community, repair harm, and
promote healing (F4)
Anti-racism
Q2 What does anti-racism mean to you? (R1)
Q3 In what specific ways, if at all, do the courses you teach prepare candidates to become
antiracist teachers? (R1)
Deeper Learning
Q5 What does deeper learning mean to you? (R1)
Q6 In what specific ways, if at all, do the courses you teach prepare candidates to design
instruction for deeper learning? (R1)
141
Overall Program Experience
Q11 What learning experiences from the GSE Teacher Residency Program best prepare novice
teachers to advance equity through deeper learning and anti-racist practices? (R2)
Q12 In what ways could the GSE Teacher Residency Program be improved to achieve this goal?
(R3)
Q13 Is there anything else you would like to share?
Demographic Data
Q14 Do you consider yourself to be? (one option selection)
o Female (1)
o Male (2)
o Non-binary/third gender (3)
o Prefer to self-describe: ____________ (4)
o Prefer not to say (5)
Q15 What is the primary cultural background with which you most closely identify? (one
option selection)
o Black/African American (1)
o Latinx/Hispanic (2)
o Asian American (3)
o Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (4)
o American Indian/Alaska Native (5)
o White/Caucasian (6)
o Two or more races: ___________ (7)
o Prefer to self-describe: ___________ (7)
o Prefer not to say (7)
142
Appendix C: Interview Protocol
Thank you for taking the time to talk with me today. Your perspective will help us better
understand how to support novice teachers through the Teacher Residency Program and improve
what we do.
Do you mind if I record our interview? I will keep your responses confidential and will not share
the recording with anyone else. I might listen to it again to ensure that I captured your
perspective as accurately as possible.
Background
1. Tell me about your journey and how you decided to become a teacher.
2. What are the primary reasons why you chose the Teacher Residency Program?
3. What stands out about your experience?
Anti-racism
1. What does equity mean to you? (R1)
2. How did your understanding of equity shift during the program? What moments stand
out? (R1)
3. How would you define antiracism?
4. What, if anything, did you learn about how to be an antiracist teacher? (R1)
5. Share an example of what antiracist teaching looks like in your classroom. (R1)
6. In what specific ways did the program prepare you? Were there specific courses,
readings, or learning experiences that you found particularly helpful? (R2)
7. What has been most challenging putting these ideas into practice in your first year of
teaching? (R3)
8. What could the program have done to help you mitigate these challenges?
Deeper Learning
1. What does deeper learning mean to you? (R1)
2. What, if anything, did you learn about how to teach for deeper learning? (R1)
3. How did your understanding of deeper learning shift during the program? What moments
stand out? (R1)
4. Share an example of what deeper learning looks like in your classroom. (R1)
5. In what specific ways did the program prepare you? Were there specific courses,
readings, or learning experiences that you found particularly helpful? (R2)
143
6. What has been most challenging putting these ideas into practice in your first year of
teaching? (R3)
7. What could the program have done to help you mitigate these challenges?
Advancing Equity through Deeper Learning
1. To what extent did the GSE Teacher Residency Program prepare you to advance equity
through deeper learning and anti-racist practices? (R1)
2. How, if at all, did the program make the connection between deeper learning and anti-
racist practices explicit? (R1)
3. Share an example of what learning looks like in your classroom when it is grounded in
both deeper learning and anti-racist practices.
Overall Program Experience
1. Tell me about your experience as a first year teacher.
a. What aspects of the program best prepared you? (R2)
b. What practices from this year come directly from your preparation in the
program? Please share an example. (R2)
c. If you had the power to rewind time, knowing what you know now, what would
you change about the program to better prepare you? (R3)
d. What other suggestions would you make to improve the program? (R3)
2. Is there anything I haven’t asked that you would like to share?
Demographic Data
What is your gender identity?
What is your racial identity?
Abstract (if available)
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Developing equity-mindedness in the face of whiteness: White educator perspectives of race
PDF
Training qualified rural area teachers in Malawi using synchronous virtual learning (SVL) information and communication technologies (ICTs) platforms
PDF
Interrupting inequitable systems: evaluating a teacher leadership development program
PDF
Stop, dismantle and reimagine teacher preparation programs: an examination of racial justice practices of beginning preservice teachers…
PDF
Mentoring new teachers of color: how induction mentors characterize their preparation and practices that support new teachers of color
PDF
Educational technology integration: a search for best practices
PDF
Brick by brick: exploring the influential factors on the capacity building of instructional coaches
PDF
Father engagement in the child welfare system: a promising practice study
PDF
Multimodal composing and teacher preparation
PDF
KMO factors influencing the culturally responsive implementation of PBIS: a mixed-methods study
PDF
Teacher as nurturer: perceptions of elementary teachers integrating social and emotional learning practices
PDF
Teachers' voices: SEL perceptions in a grade 9-12 school
PDF
Universal design for learning in teacher preparation: preparing for a classroom of diverse learners
PDF
Implementation of dual language immersion to improve academic achievement of Latinx English learners
PDF
Grading in crisis: examining the impact of COVID-19 on secondary public school teachers’ grading and reporting in south Florida
PDF
Measuring the impact of short-term campus exchange programs: an evaluation study
PDF
Evaluating the effectiveness of global residence in improving resident cultural intelligence
PDF
Professional development in generating managerial high-quality feedback
PDF
Uncovering promising practices for providing vocational opportunities to formerly incarcerated individuals
PDF
Promising practices for building leadership capital in educational organizations
Asset Metadata
Creator
Wilson, Kelly
(author)
Core Title
Preparing teachers to advance equity through deeper learning and antiracist practices
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)
Degree Conferral Date
2021-05
Publication Date
05/09/2021
Defense Date
04/15/2021
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
antiracist,deeper learning,equity,OAI-PMH Harvest,teacher preparation
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Malloy, Courtney (
committee chair
), Darling-Hammond, Linda (
committee member
), Stowe, Kathy (
committee member
)
Creator Email
kwilson@hightechhigh.org
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC112720139
Unique identifier
UC112720139
Identifier
etd-WilsonKell-9617.pdf (filename)
Legacy Identifier
etd-WilsonKell-9617
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Wilson, Kelly
Type
texts
Source
20210510-wayne-usctheses-batch-836-shoaf
(batch),
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
antiracist
deeper learning
equity
teacher preparation