University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Evaluating the teacher residency model: a new first way

(USC Thesis Other)

Evaluating the teacher residency model: a new first way

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: A NEW FIRST WAY 1

EVALUATING THE TEACHER RESIDENCY MODEL: A NEW FIRST WAY

by
Jennifer D. Francis

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCA TION

May 2018

Copyright 2018 Jennifer D. Francis

A NEW FIRST WAY 2
DEDICA TION
My father used to say, “go to school and get your education, it is the one thing people can
never take away from you.” He was right. Education is a journey that pushes and pulls you in
ways you never imagine. During this educational journey my father died—and at every step and
turn I felt that void. This work is dedicated to my father, my mother, my brothers, and to my
husband to be—because my father was also right when he said, “family is the most important
thing, always.”

A NEW FIRST WAY 3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I started this journey because I realized very quickly that in my field, you needed a
doctoral degree to have a seat at the table, and especially as a woman of color—period. I’m
ending this journey with great respect and admiration for scholarship, an ability to be a critical
consumer of data, and an unwavering desire to BRING more seats to the table, and to FILL those
seats with people who are impacted by the decisions I help to make.
Yet, I would be remiss if I did not thank the people who helped to position me to do so.
To my dissertation chair, Dr. Hyde—thank you for your guidance and encouragement. Your
ability to help me focus my efforts and energy was precisely what I needed as I embarked on this
journey—thank you. To my dissertation committee members, Dr. Hirabayashi—I have been
fortunate to have some amazing teachers in my life and you are undoubtedly one of them. Your
pushes and questions were exactly what I needed, and I appreciate your high expectations—
thank you for your guidance and support. Last, but certainly not least, Dr. Gastic—you have seen
me grow and change a lot in the last 5 years, and throughout all of those changes your support
and encouragement of this degree never changed. You were there when I decided to start this
journey and your support was just as robust then as it is now, and I cannot express how much that
means to me. You have reminded me of the pride and excitement of scholarship—thank you.
To my colleagues at Teacher Preparation School, specifically, my manager, my team,
fellow colleagues, and especially my colleagues in our research team, your support and
responsiveness will always be remembered and appreciated. Thank you all, for all of your help,
encouragement, and support. A special thank you to LB for letting me endlessly pick your brain
and thought partner with you in work so deeply important to you.
To my colleagues at USC, there are a couple of us that decided we would show up for
each other, encourage each other, push each other, and hold each other accountable—that pact
A NEW FIRST WAY 4
meant more than you all will ever know. I am grateful and honored to have spent these years
with you all. Fight on!

A NEW FIRST WAY 5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication 2
Acknowledgements 3
List of tables 7
Abstract 8
Chapter One: Introduction 9
Introduction of the Problem of Practice 9
Organizational Context and Mission 9
Organizational Status and Organizational Goals 10
Related Literature 13
Importance of Evaluation 14
Description of Stakeholder Groups 15
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions 17
Definitions 17
Organization of the Study 19
Chapter Two: Literature Review 20
Chalk and Smiles 20
Common Core State Standards 21
Preparation and Support That Meets the Needs of Today’s Teachers 23
Knowledge of Teaching Content 24
Knowledge of Self 26
Knowledge of Self Through Reflections 27
Summary 28
The Gatekeepers 29
Professors as Teachers 29
Professors as Influencers 29
Knowledge: What Do Professors Need to Know? 31
Content 32
Facilitating Learning: Instruction and Transference 34
Motivation: Professor Self-Efficacy and Expectancy Value 36
Professor Self-Efficacy 37
Expectancy Value—Importance of Teacher Residency Model Training 40
Organization: How Are Professors Supported by Colleagues and Their Organization? 43
Organizational Communities for Collaboration and Support 44
Reflection as a Spark for Collaboration 45
Professor Resources, Time, and Planning 47
Summary 48
Conceptual and Methodological Framework 49
Chapter Three: Methods 54
Data Collection and Instrumentation 54
Participating Stakeholders 54
Method 55
Survey Sampling Criteria and Rationale 55
Survey Sampling Recruitment Strategy and Rationale 56
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale 56
Surveys 58
A NEW FIRST WAY 6
Interviews 58
Data Analysis 59
Validity and Reliability 60
Ethics 61
Chapter Four: Findings 63
Knowledge Findings 63
Faculty Knowledge of Teaching 65
Teacher Residency Programmatic Knowledge 67
Depth of Knowledge 67
Attainment of Teacher Residency Programmatic Knowledge 73
Motivation Findings 76
Self-Efficacy as Motivation 78
Definitions of Success as Motivation 79
Expectancy Value as Motivation 82
Organizational Findings 84
Learning About and Access to Organizational Resources 86
Implementation Structures and Collaboration 88
Synthesis 94
Chapter Five: Conclusion 96
Knowledge Recommendations 96
Motivation Recommendations 98
Organizational Recommendations 101
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan 104
Implementation and Evaluation Framework 104
Organizational Purpose, Need, and Expectations 105
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators 106
Level 3: Behavior 107
Level 2: Learning 110
Level 1: Reaction 116
Evaluation Tools 117
Summary 119
Limitations and Delimitations 120
Considerations for Future Research 120
Conclusion 121
References 122
Appendix A: Informed Consent Form 128
Appendix B: Survey Items 130
Appendix C: Interview Protocol 135
Appendix D: Survey Immediately Following Training 136
Appendix E: Post-Training Evaluation Instrument 138

A NEW FIRST WAY 7
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Stakeholders’ Performance Goals 16
Table 2: Stakeholder Knowledge Influences 32
Table 3: Stakeholder Motivation Influences 37
Table 4: Stakeholder Organizational Influences 44
Table 5: Last year, I Created and/or Altered Materials 64
Table 6: Metrics of Teacher Resident Success 64
Table 7: Number of Teacher Residents Taught in Core Sessions and Coached in Deliberate
Practice 64
Table 8: Key Quantitative Motivation Items 78
Table 9: Key Quantitative Organizational Items 85
Table 10: Summary of Knowledge Influencers and Recommendations 97
Table 11: Summary of Motivation Influencers and Recommendations 99
Table 12: Summary of Organizational Influencers and Recommendations 102
Table 13: Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal and External Outcomes 106
Table 14: Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Teacher Residency Faculty 108
Table 15: Required Drivers to Support Teacher Residency Faculty’s Critical Behaviors 109
Table 16: Components of Learning for the Program 114
Table 17: Components to Measure Reactions to the Program 116
Table 18: Critical Behavior Dashboard 119

A NEW FIRST WAY 8
ABSTRACT
This study was an evaluation of Teacher Preparation School’s teacher residency program.
The debate on teacher preparation is one engaged in by academics and practitioners alike. Yet,
what continues to be deprioritized is a longer and more robust teacher practicum to demonstrate
to teacher candidates, both in theory and in practice, what it means to be a teacher. The teacher
residency program at TPS provides a protracted experience that serves to prepare teacher
residents for the responsibilities and realities of being a full-time teacher of record. Using a
modified version of Clark and Estes’ gap analysis conceptual framework, this study explored the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influencers that must be present for faculty to provide
a robust and meaningful experience to teacher residents. Using a mixed-methods approach,
coupled with the aforementioned conceptual framework, the results were as follows: the
quantitative survey had a response rate of 83% (38 completers) and most respondents were
positive about both their experiences as faculty members and their ability to leverage their
knowledge and experience towards teacher resident success. However, the qualitative interviews
of six faculty members told a different story. Those data revealed misalignment and a lack of
consistency relative to knowledge, motivation, and organization influencers, especially by role or
position within the organization. Recommendations varied from training sessions to structured
and purposeful collaboration.

A NEW FIRST WAY 9
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Introduction of the Problem of Practice
In recent years, concerns have surfaced regarding the quality of urban teacher preparation
programs in the United States. Specifically, research on urban teacher preparation programs
reveals a 22% average turnover rate for teachers working in urban schools (Helfeldt, Capraro,
Caprarp, & Scott, 2015), which indicates that the quality of teacher training is inadequate and
problematic. According to Darling-Hammond (2006), as a result of the teacher turnover rate in
urban schools being so high, the quality of the teaching force is inevitably impacted; specifically,
the teachers who staff classrooms often do not meet states’ basic requirements for teachers.
Accordingly, the teaching profession attracts and retains individuals who lack certification and/or
ample content-specific knowledge for instruction (Darling-Hammond, 2006). It is imperative that
teachers in general and urban teachers in particular receive more substantial teacher preparation,
so they can effectively teach the 50 million students enrolled in the nation’s public schools
(National Center for Education Statistics, 2015). This study investigated the knowledge, skills,
and instruction of professors who educate teacher candidates enrolled in a teaching preparation
program to gather a holistic understanding of the preparation experiences and supports that
professors need to teach and support teacher candidates.
Organizational Context and Mission
Teacher Preparation School (TPS) was founded in 2011 and currently has more than
3,000 graduate students and school leaders enrolled yearly. The mission of TPS is to prepare both
teachers and school leaders to work in partnership with parents and communities to ensure that
P-12 students receive the best education and life outcomes possible.
This study focused on the teacher residency faculty’s experience across all TPS
campuses. All campuses run a variety of programs, such as a 2-year Master of Arts in Teaching,
A NEW FIRST WAY 10
with a specialization by content area; a 1-year alternative certification program, where teachers
work to gain level-one provisional teacher licensure; a Special Education Add-On Certification;
as well as other 1-year programs. Based on a robust market analysis, each campus determines the
programmatic offerings that are best for its location. Each campus is staffed with at least a full-
time faculty member and a full-time administrator, although most campuses have anywhere from
three to 40 full-time faculty and staff members, depending on the size of the campus. The
primary responsibilities of the faculty members are to teach, advise, evaluate, and support
graduate students. The primary responsibilities of the administrator are to handle all non-
academic tasks related to campus management and functionality.
Organizational Status and Organizational Goals
Since the founding of TPS and through its programmatic offerings, the organization’s
goal and mission has been to prepare both teachers and school leaders to work in partnership
with parents and communities to ensure that P-12 students receive the best education and life
outcomes possible. After launching several national campuses, each with programmatic offerings
designed for full-time teachers of record in the classroom, TPS added a new program: the teacher
residency. The teacher residency program is a 1-year gradual preparation program that prepares
teacher candidates at a slower pace, a full year, to enter the teaching profession. At the
culmination of this year of preparation and support, the expectation is that graduates will be hired
as full-time teachers of record will and work to complete their Master of Arts in Teaching degree,
which they earned credit towards during the teacher residency year. Unlike TPS’s traditional
Master of Arts in Teaching program and the alternative certification program, the teacher
residency program was designed for educators who wanted a longer and more structured
preparation experience. When TPS’s leadership team founded the program, it pushed to redesign
teacher preparation through an extended experience. Simultaneously, the team also committed to
A NEW FIRST WAY 11
responding to the national need for more highly qualified teachers; it was believed that both
objectives could be remedied through this program. As such, the team established a global
institutional goal: by summer 2017, TPS would have an 85% completion rate in the teacher
residency program.
The completion of the teacher residency program entailed the following: the
demonstration of proficiency on the five teacher residency gateway assessments throughout the
year, the demonstration of proficiency on all coursework from the academic year (summer, fall,
and spring semesters), and being hired as a full-time teacher of record for the following academic
school year. The leadership team at TPS established the lattermost goal after reviewing both
plans for national campus expansion as well as determining individual campus needs and
capacities.
The teacher residency program goal reflects the priorities of TPS relative to teacher
preparation at all of its campuses as well as a larger national need for high-quality teachers and
teacher preparation. Although this goal reflects the national demand and need for teachers, it
does not explicitly encompass how teacher residents would be prepared and, most importantly,
who would prepare them. By identifying and hiring teacher residency faculty and by defining the
necessary knowledge and skills needed to successfully prepare teacher residents, TPS strived to
purposefully and strategically set up teacher residents for success. Yet, an accountability measure
was needed to ensure this outcome. As such, a stakeholder goal was created that focused on the
impact of teacher residency faculty on the overall success of teacher residents. Specifically, the
stakeholder goal noted that, by winter 2017, 75% of teacher residency faculty would be
proficient in the organization training outcomes to better understand the requirements of program
completion as well as to improve their practice relative to the instruction, advisement, and
overall support of teacher residents. The numeric significance of this goal reflects TPS’s annual
A NEW FIRST WAY 12
hiring timeline. Most teacher residency faculty are hired by July 1, making it feasible for them to
attend organizational training which typically occurs during the latter part of the summer.
Measuring progress towards both of these goals would benefit the evaluation of the
teacher residency program. For the institutional goal, in particular, knowing that each year close
to 250 teacher residents had been prepared and demonstrated success and readiness to become
full-time teachers of record was extremely important to both the mission of the organization and
the national need for teachers. For the stakeholder goal, being able to gauge the impact and
influence of teacher residency faculty on the success of teacher residents was imperative to
benchmarking teacher residents’ completion of the teacher residency program. Both of these
goals were central to TPS’s mission and to the continued execution of the teacher residency
program.
Most importantly, the global institutional goal was set because, at the start of this study in
2015, TPS was not meeting its goal of attaining an 85% completion rate in the teacher residency
program. At the end of the 2014–2015 academic school year, the teacher residency program’s
completion rate was 81%, and it was unclear what role faculty played in the attainment of this
goal. Consequently, an evaluation the program was needed. However, at the end of the 2016–
2017 school year, the program’s completion rate was 93% and, even with this increase, it was
still unclear what role faculty played in the attainment of this goal. By evaluating this program,
determinations about the quality of preparation teacher residents were receiving could be made,
specifically whether that preparation led them to the successful completion of the program.
Specifically, by evaluating the program, a determination could be made regarding the
effectiveness and purposefulness of the model as executed by faculty. Note that, although the
TPS teacher residency program expectation is that, after the teacher residency year, teacher
residents transition into their full-time teaching roles and also work towards the completion of
A NEW FIRST WAY 13
their Master of Arts in Teaching degree in year two, for this study, only year one, the actual
teacher residency year and experience, was evaluated. Homing in on this experience provided
insight into the experiences of teacher residents and teacher residency faculty during the training
year.
Related Literature
Teachers have one of the most important and, at times, one of the most challenging
careers in the world. As such, it is imperative that the preparation they receive—be it through a
traditional education program at an institution of higher education or through an alternative
certification program—prepares them to teach in today’s public schools. The juxtaposition of
these two teacher preparation pathways continues to be a point of contention in the discourse of
teacher preparation and education. Darling-Hammond (2006) posited that alternative certification
programs are devoid of theory and the educational pedagogy that traditional programs are known
for. Furthermore, Darling-Hammond noted that this gap in teacher preparation and the overall
lack of educational theory are detrimental to the preparation and success of teacher candidates.
Conversely, Humphrey, Wechsler, and Hough (2008) argued that traditional schools of education
do not prepare teachers for the realities of teaching in today’s schools, as traditional preparation
experiences omit the important and necessary connections between teacher relationships with
students in general and teacher relationships with school communities in particular. Thus, the
educational experience of teacher candidates at traditional institutions of higher education fails to
prioritize the realities of being in a school full time (Humphrey et al., 2008). Despite the tension
of these two distinct options for teacher preparation, Berry, Montgomery, Hernandezm Wurtzel,
and Snyder (2008) argued that there was a third way to address teacher preparation that weds the
pedagogy of traditional teacher education with the practicum experiences that alternative
programs provide. This third way, also known as a teacher residency, is a protracted, usually one
A NEW FIRST WAY 14
year, preparation experience for teaching candidates. The expectation is that, while teacher
candidates learn how to teach through relevant coursework, they are also learning and reflecting
on the experience of teaching by being fully immersed in a school full time, learning from a
mentor teacher, and acclimating themselves to a school community (Humphrey et al., 2008)
At TPS, there is a concentrated effort on the third way (Berry et al., 2008) to stabilize the
teaching profession and to populate public schools with teachers who are of and from the
communities where they will teach. This third way is a guide for TPS; this author considers
TPS’s teacher residency program “a new first way.” Faculty at TPS posit that the teacher
residency model should be the first way that both traditional and alternative programs work to
train and support teachers. Like previous studies and literature regarding the tension regarding
what teacher preparation should entail and ultimately what makes teachers successful during the
teacher training process, TPS has also grappled with these components in the design and
implementation of its teacher residency program. TPS has also worked to be responsive to the
growing demand for career teachers who want to teach in schools, especially urban schools.
Importance of Evaluation
The problem of adequate teacher preparation is important to address because public
schools in America need teachers who will commit to the teaching profession over the long term.
This problem is important to solve because the implications of constant teacher turnover in
schools directly impacts the success of P-12 students. Moreover, TPS is interested in determining
if providing teachers with more time learning how to teach directly impacts both the academic
success of teacher residents as they engage in a teacher residency program and their long-term
desire to stay in the profession.
A NEW FIRST WAY 15
If the problem of adequate teacher preparation is not addressed, then the profession of
teaching will continue to be avoided by professionals and/or populated by teachers who lack both
the skill and/or will to adequately do the job. Therefore, the teacher residency program is a
probable solution to this problem.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
All stakeholders who impact TPS’s influence on teachers and school leaders are
important. However, this introduction solely focuses on three of those stakeholders: faculty,
residents, and curriculum designers. These three stakeholders are best positioned to influence the
experience and overall success of teacher residents. Teacher residency faculty, the stakeholder of
focus for this study, directly impact teacher residents’ success as they provide both instruction
and advisement during the year-long teacher residency. Faculty are charged with merging their
knowledge and skills with the values, knowledge, and skills of TPS and transferring all of these
components to teacher residents to learn and implement during their teacher residency and their
teaching careers. Teacher residents are another important stakeholder in this study, as their
efforts and success directly contribute to TPS’s global institutional goal. Moreover, the robust
demand for highly qualified and prepared teachers was the impetus for the teacher residency
program. Last, curriculum designers play an integral role in the success of teacher residents in
that they design the courses that residents must take and the curriculum in which they must
become proficient. Additionally, curriculum designers adjust coursework to ensure teacher
residents are learning and engaging in the most current pedagogical and practicum components
of learning how to be a teacher.
Stakeholder performance goals are noted in Table 1 and reveal the manner in which all
three stakeholders work together towards the larger institutional goal. Moreover, each of the
stakeholders had clear benchmarks that served as an indicator of their progress toward the goal.
A NEW FIRST WAY 16
Table 1
Stakeholders’ Performance Goals
Stakeholders Group for the Study
Organizational Mission

TPS’s mission is to prepare both teachers and school leaders to work in partnership
with parents and communities to ensure that P–12 students receive the best education and life
outcomes possible.

Global Organizational Goal

By summer 2017, Teacher Preparation School will have an 85% completion rate of
teacher residents enrolled in the Teacher Residency Program.

Stakeholder 1

Teacher Preparation School
Teaching Faculty
Stakeholder 2

Teacher Preparation School
Curriculum Design Faculty
Stakeholder 3

Teacher Preparation School
Teacher Residents

(Intermediate) Goal
By Winter 2017, 75% of
teacher residency faculty will
be proficient in the
organization training
outcomes.

(Intermediate) Goal
By Winter 2017, Teacher
Preparation School’s
curriculum designers will
audit all teacher residency
courses for consistency and
streamlining.

(Intermediate) Goal
By Fall 2016, 90% of teacher
residents will be in
satisfactory academic
standing.

While the work of all stakeholders will be necessary to meet the institutional goal, this
study solely focused on the teacher residency faculty. The faculty directly impacts the experience
of teacher residents as they navigate their teacher residency experience. Faculty are responsible
for instruction, advisement, support, and the ultimate transference of teaching values and
pedagogy to teacher residents to prepare them to be highly successful career teachers. As such,
faculty are required to have experience as a classroom teacher, training and support relative to
the TPS teacher residency program, and the overall ability to transfer these components to
teacher residents in a manner that promotes their immediate implementation. Ultimately, the
A NEW FIRST WAY 17
success of teacher residents reflects the pedagogical and practical knowledge and skills that their
professors possess and can transfer to teacher residents. In short, faculty are successful when
teacher residents are successful. Moreover, programmatic success is evident both in the meeting
of the global institutional goal and in the teacher residents’ ability to move seamlessly from their
residency into being full-time teachers of record.
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
The purpose of this project was to study TPS’s organizational performance relative to a
larger problem of practice—teacher preparation—through the lens of the teacher residency
faculty experience. As such, the analysis of this project solely focused on the experiences of
teacher residency faculty relative to the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influencers
that contribute to them and directly affect the success of teacher residents. Ultimately, the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influencers of these faculty members were used as a
mechanism for further understanding both the experiences of teacher residents and the efficacy
of the program. Accordingly, the questions that guided this study are listed below.
1. What knowledge and motivational factors are present within teacher preparation
organizations to ensure professor success?
2. What organizational training experiences do professors of teacher candidates have, both
prior to and during their roles as professors of teacher candidates to ensure that 75% of
professors are proficient in training outcomes?
Definitions
Below are the terms used in this study.
 Deliberate practice: Weekly iterative practice that focuses on a specific skill or technique
(TPS, 2016).
A NEW FIRST WAY 18
 Teacher residency gateways: A series of five benchmark assessments administered to
teacher residents. Gateway 1 focuses on the necessary mindsets and professionalism it
takes to be a teacher. Gateway 2 targets classroom management and operations,
specifically, how to create a meaningful learning environment. Gateway 3 highlights
opening a lesson and introducing new material. Gateway 4 emphasizes teaching a full
lesson, and last, Gateway 5 homes in on executing sample lessons and completing
interviews in service of obtaining employment as a full-time teacher of record.
 Teacher residency model: One-year teacher preparation experience during which the
teacher candidate is engaged in graduate-level coursework and is immersed in a school to
gain realistic experience with what it means to be a teacher (Berry et al., 2008).
 Teacher residency model, TPS’s definition: One-year elongated teacher preparation
experience, where the teacher candidate is learning the theory and practice of being both
a teacher by being a graduate student and a full-time school employee. After the one-year
program, teacher candidates will become full-time teachers of record and work to pursue
their Master of Arts in Teaching degree, which they earned credit towards during the
teacher residency year (TPS, 2016).
 The third way: An additional way of preparing teacher candidates to enter the field of
education, as traditional schools of education were first, followed by practitioner-based
programs second, the teaching residency model third—the third way (Berry et al., 2008).
 Urban: Urban denotes a location in a city or metropolis (Helfeldt et al., 2015).
 Urban teacher denotes a teacher who teaches in an urban community, city, or metropolis
(Helfeldt et al., 2015).

A NEW FIRST WAY 19
Organization of the Study
Five chapters are used to organize this study. This chapter provided the key concepts and
terminology commonly found in a discussion about teacher preparation and the organization’s
mission, goals, and stakeholders. Chapter Two provides a review of the current literature on the
scope of the study. Topics are introduced, including teacher preparation, professor support and
development, and the framework for the project. Chapter Three details the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influencers to be examined as well as the methodology regarding
the choice of participants, data collection, and analysis. Chapter Four presents the data collected,
analyzes those data, and draws explicit connections between the data and the guiding questions
of this study. Chapter Five presents the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
recommendations that address the problem of practice presented in this project, as well as
considerations for future research.

A NEW FIRST WAY 20
CHAPTER TWO: LITERA TURE REVIEW
This literature review examines and evaluates the formalized preparation of P-12 teachers
in public schools in the United States of America. The literature review will begin by examining
P-12 teacher preparation, focusing on the history of P-12 teaching standards and preparation
expectations in the United States by specifically targeting research that notes the shift and
specificity of preparation expectations that have evolved in the last 40 years. Subsequently, the
literature review uses contemporary research to present a discussion on the current and shared
issues in teacher preparation, both from the perspective of traditional schools of education and
practitioner-based programs. Specifically, this discussion emphasizes the knowledge that
teachers must have to help promote teacher retention and P-12 student academic success. The
literature review then transitions into examining current research on the knowledge, motivation,
and organizational skills that professors of teacher candidates must possess to have an impact on
the success of teachers and their longevity in the education profession. The literature review
concludes with the conceptual and methodological framework used to guide this study.
Chalk and Smiles
In 1929, Waples and Capen published The Commonwealth Teacher-Training Study, in
which they asserted that teachers needed to be trained and evaluated not on their content
knowledge or on their ability to successfully teach or interact with students, but on their
character traits and dispositions. As a result, Waples and Capen (1929) created a guide of the 83
character traits and dispositions that teachers must possess to be successful. Some of these
dispositions included being cheerful and welcoming to students while others commented on
appropriate behaviors or ways to interact. However, what Waples and Capen (1929) revealed
through their text is a fundamental belief that teachers should add value to students’ lives only by
way of their own character traits and dispositions. Hence, this articulation gives no merit to the
A NEW FIRST WAY 21
actual instruction or content that students need to know and understand to be successful in
school. Prior to and during the teachings of Waples and Capen (1929), few states created criteria
for teacher preparation, and the few states that did centered their criteria on a knowledge of
literacy and basic arithmetic skills (Angus, 2001), conveying the belief that teachers only needed
to know the basics of literacy and math to be successful.
This narrow approach to teacher preparation through behaviors and dispositions and/or
solely through the fundamentals of literacy and math continued throughout the 20th century and
gave way to the professionalization of teaching through teacher certification (Angus, 2001). Yet
the certification process—exams and content requirements—varied from state to state and
institution to institution. Therefore, what was clear was a desire to create a system to demonstrate
teacher preparedness, but not a system that was consistent or normalized within the United States
(Angus, 2001). Moreover, due to the inconsistencies in teacher preparation and a lack of a clear
vision for what teacher preparation should entail, the process continued to focus on intangible
pieces of the preparation process, which gave no indication of whether teachers would be
successful in the classroom (Hess, 2002). However, Wenglinsky (2000) argued that how teachers
are prepared matters. From teacher inputs such as teacher pedagogical courses and life learning
experiences to research-proven best practices and school-based professional development, all of
these components affect the overall quality of a teacher. As such, all of these components must
be a part of teacher preparation.
Common Core State Standards
Fast forward to the present day and a shift in the national conversation about teachers,
particularly teacher effectiveness. Conversations about teacher preparation and best practices in
teacher preparation still exist, but what also exists is the conversation about teacher performance
and success denoted by student success. This shift, as defined by Porter, McMaken, Hwang, and
A NEW FIRST WAY 22
Yang, (2011) is a result of the robust nature of the Common Core State Standards, both for
students and teachers. Teachers are now being charged with honing their content skills and
pedagogy skills to meet the diverse needs of their students through rigorous instruction and
differentiation. Moreover, teachers are pushed to continue their development as educators
through professional development sessions and/or graduate coursework, even if they possess a
state-specific teacher certification. This requirement of continual development was devoid from
earlier conversations regarding teacher preparation, as it was assumed that teachers possessed all
the skills they needed when they entered the profession and/or when they acquired state-specific
teaching certification (Angus, 2001).
Last, if teachers’ quality and success are defined and determined by the academic and
life-long impact they have on students, then a clear vision for preparing them to accomplish this
goal, with concrete evidence, is paramount. Teacher preparation in the 1900s specifically focused
on preparing teachers for day one of entering the classroom, essentially a focus solely on teacher
inputs and not student outcomes (Waples & Capen, 1929). However, the evolution of teacher
education demonstrates a transformation in overall P-12 teacher purpose and utility. No longer
solely focusing on teacher inputs, there is now a deliberate effort also to highlight student
outcomes and how these metrics best reflect the success of teachers (Levine, 2006). However,
what happens once teachers are in the classroom? What content should they be teaching
students? How will they reach all the learners in their classes? How will they build and maintain
relationships with students, families, and colleagues? How do they define their own success? The
success of their students? This series of questions is what guided the creation and maintenance of
teacher colleges and teacher practitioner programs in the United States, both of which have
sought to design and implement a clear pathway for teacher preparation (Cohen-Vogel & Smith,
2007). Each institution and program has worked to determine the right and best pathway for P-12
A NEW FIRST WAY 23
teacher development and preparation, and the following section of this literature review explores
the commonalities of these pathways with a concentration on the knowledge that teachers must
possess to be successful in their roles (Gatlin, 2009). Furthermore, the types of knowledge
explored below are also aligned with the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influencers
that professors of teacher candidates need to know in order for the teacher candidates they work
with to be successful.
Preparation and Support That Meets the Needs of Today’s Teachers
In 2001, Angus argued that part of the history of teacher education in this country has
been the battle over teacher preparation; essentially, that battle is the tension between academics
in the university setting and the professionals in teacher practitioner programs. Both programs
work towards the same goal of preparing teachers using, in some cases, similar methodologies,
leaning heavily on what they believe to be the right and best knowledge and skills for teachers.
These beliefs led institutions of higher education and practitioner teacher programs to construct
programmatic designs that did not always factor into what was needed by P-12 students and/or
by school communities from teachers (Gallego, 2001). To successfully meet the goals of this
study, there needs to be in-depth attention paid to the manner in which teacher candidates are
prepared and supported both theoretically and practically, so they feel confident and prepared as
they start their teaching careers.
Both types of teacher preparation experiences, traditional institutions of higher education
and practitioner-based programs, prioritize a set of knowledge and skills that teachers must have
to successfully meet the requirements of their preparation program. Despite these varying
approaches to teacher preparation, both schools of thought share some tenets of what it means to
best prepare teachers, which were distilled into two types of knowledge: knowledge of content
and knowledge of self (Freedman & Applemen, 2008; Rodgers, 2002). Note that not all
A NEW FIRST WAY 24
institutions of higher education or all teacher practitioner programs prioritize these types of
knowledge. However, in engaging research regarding teacher preparation both from institutions
of higher education and teacher practitioner programs, collectively, these were reoccurring
themes about the knowledge that teachers and teacher candidates should possess to be successful
(Darling-Hammond, Chung, & Frelow, 2002). A definition of knowledge and an articulation of
these two types of knowledge follow this section to better understand how teachers should be
prepared for their profession. Comprehending these types of knowledge will highlight the
importance of the primary stakeholder of this study as they will directly impact the extent to
which teacher residents actually possess and can demonstrate the types of knowledge explored
below.
Knowledge of Teaching Content
The current literature suggests that teachers need to have mastered the content they are
responsible for teaching to have a foundational understanding of how to be an effective teacher;
this is the most basic requirement (Darling-Hammond, 2006). Therefore, it is important to master
content knowledge prior to entering the classroom. Plainly stated, teachers need to have
declarative knowledge of the content they are responsible for teaching to have an impact on
students. Declarative knowledge, as defined by Krathwohl (2002), is both factual and conceptual
knowledge of teaching and of the profession of teaching, and this is especially important for
teachers to have because teachers need to fundamentally understand both the theory and the
practice of their teaching experience.
Darling-Hammond (2006) furthered this point, as she also posited that teachers must be
armed with the academic content knowledge of the subjects they are charged to teach to be
successful. Darling-Hammond’s position on academic content knowledge is noteworthy because
she called attention to the many teachers charged with teaching academic content in which they
A NEW FIRST WAY 25
are not proficient because the need for teachers outweighs both basic and extensive teacher
preparation. However, according to Darling-Hammond, without the academic content knowledge
of the subject teachers are assigned to teach, they will most likely be ineffective in their role and
ultimately fail to prepare students for their next course of study. This reality becomes amplified
for teachers in urban communities; Darling-Hammond noted that urban schools, due to the high
turnover rates of urban teachers nationally, are more inclined to have a larger number of first-
year teachers and/or less experienced teachers who lack sufficient academic content knowledge
and certification. Teachers, especially those in urban communities, must know their content to
have the knowledge and skills needed to be successful in their roles, as academic content
knowledge is the foundation of teacher education (Darling-Hammond, 2006).
In addition to having the academic content knowledge necessary to be successful
teachers, Carter (1990) posited that teachers also need, and should, use meta-cognition to
navigate the effectiveness of every aspect of their work. From their internalization and
implementation of academic content to declarative knowledge that is essential to their success, it
is teachers’ cognitive processes that guide their day-to-day beliefs and actions about what content
their students need and how best to deliver this content to them (Carter, 1990). Last, this point
was furthered by Baker (2006), who affirmed that teachers’ ability to support and encourage
metacognition amongst their students also aids teachers in measuring student success. Baker
(2006) noted the impact that metacognition has on the development of teachers. She noted that a
teacher’s ability to demonstrate self-awareness—why and how they make classroom-based
decisions or approach instruction with students—inevitably strengthens their knowledge of
themselves as students and as learners.

A NEW FIRST WAY 26
Knowledge of Self
Preparing teachers to teach is just the beginning. What does it mean to prepare teachers
for life—to ensure that, from the beginning of their careers, teachers are learning how to, and are
being prepared to be, lifelong teachers? What does it mean to prepare teachers to think about
their own teaching and work? Teachers need to have metacognitive knowledge in order to be
successful in their roles. According to Layton (2015), it behooves us to have a fundamental
understanding of why teachers choose to teach because this provides insight into who they are as
people and as professionals. This understanding will also help in deciphering whether teachers
are in the profession temporarily or long term as a career. To further investigate this argument,
Layton (2015) interviewed several millennial and novice teachers as well as their school leaders
to better understand how teachers’ experiences and perspectives were being perceived by other
colleagues in their school building, specifically by their managers. Most importantly, the findings
of these interviews were shared with teachers, so they could have a more in-depth perspective of
themselves as teachers and as colleagues in a school community and reflect on the impact of
those findings as they developed. Ultimately, Layton’s (2015) work revealed that teachers are
inclined to both want to become teachers and stay in the teaching profession if they consistently
experience opportunities to further their understandings of themselves.
Teachers’ metacognition is often actualized through meaningful reflection, and Swain
(1998) sought to further understand the role of metacognition in teacher development. Through a
study on teacher development, Swain (1998) specifically focused on written and oral reflection
as a methodology for teacher development. Swain’s findings articulated the transformation of
teachers’ practice based on their self-reflections and self-evaluations of their performance.
Specifically, Swain’s (1998) study required teachers to film themselves, watch and evaluate their
film, think about the development and shifts in their practice, and then write about and articulate
A NEW FIRST WAY 27
the manner in which their practice was shifting based on their self-evaluations and self-
reflections. The conclusions of Swain’s (1998) study demonstrated a more intentional approach
to the planning and execution of teacher instruction of students as well as a clearer understanding
of the purpose and value of reflection, for both themselves and for the impact of their actions on
their students. The transformation of the teachers in this study highlights the importance of
metacognition, self-evaluation, and self-reflection as they relate to the effectiveness of teachers
and to their abilities to see themselves as being successful in their role. This process also
inadvertently builds confidence in teachers and their overall practice. The opportunities for
thinking, reflection, and discussion noted in Swain’s (1998) study served to better prepare and
develop teachers both before and during their teaching careers because teachers were provided
with a model and a skill set for gauging their own performance and growth. In general, the
ability to think about, monitor, and fluently discuss their growth helped to make teachers more
confident and successful in their roles. This level of ownership over their development and role
as teachers is precisely what Layton (2015) noted as being important to novice teachers and
teacher candidates. Not only did they want to feel and be successful in their role, but they also
wanted ownership in their development as well as constant feedback and opportunities to grow
and change from that feedback.
Knowledge of Self Through Reflections
Another example of the knowledge of self—also known as meta-cognitive knowledge—
that teachers need to be successful is further demonstrated in the work of the scholar Rodgers
(2002). Rodgers (2002) revisited the work of John Dewey (1933, as cited in Rodgers, 2002),
particularly focusing on Dewey’s (1933) interpretation of reflection and the manner in which it
was essential to the success of educators. Specifically, Rodgers (2002) was curious about the
manner in which Dewey (1933) encouraged introspective time for teachers and Dewey’s (1933)
A NEW FIRST WAY 28
claim that time and reflection would lead to better learning experiences for both students and
teachers. This relationship can also be applied to that of the professor and the teacher candidate.
Through meaningful reflection and support, both the professor and the teacher candidate will
yield a better understanding of themselves as teachers and as learners. To provide more structure
and guidance to the process of reflection, Rodgers (2002) leaned on Dewey’s (1933) work,
targeting four types of reflection: “reflection as meaning making, reflection as a rigorous way of
thinking, reflection in the community, and reflection as a set of attitudes (Rodgers, 2002, p.
845).” These four types of reflection, according to Rodgers, when working together, would serve
to give teachers a deeper understanding of who they are as practitioners regarding the multiple
components of their role. Moreover, by providing teachers with tools for reflection and growth,
Rodgers argued that teachers would then have a clearer perspective of themselves and how to
transfer the practice of reflection into their classrooms.
Summary
The information that teachers need to be successful—knowledge of content and
knowledge of self—is not exclusive to the success of teacher candidates. Those charged with
teaching, advising, and supporting teacher candidates must also have the aforementioned types of
knowledge so they can scaffold and transfer this knowledge to teacher candidates to best prepare
them to have a meaningful impact on their P-12 students. As such, the remainder of this literature
review focuses on the relationship between professors and teacher candidates, specifically the
extent to which professor knowledge, motivation, and organization influencers position them to
prepare teacher candidates to be successful.

A NEW FIRST WAY 29
The Gatekeepers
Professors as Teachers
Professors and instructors have an impact on the overall preparation and success of
teacher candidates. Hence, they are the gatekeepers to the success of teachers. Professors’ ability
to teach, advise, and motivate their students towards success is extremely important to
understanding the preparation experience of teacher candidates. Consequently, for the purposes
of this study, the primary stakeholders to be examined are professors of teacher residents. As
noted in Chapter One, the global goal of TPS was to have, by summer 2017, a teacher residency
program completion rate of 85%. Also noted in Chapter One was the stakeholder goal to ensure
that, by winter 2017, 75% of the program’s faculty were proficient in the organization’s training
outcomes. The stakeholder goal is key to understanding the training and support that professors
receive relative to the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influencers needed to have an
impact on teacher residents’ teacher residency program completion and success. The following
sections of this literature review discuss and review literature related to the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influencers that professors must possess to prepare and develop
teacher candidates. Using a conceptual framework that only focuses on the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influencers of professors will allow for the critical examination of
these influencers in evaluating the TPS’s teacher residency program and the relationship between
faculty and teacher resident success.
Professors as Influencers
Professors were chosen as the stakeholders of focus for this study because their impact
and influence on teacher candidates can be significant. Endo and Harpel (1982) noted that
professors can have a profound impact on students based on the relationships they build with
them and the quality of their instruction. This impact can range from influencing academic
A NEW FIRST WAY 30
motivation, to influencing their field of study or career choice (Endo & Harpel, 1982). The
influence that Endo and Harpel (1982) indicated highlights the added value that professors can
contribute to student academic performance and career choice. Furthermore, when this
consideration is applied to teacher candidates in terms of both their motivation and long-term
career choices, it is imperative that professors can influence both of these components (Endo &
Harpel, 1982). This assessment was furthered by the work of Lundberg and Schreiner (2004) as
they explored the value of professor impact on college students based on the quality and the
frequency of student-professor interactions.
Lundberg and Schreiner (2004) sought to understand if professors, through both their
instruction and interactions with college students, could impact student academic motivation and
overall achievement. Through surveying close to 250 freshmen, Lundberg and Schreiner (2004)
discovered what they posited was true. Their results and findings demonstrated that the more
touchpoints students had with professors, both formally and informally, the more professors were
able to affect student motivation and academic achievement (Lundberg & Schreiner, 2004).
Moreover, when these touchpoints focused on academic content, it built even more investment in
the professor and the content, as the student then viewed the professor as an expert in the field
(Lundberg & Schreiner, 2004). Additionally, when professors were more available and accessible
outside of class, it demonstrated to students that the professor was invested in them and in their
success. In turn, students were motivated not only to do well in the professors’ class but also in
their studies in general. Lundberg and Schreiner (2004) demonstrated the importance and overall
value of professors regarding students’ performance, further revealing the professor’s role is
crucial to the success of students, especially to the success of teacher candidates, considering the
depth and reach of their impact on P-12 students.
A NEW FIRST WAY 31
If professors are both teachers and influencers, then they need knowledge, motivation,
and organization-specific skills and influencers to ensure that they can adequately prepare
teacher candidates to become high-quality career teachers. The following sections of this
literature review explore what knowledge professors should have, what should motivate them,
and the organizational policies and procedures that need to be in place for them to effectively
instruct, advise, and support teacher candidates as they complete their teacher preparation
experience.
Knowledge: What Do Professors Need to Know?
Professors need to have conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge to prepare
teacher candidates to be successful classroom teachers. Metacognitive knowledge was explored
previously in this literature review and was positioned as information that is gained and
strengthened through self-reflection. Thus, the remainder of this literature review focuses on the
conceptual and procedural knowledge that professors must possess. Relative to conceptual and
procedural knowledge, Table 2 shows the stakeholder knowledge influencers and highlights the
specific knowledge that professors need to have, as well as some of the assessments which
indicated whether professors possessed these particular types of knowledge. Moreover, Table 2
displays the TPS global and stakeholder goals, as these goals drive the work of the primary
stakeholder. Following Table 2 is a literature review that supports the concept that these
influencers are appropriate for effective teacher preparation.
A NEW FIRST WAY 32
Table 2
Stakeholder Knowledge Influences

Content
Professors who teach and prepare teacher candidates need to have thorough knowledge of
teaching pedagogy both in theory and in practice as well as understand the experiences,
Organizational Mission
Teacher Preparation School’s mission is to prepare both teachers and school
leaders to work in partnership with parents and communities to ensure that P–12 students
receive the best education and life outcomes possible.

Organizational Global Goal
By Summer 2017, Teacher Preparation School will have an 85% completion rate
of teaching residents enrolled in the Teacher Residency Program.

Stakeholder Goal
By Winter 2017, 75% of teacher residency faculty will be proficient in the
organization training outcomes.
Knowledge Influence Knowledge Type Knowledge Influence Assessment
Professors need to know
and understand the
teaching residency
curriculum to teach the
curriculum to teacher
residents.

Conceptual
Quantitative survey questions
about the depth of knowledge of
the curriculum and teacher
residency programmatic
framework.

Professors need to know
how to facilitate the
teaching residency
curriculum to transfer their
knowledge to teacher
residents.

Procedural

Interview Questions:
Focused on knowledge of
organizational facilitation model
and expectations.

Focused on transferring
knowledge of being a teacher to
teacher residents.
A NEW FIRST WAY 33
hopefully from personal experience, of what it means to be a P-12 teacher. Professors’ level of
specific knowledge will ensure they can adequately prepare teacher candidates to be successful
teachers. Yet, where do professors learn their content, and what specifically do they do to stay
abreast of the most current research in their field? Most importantly, how is that content
transferred to students?
In 1993, Kugel argued that professors, like teachers, needed direct instruction and support
regarding how to become professors. He argued that many professors went directly from being a
teaching assistant to being a professor with little to no meaningful practicum, so they had no
clear vision of how to teach students and how to learn about themselves as professors. Kugel
(1993) further contended that professors developed as teachers in five stages, which he grouped
into two phases. In stage one, professors are focused on themselves: perceptions of themselves,
how they look, how they sound, and how professorially they convey themselves to students and
colleagues. Ultimately, appearing confident is prioritized over clarity, engagement, and true
understanding of the content. However, in stage two, novice professors quickly realize that
content knowledge is imperative to the livelihood of a course and to their own professional
development. Professors spend less time worrying about how they are optically perceived and
more time strengthening their content knowledge by reading more, writing more, and staying up
to date with relevant discourse. There is an evolution in stage two that reveals to professors that
preparation and robust lessons will present themselves in a scholarly light to their students, so
content is an important stage to focus on. Ultimately, this stage is in the novice professors’ locus
of control. Stages three, four, and five all focus on the student and the professor’s ability to
engage the student as an active participant and learner in class. These three final stages are where
the novice professor prioritizes teaching students how to have agency over their own learning;
here, the professor truly becomes a facilitator of knowledge, not a depositor of information.
A NEW FIRST WAY 34
Kegel’s (1993) stages of development revealed and highlighted the public and private
evolution that professors experience. Moreover, the stages demonstrate the need for content
knowledge to be a guiding light, both for student investment and for professor acclimation and
readiness into the profession. Ultimately, the more comfortable and knowledgeable professors
are with their content, the greater the impact their instruction will have on teacher candidates.
Professor knowledge and expertise matters in preparing teacher candidates with a knowledge of
content and knowledge of self, both of which teachers need to be successful.
Further literature similarly posits that professors of teacher candidates not only must
know the theory of teacher education, but they also must have a thorough knowledge and
understanding of what teaching pedagogy looks like in practice. Additionally, professors need to
work to infuse those understandings into their content knowledge instruction to ensure teacher
candidates understand the depth and breadth of their future professions (van den Bos & Brouwer,
2014). Positioning teacher education content as a combination of theory and practice to be taught
to teacher candidates is precisely what van den Bos and Brouwer (2014) argued as they
examined the needs of teacher education professors in higher education. Specifically, through
their qualitative study of 12 novice professors, the authors found that professor content
knowledge was not, and is best not, solely regulated to text-based knowledge. Indeed, it is also
deeply rooted in practice, observation, and experimentation, which are also crucial elements of
the teacher preparation experience. Moreover, the findings of van den Bos and Brouwer revealed
that professors’ ability to expose teachers to content in diverse ways modeled what high-quality
instruction looked like both in higher education and in the P-12 setting as well.
Facilitating Learning: Instruction and Transference
Professors need to know how to transfer their content knowledge of teacher education to
teacher candidates in a thorough and compelling manner. Kegel (1993) noted that, early in their
A NEW FIRST WAY 35
careers, professors are so overly concerned with themselves as people, not as professors, that
they miss an opportunity to really focus on the craft of teaching—to be engaging, to promote
discussion and reflection amongst their students, and to create a shared learning experience for
both the professor and for the students. Therefore, it is not sufficient to have robust and current
content knowledge; rather, a professor must also be able to transfer that knowledge to teacher
candidates, so they can process and understand teacher pedagogy theoretically as well as feel
prepared and empowered to demonstrate their subject-specific content knowledge in practice.
Yet, how do professors learn to be engaging? How do they learn to use and implement a variety
of instructional methods? How and when do they learn to differentiate their instructional
methods based on their content per class or per course? These questions are discussed and
addressed in the following literature.
In 2008, Light and Calkins argued that novice professors needed instructional
development to make them better professors early in their careers. As such, they studied the
experiences of early career professors through the collection of qualitative data, specifically
through what they called a faculty development program (FDP). Light and colleagues claimed
that, although there was support at the institutional level for beginning professors, it was not
structured enough. Moreover, the FDP served to prioritize what Light and colleagues believed
were elements of effective teaching, such as reflection and a primary focus on the experience of
students as learners. This approach impacted the findings of their study, as professors revealed a
shift in their perspectives regarding the role of the student and how student success or non-
success reflected professors’ actions. Furthermore, to turn this reflection into action, participants
shifted their planning and instruction, as noted from their pre- and post-FDP reflections. Most
telling were the reflections about how professor actions and reflections positioned them to better
A NEW FIRST WAY 36
teach and model content knowledge to students, demonstrating the importance of content
mastery for transference to occur (Light and Calkins, 2008).
Varnava Marouchou (2011) further explored the necessity of both strong content
knowledge of professors and how specifically that content knowledge was shared with students.
Varnava Marouchou (2011) argued that the academic performance of students in higher
education cannot be thoroughly examined if the performance and effectiveness of their
professors are not explored as well. Essentially, the reality was acknowledged that professors
must constantly and actively be learning to be effective, and the clearest demonstration of
professors’ effectiveness is the manner in which they transfer their knowledge and skills to the
students they teach. This principle is applicable to both professors to their students and to
teachers to their students. A transference must occur in order for pupils to learn. However, what
motivates professors to transfer their knowledge? The following sections explore this question.
Motivation: Professor Self-Efficacy and Expectancy Value
Professors need to believe that teachers need a more robust preparation experience that
couples and prioritizes educational theory and practice in service of providing teacher candidates
with a more comprehensive preparation experience. Specific to the problem of practice being
explored in this study, professors need to believe that they have the capacity to demonstrate the
task of educating teacher candidates and that the task is made up of a variety of behaviors (i.e.,
modeling, internalizing curriculum, and practicing) and therefore be motivated by the constant
impact of their actions. In addition, professors have to see the importance of organizational
training, specifically the manner in which their self-development through organizational training
can impact teacher candidates. Table 3 reveals the specific motivational influences that guide this
study, followed by the literature that supports that these influencers are appropriate for effective
teacher preparation.
A NEW FIRST WAY 37
Table 3
Stakeholder Motivation Influences
Organizational Mission
Teacher Preparation School’s mission is to prepare both teachers and school leaders to
work in partnership with parents and communities to ensure that P–12 students receive the best
education and life outcomes possible.
Organizational Global Goal
By Summer 2017, Teacher Preparation School will have an 85% completion rate of
teaching residents enrolled in the teacher residency program.
Stakeholder Goal
By Winter 2017, 75% of teacher residency faculty will be proficient in the
organization training outcomes.
Assumed Motivation Influences Motivational Influence Assessment
Professors need to believe that they have the
capacity to demonstrate the task of educating
teacher candidates.
Likert scale survey item “Sessions taught by
me directly impact teacher resident success.”
Professors would respond on a Likert scale
from 1–6, with 1 being “strongly disagree” to
6 being “strongly agree.”

Professors have to see the importance of
institutional training.
Interview question item: Describe the ways in
which you learned about the teacher
residency framework, specifically, the
residency curriculum, residency scope and
sequence, and the deliberate practice scope
and sequence.

Professor Self-Efficacy
Professors need to believe that they have the capacity to demonstrate the task of
educating teacher candidates and that the task is made up of a variety of behaviors (i.e.,
modeling, internalizing curriculum, and practicing) and that all of these behaviors are crucial to
professor instruction. Professors’ belief in their capacity to complete a task is also known as self-
efficacy. Self-efficacy theory comes from the work of Bandura (1986) who posited that people
A NEW FIRST WAY 38
need to believe that they have the capacity to complete a task and therefore be motivated to both
complete the task and to demonstrate confidence and the associated behaviors with the outcome
of the task. Specific to professors of teacher candidates, the premise of self-efficacy is extremely
important as their jobs as professors require them to demonstrate a variety of behaviors, all of
which serve to model to teacher candidates, what it means to be a teacher. These modeled
behaviors by professors are behaviors and skills that teacher candidates need to model and mimic
as they learn how to be teachers. Ultimately, professors need to have high levels of self-efficacy
in order to be motivated to be better teachers and learners (Pajares, 2006). Moreover, professors’
self-efficacy is heightened even further when they have in-depth knowledge and understanding
of tasks. Specifically, when professors have knowledge of how to educate teacher candidates (the
task) their confidence is heightened, and they are motivated to complete the task (Pintrich, 2003).
Professors of teacher candidates need to understand what it means it be a teacher and, in
turn, share their knowledge and expertise with teacher candidates as they learn and develop
(Kugel, 1993). Professors learn how to be teachers in a variety of ways, from their graduate
school experience, from observing other professors, to discussing their craft or practicing their
craft with colleagues with shared understanding of the content, etc. (Kugel, 1993; McAlpine &
Weston, 2000). Each of these touchpoints is crucial to professors developing their knowledge of
what it means to be a teacher of teacher candidates and serves as real world experiences as they
develop and progress their understanding of the task (Pintrich, 2003). Moreover, the expectation
is for professors to use their learned experiences and knowledge of the teaching profession to
demonstrate the task of teaching to teacher candidates; as such, professors are capable of the task
of educating teacher candidates because they possess the content and practical knowledge of
what it means to be a teacher (Pajares, 2006). The task of educating teacher candidates requires a
combination of both educational pedagogy and a school and community-based practicum
A NEW FIRST WAY 39
(Gallego, 2001), both of which are essential to professors demonstrating the task of educating
teacher candidates. Moreover, and also embedded in this task, are the multiple components of
teacher education pedagogy and practicum such as teacher candidate advisement, curriculum
internalization, practice and most important, modeling through their instruction, precisely what it
means to be a teacher. The intentional and unintentional modeling that professors do while
preparing teacher candidates is strengthen when they incorporate experiences and translatable
pedagogy relative to precisely what teacher candidates are experiencing in their practicum and
will be doing as full-time teachers of record (Pintrich, 2003). Yet, professors are not just
modeling what it means to be a teacher; they are also modeling excitement and enthusiasm for
the method by which teachers are prepared. They are also reinforcing the belief that an extended
preparation experience is the best way to become a teacher (Eccles, 2006). Each of these
opportunities afforded by professors positions them to gather knowledge of the task of teaching
teacher candidates and therefore understand and experience the behaviors of being a professor
(Pajares, 2006). Ultimately, professors could not reveal the capacity to demonstrate the task of
educating teacher candidates without knowledge and understanding of the task, as these
components are crucial to demonstrating the necessary behaviors and motivation needed to
complete the task of educating teacher candidates.
When professors reveal the capacity to demonstrate the task of educating teacher
candidates they also demonstrate alignment to, and motivation by the task. Specifically,
professors’ depth of actions and behaviors demonstrate both investment and belief in their ability
to execute the task of educating teacher candidates. Ultimately, professors are confident in their
holistic knowledge of the task and, therefore, are motivated to execute it accordingly, further
demonstrating their self-efficacy to complete the task. Yet, professors are best positioned to stay
motivated by their task if they are also constantly growing and improving in their practice in
A NEW FIRST WAY 40
service of consistently demonstrating their capacity to complete the task of educating teacher
candidates (Rodgers, 2002). Furthermore, professors should actively seek to improve their
practice, knowing that the impact will be evident in their instruction and in the success of teacher
candidates (Rodgers, 2002). To adequately model what it means to be a teacher, professors need
to be committed to the constant improvement of their own practice (Kugel, 1983). As a result,
professors can engage in deliberate practice, being current with teaching pedagogy and best
practices, practicing their instruction, and reflecting on their role holistically (Light, Cox, &
Calkins, 2011). These actions by professors would reveal the extent to which they are motivated
by the task of educating teacher candidates as well as the importance of their own constant
growth and development (Pintrich, 2003). Lastly, these actions also build professor confidence
and alter professor behaviors—in order to transfer their knowledge and expertise to teacher
candidates (Pajares, 2006).
Expectancy Value—Importance of Teacher Residency Model Training
Professors have to see the importance of institutional training. This action on the part of
professors is known as expectancy value theory, essentially noting that professors will only see
institutional training as important if they value the task or training (Eccles, 2006). Specifically,
professors need to see institutional training sessions as important to their own success, and,
therefore, be motivated by the potential impact of institutional training sessions on their practice
(Eccles, 2006). This is important when working with teacher candidates, as professors’ training is
usually specific to the responsibilities and expectations of their role as educators of teacher
candidates. Ultimately, the importance and value of institutional training is to ensure that all
faculty and staff have a clear vision for what the programmatic expectations are of teacher
candidates and therefore how to best support teacher candidates around those expectations as
they navigate through their training (Papay, West, Fullerton, & Kane, 2012). Professors need to
A NEW FIRST WAY 41
see the importance of this training as they are responsible for implementing the knowledge they
acquire in training into their practice, therefore making training relevant and applicable to
professor practice is imperative by the institution (Eccles, 2006). Moreover, professor training is
more important and impactful when delivered with a clear rationale and partnered with explicit
connections between the content taught and their profession (Pintrich, 2003; Eccles, 2006). Yet,
training is most important when delivered by a credible source who can demonstrate expertise of
the content during the training, such that professors find the content both important and
accessible to model and mimic post-training (Denler, Wolters, & Benzon, 2006). Furthermore,
ensuring that training also includes opportunities to practice the knowledge and skills being
taught inside of the training helps to demonstrate both the importance of the content being taught
and the immediacy of the training relative to the role of professors of teacher candidates (Denler
et al., 2006). The practice experience for professors is further heightened when it is coupled with
real-time feedback and an opportunity to try it again as well, working to provide meaningful
opportunities to grapple with training content (Borgogni, Russo, & Latham, 2011). This level of
specificity relative to training is precisely what helps professors to see the importance of
institutional training.
Professors need to see the importance of training, specifically training relative to the
teacher residency model. The teacher residency model strategically and intentionally merges
theory with practice through a robust teaching practicum rooted in the same, if not a similar,
school environment where teacher candidates will be the full-time teachers of record the
following year. The extended experience of the teacher residency is precisely what recent studies
have demonstrated as being crucial to the long-term success of teachers in the classroom
(Helfeldt et al., 2015). Helfeldt et al. (2015) also posited that, if teachers experienced a more
thorough and deliberate experience during the teacher preparation process, then the impact
A NEW FIRST WAY 42
would be evident in their longevity in the profession. Ultimately, the protracted and different
manner in which teacher residents are being prepared requires that professors of teacher residents
also be trained in a different manner as well, one that is specific to the framework of the teacher
residency model, which demonstrates the importance and differentiation of professor training of
teacher candidates.
Furthermore, professor training on the teacher residency model is specific to developing
teachers candidates in a different manner than traditional teacher preparation routes, and
professors need to see the importance of this difference, so they can successfully implement the
teacher residency model. Teacher residency model training sessions are different because, as
Papay et al. (2012) and other scholars posited, the act of preparing teachers needs and deserves
more time. As such, the teaching residency model directly responds to this need. By providing
teacher candidates with a full year to learn and observe classroom instruction and culture within
a school, teacher candidates are primed to gather a comprehensive understanding of their future
role. Therefore, it can be expected that the additional time and support will lead to better teacher
preparation (Papay et al., 2012). Moreover, because professors play a significant role in the
execution of the teacher residency model by teaching and working with teacher candidates, it is
imperative that professor training is both important and specific to professors who work with
teacher residency programs (Pintrich, 2003). Professors need to be motivated by the teacher
residency model and the experiences, both through coursework and practicum, that it affords
teacher residents (Eccles, 2006). Ultimately, professors need to see their training and preparation
to execute the teacher residency model as important and crucial to their success as professors of
teacher candidates.

A NEW FIRST WAY 43
Organization: How Are Professors Supported by Colleagues and Their Organization?
Professors are charged with having the knowledge and skills to teach effectively, both in
institutions of higher education and in P-12 grade settings, in addition to a commitment to
constant growth and development. However, how are professors supported by colleagues and
their organizations? Moreover, does organizational culture directly impact a professor’s ability to
instruct, advise, and support teacher candidates? Do organizational policies and procedures
ensure professors’ success through the designation of time and resources? For professors to have
met their stakeholder goal by summer 2017, TPS needed an 85% teacher residency program
completion rate. Therefore, there must be organizational structures in place that afford professors
access to learning communities where they can collaborate and collectively reflect on their
performance from multiple perspectives. Additionally, for professors to meet their stakeholder
goal, they also needed the time and the resources to engage with learning communities and to
work to improve and hone their skills as practitioners. Below, Table 4 reveals the specific
organizational influencers that guide this study, followed by the literature that supports that these
influencers are appropriate for effective teacher preparation.

A NEW FIRST WAY 44
Table 4
Stakeholder Organizational Influences
Organizational Mission
Teacher Preparation School’s mission is to prepare both teachers and school leaders to work in
partnership with parents and communities to ensure that P–12 students receive the best education
and life outcomes possible.

Organizational Global Goal
By summer 2017, Teacher Preparation School will have an 85% completion rate of teacher
residents enrolled in the teacher residency program.
Stakeholder Goal
By Winter 2017, 75% of teacher residency faculty will be proficient
in the organization training outcomes.
Organizational Indicators
Assumed Organizational Influences Organizational Influence Assessment
Professors need a national community of support
and collaboration to execute the teacher residency
program according to the national framework.

Quantitative survey and qualitative interviews
focused on collaboration and training
opportunities.

Professors need to have time and resources to
effectively plan for teacher residents’ academic
instruction.
Interview questions focused on the resources
professors have access to, including time, to
adequately prepare for the instruction of
teacher residents.

Organizational Communities for Collaboration and Support
Research on professor development and support highlights a gap in both the training and
the overall continual development of professors throughout their tenure (Kugel, 1993). There is
an assumption that content knowledge is sufficient for professors to do their jobs at a
high level, as defined by being able to scaffold knowledge to students and to provide students
with an intellectually rigorous experience through both discourse and actual instruction (Kugel,
1993). Yet, how specifically do institutions of higher education create institutional support
A NEW FIRST WAY 45
structures that reflect their beliefs and approach to professor collaboration and support?
Moreover, how do institutions of higher education and organizations prioritize collaboration and
development among faculty? The following literature explores these questions.
Reflection as a Spark for Collaboration
McAlpine and Weston (2000) argued that a major support for professors in institutions of
higher education is reflection born out of experiences within the organization, meaning
professors are prone to engage in discussion and/or to collaborate with colleagues based on their
reflections. McAlpine and Weston (2000) further stated that it is in these moments of reflecting,
both alone and in collaboration with colleagues, that professors further understand the impact of
their practice on the learning of their students. McAlpine and Weston (2000) reached this
understanding by conducting a study of six professors who were considered to be relatively
successful in their roles, as measured by awards and other public acknowledgments. In their
study, McAlpine and Weston attempted to unpack common issues in the instruction of these
professors relative to student learning by having professors engage in reflection about their
instruction, particularly in groups. The findings of their study revealed that professor engagement
in multiple types of reflection, individually and/or collectively, strengthened their practice. Last,
McAlpine and Weston also remarked that a strong organizational culture that promotes,
encourages, and prioritizes collaboration among faculty as a means for growth and development
is imperative to the success and longevity of a professor.
Professional Learning Communities
Professional learning communities for professors are essential to their continued growth
and success as practitioners. Moreover, these communities afford for a safe space for
collaboration and meaning making of their role and the content they are responsible for teaching.
Varnava Marouchou (2011) commented that professors’ conceptions of teaching directly impact
A NEW FIRST WAY 46
students’ experience in their courses. Specifically, professors’ conceptions of what and how to
teach can drastically impact the effectiveness of their work. As a result, institutions of higher
education and organizations that work with teacher candidates must prioritize opportunities for
professors to share their conceptions of teaching and juxtapose them with those of the institutions
they work with (Varnava Marouchou, 2011). In the end, this dialogue and learning about teacher
preparation generally and within the organization specifically works to create a professional
learning community where both sharing and discussion regarding teaching preparation becomes
paramount and routine (Varnava Marouchou, 2011).
Regarding the problem of practice this study explores, the evaluation of TPS’s teacher
residency program, professors must understand that the institutional expectation for teacher
residency faculty is for them to collaborate and, through this collaboration, become even more
cognizant of their own conceptions of teaching. Like P-12 teachers, professors need to feel and
be a part of a group. Cohort-style learning and reflection foreshadows the type of collegial
relationships and organizational practices professors will encourage teacher candidates to seek
out in their schools’ post-preparation program completion (Varnava Marouchou, 2011).
According to Burke et al. (2013), teachers want an opportunity to collaborate with other teachers
and leaders in their school building to improve their practice. This could look like the sharing of
resources, collaboration on lesson plans, observing each other, giving and receiving feedback,
and/or generally collaborating on school projects. All of these components would serve to
contribute to a teacher’s feeling of belonging and partnership with other professionals in the
school. These factors would also give teachers frequent, meaningful touchpoints to grow in their
field (Burke et al., 2013). The argument made by Burke et al. (2013) is easily applicable to
professors as well, as their study revealed that educators in general, be they teachers or
professors, are constantly looking for opportunities to engage in professional learning
A NEW FIRST WAY 47
communities to enhance their practice. Burke et al. (2013) maintained that, for educators,
experiences that allow them to continue to learn keep them in the profession. Essentially, this
sentiment reveals the significant influence and impact of learning institutions on educators, both
as learners and as professionals in the field.
Professor Resources, Time, and Planning
Organizations can prioritize reflection and collaboration, but, if there are no resources
and/or time dedicated for professors to pursue these efforts, then the expectations are misaligned
with the realities of the organization. Light and Calkins (2008) stated that professors need time to
collaborate in a manner that will meaningfully impact their practice. Furthermore, the allocation
of resources and time highlights the value and importance of professor growth and development
within an organization. Regarding the experiences of professors at institutions of higher
education, there is limited research on their overall experiences and development. However,
professors are teachers, and if they need to be prepared to scaffold knowledge so teacher
candidates can understand, retain, and apply their information, then some of the necessities of
being a P-12 teacher are also applicable to being a quality professor.
Concerning a professor’s time, resources, and planning, Burke et al. (2013) remarked that
teachers are more likely to stay in the profession long term if the habits and qualities of their
teacher preparation program are reflected in their school environments. For example, time,
resources, and exposure to current best practices in the field; this seamless transition and need for
familiarity are extremely important to the success of teachers (Burke et al., 2013). Additionally,
Burke et al. (2013) posited that the knowledge, habits, and qualities needed for the transition
from a preparation program to a P-12 school must be explicitly taught to teacher candidates
during their preparation program because their understanding of the connectivity of these
experiences is paramount to their success. The transference and/or articulation of the transition
A NEW FIRST WAY 48
from teacher training to classroom teacher requires professors’ planning and collaboration.
Eventually, professors cannot provide learning experiences that will mimic P-12 school
experiences if they have not acquired them and/or do not engage in learning communities similar
to what they are urging teacher candidates to create and participate in post-program completion
(Burke et al., 2013).
Burke et al. (2013) furthered this point, remarking that professors need time to plan to
adequately transfer the knowledge of what it means to be a teacher. They found that teachers
enter the profession for many reasons, one of which is the manner in which their school-based
experiences will mimic their preparation experiences. Again, this lens can easily be applied to
professors as well, specifically to the extent to which their own preparation to become a
professor was seamless and reflective of what their overall experiences of a professor would be
(Kugel, 1993). Professors must be able to draw from their experiences as educators and learners,
as well as have the time and resources to do so, to be an effective professor for teacher
candidates.
Summary
This chapter explored the types of knowledge that teachers need to possess for success:
knowledge of content and knowledge of self. Yet, both of these types of knowledge must be
taught by professors who also have these knowledge types and the personal experience of having
been a classroom teacher. The literature revealed that the process of preparing teachers affords
growth for both teacher candidates and professors. Nevertheless, time and resources must be
organizational priorities for this to be true. To further understand how knowledge, motivation,
and organizational influencers work together in this study, a presentation of the conceptual and
methodological framework follows this summary.

A NEW FIRST WAY 49
Conceptual and Methodological Framework
Understanding how to best prepare teacher candidates to enter the profession of teaching
is paramount to the success of students in U.S. public schools (Darling-Hammond, 2010a). To
fully understand and analyze the multi-faceted nature of teacher preparation in this study, a
conceptual framework was used to further investigate the experiences of professors who teach
teacher residents at TPS. Conceptual frameworks provide a roadmap for how to approach every
aspect of a study. From influencers and barriers to research questions and methods, a conceptual
framework is a lens with which to view and categorize any learning and/or new information
attained during the course of study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
A conceptual framework also helps to make meaning of the content being studied and
serves to help process large amounts of discourse. Thus far, each of the three influencers of this
study—knowledge, motivation, and organization—have worked together to reveal the
complexities of teacher preparation and how the stakeholder of focus experiences serves to
highlight why all components of teacher preparation must be openly analyzed and evaluated.
Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis framework, as designed, helps to position and
analyze organizations relative to other organizations in the same or similar fields. The value of
this process is multi-fold; however, the most noteworthy value is the ability to find and
potentially mimic aspects of a similar model or organization that is high performing. In addition,
the analysis within this conceptual framework only highlights the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influencers that drive the actions or inactions within an organization.
This study used and applied a modified version of the traditional Clark and Estes’ (2008)
gap analysis framework, as this study evaluates the teacher residency program within TPS,
specifically, the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influencers that impact teacher
A NEW FIRST WAY 50
residency faculty’s ability to teach, support, and advise teacher residents in the teacher residency
program.
Specific to this study, the value of applying a modified version of Clark and Estes’ (2008)
gap analysis framework regarding the problem of teacher preparation allows the opportunity to
focus on one component or input in the preparation of teacher residents. This is important
because research has shown that P-12 students in public schools obtain a variety of experiences
as learners, all of which impact the trajectories of their lives. As such, to best support P-12
student learning and success, the starting point is the strategic and purposeful preparation of
teachers.
Teachers play an important role in the future of P-12 students. Accordingly, they are
charged with gaining robust knowledge to have a significant impact on the life trajectory of
students. Scholar and student activist Darling-Hammond (2006) discussed at length the
responsibility of teachers to have strong and in-depth content knowledge to be successful in their
roles—and to truly be the type of teacher that students deserve. Not only do teachers need to
know and thoroughly understand the content they are charged with teaching, but they also need
to understand themselves and how to successfully combine multiple types of knowledge as
educators (i.e., declarative, conceptual, and procedural). Specific to the goals of this study,
teachers also need to be taught how to merge their knowledge of content and their knowledge of
self to be successful in their role. Thus, teachers need to be taught by professors who have
thorough knowledge of what it means to be a teacher. That is, professors need knowledge of the
teaching profession, both in theory and in practice. Professors’ ability to translate this knowledge
to teachers is imperative to teacher candidates’ success, both in their coursework and in the
teaching profession.
A NEW FIRST WAY 51
The work of preparing candidates to teach is challenging and high-stakes work.
Consequently, professors need to be motivated to execute their role in a meaningful way.
Knowledge alone is not sufficient for professors to be consistently motivated, as they must
believe their instruction, support, advisement, and modeling will lead to their students’ success.
Furthermore, professors should expect that their energy and efforts will yield success, both for
professors and for teacher residents. Professors also need to understand and be motivated by the
teacher residency program and how it responds to a larger need relative to high-quality teacher
preparation as well as teacher shortages within the nation. Moreover, professors need to believe
that their instruction of teacher residents is paramount to teacher resident success.
Organizational culture matters. For professors to support teacher residents’ success,
professors need their organization’s support. Policies and procedures are needed to ensure
professors’ success. Such measures could include structures designed for their development as
faculty, like the FDP articulated by Light and Calkins (2008) as well as time and resources for
professors to hone their craft and to collaborate as practitioners. The aforementioned components
of time, resources, and collaboration afford professors the opportunity to better support teacher
residents when these pieces are evident and prioritized within an organization. More importantly,
these structures must be respected and acknowledged by organizations as imperative to the
success of professors, teacher residents, and their P-12 students.
The knowledge, motivation, and organizational influencers discussed in this study work
in tandem with Clark and Estes’ (2008) modified gap analysis framework to better evaluate TPS
professors’ knowledge, motivation, and organizational influencers concerning the execution of
the teacher residency program. Figure 1 presents the conceptual framework of this study: this
modified framework demonstrates the manner in which these individual influencers work
together to advance and meet the goals of this study.
A NEW FIRST WAY 52

Figure 1. Conceptual framework: Modified gap analysis (Clark & Estes, 2008)
A NEW FIRST WAY 53
As previously noted, this study adapted Clark and Estes’ (2008) modified gap analysis
framework for its conceptual framework. This systematic, analytical method helps to clarify
organizational goals and identify the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that
help or hinder organizational goal attainment. The methodological framework of this research
comprises a mixed-methods approach with quantitative and qualitative instruments. In
conjunction with the related literature and the researcher’s knowledge of the study’s organization
of focus, the assumed knowledge, motivation, and organizational influencers of professors who
instruct teacher residents were assessed via electronic survey and one-on-one interviews.
Research-based solutions were comprehensively recommended and evaluated at the conclusion
of the data collection. These recommendations are noted in Chapter Five.

A NEW FIRST WAY 54
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS
Data Collection and Instrumentation
The use of a quantitative survey instrument afforded the opportunity to query
stakeholders in an efficient manner, and this was crucial to gather a thorough understanding of
the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influencers of the primary stakeholder. The use of
a qualitative interviews provided an opportunity to explore trends in the quantitative data as well
as the stakeholder’s understanding of both global and stakeholder goals. Interviews of this
population added depth to the quantitative survey data that were collected prior to the execution
of the interviews. To gather a robust understanding of the teacher residency program’s national
implementation, professors were interviewed to provide a comprehensive understanding of how
professors were thriving and leading teacher residents towards success holistically within the
organization. In addition, the qualitative data were triangulated by ensuring that the interviews
represented different experiences of teacher residency faculty.
1. What knowledge and motivational factors are present within teacher preparation
organizations to ensure professor success?
2. What organizational training experiences do professors of teacher candidates have, both
prior to and during their roles as professors of teacher candidates to ensure that 75% of
professors are proficient in training outcomes?
Participating Stakeholders
The stakeholders and population of focus for this study were professors who worked
closely with teacher residents in the teacher residency program. The regular interactions that
professors had with their students, through instruction, advisement, and overall support, made
A NEW FIRST WAY 55
these faculty members the appropriate stakeholder to use to evaluate the efficacy of TPS’s
teacher residency program.
Method
Survey Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Below are the three criteria used to determine who was allowed to participate in the study
via electronic survey.
Criterion 1: Directly instruct teacher residents. It was imperative that participating
faculty were responsible for instructing teacher residents and had an accurate and up-to-date
understanding of their students’ progress towards the global institutional goal. The importance of
faculty in student learning has been noted widely in education. For example, the success of
public school students is heavily dependent on the quality of their teachers and on the instruction
and preparation their teachers receive while learning how to teach (Darling-Hammond, 2006).
Thus, this criterion was crucial to understanding the teacher residency experience.
Criterion 2: Experience teaching P-12 students. Professors who instruct teacher
residents are responsible for not only teaching the program’s curriculum but are also responsible
for modeling and making meaning of what it means to be a teacher. Moreover, professors of
teacher residents are responsible for transferring both their pedagogical and practice-based
knowledge to their students. As such, the previous experience of being a P-12 teacher was a
requirement for participation in the survey.
Criterion 3: Full-time professors. Teaching residents have a variety of touchpoints with
professors, some of which are adjunct instructors. While touchpoints with adjunct instructors are
valid and instrumental to the development of the teacher resident, adjunct professors’ abilities to
speak holistically about the TPS program and how its components work in tandem to ensure
teacher resident success are limited. Full-time professors, due to their roles, are expected to have
A NEW FIRST WAY 56
more meaningful touchpoints with their students. This is not the expectation for part-time
employees. Thus, for this study, data were collected from full-time faculty members only, as they
represented more than 50% of the population. Therefore, their responses allowed for
generalizations for the entire population.
Survey Sampling Recruitment Strategy and Rationale
This survey was shared with all full-time professors who taught teaching residents during
the 2016–2017 academic year. The strategy for collection was purposeful sampling which
focused on professors who worked within the organization and professors who worked directly
and primarily with teacher residents (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The survey was sent via email
by the TPS research team to reduce any thoughts or feelings of coercion (Krueger & Casey,
2009). There were 47 full-time professors who received the survey, and 81% (38 professors)
responded. This response rate helped to provide a comprehensive understanding of professors
who worked with teacher residents so larger generalizations about the population could be made.
The survey was administered at the beginning of the academic year, in October. The survey was
open for three consecutive weeks to increase the possibility of a high response rate.
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Professors could volunteer for an interview at the end of their quantitative survey
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Below are the criteria used to determine who in the population of the
study were allowed to participate via one-on-one interviews. Note that these three criteria are in
addition to the above criteria.
Criterion 1. Multiple position representation. Professors who have different positions
within the organization often have different experiences. As a result, it was imperative that the
participants in the interviews represented a variety of positions to understand both their
A NEW FIRST WAY 57
individual positional experience and to determine position-specific trends in the data.
Consequently, the positions that were interviewed were as follows:
 Three assistant professors of practice. These are full-time faculty members within TPS
whose sole objective is to instruct, teach, and advise teacher residents.
 Two deans. Deans are also full-time faculty members and perform all the duties of an
assistant professor of practice. They also manage other faculty and staff on their campus
and are knowledgeable about all programmatic offerings on their campus and within the
organization.
 One director of teacher residency. A full-time faculty member, this person’s role is solely
focused on teacher residency implementation on campus, while teaching, advising, and
supporting a cohort of teacher residents. The director of residency is one of several
national directors of residency who have monthly formal and informal touchpoints and
reports to the dean of residency.
Criterion 2. Diversity in Time at the Organization. Professors who were selected for
interviews had directly instructed teacher residents for at least a year. This population was a mix
of professors who were fairly new to TPS and professors who had more experience teaching at
TPS. For the professors who were fairly new, it was crucial to understand the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influencers of these professors regarding their work with the
teacher resident population. Professors who had been at the organization for more than a year
provided a more in-depth understanding of the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influencers because those professors understood what it meant to work with teacher residents
during the teacher residency year and beyond. The perspectives of all of these professors helped
to shape the recommendations for change within the organization.

A NEW FIRST WAY 58
Surveys
Surveys were distributed to 47 professors who directly taught and supported TPS teacher
residents in the 2016–2017 academic year. This population was crucial in understanding the
institutional perspective of what knowledge, motivation, and organizational influencers
professors should possess, understand, and display concerning the teacher residency program.
The survey was administered electronically in English. Essentially, the survey instrument,
comprised mostly of Likert scale items, was designed to gather the extent to which professors
agreed or disagreed with statements specific to their knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influencers within TPS regarding the teacher residency program.
Of the 47 teacher residency faculty who received the survey, 38 or 81% completed the
survey, with two partial completers. Additionally, of the 38 survey completers, 21 opted into the
qualitative interview process to share more information about their experience working with the
teacher residency. Using the selection criteria described earlier, six teacher residency faculty
members were selected and interviewed by the researcher’s designee.
Interviews
The interviews were conducted one at a time, and each participant engaged in only one
interview. These interviews were semi-structured and were conducted by a faculty member at
TPS who had no direct influence over the participants being interviewed. Furthermore, to ensure
there was no coercion on the part of the interviewer, the interviewer was selected, in part,
because they were fairly new to the organization and had no direct reports. This faculty member
had already attained a doctoral degree and had experience with mixed-methods studies,
specifically completing qualitative semi-structured interviews. This faculty member had also
completed Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative training for human subjects’ research.
Moreover, to ensure the designee was both aligned to and knowledgeable with the desired
A NEW FIRST WAY 59
interview style and method, the researcher modeled and practiced with the designee to ensure the
designee had a clear vision for executing the interviews.
The six interviews were conducted in English in the fall of 2017 once the quantitative
survey was closed. The structure of the interviews was semi-structured, as the interviewer had a
designated set of questions. However, they were able to explore answers in more detail at their
discretion. The questions asked during the interview reflected the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influencers as well as the skills that professors were expected to demonstrate in
their role. As designed, the interview questions were deeply connected to the conceptual
framework of the study and served to provide an opportunity to more deeply understand the
perspectives and experiences of professors working with the teacher residents.
Data Analysis
Descriptive statistical analyses were conducted once all survey results were submitted
and gathered from the electronic survey instrument. These results were used to describe the
survey participants and provide a context for the qualitative results. Interview data analysis
began during the data collection period, as the interviewer was able to explore nuances and
themes that surfaced during the interview. The interviews were all recorded and transcribed.
After listening to each interview, both coding and an analytic memo were created to help in the
process of open coding, looking for empirical codes, and the application of a priori codes relative
to the conceptual framework. Next, a second phase of analysis was conducted in which empirical
and a priori codes were aggregated into analytic and axial codes. In the third and last phase of
data analysis, the identification and analysis of pattern codes and themes that emerged relating to
the conceptual framework and study questions were explored and documented.

A NEW FIRST WAY 60

Credibility and Trustworthiness
To ensure the credibility and trustworthiness of the results of the qualitative interviews,
the following strategies were implemented. The interview protocol afforded both clarity and
assurances of confidentiality regarding the study. Participants were informed of the purpose,
structure, and method in which the interviews were to be conducted. During the interviews, the
faculty member used a semi-formal method where interview questions were prepared in advance,
but nuances were explored. Maxwell (2013) posited that interviews essentially provide an
opportunity to explore perspectives or assumptions in a more detailed and specific way. As a
result, the interviews allowed for the collection of more thorough and specific data relative to the
research questions and the overall study. Lastly, all interviews were audio recorded and then
transcribed to ensure the accuracy of the participants’ responses. This way, the interviewer was
not responsible for taking accurate written notes but could, instead, focus on the conversation
and overall interview with the participant.
Validity and Reliability
To ensure the validity and reliability of the study, the following strategies were
implemented into the administration of the quantitative survey. Each survey item was analyzed to
ensure that it was aligned to the research questions.
The TPS research team also handled the communication, distribution, and administration
of the survey instrument to ensure it was distributed and monitored equitably. This process also
helped to address bias regarding non-responders, and the TPS research team was able to send and
manage reminders to encourage a high response rate. Their management and diligence led to a
response rate of 83%. Ultimately, this response rate increased confidence in the overall validity
of the data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
A NEW FIRST WAY 61
Ethics
To answer the research questions of this study, human subjects were inevitably involved.
As a result, human subjects were asked to volunteer for both the quantitative and qualitative
stages of the study. To ensure that the nature of the study was clear and accurate to the subjects,
they were given detailed information about the study, how the information would be used, what
would and would not remain confidential, and how the information post-collection would be
stored. All of this content was noted in the information sheet (Appendix A). All aforementioned
information as described was central by Krueger and Casey (2009), as they noted that part of
conducting data collection, particularly in an ethical fashion, entails sharing robust information
about the study with subjects to inform them accordingly. It was this researcher’s responsibility
to ensure that subjects were protected and that their personal information and data were
anonymized.
This study took place within TPS amongst its national teaching residency faculty. The
outcomes of this study will help to shape instructional decisions that both organizational leaders
and professors make concerning the teacher residency program. As a result, because the
researcher belongs to the senior leadership team, she ensured that the quantitative instrument was
formatted as an electronic survey and was sent and completely managed by the TPS research
team. In addition, the qualitative data collected in the form of interviews was conducted by
another faculty member within TPS who works with a different department. The decision for the
quantitative collection to be administered by the TPS research team was made to prevent teacher
residency faculty from feeling coerced to participate because a senior member of the faculty
asked them to do so. Moreover, the decision for qualitative interviews to be completed by a TPS
faculty member who works with a different department and was familiar with the organization,
but not overly so with the teaching residency program, helped to ease potential discomfort
A NEW FIRST WAY 62
among subjects about being honest, since the person conducting the interviews had no real or
perceived power over the subjects (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Ultimately, the information sheet
conveyed that the researcher’s role was to solely study or investigate the experiences of teacher
residency faculty who worked with the teacher residency program.
Last, even though the researcher was removed from the data collection process,
inevitably, she approached this study with a variety of biases and assumptions about how the
teacher residency program was performing holistically relative to the goals of the organization.
Those biases are based on how the researcher sees the program being implemented on a day-to-
day basis as well as her close work with and management of team members who are responsible
for executing the program. Throughout the collection and analysis of data, this researcher kept
these issues in mind.

A NEW FIRST WAY 63
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
This study was an evaluation of the TPS teacher residency programmatic framework,
based on the experience of the TPS faculty. Additionally, there were two goals, a global
institutional goal and a stakeholder goal, which this study established and monitored as part of
the evaluation of the program. For the global institutional goal, that, by summer 2017, TPS
would have an 85% teacher residency program completion rate, this goal was met with a 93%
completion rate. Relative to the stakeholder goal that, by winter 2017, 75% of faculty would be
proficient in the organization training outcomes, this goal was met with 83% of faculty
demonstrating proficiency in these outcomes for the year. The outcomes of both of these goals
helped to further understand the outcomes of both the data collected in the quantitative survey
and in the qualitative interviews.
The quantitative and qualitative findings work in tandem to explain the experiences of
teacher residency faculty. Since the conceptual framework for this study, Clark and Estes’ (2008)
gap analysis framework, structured the evaluation of the teacher residency model through the
lens of knowledge, motivation, and organizational influencers, the findings for this study are
presented through these lenses as well.
Knowledge Findings
Both the quantitative survey items and the qualitative interviews questions were designed
to better understand the conceptual knowledge that faculty possessed relative to the structure and
overall design of the program based on the organization’s goals and on the design and
implementation of the program. The key quantitative knowledge findings are listed below in
Tables 5, 6, and 7 followed by a discussion informed by the qualitative interviews.
A NEW FIRST WAY 64
Table 5
Last year , I Created and/or Altered Materials
Item Survey Item Always Often Sometimes Rarely Never
1. Last year, often I created or altered
deliberate practice session plans
and/or materials.

37.8%
(14)
2.7%
(1)
13.5%
(5)
18.9%
(7)
27%
(10)

Table 6
Metrics of Teacher Resident Success
Item Survey Item Response
and
Frequency
Response
and
Frequency
Response and
Frequency
Response
and
Frequency
2. What are the metrics of
successful teacher
residents?

Instruction
26%
(25)

Classroom
Culture
16%
(15)
Positive/Growth
Mindset
13%
(12)

Gateways
12%
(11)

Table 7
Number of Teacher Residents Taught in Core Sessions and Coached in Deliberate Practice
Item Survey
Item
Response
and
Frequency
Response
and
Frequency
Response
and
Frequency
Response
and
Frequency
Response
and
Frequency
Response
and
Frequency
3. Last year,
how many
teacher
residents
did you
teach in
Core
classes?

0-15
teaching
residents
31.6%
(12)
16-30
teaching
residents
21.1%
(8)
31-45
teaching
residents
13.2%
(5)

46-60
teaching
residents
5.3%
(2)
61 or more
teaching
residents
5.3%
(2)
I did not
teach
teaching
residents
Core
Classes
23.7%
(9)
4. Last year,
how many
teacher
residents
did you
coach in
deliberate
practice?

0-15
teaching
residents
50%
(19)
16-30
teaching
residents
21.1%
(8)
31-45
teaching
residents
23.7%
(9)

46-60
teaching
residents
5.3%
(2)
61 or more
teaching
residents
0%
(0)
I did not
coach
teaching
residents in
deliberate
practice
0%
(0)
A NEW FIRST WAY 65

The knowledge-based quantitative and qualitative results revealed two clear themes to be
explored relative to faculty’s knowledge influencers: knowledge of teaching and teacher
residency programmatic knowledge. These themes reflect the extent to which faculty possessed
and could articulate a shared understanding of the knowledge or content of teaching as well the
knowledge or content of the program such that they could leverage and demonstrate both of
these types of knowledge relative to their role and responsibilities within the organization.
Faculty Knowledge of Teaching
Faculty need content, experiential and organizational based knowledge in order to be
successful in their roles. As such, the survey asked about the extent to which they were receiving
those types of knowledge from TPS as well as the extent to which they had to implement those
types of knowledge on the teacher resident population. Table 5 indicates the extent to which
respondents had to use their program specific knowledge as well as their expertise of teaching in
order to create or alter materials suitable for their students. In fact, Table 5 shows that nearly half
of the survey participants often created or altered deliberate practice session plans or materials
prior to using these materials to instruct and/or coach their students, demonstrating that it was
fairly common for professors to design or alter materials. This action on the part of respondents
directly connects both to the literature on the conceptual knowledge that professors need to
possess to teach candidates and to the need for professors to have previously taught in P-12 grade
settings to adequately transfer the skill of teaching (Krathwohl, 2002). Professor knowledge and
expertise impact the success of teacher residents (Darling-Hammond, 2006).
To further understand professors’ conceptual knowledge of teaching, participants were
also asked to identify metrics of teacher resident success. The identification of these metrics
would serve to reveal their conceptual knowledge of what it means to be a teacher in practice.
A NEW FIRST WAY 66
The respondents were asked to identify at least three metrics for teacher resident success;
however, the survey instrument intentionally left space for four responses, and 13 out of 38
respondents left a fourth metric. Additionally, some respondents left anywhere from 0 to 4
responses to this question. Table 6 demonstrates the most common responses, defined as having
appeared more than 10 times in the data set, as well as the frequency of the responses. The
responses noted in Table 6 reflect many of the major tenets of instruction that are important for
both faculty and for residents. The most popular indicator, Instruction, directly aligns with the
necessity for faculty to have knowledge of the program and teaching pedagogy in order to
adequately teacher residents and to evaluate their instructional efforts (Darling-Hammond,
2006).
This perspective by Darling-Hammond (2006) is also encompassed in the second
common indicator, Classroom Culture, as an understanding of, and an ability to, model a
classroom culture that is conducive to teaching and learning is crucial to the success of teacher
residents as well. Table 6 also highlights the important work of self-reflection and
Positive/Growth Mindset as a metric of teacher resident success. This data point mirrors early
literature in this area by both Dewey (1933) and Rodgers (2002), which focused on educator
growth and development through reflection and change. Again, working to highlight the strong
connection between the knowledge and skills that professors and teacher residents need, and
how, ultimately, these knowledge and skills are not very different. Therefore, it is imperative that
faculty possess be able to transfer their knowledge and expertise in a differentiated and
comprehensible manner.
Lastly, the Gateways metric reflects the benchmark assessments that are administered to
teacher residents during the one-year teacher residency. As previously mentioned in this study,
Gateway 1 focuses on the necessary mindsets and professionalism it takes to be a teacher,
A NEW FIRST WAY 67
Gateway 2 focuses on classroom management and operations, specifically how to create a
meaningful learning environment, Gateway 3 focuses on opening a lesson and introducing new
material, Gateway 4 focuses on teaching a full lesson, and, lastly, Gateway 5 focuses on
executing sample lessons and completing interviews in the service of being hired as a full-time
teacher of record. The conceptual knowledge for each of these metrics is the starting point to
becoming a teacher through the teacher residency, so the prioritization of these metrics is highly
aligned with what teacher residency faculty know and understand of teacher preparation in
general and of the teacher residency in particular.
The results shown in Table 5 are relatively positive in terms of demonstrating the
knowledge of teaching that professors need to have, which is also aligned with the expectations
that TPS has of their faculty relative to understanding the profession of teaching both in theory
and in practice. Yet, when exploring the qualitative data regarding shared knowledge, there are
noticeable gaps in the quantitative and qualitative results specific to shared knowledge amongst
faculty. This theme of teacher residency programmatic knowledge, is explored below.
Teacher Residency Programmatic Knowledge
Teacher residency programmatic knowledge reflects the extent to which faculty members
possess and can articulate a shared understanding of the teacher residency program, such that
they are knowledgeable and motivated by their role and responsibilities within the organization.
Embedded inside of this theme are two sub themes: depth of knowledge and the attainment of
programmatic knowledge. Both of these subthemes address the knowledge that teacher residency
faculty need to be successful in their roles and both themes are explored below.
Depth of Knowledge
The qualitative interviews revealed participants had varying levels of programmatic
understanding based on their position within the organization. As noted in Chapter Three, three
A NEW FIRST WAY 68
different types of faculty members participated in the interviews: assistant professors of practice,
deans, and a director of residency. Relative to the responses of the assistant professors of
practice, all responses are presented with pseudonyms.
For the assistant professors of practice (APP), when asked to describe the teacher
residency programmatic framework, some professors were able to provide general answers, such
as Professor Brown:
The idea behind the residency is that teachers are getting a slightly longer on-ramp to
full-time classroom teaching with more practice and more support. So, what that looks
like practically is that, in their first year, most residents are like teaching assistants or
they’re working in a classroom with another full-time teacher. Then, during that year,
they have the practice sessions at TPS in addition to their regular classes and they’re also
supported by resident advisors within their schools. Then, in their second year, they
transition into full-time classroom teaching.
Professor Brown’s response reflects the general premise of the teacher residency program.
However, some very specific nuances are missing relative to teacher residents’ experiences at
their schools and relative to their graduate coursework. Another APP, Professor Gray, when
asked the same question, responded in a more robust and detailed manner and demonstrated
more in-depth knowledge about the teacher residency program and its workings both in the P-12
school setting and within the graduate school setting. Professor Gray shared,
The teaching residency framework; I guess I will start with the gradual on-ramp. The on-
ramp is a gradual release into teaching. Residents start by observing teachers. They then
start to take on smaller chunks of instruction, either leaving openings for the whole
group, or working with a small group of students. That progresses to working with a
whole group of students. The frequency could be anywhere from two to three times a
A NEW FIRST WAY 69
week. Then, by the end of the year, they are owning a predetermined amount of
instruction.
Professor Gray’s response starts with the premise of the teacher residency program and then
transitions into the manner in which teacher residents are learning about and experiencing
teaching. This component of Professor Gray’s response highlights their programmatic
knowledge. This knowledge is important to implementing the teacher residency program, which
is the responsibility of all teacher residency faculty. Professor Gray goes on to further note the
way in which the teacher residents are supported as well:
[Teacher residents] are supported by their resident advisor, which is school-based.
They’re also supported by their faculty advisor, which is TPS-based. Throughout the
year, they have gateways, which are stopping points for them essentially to check and
make sure that they are on the path toward obtaining their certification and also a full-
time teaching job. Those gateways align with their core course work that they’re getting
from TPS.
Both of these responses by Professors Brown and Gray demonstrate a variance in their
understanding of the teacher residency program. The differences in their responses reveal a gap
in understanding, even though they have the same position and the expectations of their roles are
almost the same. While there will always be slight variance from campus to campus, the
difference here is furthered when the responses of deans are factored in. When asked the same
question, “describe the teacher residency programmatic framework,” Dean Scott responded as
follows:
The residency is designed for aspiring teachers, so these are typically teachers who are
not yet teachers of record. The residency hopes to place an aspiring teacher. Well,
depending on teacher pathways versus residencies that are locally designed, but, with the
A NEW FIRST WAY 70
locally designed residency, partners hopefully bring to us candidates and also have in
mind who their resident advisors are.
Dean Scott was able to articulate both the premise of the teacher residency programmatic design
as well as articulate the ways in which candidates become part of the teacher residency program.
The articulation of how teacher residents become enrolled matters as well. Be it through the
teacher pathways recruitment program, which is a TPS-based instructional pipeline for finding
and recruiting teacher residents or through P-12 school partners recruiting and interviewing
teacher residents, what matters is the intentionality with which candidates are selected and
supported once enrolled in the teacher residency program. Dean Scott noted at length the
importance of support in the teacher residency programmatic framework and the manner in
which teacher residents are assessed during the teacher residency program as well. Dean Scott
shared the following based on support and assessments:
Resident advisors [mentors and supports for teacher residents] are more seasoned
teachers, veteran teachers, effective teachers who can support the residents through the
residency. The residency is guided by five pretty clear benchmarks that we call gateways.
Those are incrementally set from the first to the fifth with the residents [with both]
resident advisors and TPS teaching faculty giving support along the way with all of those.
Dean Scott’s articulation explicitly details the types of resident advisors or mentor teachers that
teacher residents should be exposed to as well as the assessments used to gauge their preparation
to become a full-time teacher of record.
Overall, Dean Scott was able to articulate a clear and robust understanding of the general
premise of the teacher residency, resources, and support for teacher residents. Dean Scott’s depth
of knowledge was clear and very similar to that of Dean Bonner. When asked the same question,
to “describe the teacher residency programmatic framework,” Dean Bonner replied,
A NEW FIRST WAY 71
The TPS Teaching Residency framework has four key elements of support and design in
addition to the TPS program. The first of those is that the resident is given a gradual on-
ramp that is intentionally designed to bring the teacher [candidate] into the profession as
they gain certain skills, talents, and techniques, then they increase their teaching
responsibilities over the course of a single year.
Again, and similar to other responses, the general premise is shared, yet Dean Bonner’s response
starts with a clear articulation of buckets of support and programmatic design. First, as noted by
Dean Bonner, is the programmatic design of the teacher residency, which provides more time
and space to learn how to be a teacher. Next, according to Dean Bonner,
The second element of support is that the resident should have a resident advisor, who is
a teacher at their school of residence, who will be their support, their guider, hopefully
their master teacher, that they can observe and learn from and will be their connection
and liaison to the school environment where they’re working.
Similar to Dean Scott, Dean Bonner also noted resources and support and as well as the
importance of the resident advisor who works as a conduit for teacher residents as they navigate
through the teacher residency program. Next, according to Dean Bonner,
Third, and probably [the] most high leverage [element] for the program, deliberate
practice, which is a three-hour session each week where our teacher residents learn to
practice specific teaching skills that we’re focusing on in the graduate classes and they
get specific feedback on how they are doing well and where they can improve, and they
do that every single week to hone their teaching skills, to build [their] capacity to become
a full-load, full-time teacher.
The last key component that Dean Bonner articulated was an understanding of the manner in
which teacher residents are evaluated and the outcomes of those evaluations both to teacher
A NEW FIRST WAY 72
residents as learners, and most importantly to the students they would teach at the completion of
their teacher residency year. Dean Bonner noted the following:
And then the fourth one [element] is that we have set up a series of assessments that we
call gateways, which are measurement points over the course of the year, to let the
resident know how they’re doing in accumulating the techniques, skills, and knowledge
that they need to become a full-time, full-load teacher. If they fail that and then get
remediated and fail it again, they might not be able to continue forward with the process
or with the program because they’ve demonstrated that they’re not really ready to take on
the huge responsibility of teaching children.
Both the responses of Dean Scott and Dean Bonner demonstrate an in-depth understanding of the
teacher residency program, such that they understand not only what the program is, but also what
teacher residents need to be successful and how they are evaluated.
Yet the stark differences in the description of the program between deans and
professors/directors are important to note for two reasons. First, without a clear and robust
understanding of the program, professors are less likely to implement the program as designed
and with fidelity. As an organization, TPS set its global goal of at least 85% completion rate by
summer 2017 with consistency of program implementation in mind, and the data above
demonstrate that the depth of programmatic understanding varied across participants, with deans
seeming to have the most in-depth of understanding. This more in-depth knowledge from deans
is understandable considering their roles within the organization; however, it is problematic in
that deans make up roughly 10% of the TPS faculty in general and roughly 20% of the teacher
residency faculty in particular. Therefore, it is problematic that such a small percentage of
teacher residency faculty have more in-depth knowledge than the majority of the teacher
residency faculty, who implement the teacher residency program on a day-to-day basis.
A NEW FIRST WAY 73
Furthermore, programmatic knowledge is a blueprint for how the organization imagines
highly effective teacher preparation, and, if not every professor who works with teacher residents
is versed in this blueprint, then the results will be inconsistent from campus to campus as well as
within campuses. Moreover, Table 7 highlights the number of teacher residents taught in core
sessions and coached in deliberate practice sessions, noting the amount of high impact
touchpoints that professors have with them, further underlining the importance of professors
having both knowledge and understanding of the program such that implementation is consistent
and impactful. Due to these differences in depths of knowledge and the amount of teacher
residents professors’ impact on a weekly basis, it is worth investigating how faculty attain their
programmatic knowledge and if there is a consistent system or structure in place that keeps them
equally abreast of programmatic knowledge. The following section explores how teacher
residency faculty attain knowledge about the teacher residency program.
Attainment of Teacher Residency Programmatic Knowledge
The manner in which faculty attain knowledge of the teacher residency program is
essential to understanding the systems and structures needed within TPS to ensure consistency in
program knowledge and execution. As with the depth of programmatic knowledge, there were
inconsistencies in the attainment of said knowledge as well. During the interviews, faculty were
asked to describe the ways in which they learned about the teaching residency framework (e.g.,
the scope and sequence, deliberate practice scope and sequence). Again, as with the depth of
programmatic knowledge, there was variance by position. For example, the director of residency,
Director Roberts, noted,
I was working at TPS as an MA T faculty member before I started working on the
residency and so I definitely had a lens into our more general curriculum and the way I
learned about the residency specific portions was through a lot of reading of some
A NEW FIRST WAY 74
documents that we have, like program overviews, the gradual on-ramp itself, things like
that. By observing some deliberate practice sessions and by talking to people who worked
on the residency before.
Director Roberts’ response highlights the finding that by being employed by TPS prior to taking
the new role as director of residency, professors were able to observe instruction and talk to
faculty as well as work to learn the year 1 curriculum, which helped them to gather more
information about the program as well the opportunity to see it in action. The experiences of one
of the interviewed deans, Dean Scott, was very similar in that they had an elongated amount of
time to both learn about the teacher residency program and to see it in action. They attained their
information and overall understanding during their dean fellowship, a one-year learning
experience where they learned to be a dean under an established, successful, more seasoned
dean, in preparation to launch and lead their own campus, and noted how that opportunity
allowed them to gather a vision for what the teacher residency program should look like on their
campus. Dean Scott noted,
[W]ithin the fellowship piece, I probably had a good four months to wrap my head
around all of the curriculum with the residency piece included. I had an opportunity to
see deliberate practice in action, and I say that because it’s one of the cornerstones of the
residency.
Dean Scott’s articulation of the importance of being able to both have time and to see the teacher
residency in action is similar to that of Director Roberts in that the learning process or attainment
of knowledge was systematic, streamlined, and coupled with examples of what the program
looked like in practice. Dean Scott also noted that residency huddles, video conference calls with
all teacher residency faculty, which occurred bi-weekly also helped to solidify their
understanding of the teacher residency program. Noting that the bi-weekly residency meetings
A NEW FIRST WAY 75
were crucial to their development as those meetings “helped [Dean Scott] to fully understand
how the [teacher residency] is rolled out and executed from the campus standpoint.”
However, the experiences of Dean Scott and Director Roberts are at odds with that of
some of the APPs. Professor Brown described the brevity of their experience attaining
knowledge about the teacher residency program:
When the residency program was first being introduced in my region, I feel like the
director spoke to faculty about it. I think that we may have had maybe an announcement
about it at a community meeting as well.
Professor Brown’s response highlights both the brevity of the explanation of the teacher
residency program and the manner in which the knowledge was attained, revealing a lack of
systematic sharing of knowledge. Another APP, Professor Black, recounted their experience
attaining information about the teacher residency and how most of it came during their
onboarding experience, and, although the information was helpful, there was no obvious
structure and system to holistically attain information about the teacher residency during school
year 2016-2017. Professor Black noted,
When I started at TPS, I did some onboarding work that first introduced me to the
components and then before I was hired, I read some kind of preemptive things about
what the residency model entailed. After the onboarding, we really worked as a faculty
and staff to think about what that would look like at our campus, working to adhere very
closely to what the model was meant to be. I think along the way, I also attended new
faculty training and got some of those nuances there. As far as deliberate practice goes, I
feel that it was messaged to us the way deliberate practice should run, just off the books
and past experience, so we ran it in that manner.
A NEW FIRST WAY 76
The experiences shared above, relative to the attainment of information about the teacher
residency programmatic framework, again seem to vary by position and campus. Professor
Black’s experience noted that, although there was knowledge about the teacher residency
program, there was no clear or consistent structure of how to attain this information and there
was variance campus to campus. Participants’ experiences revealed a disparity in how
information is acquired.
Furthermore, it is important to note that, although respondents attained information about
the teacher residency program, the lack of consistency in that attainment is problematic when
considering that all teaching faculty are held accountable to the same teacher residency goals,
regardless of their positions. Furthermore, the variance between some of the experiences are
quite extreme. Whereas some professors gained broad overviews of the teacher residency
program in faculty meetings as noted above, other professors or deans were visiting deliberate
practices and having more in-depth conversations with faculty to better understand what will be
required of them. The former of these two types of information attainment make it challenging
for teacher residency faculty to have a clear vision of their role and the weight of their
responsibility. Knowledge of the teacher residency program should be consistent across all
campuses and positions to ensure that every faculty member is able to work toward the global
institutional goal in an equitable fashion. Moreover, it is not just the depth of programmatic
knowledge and the manner in which that knowledge is attained that matters; professor
motivation to implement the teacher residency program matters as well and this component is
explored below.
Motivation Findings
The motivation-focused questions in both the quantitative and qualitative instruments
served to better understand professor self-efficacy and, most importantly, professors’ belief that
A NEW FIRST WAY 77
they had the capacity to demonstrate the task of educating teacher residents. Additionally, the
motivation-focused questions also sought to better understand professor expectancy value of
working with the teacher residency program, specifically the manner in which professors saw
value in institutional training. Both of the aforementioned motivational constructs, self-efficacy
and expectancy value, were used to understand professor motivation relative to this study. As
such, this findings section will focus on a blended analysis of the quantitative and qualitative
results, beginning with the key quantitative findings as noted on the next page in Table 8.
Following the presentation of Table 8 is an integrated review of both the quantitative and
qualitative findings.

A NEW FIRST WAY 78
Table 8
Key Quantitative Motivation Items
Item Survey Item Strongly
Agree
Agree Somewhat
Agree
Somewhat
Disagree
Disagree Strongly
Disagree
1. Last year, I had a
clear understanding
of the TPS teacher
residency
programmatic
framework (i.e.,
curriculum,
gateways, additional
residency specific
supports)
21.1%
(8)
44.7%
(14)
21.1%
(8)
10.5%
(4)
2.6%
(1)
0%
(0)
2. Last year, I had in-
depth knowledge of
the TPS Year 1
curriculum (i.e.,
courses and
assessment).
36.8%
(14)
28.9%
(11)
21.1%
(8)
5.3%
(2)
7.9%
(3)
0%
(0)
3. Last year, I had a
clear understanding
of how to facilitate
the TPS curriculum.
34.2%
(13)
56.6%
(20)
10.5%
(4)
2.6%
(1)
0%
(0)
0%
(0)
4. Core sessions taught
by me directly
impact Resident
success.
37.1%
(13)
45.7%
(16)
8.6%
(3)
2.9%
(1)
2.9%
(1)
2.9%
(1)
5. Deliberate Practice
sessions taught by
me directly impact
Resident success.
45.7%
(16)
42.9%
(15)
11.4%
(4)
0%
(0)
0%
(0)
0%
(0)

The motivation-based findings revealed two clear themes: self-efficacy as motivation and
expectancy value as motivation. Both of these themes are explored below.
Self-Efficacy as Motivation
In order for professors to have a meaningful impact on teacher residents, it was important
for professors to demonstrate high levels of self-efficacy relative to their belief that they had the
capacity to demonstrate the task of educating teacher residents. Table 8, specifically Clear
A NEW FIRST WAY 79
Understanding of the TPS Teacher Residency Program, demonstrates the extent to which
professors believed that they had a clear understanding of the TPS teacher residency
programmatic framework (i.e., curriculum, gateways, and additional residency specific
supports). This metric demonstrated that most of the professors agreed, with approximately 65%
of professors agreeing or strongly agreeing with this item, that they had a clear understanding of
the framework. The responses of professors for this item are significant because they
demonstrate they had both the knowledge of teacher education in general and the knowledge of
the framework in particular, both of which were needed for professors to demonstrate the task of
educating teacher residents. This point is furthered when considering both responses to I had in-
depth knowledge of the TPS Year 1 curriculum and I had a clear understanding of how to
facilitate the TPS Curriculum, as they reveal that professors mostly strongly agreed and agreed,
that they had both in-depth knowledge of the TPS curriculum as well as a clear understanding of
how to facilitate it. All three of these items (I had in-depth knowledge of the TPS Year 1
curriculum, I had a clear understanding of how to facilitate the TPS Curriculum, and I had a
clear understanding of how to facilitate the TPS Curriculum) demonstrate the extent to which
professors of teacher residents were prepared to demonstrate the task of educating teacher
residents. Professor understanding of the TPS teacher residency programmatic framework
directly impacts their motivation to teach teacher residents—as without this knowledge, they
could not reveal their capacity to demonstrate the task of educating teacher residents.
Definitions of Success as Motivation
Professors are motivated to reveal that they have the capacity to demonstrate the task of
educating teacher residents when they have a clear and unified vision of their learners’ success.
A shared definition for success is essential to professor motivation and to their ability to reveal
the capacity to demonstrate the task of educating teacher residents. Specific to this study, it was
A NEW FIRST WAY 80
imperative that professors could articulate an in-depth understanding of teacher residency
success and use their understanding to guide their demonstration of the task of educating teacher
residents. As such, during the qualitative interviews, professors were asked to define teacher
residency success to ensure that they had a shared definition which could be used to reveal their
capacity to demonstrate their task. Dean Bonner described teacher residency success as follows:
[Relative to residency success] I think that [residents] put a lot of investment into their
grade[s] at TPS, one. Two, their performance on the gateways [assessments], I think, are
important to them. They want to do these, they want to do well, and I think they’re also
motivated to become hired, so I think those three things are indicators for the resident that
they’re succeeding at this task [of becoming a teacher].
Dean Bonner’s comments revealed three components of success; grades from graduate
coursework, performance on the five gateway assessments, which are benchmark assessments
throughout the program, and teacher residents’ desire to be hired and/or to successfully complete
the program. These three components are essential and directly connected to the self-efficacy of
professors. Professors need to understand the coursework, the assessments, and the process for
teacher resident hiring in order to demonstrate the self-efficacy to lead their teacher residents
toward success, all of which are embedded in the task of educating teacher residents.
Dean Bonner’s reflections were also aligned to the reflections and perspective of
Professor Gray. Professor Gray, like Dean Bonner, noted in detail what teacher residency
program success looked like for teacher residents. Professor Gray shared the following,
To me, resident success is really two or three parts. One is time management, their ability
to juggle their school work at TPS along with their responsibilities at their school sites, so
that includes completion of online work, participation or attendance or deliberate practice
and in-person sessions. What that looks like at the school site is making sure that they’re
A NEW FIRST WAY 81
meeting deadlines that are set by them for their grade level team, their resident advisor,
etc., so really being able to manage time effectively. The other piece is, of course, around
the gateways, ensuring that they are meeting the bar for each of the gateways with the
hope of being hired by their school site at the very end.
Professor Gray’s articulation of teacher resident success was much aligned with that of Dean
Bonner in that there was commonality in being able to learn how to be a teacher while also being
a graduate student. In Professor Gray’s response there was also mention of the importance of
school-based experiences and working towards successful completion of the five benchmark
assessments known as gateways. Last, Professor Gray also noted the push and hope that at the
completion of the teacher residency year, graduates are hired as full-time teachers of record. The
significance of Professor Gray’s response is in the shared understanding and attainment of
information about teacher residency program. Both Professor Gray and Dean Bonner
demonstrate clear and successful attainment of the important components of the teacher
residency program, which ultimately serves to impact the manner in which they execute said
program.
Similarly, Director Roberts also articulated a definition of teacher resident success that
was aligned with Dean Bonner’s and Professor Gray’s responses relative to the attainment of
clear components of programmatic experience, such that attainment of these components would
ultimately demonstrate successful implementation of the program. Director Roberts shared the
following,
[Residents are] very much invested in getting hired at the end of the year, and so that’s
kind of the big goal that they have in mind is making sure that they’ve got a full-time
offer on the table by the time they finish their residency. [There is also] completing the
A NEW FIRST WAY 82
program successfully and making sure they’re passing all of their coursework, making
sure they’re staying abreast of all their responsibilities at school.
Director Roberts’ response similarly defines teacher residency success as attaining a full-time
teaching role for the following year as well as balancing their P-12 school responsibilities with
their graduate school responsibilities. What all three of these perspectives affirm is that, for
professors to demonstrate self-efficacy, professors must understand what the task entails and,
ultimately, what successful execution of the task looks like. Having a clear vision for
programmatic success will motivate professors as they work towards to the task of educating
teacher residents.
Professor ability to reveal their capacity to educate is one part of their motivation in
working with their students. Another component is the expectancy value that they place on the
manner in which they are prepared to teach and support teacher residents through institutional
training. The following section explores the extent to which professors revealed that they value
institutional training as important to their roles as professors of teacher residents.
Expectancy Value as Motivation
Professors have to see the importance of institutional training such that they believe that
institutional training directly impacts both their performance as professors and their impact on
teacher residents. In Table 8, specifically the metric Core Sessions Taught by Me Impact Resident
Success and the metric Deliberate Practice Sessions Taught by Me Impact Resident Success
reveal the extent to which professors believe that their execution of core pedagogical sessions
and deliberate practice sessions directly impacts the success of teacher residents.
Overwhelmingly and for both metrics, professors declared that their execution of core
pedagogical sessions and deliberate practice sessions impacted teacher resident success. These
two metrics, Core Sessions Taught by Me Impact Resident Success and the metric Deliberate
A NEW FIRST WAY 83
Practice Sessions Taught by Me Impact Resident Success, are important towards better
understanding the expectancy value that professors put on institutional training. For example, in
order to execute core pedagogical instructional sessions as well as deliberate practice sessions,
professors most be trained and versed in the TPS curriculum and the TPS coaching and
facilitation methodology. Consequently, professors need to value the TPS curriculum and the
TPS coaching and facilitation methodology and view institutional training on these subjects as
important to their preparation of teacher residents.
Furthermore, professors need to have opportunities to observe components of the teacher
residency program in order to see and understand the value and importance of institutional
training relative to the TPS preferred way of facilitation and execution. Moreover, if observation
is considered as a form of institutional training or modeling, it is also important to examine the
extent to which professors prioritized this type of institutional training and deemed it as
important. The qualitative findings furthered this point when analyzing the answers regarding
whether professors had the opportunity to observe deliberate practice sessions outside of their
campus. The importance of observing deliberate practice highlights the connectivity between
observation as training and diversity amongst types of training for professors. Noted below are
the responses from several professors regarding their experience observing other deliberate
practice sessions outside of their own campus. Professor Black shared, “I have not done any in-
person observations of deliberate practice, but I have done some video observation of deliberate
practice.”
Professor Black’s response represents a nuanced perspective relative to Table 8,
specifically Core Sessions Taught by Me Impact Resident Success and the metric Deliberate
Practice Sessions Taught by Me Impact Resident Success in that Professor Black revealed that
they had not participated in deliberate practice observations outside of their campus, yet they had
A NEW FIRST WAY 84
been proactive in viewing video of other deliberate practice sessions in order to widen their
understanding and scope of their work. Therefore, underlining Professor Black’s understanding
of the importance of institutional training relative to teaching core pedagogical sessions and to
coaching deliberate practice sessions. Furthermore, and as previously mentioned, when
observation is considered as a form of training or as form a reinforcing training, professors can
view this additional form of institutional training as both important and accessible. Ultimately,
Professor Black’s proactivity to experience the work of others is indicative of their value of the
training and the importance they place on the experience.
Similarly, when Dean Scott was asked the same question about observing deliberate
practice outside of their campus, they responded “[yes] I observed, before I had to lead
[deliberate practice] for myself, two of them [deliberate practice sessions] at two different
campuses.” Dean Scott’s experience was very similar to Professor Black in that there was a
prioritization to see deliberate practice in action and to value that experience as an institutional
training opportunity in service of being better prepared to instruct teacher residents. The
importance which both of these professors place on their institutional training and observations
revealed a desire to be current and versed relative to the preparation of teacher residents. The
knowledge and motivation of professors is essential to the success of teacher residents, yet there
must also be clear organizational structures which afford for the implementation of the teacher
residency program. The following section explores the organizational findings for this study.
Organizational Findings
The teacher residency requires more time and support than other teacher preparation
programs offered by TPS; as such, the survey questions sought to decipher if there were
organizational systems and structures in place which supported the design of the teacher
residency programmatic model. Additionally, there were questions which sought to learn when
A NEW FIRST WAY 85
respondents learned about the programmatic structure of the teacher residency program as well.
Understanding these organization components of the experiences of teacher residency faculty
was instrumental in ensuring that organizational structures were designed and implemented in
service of high-quality teacher preparation. As such, this findings section focuses on a blended
analysis of the quantitative and qualitative results, beginning with the key quantitative findings
as noted on the next page in Table 9. Following that presentation is an integrated presentation of
both the quantitative and qualitative findings.
Table 9
Key Quantitative Organizational Items
Item Survey Item Strongly
Agree
Agree Somewhat
Agree
Somewhat
Disagree
Disagree Strongly
Disagree
1. I learned about
the TPS teacher
residency
programmatic
framework
during my first
month of
working at TPS
or within a
month of
working with
the teacher
residency
program.
36.8%
(14)
36.8%
(14)
13.2%
(5)
2.6%
(1)
5.3%
(2)
5.3%
(2)
2. There are clear
supports (i.e.
mentors,
managers, team
meetings,
manager check-
ins) in place for
me to be
successful in
my role as a
faculty member.
35.1%
(13)
48.6%
(18)
10.8%
(4)
5.4%
(2)
0%
(0)
0%
(0)

A NEW FIRST WAY 86
Table 9, continued
Item Survey Item Strongly
Agree
Agree Somewhat
Agree
Somewhat
Disagree
Disagree Strongly
Disagree
3. I know where
and how to
access supports
for my role (i.e.,
Course
Platform,
Innovators
handbooks,
New Faculty
onboarding
documents,
etc.).
23.7%
(9)
50%
(18)
15.8%
(6)
7.9%
(4)
2.6%
(2)
0%
(1)
4. I have the time
and resources to
adequately
prepare to teach
Core classes
and deliberate
practice
sessions.
5.4%
(2)
37.8%
(14)
27%
(10)
27%
(10)
2.7%
(1)
5.3%
(0)
5. TPS values my
preparation and
execution of the
teacher
residency
program.
25%
(9)
55.6%
(20)
16.7%
(6)
0%
(0)
2.8%
(1)
0%
(0)

Learning About and Access to Organizational Resources
The key findings noted in Table 9, specifically items 1 through 4 (I Learned about the
TPS Teacher Residency in the First Month, There are Clear Supports in Place, How and Where
to Access Supports, and Time and Resources to Adequately Prepare) demonstrate that there are
organizational structures in place relative to learning about and access to organizational
resources. Specifically, item 1, I Learned about the TPS Teacher Residency in the First Month,
revealed that most respondents learned about the teacher residency program during their first
month of working at TPS or during their onboarding experience. This metric is important to
A NEW FIRST WAY 87
highlight because it reveals the extent to which learning about the program is important to the
organization such that faculty working with that program learn about the components of the
program early in the acclimation of their role. Table 9, specifically item 2, There are Clear
Supports in Place, also affirms that faculty have clear supports and resources needed to be
successful in their roles, which is important to note because it highlights the institutional
structures and systems (e.g., mentor teachers, team meetings) which are embedded within the
organization that serve to assist in professors being supported and informed. Both Table 9 items 1
and 2, I Learned about the TPS Teacher Residency in the First Month and There are Clear
Supports in Place work in tandem with item 3, How and Where to Access Supports, in which
most of the professors affirm that they know how to access the support and resources available to
them. These three metrics are important in revealing organizational priorities relative to
resources and supports embedded in the structures of the organization in addition to clear
directives for how and where to access the resources and supports. Again, these three metrics are
important in learning more about how professors both learn about and have access to
organizational resources and supports.
Organizational resources and support are key to the success of teaching faculty and
ultimately to the success of teacher residents. What is evident in Table 9, specifically items 1, 2,
and 3, I Learned about the TPS Teacher Residency in the First Month, There are Clear Supports
in Place and How and Where to Access Supports, is a robust commitment by the organization to
both provide resources and to make resources accessible to faculty of teacher residents.
However, when factoring in the findings in Table 9, specifically, item 4, Time and Resources to
Adequately Prepare, there is a different narrative which emerges relative to professors’ time and
to their ability to adequately prepare to teach and coach teacher residents. Item 4, Time and
Resources to Adequately Prepare, reveals that roughly 40% of respondents did not agree or
A NEW FIRST WAY 88
strongly agree that they had the time and resources to adequately prepare to teach and coach
teacher residents. The finding in item 4, Time and Resources to Adequately Prepare, demands
further exploration, as Light and Calkins (2008) noted that professors need time and resources to
meaningfully collaborate with other professors in their institutions. Time and space for
meaningful collaboration matters and professors having protected time to access the supports and
resources that are designed for them by the organization is important. Table 9, specifically items
1 through 4 (I Learned about the TPS Teacher Residency in the First Month, There are Clear
Supports in Place, How and Where to Access Supports, and Time and Resources to Adequately
Prepare) reflect professor perspectives reflective to the organizational influencers, yet the
qualitative interviews add more depth and nuance to these responses.
Specifically, the qualitative organizational findings are best reflected in the theme
regarding program implementation. This theme represents the organizational components that
must be in place within an organization for successful program implementation. When the
qualitative data are viewed through the teacher residency program implementation lens, a variety
of experiences reveal inconsistencies in the implementation structures and collaboration amongst
faculty. These findings are explored below.
Implementation Structures and Collaboration
When analyzing the qualitative data using the lens of programmatic implementation, the
subtheme of implementation structures and collaboration emerged. Specifically, the organization-
focused questions of the qualitative interviews contained several questions that explored
structures for implementing the program and the remainder of this section focuses on two of
those structures: internalizing core sessions and facilitating core sessions or deliberate practice.
Both structures reveal the depth to which faculty are implementing the programmatic framework
as designed.
A NEW FIRST WAY 89
The internalization of core pedagogical sessions is a crucial component of learning how
to be an effective teacher residency faculty member. During new faculty training, the annual
training for all new faculty members, core session internalization guidance is provided coupled
with campus’ specific preferences and systems. Both the national training and campus-specific
expectations are fairly aligned such that faculty should be learning and implementing a similar
session preparation structure. However, when asked how they prepare to internalize a session or
how do they internalize a session (Core or deliberate practice), Director Roberts’ response was as
follows:
Sure, so I’d say that when it comes to deliberate practice, I do a bulk of the planning there
and so putting together the session itself is definitely a big part of how I get ready to
teach it. As I said, I mostly go off the session material. I’ll prepare the PowerPoint, I’ll
prepare the handout and I’ll kind of review them, talk out some parts that I need to with
my team or just practice on my own and then I’m ready to teach.

The response by Director Roberts is evident of an individual session internalization process.
Director Roberts’ response does not reveal a system whereby they seek out feedback and/or
materials from other colleagues and/or colleagues that have taught the content before.
Furthermore, Director Roberts noted that they were responsible for planning and organizing the
session, when the sessions are nationally designed and should be ready to execute as designed
with some minor changes. Moreover, Director Roberts noted that they will practice on their own
as part of their preparation process as well. Ultimately, Director Roberts’s response reveals the
manner in which they work both individually and/or in isolation which is counterproductive for
session internalization.
A NEW FIRST WAY 90
Director Roberts’ response appears to be incomplete compared to the response of
Professor Black. When asked the same question, Professor Black’s responded,
When I first started TPS, there’s a resource, it’s a synchronous packet to think about how
to plan your time for each portion of the preparing for your in-person session. Before
school started, I mapped out on a calendar when I would do some things, like when I was
going to look at the online work, when I was going to start preparing my materials and
my PowerPoint, how far in advance I needed to start practicing and so it’s a rolling cycle,
but there’s two parts to that. One, if we do a preview for one another for core, then we try
to have that previewed for folks at least a week and a half in advance if possible. If we’re
doing content, my preparation time looks a little bit different. I try to have it a week in
advance if possible.
Professor Black’s articulation denotes a clear system for session internalization and the
corresponding resources and support that accompany the process. Professor Black was able to
name in detail the process of both calendaring time to prepare to internalize a session as well as
time to complete the online pre-work and to attend session previews when the session is taught in
totality by a faculty member while other faculty members watch and participate as students and
as learners, all in service of having all of their session internalization and preparation completed
a least one week before they teach the session. Professor Black noted that “it takes anywhere
from two to four hours to fully prepare a session and that’s with materials, making any tweaks,
and practice time and then using the materials that I had last year when applicable” further
highlighting both their awareness of the process for internalizing a session and the resources that
are available to them during the process. Lastly, when recounting the key tenets of preparing to
internalize a session, Professor Black also noted the importance of having “advance practice,
both in the faculty-delivered practice space and then building in time to practice on [their] own.”
A NEW FIRST WAY 91
This practice is infused with the reflections of Professor Black and also with those of the
graduate students Professor Black teaches. Professor Black recalled “[t]he other thing I do to
prepare to facilitate the practice, too, is we ask for data from graduate students after every class
and so not only do I look at what was effective for them, to try next time, as far as helping to
facilitate their learning.”
The actions of Professor Black demonstrate an understanding of what is important when
internalizing a session as well as a clear and detailed process for doing so. Professor Black’s
actions demonstrate both an understanding of organizational structures specific to internalizing
sessions as well as clear supports and faculty collaboration that exists relative to those structures.
The differences between Director Roberts’ and Professor Black’s responses are
significant because one response details an implementation structure that is reflective of working
collaboratively while the other reveals mostly planning and practicing in isolation. This
difference highlights the importance of organizational structures which prioritizes the experience
articulated by Professor Black. Additionally, teacher residency faculty shared similar thoughts
when reflecting on their ability and available time to collaborate with other teacher residency
faculty. When asked, “How do you collaborate with others if at all during the internalizing
process and how do you schedule the time to internalize sessions?” the responses from teacher
residency faculty were very similar—four out of six faculty member noted time as a barrier to
engaging and practicing more with colleagues. For example, when Dean Scott was asked how
they collaborated with others during the internalization process and how they scheduled time to
internalize the session materials, they responded,
I think as a newer instructor, I have a support. . .with the support of a managing dean,
there was a standing time, based on the scope and sequence, for me to have gone through
the online work, gone through the session prep materials, and then actually practiced,
A NEW FIRST WAY 92
with that other person, my execution and get the feedback, which was another layer of
internalization for me.
Above Dean Scott referenced the significant time they had dedicated to learning the curriculum,
practicing, and to receiving feedback from their manager. As noted before, Dean Scott was in
their dean fellowship when they learned about the teacher residency program; therefore, they had
more time, access to resources, and overall flexibility to really learn about the program and to
begin to envision what it could look like at their campus. Dean Scott noted that, after the
fellowship, the time and collaboration that they once experienced did not exist in the same
manner and that they often found themselves preparing to teach and practice a session alone.
Dean Scott shared,
I have found now in my shift in position, and the fact that I am the only person at my
campus teaching this particular year of the curriculum, that [collaboration] has happened
less so. I am solo in my time to internalize. I schedule it, and I plan for it just as I would
any other project. There are opportunities through the local faculty meeting time to bring
snippets and practice, but that is different when you’re practicing with others who don’t
know the content as well. I have had a couple of opportunities to reach out to folks at
other campuses who are teaching the same year, but the challenge of time increases with
that, and finding common time. [So, collaboration and practice] has happened, but it has
not happened routinely.
Dean Scott’s reflections revealed the challenge of being the sole person on a campus who
teaches a particular content and the ability to meaningfully collaborate with other professors who
teach the same content as they do, particularly when those professors are on other campuses.
Dean Scott’s articulation demonstrates how they have struggled to preserve the collaboration and
collegial community they had just a year prior due to a lack of available time and/or common
A NEW FIRST WAY 93
time between them and other professors. Dean Scott was not the only teacher residency faculty
member to express this sentiment. When the Director Roberts was asked the same question, they
responded,
I’d say the time is something that kind of comes; I’ll do the planning like a bit before the
session and then prepare usually like the day and night before I teach it. It kind of
happens when it needs to happen before I need to actually teach it and then collaborating
with others, I’d say, comes more in the planning piece than the internalization piece.
That’s mostly work that I do on my own.
Director Roberts’ response reveals the extent to which time for both planning and practice is a
factor in their work—because their time is so limited relative to preparing and practicing to
facilitate sessions, they cannot afford to dedicate time to collaboration. Instead collaboration is
viewed as a bonus, not a requirement or a need, in helping professors deliver the best instruction
possible.
Evident in both of these examples regarding collaboration is the challenge of time and of
team size. Dean Scott noted that, during the fellowship, they worked with other deans and faculty
on a day-to-day basis, collaborating and practicing, yet at the end of the fellowship, they were
limited in both time and immediate accessibility to colleagues to collaborate with due to campus
size. Relative to the response of Director Roberts, they noted collaboration with colleagues with
planning, but not with internalization or practice. Both respondents also noted that the
internalization happened fairly close to session delivery, which can make it challenging to deliver
high-quality sessions with such little preparation time. The variance in experiences amongst
teacher residency faculty is a noticeable gap, both in teacher residency program implementation
and in organizational structures specific to collaboration, and these gaps must be addressed.

A NEW FIRST WAY 94
Synthesis
The collection of quantitative and qualitative data for this study enabled the researcher to
both understand the experiences and perspectives of teacher residency faculty holistically and to
achieve an in-depth understanding of individual teacher residency faculty experiences based on
their position within the organization. The use of a mixed-methods approach for this study
helped to triangulate the data relative to the overall information gathered about the organization.
All of these components helped to facilitate a more thorough understanding and interpretation of
participants’ experiences. Moreover, the diversity of the data helped to reveal two different
narratives, which are explored below.
The quantitative data collected for this study presented a fairly positive perspective on the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influencers which respondents both possessed and
needed to be successful in their roles and to impact the success of teacher residents. The only
metric that questioned this assessment related to having adequate time to prepare to teach core or
deliberate practice sessions with only 60% of participants agreeing or strongly agreeing with this
statement and therefore leaving 40% of participants with different perspectives. Yet, those data
do not seem to convey the same narrative as that of the qualitative interviews. The qualitative
interviews present an in-depth understanding relative to knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influencers which countered the quantitative data on most metrics, with the
exception of defining the success of teacher residents.
Despite this dichotomy in the data, the global goal and the stakeholder goals were still
met. The hypothesis as to why is relative to both the previous experiences that participants had
prior to joining TPS and to the experiences they have had at TPS. The participants’ experiences
as P-12 teachers revealed to professors precisely what it meant to be a teacher. When they joined
TPS, they came with their values and experiences of being a high-quality teacher and they
A NEW FIRST WAY 95
merged those components with the values and expectations that TPS has for teacher residency
faculty. This merge intentionally and unintentionally created a resilience amongst teacher
residency faculty and invested and inspired them to teach, advise, and support teacher residents
through and beyond their teacher residency commitment. Hence, this explains why the
quantitative data is so positive; despite any gaps or desires for training or support, respondents
saw themselves as both an advocate and guarantor of teacher resident success. However, the
qualitative data demonstrates that there is a need and a desire for teacher residency faculty to
improve, relative to the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influencers which drive their
work. The responses and reflections from the qualitative interviews revealed actionable
recommendations for improving the experiences of teacher residency faculty in the service of
teacher resident success. Those recommendations are explored in depth in the following chapter,
Chapter Five.

A NEW FIRST WAY 96
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION
The purpose of this project was to study TPS’s organizational performance relative to a
larger problem of practice—teacher preparation—through the lens of the teacher residency
faculty. As such, the analysis of this study solely focused on the experiences of faculty relative to
the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influencers which contributed to their direct
impact on the success of teacher residents. Ultimately, faculty’s knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influencers were used as a mechanism to further understand both the experiences
of teacher residents and the efficacy of the teacher residency program. As such, the questions that
guided this study are listed below.
1. What knowledge and motivational factors are present within teacher preparation
organizations to ensure professor success?
2. What organizational training experiences do professors of teacher candidates have, both
prior to and during their roles as professors of teacher candidates to ensure that 75% of
professors are proficient in training outcomes?
Knowledge Recommendations
The knowledge influencers in Table 10 reflect the two knowledge influencers most
pertinent to this study as well as the outcome of their validity based on the literature review,
quantitative survey, and qualitative interviews. Moreover, a modified version of Clark and Estes’
(2008) gap analysis framework brings attention to the process of evaluating programs or
organizations by focusing solely on the knowledge, motivation, and organization influencers
within the organization. As such, Table 10 not only lists the knowledge-based influencers that are
crucial in addressing both the global and stakeholder goals of this study, but it also reveals
whether the influencers were validated as well as specific recommendations to address the
organizational need.
A NEW FIRST WAY 97
Table 10
Summary of Knowledge Influencers and Recommendations
Assumed Motivation
Influence
Priority
Yes or No
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Teacher residency faculty
need to know and understand
the teacher residency
curriculum.
Y Professors and
teachers need robust
content and curricular
knowledge,
specifically both
declarative and
conceptual
knowledge.

(Darling-Hammond,
2006)
(Krathwohl, 2002)

Recommendation:
Training to ensure
understanding and in-
depth knowledge of the
teacher residency
program content and
curriculum.

Rationale:
Teacher residency
faculty need strong
content and curricular
knowledge to teach
teacher residents.
Teacher residency faculty
need to know how to
facilitate the teaching
residency curriculum in order
to transfer their knowledge to
teacher residents.
Y Professors need to
engage in strategic
and meaningful
training on how to
teach at the collegiate
level, such that they
are able to deliver
content in a manner
that is appropriate for
a graduate school
setting.

(Light & Calkins,
2008)
(Varnava
Marouchou, 2011)

Recommendation:
Training to ensure
understanding and in-
depth knowledge of TPS
adult facilitation
expectations.

Rationale:
Teacher residency
faculty need to be taught
TPS’ preferred manner to
facilitate to transfer their
knowledge to teacher
residents.

Knowledge recommendations. As noted in Table 10, in order to address faculty
members’ conceptual knowledge need relative to knowledge and understanding of the TPS
curriculum, they must be trained in a systematic way. Specifically, teacher residency faculty need
to possess conceptual knowledge. Conceptual knowledge, as defined by Krathwohl (2002), is
A NEW FIRST WAY 98
both factual and conceptual knowledge of teaching and of the profession of teaching, and this is
especially important for teacher residency faculty, as they need to fundamentally understand both
the theory and the practice of the teacher resident experience. Moreover, the training that faculty
engage in to learn and deeply internalize the TPS curriculum must be specific and strategic. This
point is furthered by the work of Kugel (1993), who argued that professors, similarly to teachers,
needed direct instruction and support regarding how to become professors. Kugel (1993) argued
that many professors lack adequate training and preparation as they transition from their graduate
experiences to becoming professors; as such, novice professors experience cognitive dissonance
about their ability to do their jobs at a high level. As a result, ensuring strategic and purposeful
training to address this need is crucial to faculty success, and to the success of the teacher
residents they work with. Lastly, the strategic and purposeful training that faculty receive must
be grounded in TPS’s values and teacher preparation preferences to ensure alignment with the
teacher residency program. These recommendations address the need for more in-depth
knowledge and consistency in teacher residency programmatic knowledge.
Motivation Recommendations
Table 11 reflects the two motivational influencers that were most pertinent to this study as
well as the outcome of their validity. These two motivational influencers were validated based on
the literature review and the collection of quantitative and qualitative data. Like the knowledge
influencers previously discussed, the motivational influencers were also rooted in a modified
version of Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis framework. Table 11 reveals the motivational
influencers of focus for this study and recommendations addressing the needs revealed.

A NEW FIRST WAY 99
Table 11
Summary of Motivation Influencers and Recommendations
Assumed Motivation
Influence
Priority
Yes, No
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Professors need to
believe that they have
the capacity to
demonstrate the task of
educating teacher
candidates.
Y Teacher residency
faculty need to believe
they have the
knowledge and
understanding of what
it means to be teacher
and therefore have the
capacity to
demonstrate the task of
educating teacher
candidates.

Bandura (1986)
(Pajares, 2006)
Recommendation:
TPS designed
training on
Professor Self-
Efficacy and
alignment between
teacher residency
programmatic
coursework and
PK-12 instruction.

Rationale:
Faculty need to
understand the
impact of professor
self-efficacy and
how low self-
efficacy can
impact their
instruction.
Professors have to see
the importance of
institutional training.
Y Teacher residency
faculty need to both
value and view
institutional training as
important to their
impact on teacher
residents.

(Eccles, 2006)
(Denler, Wolters, &
Benzon, 2006)
Recommendation:
Observations of
professors’
instruction to
assess for
knowledge and
implementation of
training content.

Rationale:
Professors need to
understand
institutional
training adds value
to the quality of
their instruction
which directly
impacts the
success of teacher
residents.

A NEW FIRST WAY 100
Motivation recommendations. As noted in Table 11, there are two clear needs within
TPS that should be solved for better implementation of the teacher residency program. The first
need to be solved is relative to professors’ belief that they have the capacity to demonstrate the
task of educating teacher residents. Professors must see themselves as knowledgeable about
teaching in general and about the teacher residency program in particular in order to have the
capacity to demonstrate this task. When professors have knowledge of how to educate teacher
residents, their confidence is heightened, and they are motivated to complete the task (Pintrich,
2003). High levels of confidence relative to a task are important for teacher residency professors
as they have weekly touchpoints with their students. Yet, it is also important for faculty to
understand the impact of their own self-efficacy and their former experiences which serve to
heighten their self-efficacy. Specifically, professors need to understand what it means it be a
teacher and in turn, share their knowledge and expertise with teacher residents as they learn and
develop (Kugel, 1993). By sharing knowledge and expertise, professors reveal their capacity to
demonstrate the task of educating teacher residents.
The second need to be addressed is relative to how faculty perceive the importance of
institutional training, and specifically how institutional training is instrumental to their successful
implementation of the teacher residency program. Faculty must view institutional training as
important and as a mechanism for helping to improve their teaching, advisement, and overall
support of teacher residents.
Ultimately, the importance and value of institutional training is to ensure that all faculty
and staff have a clear vision for what the programmatic expectations are of teacher residents and,
therefore, how to best support teacher residents around those expectations as they navigate
through their training (Papay et al., 2012). Professors need to see the importance of this training
as they are responsible for implementing the knowledge they acquire into their practice, making
A NEW FIRST WAY 101
training relevant and applicable to professor practice is imperative (Eccles, 2006). Moreover,
training is more important and impactful if it has a clear rationale and connections between the
content and the trainees’ profession (Pintrich, 2003; Eccles, 2006). This is important relative to
institutional training as professors need to see the connection between training and organizational
priorities. Making this connection obvious to professors will also heighten professor
implementation of the training content and overall value of the experience (Pintrich, 2003;
Eccles, 2006).
Organizational Recommendations
There were two organizational influencers that were most pertinent to this study and that
were also validated based on the literature review and qualitative and quantitative data collected.
As noted by McAlpine and Weston (2000), it is imperative that institutions of higher education
create and maintain a space for collaboration and the constant education of their educators. This
action by institutions of higher education serves to demonstrate their organizational commitment
to the success of their professors.
Similar to the motivational influencers listed and discussed above, the organizational
influencers noted below in Table 12 were also rooted in Clark and Estes’ (2008) modified gap
analysis framework. Again, the modified version of this framework is appropriate for
understanding the outcomes of this study as it brings attention to the gaps between programmatic
vision and execution.

A NEW FIRST WAY 102
Table 12
Summary of Organizational Influencers and Recommendations
Assumed
Organizational
Influence
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and Citation

Context-Specific
Recommendation
Teacher residency
faculty need a national
community of support
and collaboration in
order to execute the
teacher residency
program according to
the national framework.

Y Professors need
explicit training to
perform their roles at a
high level and that
training is most ideal
when they are
surrounded by other
professors who teach
in the same context.

(McAlpine & Weston,
2000)
(Kegel, 1993)

Recommendation
Policy and
Procedures
specific to the
teacher residency
program, which
requires
participation in a
teacher residency
learning
community.

Rationale:
Collaboration will
build capacity and
further
understanding of
the TPS teacher
residency
program.
Professors need the
time and resources to
effectively plan for
teacher residents’
academic instruction.
Y Professors need to be
given time in their
schedules to
meaningfully
collaborate with other
professors teaching the
same content. This
time will allow for a
more purposeful
execution of their role
as well as demonstrate
the value that the
organization places on
time and resources of
professors’ success.

(Light & Calkins,
2008)
Recommendation:
Policy and
Procedures
specific to the
teacher residency
program, which
designates weekly
and monthly times
for planning and
collaboration.

Rationale: Teacher
residency faculty
need designated
time to plan and
collaborate to
improve their
practice.

A NEW FIRST WAY 103
Organizational recommendations. As noted in Table 12, two organizational influencers
directly impacted TPS’s ability to meet both the global goal of the organization as well as the
individual stakeholder goals. Each of these influencers were rooted in cultural components of the
organization and recommendations for their implementation are noted below.
Cultural models. The ability of professors at TPS to both create and maintain a national
community of support and collaboration to execute the teacher residency programmatic
framework, according to the national framework, is crucial in meeting the global goal of the
organization. However, as noted by Varnava Marouchou (2011), professors need a clear vision of
what teaching and learning at their institution should entail. This organizational vision is
imperative as professors work to understand how their previous experiences as a teacher or a
learner can be married with the organizational vision for instruction; as such, they need the time,
resources, and opportunities to grapple with their previous experiences and the expectations of
their new organization. This recommendation addresses the gap relative to both defining success
and implementation of structures and collaboration.
Cultural settings. Teacher residency faculty need to have time and resources to
effectively plan for academic instruction both to meet the expectations and overall needs of the
organization as well as to ensure teacher residents’ success. As Light and Calkins (2008) noted,
professors are most successful in their roles when they are given meaningful time to collaborate
with each other, both for planning and for reflection purposes. As such, ensuring that
organizational policy and procedures afford the allocation of resources and time serves to
highlight the value and importance of professor growth and development within an organization.
Lastly, although research regarding the impact of cultural settings in institutions of higher
education is limited, the preparation of professors and the need to prioritize time and resources is
very similar to that of a teacher in a P-12 classroom. It is in the P-12 setting that Burke et al.
A NEW FIRST WAY 104
(2013) posited that teachers enter into the profession craving both a connection and similarity to
their teacher preparation experience. The same parallel can be drawn to the experiences of
professors, specifically to their desires to replicate their training and preparation experiences as
they navigated their professorships. Ultimately, professors need to be able to draw from their
experiences as educators and learners, as well as have the time and resources to do so, in order to
be effective professors. However, without the integral support and prioritization of their
institutions of higher education, their ability to lead teacher residents toward success becomes
compromised. This recommendation addresses the gap relative to program implementation and
attainment of programmatic knowledge.
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
The model that informed this implementation and evaluation plan was the New World
Kirkpatrick Model based on the original Kirkpatrick Four Level Model of Evaluation
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). This model suggests that, when evaluating a plan of action,
an organization must start with the end in mind, such that the leading indicators are more
informed and directly connected to the goals of the organization. This alignment, according to
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016), is key to ensuring that solutions are truly reflective of the
overall goals of the organization. Furthermore, starting with the end in mind keeps all problem
solving and actions focused on the larger goal and provides multiple opportunities to check both
indicators and outcomes against the actual goal of the organization. Designing the
implementation and evaluation plan in this manner forces connections between the immediate
solutions and the larger goal and serves to ensure investment from multiple stakeholders
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).

A NEW FIRST WAY 105
Organizational Purpose, Need, and Expectations
The mission of TPS is to prepare both teachers and school leaders to work in partnership
with parents and communities to ensure that P-12 students receive the best education and life
outcomes possible. As previously shared in this study, TPS had two goals that were important to
this study, the first, a global institutional goal which sought to raise the amount of teacher
residents which were prepared each year.
This goal was important to address as, when fewer teacher residents complete the teacher
residency program, there are fewer available and highly prepared teachers entering into the
profession of teaching. As a result, faculty were the most important stakeholder in this study as
they directly impacted the success of teacher residents through their instruction and advisement.
In turn, the faculty’s impact on teacher residents directly impacted the organization’s ability to
meet the global goal. The interactions and overall experiences that teacher residents had with
faculty had a large impact on teacher residents’ success. Ultimately, this relationship positioned
teacher residents to make an informed decision about being ready to enter into the classroom at
the end of their teacher residency year, which is the goal of the teacher residency program.
However, and as noted in Chapter Four, there were organizational needs which required
addressing relative to the needs of the faculty executing the program in a manner that worked
towards the global goal; as such, a solution was needed.
The proposed solution is a comprehensive faculty training and evaluation program which
encompasses the following four components: concentration on the specific knowledge that
professors need to adequately and fluently teach the content that teacher residents are learning
during their teacher residency commitment, a demonstrated understanding of the preferred
method of teaching and facilitation according to the organization, a differentiated scope and
sequence of support based on the professors’ time with the organization as well as their
A NEW FIRST WAY 106
experience working with the teacher residency program, and an institutional evaluation system
that specifically focuses on the responsibilities of faculty who work directly with teacher
residents. These four components comprise a proposed solution to the uncovered needs of
teacher faculty relative to the execution of the TPS teacher residency program. The
implementation of a comprehensive training and evaluation program for the faculty should
produce the desired outcome: more teaching faculty who possess the knowledge, motivational,
and organizational skills to successfully support teacher residents during their teacher residency
year.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
In terms of meeting the global goal of the organization, two internal leading indicators
reveal whether the organization generally, and the primary stakeholder in particular, are on track
to achieve the desired outcomes. Table 13 shows the proposed Level 4 results and leading
indicators in the form of outcomes, metrics, and methods for both external and internal outcomes
for TPS. If the internal outcomes are met, then consequently the impact and ultimately the result
can be seen in the teacher residents’ successful completion of the one-year teacher residency.
Table 13
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal and External Outcomes
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
Increase the number of
teacher residents who
successfully complete the
program in one year.
The percentage of teacher residents
who complete the teacher residency
program in one year.
Gateway 5 data—which notes both
successful completion teacher
residency program and full-time
employment as a teacher for the
subsequent year.

Increase the number of
teacher resident enrollees for
each year.
Nationally, a 5-10% increase in
enrollment of teacher residents in
the teacher residency program each
year.
Promote teacher resident program
completion and share results with
stakeholders to increase teacher
residency program enrollment.

A NEW FIRST WAY 107
Table 13, continued
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
Internal Outcomes
Creation of a comprehensive
training and evaluation
program for all teacher
residency faculty.
Teacher residency faculty
observation data from teacher
residency faculty rubric,
specifically the knowledge and
content strains.
Aggregate data (Levels 3 & 2)
from teacher residency deliberate
practice training and new faculty
training.

Self-reported survey and
qualitative data collected by the
dean of teacher residency and
regional deans who manage teacher
residency faculty.

Teacher residency faculty
observation data from teacher
residency faculty rubric,
specifically the facilitation and
culture strains.
Aggregate data (Levels 3 & 2)
from teacher residency deliberate
practice training and new faculty
training.

Self-reported survey and
qualitative data collected by the
dean of teacher residency and
regional deans who manage teacher
residency faculty.

Summative rubric data from
teacher residency summer training
and end-of-week performance task.

Teacher residency faculty overall
rubric-based evaluation scores.
Aggregate data (Levels 3 & 2)
from quarterly teacher residency
manager-driven evaluations.

Creation of a Professional
Learning Community
specifically for teacher
residency faculty.
Teacher residency faculty
attendance rates and engagement
levels in monthly teacher residency
meetings as noted by qualitative
and quantitative data.
Aggregate data (Levels 3 & 2)
from monthly surveys post-
monthly teacher residency
meetings—these will be self-
reported data.

Level 3: Behavior
Critical behaviors. The stakeholders of focus were the faculty members who directly
instructed, advised, and supported teacher residents. The first critical behavior that faculty
members must both understand and know is how to facilitate the curriculum as designed by the
organization. The second critical behavior is that faculty members must advise and provide
A NEW FIRST WAY 108
support to teacher residents to ensure their success. Lastly, faculty members must monitor their
students’ successes and failures to determine movement toward or away from the global goal.
The specific metrics, methods, and timing for each of these critical behaviors appears in Table 14
below.
Table 14
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Teacher Residency Faculty
Critical Behavior Metric(s)
Method(s)
Timing
1. Teacher residency
faculty will
demonstrate the
knowledge and ability
to facilitate the
teacher residency
program curriculum
as designed by the
organization.

Teacher Residency
Faculty Rubric.

Teacher residency
faculty will be observed
at least 4 times a year
using the teacher
residency faculty rubric
Teacher residency
faculty members
will be observed
at least two times
a semester.
2. Teacher residency
faculty will advise
and support teacher
residents during their
one-year teacher
residency experience
to ensure their
success.
Bi-annual survey
given to teacher
residents, specifically
focusing on all
questions related to
faculty advisement
and support.
Teacher residency
faculty will meet with
teacher residents at least
4 times a semester for
general check-ins and
conduct at least 3
observations of teacher
residents at their
schools.

Teacher resident
will have at least
4 meetings and at
least 3 school-
based
observations with
their teacher
resident faculty
advisor.

3. Teacher residency
faculty will monitor
teacher residents’
successes and failures
to determine
movement toward or
away from the global
goal.
Teacher residents’
passage rates on
gateways assessments.
Including how many
attempts teacher
residents needed to
pass the gateway—
the ideal pass rate for
first-round
assessments is 85% or
higher.
Teacher residents must
successfully pass
gateways 1 through 5—
the fifth representing
successful completion of
the teacher residency
program and full-time
employment as a teacher
the following year.

Gateway 1:
September-
October, Gateway
2: November,
Gateway 3:
February.
Gateway 4: April-
May, Gateway 5:
June-July

A NEW FIRST WAY 109
Required drivers. Faculty members require the support of their direct supervisors,
regional deans, as well as the national dean of teacher residency to reinforce what they are
learning through structured and differentiated training and also as a means of accountability.
Table 15 shows the recommended drivers to support critical behaviors of teacher residency
faculty.
Table 15
Required Drivers to Support Teacher Residency Faculty’s Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical
Behaviors
Supported
1, 2, & 3
Reinforcing
 Teacher residency faculty Handbook which
specifically highlights the roles and responsibilities
of teacher residency faculty and position-specific
common resources.
Ongoing 1, 2, 3
 Monthly teacher residency faculty meetings with
best practice sharing and strategic instructional foci
varying by month/time of year.
Monthly 1, 2, 3
 Monthly one-on-one meetings between the dean of
teacher residency and the direct supervisor of
teacher residency faculty.
Monthly 1, 2, 3
 Pre- and Post-deliberate practice meetings to
prepare for and reflect on instruction.
Weekly 1, 2, 3
Encouraging
 Best practice and peer video review by teacher
residency faculty of them teaching and facilitating
deliberate practice.
Bi-monthly 1, 2, 3
 Real-time feedback to teacher residency faculty
from their direct supervisor or dean during
deliberate practice and core course instruction.
Ongoing 1, 2, 3
Rewarding
 “Shout Out” or public acknowledgement of teacher
residency faculty performance both holistically and
individually during the teacher residency faculty
monthly meeting and at bi-weekly faculty
meetings.
Bi-monthly 1, 2, 3

A NEW FIRST WAY 110
Table 15, continued
Method(s) Timing
Critical
Behaviors
Supported
1, 2, & 3
Monitoring
 Teacher residency faculty to bring to their weekly
check-ins, information and updates about all 3 of
the critical behaviors and how those behaviors were
demonstrated in their work in the past week.
Weekly 1, 2, 3
 Teacher residency faculty on a quarterly basis to
present the state of teacher residents to their direct
supervisor, dean, specifically detailing their
reflections on their instruction, support and advise
of teacher residents.
 Use ofteacher resident survey data, advisement and
support data, and reflections on teacher resident
grades and Gateway pass rates, to triangulate with
managers’ formal and informal observations of
them to gauge the success of teacher residency
faculty and teacher residents.
Quarterly

Quarterly
1, 2, 3

1, 2, 3

Organizational support. The organization is best positioned to support the critical
behaviors listed above by ensuring that teacher residency faculty have a national community of
support and collaboration. This national community should consist of teacher residency faculty
from throughout the organization, and participation in this professional learning community
should be an employment requirement. Most importantly, the organization should provide time
and resources weekly and monthly for faculty to both participate in the professional learning
community and to collaboratively plan for academic instruction, advisement, and overall support
of teacher residents. With the implementation of these organizational resources, the critical
behaviors described above can be actualized.
Level 2: Learning
Learning goals. Upon completion of the recommended solutions, the stakeholders will
be able to:
A NEW FIRST WAY 111
1. Articulate the components of the teacher residency experience such as gateways, gradual
on-ramp, resident advisors, etc. (D)
2. Articulate the expectations of their roles as teacher residency faculty members, such as
teaching, grading, advisement, partnership maintenance, etc. (D)
3. Articulate the major data drops that occur throughout the year as well as articulate what
each piece of data yields in clarifying progress toward the global goal. (D)
4. Apply learnings of the TPS academic curriculum to planning and facilitation. (P)
5. Apply learnings of the TPS deliberate practice curriculum to planning and facilitation. (P)
6. Apply learnings of the TPS data analysis process to weekly check-ins and quarterly
presentations with direct supervisors. (P)
7. Evaluate the performance of teacher residents using the Gateway assessments and other
evaluation tools. (D and P)
8. Value the teacher residency model as an opportunity to model what it means to be a
teacher. (Value)
9. Value the teacher residency programmatic framework as a highly effective way to prepare
teachers. (Value)
10. Value the TPS method for training and supporting faculty members. (Value)
Program. The learning goals listed in the previous section will be achieved with a
comprehensive faculty training and evaluation program which encompasses the following four
components: concentration on the specific knowledge that professors need to adequately and
fluently teach the content that teacher residents are learning during their teacher residency
commitment; a demonstrated understanding of the preferred method of teaching and facilitation
according to the organization; a differentiated scope and sequence of support based on the
professors’ time with the organization as well as experience working with the teacher residency
A NEW FIRST WAY 112
program; and an institutional evaluation system that specifically focuses on the responsibilities of
faculty who work with teacher residents. Faculty will learn about the aforementioned
components and how to execute them within the organization. TPS Teaching Residency faculty
will also learn that these components will take approximately 200 hours to complete—yet, all
components will be included in the work day of teacher residency faculty, therefore providing
time and resources for execution.
During the first component, concentration on the specific knowledge that professors need
to adequately and fluently teach the content that teacher residents are learning during their
teacher residency commitment, faculty will start by learning the content that teacher residents
will learn through their year in the program. These courses are taught in a blended fashion, so, in
addition to taking the online courses that teacher residents will take, faculty’s responses to online
quizzes, multiple choice, and open-ended questions will be reviewed for both completion and
accuracy. Faculty will also study and observe through real-time or video observation the in-
person courses that accompany the online coursework. Then, through whole group and paired
discussion, they will be able to articulate the connectedness between the online work and the in-
person sessions. This experience will help to ensure that faculty are versed in and knowledgeable
of all residency content to ensure success in their teaching and transference of content.
During the second component, a demonstrated understanding of the preferred method of
teaching and facilitation according to the organization, teacher residency faculty will spend time
learning about how TPS considers and understands adult facilitation. This learning will be
achieved through the observation and evaluation of more senior faculty members facilitating
training both at new faculty training, a week-long training for all new faculty, and during teacher
residency faculty training, a week-long training for all faculty members who work with the
teacher residency program. These 2-week-long experiences will serve as an opportunity to
A NEW FIRST WAY 113
concretely observe what is expected of them holistically as faculty members and specifically
within the teacher residency program as well as an opportunity to use the evaluation tool (rubric)
on senior faculty members to better understand how it will be used on them throughout the year.
During the third component, a differentiated scope and sequence of support based on the
professors’ time with the organization as well as experience working with the teacher residency
program, faculty learn about an important part of their development as faculty members which is
designed and executed based on their individual needs: a differentiated scope and sequence for
support and development designed by the dean of residency. The differentiation designed will be
actualized in the monthly faculty meetings, as this will be the designated and structured time for
faculty development.
Lastly, during the fourth component, an organizational evaluation system that specifically
focuses on the responsibilities of faculty who work with teacher residents, faculty will learn
specifically about how they will be evaluated as faculty, such that they can gauge their success
both through their learning and facilitation and through the success of the students they teach,
advise, and support. At new faculty training, faculty members will learn in depth about faculty
evaluation tools, specifically the tool focused on the teacher residency faculty experience. This
evaluation tool will guide faculty in their preparation and execution of courses, in their own
growth and development, and, lastly, the evaluation tool will serve as a shared language between
them and their direct supervisors.
All four of the aforementioned components will benefit the programmatic experience that
faculty must experience in order to successfully demonstrate the critical behaviors
recommended. These recommendations will take approximately 200 hours across 10 months and
will be embedded into faculty members’ daily responsibilities to further demonstrate the
organization’s commitment to teacher residency faculty growth and development.
A NEW FIRST WAY 114
Components of learning. Faculty must be versed in the declarative and procedural
knowledge of their roles to be successful. By having both declarative and procedural knowledge,
faculty will have a clear vision of what they need to know and how to ensure that knowledge
becomes automatic for them in their work. Moreover, these two types of in-depth knowledge are
only as useful as faculty members’ belief in their ability to transfer their knowledge to teacher
residents. In turn, Table 16 lists both the evaluation methods and the timing for these components
of learning. The components listed reveal what teacher residency faculty must know and learn
and specifically when/where their learnings will occur.
Table 16
Components of Learning for the Program
Methods or Activities Timing
Declarative Knowledge: “I know it.”
Knowledge checks using multiple choice. In the asynchronous portions of the online
courses and during and after video
demonstrations.

Knowledge checks through whole group and paired
discussions.
Periodically during new faculty training and
teacher residency faculty training then
documented via observation notes.

Knowledge checks during one-on-one check-ins as
teacher residency faculty members prepare to
facilitate content.
Weekly during check-ins and demonstrated in
check-in document notes.

Procedural Skills: “I can do it right now.”
During the asynchronous portions of the online
course using scenarios with multiple choice items.

In the asynchronous portions of the online course
at the end of each lesson.
Demonstration in groups and individually of using
the adult facilitation skills to successfully
demonstrate knowledge of the tenets of adult
facilitation as well as thorough knowledge of the
teacher residency faculty specific evaluation rubric.
These demonstrations will be assessed by senior
faculty members.

During new faculty training and teacher
residency faculty training.

A NEW FIRST WAY 115
Table 16, continued
Methods or Activities Timing
Declarative Knowledge: “I know it.”
Quality of the feedback from peers during group
sharing/performance tasks.
During new faculty training and teacher
residency faculty training.

Quality of evaluations of senior faculty members
instruction using the teacher residency faculty
specific rubric.

During new faculty training and teacher
residency Faculty Training.
Quality and average rubric score of all teacher
residency faculty’s mock lessons at the end of the
two-week training.

During new faculty training and teacher
residency faculty training.
Average responses of all teacher residency faculty
members when asked questions about their ability
to do their work right now, on the bi-annual
faculty/staff survey.
Bi-annually on the faculty survey.
Attitude: “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Deans’ observation of participants’ statements and
actions during new faculty training, teacher
residency training, and monthly teacher residency
faculty calls—demonstrating that they see the
benefit of what they are being asked to do.

During new faculty training and teacher
residency faculty training and throughout the
year.
Discussions of the value of what they are being
asked to do on the job.

During the training sessions.
Quality and aggregate data of all teacher residency
faculty members when asked questions about
whether or not their work is worthwhile on the bi-
annual faculty/staff survey.

Bi-annually on the faculty survey.
Confidence: “I think I can do it on the job.”
Likert scaled survey items focused on faculty
confidence and/or belief in their ability to perform
their job.
Following each session at the two-week training
and after the completion of each online course.

Paired discussions following practice and feedback.

Following each session at the two-week training
and after the completion of each online course.
Also, at weekly check-ins.

Quarterly data presentations as teacher residency
faculty reflect on their performance and the
performance of the teacher residents they support.

Quarterly and at weekly check-ins.
Commitment: “I will do it on the job.”
Create an individual action plan.

Quarterly and at weekly check-ins as needed.

A NEW FIRST WAY 116
Level 1: Reaction
Embedded in the Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2016) design for program evaluation is
the manner in which participants will respond to the learning events, specifically how they will
demonstrate engagement, relevance, and overall satisfaction with the learning events presented
to them. Below, Table 17 demonstrates how the aforementioned components will be measured as
well as the timing of the measurements.
Table 17
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Methods or Tools Timing
Engagement
Online course completion—this includes all
activities/course components.

Ongoing during asynchronous portion of the
course.
Attendance. During two-week training and at monthly
teacher residency faculty meetings.

Participant evaluations of the training and
monthly meetings.
After the two-week training—one for each
week of focus—and also after each monthly
teacher residency faculty meeting.
Relevance
Reoccurring check-in item during one-on-one
weekly check-ins with direct supervisor.
Weekly and embedded into the check-in
agenda.

Participant evaluations of the training and
monthly meetings.
After the two-week training—one for each
week of focus—and also after each monthly
teacher residency faculty meeting.
Customer Satisfaction
Brief pulse-check with participants via
anonymous survey (online).
After every online course is completed, after
every in-person training, and after monthly
teacher residency faculty meetings.

Participant evaluations of the training and
monthly meetings.
After the two-week training—one for each
week of focus—and also after each monthly
teacher residency faculty meeting.

A NEW FIRST WAY 117
Evaluation Tools
There will be two evaluation tools used to evaluate the training noted in the
implementation plan. The first tool, a mixed-methods survey (Appendix D), will be administered
immediately following the training sessions and will solely focus on Level 1 and Level 2 of
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2016) model. The second tool, a mixed-methods survey
(Appendix D), will be administered post-training and will focus on Levels 1, 2, 3, and 4 of
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s model.
Immediately following program implementation. There are three distinct ways that
data will be collected on faculty’s internalization and implementation of programmatic content.
First, during online course completion, the system will automatically record responses, record
time spent on the task, and yield scored multiple choice questions. Second, during the in-person
training, after each session (block of time within the larger scope and sequence of the two
weeks), faculty will complete an exit ticket, which will yield real-time data on both their
understanding of the content and teacher residency faculty comfort with implementing the
knowledge and techniques that were taught. Third, at the end of the training sessions, there will
be an anonymous comprehensive evaluation that will yield information about the overall content
of the sessions, the quality of the facilitation, and the extent to which teacher residency faculty
are confident and prepared to execute the content they learned. Faculty will have two weeks to
complete the survey.
Delayed for a period after program implementation. Approximately one month after
the training, there will be detailed one-on-one follow-up meetings with each participant by their
direct supervisor. In these meetings, their direct supervisor will inquire about the teacher
residency faculty member’s perspective, satisfaction, and the overall relevance of the previous
training to their role. Additionally direct supervisors will learn about faculty confidence
A NEW FIRST WAY 118
immediately implementing the learnings from the training sessions, the actual ways in which
they have implemented the learnings from the training sessions and the success and barriers they
have experienced, and lastly, the extent to which the training sessions have positioned them to
ensure the success of teacher residents in the teacher residency program.
Data analysis and reporting. After administration of the survey, the data will be culled
and analyzed, therefore giving facilitators an opportunity to reinforce content or gaps the
following day and/or to implement other direct feedback that would make the training more
impactful. Moreover, the subsequent day of training will start with the sharing of high-level
feedback and immediate next steps to look for in that day’s session. The second purpose of
culling and analyzing data from the immediate instrument is to funnel real-time performance and
self-efficacy data up to direct managers, which can be married with the actions taken after the
administration of the delayed instrument. Direct supervisors can use this data throughout the next
month as they support their teaching residency faculty members, or they can cull and save it for
the one-month post-training administration check-in and use the data as a reference point for the
larger reflection and dialogue they will engage in with their teacher residency faculty members.
Upon completion of these one-on-one check-ins, direct supervisors will assess their direct reports
relative to Levels 1, 2, 3, 4 and log their responses in a Google survey. These aggregated data
will be analyzed, the larger trends extracted, and shared with all participants in a newsletter along
with tips on how to keep the learning going after training. All of these measures of accountability
relative to critical behaviors will be monitored and assessed most closely and used for necessary
programmatic adjustments throughout the year. Table 18 demonstrates the manner in which
critical behaviors will be monitored for completion and high-level compliance.

A NEW FIRST WAY 119
Table 18
Critical Behavior Dashboard

Critical Behavior Post-Training
Reflections
Semester One
Reflections
Semester Two
Reflections
Final
Reflections
Teacher residency
faculty will
demonstrate
knowledge of and
ability to facilitate the
teacher residency
curriculum as
designed by the
institution.

100% of teacher
residency faculty
will complete online
teacher residency
modules by the start
of summer training.
100% of all
faculty will be
observed by their
direct supervisor
at least twice and
receive proficient
scores on the
evaluations.
100% of all faculty
will be observed by
their direct
supervisor at least
twice receive
proficient scores on
the evaluations.
TBD
Teacher residency
faculty will advise
and support teacher
residents during their
one-year teacher
residency experience
to ensure their
success.
100% of all teacher
residency faculty
will attend 4
sessions on student
support and
advisement.
100% of all
teacher residency
faculty will
complete at least
two general check-
ins with their
advisees as well as
at least one formal
classroom
observation.
100% of all teacher
residency faculty
will complete at
least two general
check-ins with their
advisees as well as
a least two formal
classroom
observations.

TBD
Teacher residency
faculty will monitor
teacher resident
success and failures to
determine movement
toward or away from
the global goal.

100% of teacher
residency faculty
understand and can
articulate the 5
gateway benchmark
assessments.
100% of teacher
residents will
successfully pass
both gateways 1
and 2 with 85% or
more passing
during the first
administration.
100% of teacher
residents will
successfully pass
gateways 3, 4, and
5 with 85% or more
passing during the
first administration.
TBD

Summary
The completion of this study revealed, through the framework of Kirkpatrick and
Kirkpatrick’s (2016) model, that there are viable solutions that can be leveraged to ensure the
successful implementation of the teacher residency program. If implemented with clear
expectations for faculty, a return on expectations is attainable. By using Kirkpatrick and
Kirkpatrick’s (2016) model to both propose and implement a solution to the gaps in teacher
residency programmatic implementation, the organization can start with the end in mind. By
A NEW FIRST WAY 120
homing in on what the organization is trying to achieve, each critical behavior and leading
indicator can be evaluated and correlated to the global institutional goal of the organization. The
recommendations made in this chapter are reflective of starting with the global institutional goal
to strategically plan and implement a necessary and well-considered response.
Limitations and Delimitations
This study had a number of limitations and delimitations, all of which were considered
during the analysis and discussion of the study’s findings. In terms of limitations, both during the
quantitative survey administration and the qualitative interviews, neither the TPS research team
nor the interviewer could control the honesty of the participants’ responses or overall feelings
relative to the focus of the study. Another limitation was that the varying levels of experience
amongst professors could alter their responses and overall comfort with the teacher residency
program, therefore providing inconsistent or drastically different perspectives.
Relative to delimitations, the population of focus was both small and specific. This aspect
of the survey design might have prevented the ability to make larger generalizations about the
population if there was a low survey completion rate. However, because 83% of the population
completed the survey, this delimitation was addressed. Another delimitation was the assumption
that professors had declarative and procedural knowledge of the teaching residency program. If
participants solely had little knowledge of the program, then it would have been challenging to
effectively evaluate the efficacy of the model. Lastly, the conceptual framework used for this
study afforded an additional delimitation, which is the lack of knowledge of teacher resident
performance, as noted by teacher residents. By choosing to solely focus on faculty members who
directly taught, advised, and supported teacher residents, both the definitions and discussions of
success are limited to only one stakeholder.
Considerations for Future Research
A NEW FIRST WAY 121
As noted in the limitations and delimitations section above, the narrow focus on faculty
prevented the study from fully examining the teacher residency experience, especially from the
perspective of the teacher residents. Future research could explore the perspectives of these
residents as well as the P-12 school communities where they are based for their residency.
Having these additional perspectives will help to further learning and changes relative to the
many facets of the teacher residency program experience. Lastly, future research could occur
relative to the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influencers of teacher residency faculty
by region as the data for this study was purposely collected anonymously to prevent
identification of the participants. However, being able to disaggregate the data collected by
region would have been helpful to clarify if the programmatic needs were even more pervasive
based on campus location.
Conclusion
This study sought to evaluate the teacher residency model at TPS from the perspective of
faculty responsible for instruction, advisement, and support of teacher residents. The outcomes of
the study revealed several organizational assets which faculty regularly demonstrated and
leveraged in their roles. Additionally, outcomes of the study also revealed clear opportunities to
strengthen faculty’s knowledge, motivation, and organizational influencers and recommendations
were provided for these components to occur through training, faculty collaboration, and
organization policy and procedures. Lastly, this study revealed the necessity of faculty being
versed and invested in organizational goals and priorities as paramount to the success of the
teacher residency program.

A NEW FIRST WAY 122
REFERENCES
Angus, D. (2001). Professionalism and the public good: A brief history of teacher certification.
Washignton, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.
Baker, L. (2006). Developmental differences in metacognition: Implications for metacognitively
oriented reading instruction. In S. E. Israel, C. Collins Block, K. L. Bauserman, & K.
Kinnucan-Welsh (Eds.), Metacognition in literacy learning (pp. 61–80). New York, NY:
Routledge
Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of
Social and Clinical Psychology, 4(3), 359–373.
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 9(3), 75–78.
Berry, B., Montgomery, D., Rachel, C., Hernandez, M., Wurtzel, J., & Snyder, J. (2008).
Creating and Sustaining urban teacher residencies: A New way to recruit, prepare, and
retain effective teachers in high-needs districts. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute.
Borgogni, L., Dello Russo, S., & Latham, G. P. (2011). The relationship of employee perceptions
of the immediate supervisor and top management with collective efficacy. Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, 18(1), 5-13.
Burke, P. F., Schuck, S., Aubusson, P., Buchanan, J., Louviere, J. J., & Prescott, A. (2013). Why
do early career teachers choose to remain in the profession? The use of best–worst
scaling to quantify key factors. International Journal of Educational Research, 62, 259–
268.
Carter, K. (1990). Teachers’ knowledge and learning to teach. Handbook of research on teacher
education, 291–310.
A NEW FIRST WAY 123
Charters, W. W., & Waples, D. (1929). The Commonwealth teacher-training study. Chicago, IL.:
University of Chicago Press.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Cohen-Vogel, L., & Smith, T. M. (2007). Qualifications and assignments of alternatively
certified teachers: Testing core assumptions. American Educational Research Journal,
44(3), 732–753.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21
st
-century teacher education. Journal of Teacher,
Education, 57(3), 300.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2010a). Teacher education and the American future. Journal of Teacher
Education, 61(1–2), 35–47.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2010b). America’s commitment to equity will determine our future. The
Phi Delta Kappa International, 91(4), 8–14.
Darling-Hammond, L., Chung, R., & Frelow, F. (2002). Variation in teacher preparation: How
well do different pathways prepare teachers to teach? Journal of Teacher Education,
53(4), 286–302.
Denler, H., Wolters, C., & Benzon, M. (2006). Social cognitive theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/social-cognitive-theory/.
Eccles, J. (2006). Expectancy value motivational theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory/
Endo, J. J., & Harpel, R. L. (1982). The effect of student-faculty interaction on students’
educational outcomes. Research in Higher Education, 16(2), 115–138.
A NEW FIRST WAY 124
Freedman, S. W., & Applemen, D. (2008). “In it for the long haul”: How teacher education can
contribute to teacher retention in high-poverty, urban schools. Journal of Teacher
Education, 60(3), 323–337.
Gallego, M. (2001). Is experience the best teacher? The potential of coupling classroom and
community-based field experiences. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(4), 312–325.
Gatlin, D. (2009). A pluralistic approach to the revitalization of teacher education. Journal of
Teacher Education, 60(5), 469–477.
Helfeldt, J. P., Capraro, M. M., Capraro, R. M., & Scott, C. (2015). Full-time teaching
internships: A public school-university partnership designed to increase teacher retention
in urban area schools. Journal of Education and Human Development, 4(2), 1–15.
Hess, F. M. (2002). Tear down this wall: The case for a radical overhaul of teacher certification.
Educational Horizons, 80(4), 169–183.
Humphrey, D. C., Wechsler, M. E., & Hough, H. J. (2008). Characteristics of effective alternative
teacher certification programs. Teachers College Record, 110(1), 1–63.
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation.
Alexandria, VA: A TD Press.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice,
41(4), 212–218.
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2009). Chapter 3: Developing a questioning route. In Focus
groups: A practical guide for applied research (4th ed., pp. 35–61). Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE Publications.
Kugel, P. (1993). How professors develop as teachers. Studies in Higher Education, 18(3), 315–
328.
A NEW FIRST WAY 125
Layton, D. L. (2015). Perceptions of millennial teachers’ commitment to teaching as a career
(Doctoral dissertation, University of Arkansas).
Levine, A. (2006). Educating school teachers. Washington, DC: Education Schools Project.
Light, G., & Calkins, S. (2008). The experience of faculty development: Patterns of variation in
conceptions of teaching. International Journal for Academic Development, 13(1), 27–40.
Lundberg, C., & Schreiner, L. (2004). Quality and frequency of faculty-student interaction as
predictors of learning: An analysis by student race/ethnicity. Journal of College Student
Development, 45(5), 549–565.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE.
McAlpine, L., & Weston, C. (2000). Reflection: Issues related to improving professors’ teaching
and students’ learning. Instructional Science, 28(5), 363–385.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
The National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). IES NCES. Retrieved from
https://nces.ed.gov/
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy theory. Retrieved from http://www.education.com/reference/
article/self-efficacy-theory/
Papay, J. P., West, M. R., Fullerton, J. B., & Kane, T. J. (2012). Does an urban teacher residency
increase student achievement? Early evidence from Boston. Educational Evaluation and
Policy Analysis, 34(4), 413–434.
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of educational Psychology, 95(4), 667.
A NEW FIRST WAY 126
Porter, A., McMaken, J., Hwang, J., & Yang, R. (2011). Common core standards: The new US
intended curriculum. Educational Researcher, 40(3), 103-116.
Rodgers, C. (2002). Defining reflection: Another look at John Dewey and reflective thinking.
Teachers College Record, 104(4), 842–866.
Swain, S. S. (1998). Studying teachers’ transformations: Reflection as methodology. The
Clearing House, 72(1), 28–34.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2007). The differential antecedents of self-efficacy beliefs
of novice and experienced teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(6), 944–956.
Varnava Marouchou, D. (2011). Faculty conceptions of teaching: Implications for teacher
professional development. McGill Journal of Education/Revue des sciences de
l'éducation de McGill, 46(1), 123-132.
Wigfield, A., Tonks, S., & Klauda, S. L. (2009). Expectancy-value theory. Handbook of
motivation at school, 55–75.
Wilkerson, L., & Irby, D. M. (1998). Strategies for improving teaching practices: A
comprehensive approach to faculty development. Academic Medicine, 73(4), 387–96.
Webb, L. (2011). Learning and teaching in higher education: The reflective professional, 2
nd
edition- By Greg Light, Roy Cox, and Susanna Calkins. Teaching Theology and
Religion,14(3), 285-286.
Wenglinsky, H. (2000). How teaching matters: Bringing the classroom back into discussions of
teacher quality. New York, NY: Educational Testing Service
van den Bos, P., & Brouwer, J. (2014). Learning to teach in higher education: How to link theory
and practice. Teaching in Higher Education, 19(7), 772–786.
A NEW FIRST WAY 127
Varnava Marouchou, D. (2011). Faculty conceptions of teaching: Implications for teacher
professional development. McGill Journal of Education/Revue des sciences de
l’éducation de McGill, 46(1), 123–132.

A NEW FIRST WAY 128
APPENDIX A
Informed Consent Form
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education

INFORMATION/FACTS SHEET FOR EXEMPT NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

Evaluating the Teacher Residency Model—A New First Way

You are invited to participate in a research study. Research studies include only people who
voluntarily choose to take part. This document explains information about this study. You should
ask questions about anything that is unclear to you.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
This research study aims to understand the impact of professors on the success of teacher residents
as they learn and prepare how to become full-time teachers.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you agree to participate in this study you will be asked to complete an online survey, which is
anticipated to take about 10 minutes. You do not have to answer any questions you do not want to,
click “next” or “N/A” in the survey to move to the next question. Additionally, you will have an
optional opportunity to share even more of your thoughts about the Relay Teaching Residency by
participating in a 30-minute audio-taped interview. You do not have to answer any questions you
do not want to; if you do not want to be audio-taped, you cannot participate in the interview study.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will not be compensated for your participation.

CONFIDENTIALITY
Any identifiable information obtained in connection with this study will remain confidential. Your
responses will be coded with a false name (pseudonym) and maintained separately. Note that all
interviews will be transcribed and as a result be viewed by the transcriber. As a participant you
have the right to review/edit the audio or transcripts; all audio-tapes will be destroyed once they
have been transcribed. The members of the research team and the University of Southern
California’s Human Subjects Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews
and monitors research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION

Principal Investigator for this study is the Relay Research Team and they can be reached at
research@relay.edu and the Faculty Advisor for this study is Dr. Corinne Hyde and she can be
reached at chyde@usc.edu or (225) 223-5531
A NEW FIRST WAY 129
IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los
Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu

A NEW FIRST WAY 130
APPENDIX B
Survey Items
Note that each question begins with a K, M, or an O to designate the associated influencer for
the question. Questions that begin with a D represent the collection of demographic information.
These notations were not presented on the actual instrument given to professors.
D-1. How many years did you teach in PK-12 classrooms prior to working at Teacher
Preparation School?
a. 0–2 years
b. 2–4 years
c. 5 or more years
d. I did not teach in a PK-12 classroom.

D-2. What type of teaching preparation experience did you engage in?
a. College of education or education program at an institution of higher
education
b. Practitioner teacher program (i.e., The New Teacher Project, Relay, or
Teach for America)
c. Teacher Residency program
d. I did not participate in a teacher preparation program.

D-3. How long have you been employed by Teacher Preparation School?
a. 0–2 years
b. 2–4 years
c. 5 or more years

D-4. How many years have you worked with the Teaching Residency Program?
a. 0–2 years
b. 2–4 years
c. 5 or more years

O-5. Last year, how many teaching residents did you coach in deliberate practice?
a. 0–15 teaching residents
b. 15–30 teaching residents
c. 30–45 teaching residents
d. 45–60 teaching residents
e. 60 or more teaching residents
f. I did not coach teaching residents in deliberate practice

O-6. Last year, how many teaching residents did you teach in core classes?
a. 0–15 teaching residents
b. 15–30 teaching residents
c. 30–45 teaching residents
A NEW FIRST WAY 131
d. 45–60 teaching residents
e. 60 or more teaching residents
f. I did not teach teaching residents core classes.

O-7. Last year, about how many deliberate practice training sessions for faculty did you attend?
a. 1–2 training sessions
b. 2–4 training sessions
c. 5 or more training sessions
d. I did not attend deliberate practice training for faculty last year.

K-8. I have a clear understanding of the teaching residency programmatic framework, i.e.,
curriculum, gateways, or additional residency specific support.
a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
c. Somewhat agree
d. Somewhat disagree
e. Disagree
f. Strongly disagree

K-9. I have in-depth knowledge about the Teacher Preparation School Year 1 curriculum (i.e.,
courses and assessment).
a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
c. Somewhat agree
d. Somewhat disagree
e. Disagree
f. Strongly disagree

K-10. I have a clear understanding of how to facilitate the Teacher Preparation School
Curriculum.
a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
c. Somewhat agree
d. Somewhat disagree
e. Disagree
f. Strongly disagree

K-11. I learned about the Teaching Residency programmatic framework during my first month
of working at Teacher Preparation School.
a. Yes
b. No

M-12. I have observed deliberate practice outside of my campus (If “no,” move to question 14).
a. Yes
b. No

A NEW FIRST WAY 132
M-13. Last year, how many deliberate practices did you observe outside of your campus?
a. 1–2 deliberate practices
b. 2–4 deliberate practices
c. 5 or more deliberate practices
d. I did not observe any deliberate practices

M-14. I seek out feedback after facilitating core classes and deliberate practice sessions.
a. Always
b. Very often
c. Sometimes
d. Rarely
e. Never

K-15. Often, I create or alter deliberate practice session plans.
a. Always
b. Very often
c. Sometimes
d. Rarely
e. Never

O-16. There are clear supports (i.e., mentors, managers, team meetings, manager check-ins) in
place for me to be successful at my role as a faculty member.
a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
c. Somewhat agree
d. Somewhat disagree
e. Disagree
f. Strongly disagree

O-17. I know where and how to access supports for my role (i.e., course platform, Innovators
handbooks, New Faculty onboarding documents)
a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
c. Somewhat agree
d. Somewhat disagree
e. Disagree
f. Strongly disagree

O-18. I have the time and resources to adequately prepare to teach core classes and deliberate
practice sessions.
a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
c. Somewhat agree
d. Somewhat disagree
e. Disagree
f. Strongly disagree
A NEW FIRST WAY 133

O-19. My organization values my preparation and execution of the Teaching Residency program.
a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
c. Somewhat agree
d. Somewhat disagree
e. Disagree
f. Strongly disagree

M-20. Core sessions taught by me directly impact resident success.
a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
c. Somewhat agree
d. Somewhat disagree
e. Disagree
f. Strongly disagree
g. I do not teach core sessions to residents.

M-21. Deliberate practice sessions taught by me directly impact resident success.
a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
c. Somewhat agree
d. Somewhat disagree
e. Disagree
f. Strongly disagree
g. I do not teach deliberate practice to residents.

M-22. The Teacher Preparation School and national Teaching Residency Model will prepare
teaching residents to successfully complete the residency.
a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
c. Somewhat agree
d. Somewhat disagree
e. Disagree
f. Strongly disagree

M-23. The Teacher Preparation School teaching residency framework positions teaching
residents to graduate in two years.
a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
c. Somewhat agree
d. Somewhat disagree
e. Disagree
f. Strongly disagree

A NEW FIRST WAY 134
K-24. Below, please respond to the following question: What are the metrics for success for
teacher residents? List at least three metrics.

M-25. Below, please respond to the following question: What are the metrics for your success as
a professor of teaching residents? List at least three metrics.

A NEW FIRST WAY 135
APPENDIX C
Interview Protocol
1. Describe the Relay Teaching Residency framework. Follow-up question:
a. To what extent is that framework similar to or different from how you implement
the framework in your regional context/campus?
2. Describe the ways in which you learned about the teaching residency framework,
specifically, the residency curriculum, residency scope and sequence, and the deliberate
practice scope and sequence. Follow-up question:
a. When and where did this learning occur?
3. Tell me about the other deliberate practices that you’ve observed at Relay, not on your
campus. Follow-up questions:
a. In what ways did those observations impact your understanding of the work?
b. In what ways did those observations impact how you plan and/or execute
deliberate practice?
4. Tell me about how you prepare to internalize a session. Follow-up questions:
a. How do you collaborate with others during this process?
b. How do you schedule this time?
5. Tell me how you prepare to facilitate a session. Follow-up questions:
a. How do you collaborate with others during this process?
b. How do you schedule this time?
6. In what ways, and how often, do you both receive and seek out feedback, before and after
facilitating sessions? Follow-up question:
a. Articulate systems/frequency of feedback
7. Describe the residency specific support you receive as a residency professor. Follow-up
questions:
a. Relative to resources
b. Relative to time
c. Relative to evaluations from your direct manager and the national dean of
residency
8. Describe what resident success looks like for you as a faculty member. Follow-up
question:
a. What are the benchmarks towards success?
9. Explain your role in ensuring the successful implementation of the teaching residency
model.
10. Describe what teaching resident success looks like for teaching residents. How do you
know?
A NEW FIRST WAY 136
APPENDIX D
Survey Immediately Following Training
1. What I am learning today will help me on the job:
a) Strongly agree
b) Agree
c) Somewhat agree
d) Somewhat disagree
e) Disagree
f) Strongly disagree

2. During this training, we discussed how to apply what we learned:
a) Strongly agree
b) Agree
c) Somewhat agree
d) Somewhat disagree
e) Disagree
f) Strongly disagree

3. Based on what I’m learning today, I would recommend this training to my co-workers:
a) Strongly agree
b) Agree
c) Somewhat agree
d) Somewhat disagree
e) Disagree
f) Strongly disagree

4. I anticipate that I will receive the necessary support to successfully apply what I learned:
a) Strongly agree
b) Agree
c) Somewhat agree
d) Somewhat disagree
e) Disagree
f) Strongly disagree

5. What are the major components of the teacher resident faculty experience that you are
learning today?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
A NEW FIRST WAY 137
6. What barriers do you anticipate that could limit your success at applying what you
learned?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

7. I believe it will be worthwhile for me to apply what I am learning:
1. Strongly agree
2. Agree
3. Somewhat agree
4. Somewhat disagree
5. Disagree
6. Strongly disagree

8. What specific outcomes are you hoping to achieve as a result of your efforts?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

A NEW FIRST WAY 138
APPENDIX E
Post-Training Evaluation Instrument

1. The information provided in these training sessions is applicable to my role:
a) Strongly agree
b) Agree
c) Somewhat agree
d) Somewhat disagree
e) Disagree
f) Strongly disagree

2. Looking back, these training sessions were a good use of my time:
a) Strongly agree
b) Agree
c) Somewhat agree
d) Somewhat disagree
e) Disagree
f) Strongly disagree

3. What is the value or importance of applying what you learned during this training?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

4. What additional content or support would be helpful as you implement the knowledge from
these training sessions?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

A NEW FIRST WAY 139
5. Within my role, I have been able to apply what I learned in the training:
a) Strongly agree
b) Agree
c) Somewhat agree
d) Somewhat disagree
e) Disagree
f) Strongly disagree

6. Describe any challenges you are experiencing in applying what you learned to your work
and possible solutions to overcome them.

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
7. What early signs of success have you noticed from your efforts?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
8. My efforts have contributed to the mission of this organization:
a) Strongly agree
b) Agree
c) Somewhat agree
d) Somewhat disagree
e) Disagree
f) Strongly disagree

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study was an evaluation of Teacher Preparation School’s teacher residency program. The debate on teacher preparation is one engaged in by academics and practitioners alike. Yet, what continues to be deprioritized is a longer and more robust teacher practicum to demonstrate to teacher candidates, both in theory and in practice, what it means to be a teacher. The teacher residency program at TPS provides a protracted experience that serves to prepare teacher residents for the responsibilities and realities of being a full-time teacher of record. Using a modified version of Clark and Estes’ gap analysis conceptual framework, this study explored the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influencers that must be present for faculty to provide a robust and meaningful experience to teacher residents. Using a mixed-methods approach, coupled with the aforementioned conceptual framework, the results were as follows: the quantitative survey had a response rate of 83% (38 completers) and most respondents were positive about both their experiences as faculty members and their ability to leverage their knowledge and experience towards teacher resident success. However, the qualitative interviews of six faculty members told a different story. Those data revealed misalignment and a lack of consistency relative to knowledge, motivation, and organization influencers, especially by role or position within the organization. Recommendations varied from training sessions to structured and purposeful collaboration.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Factors impacting the effectiveness of mentor teachers in a national teacher residency

PDF

Adaptability characteristics: an evaluation study of a regional mortgage lender

PDF

Learning the language of math: supporting students who are learning English in acquiring math proficiency through language development

PDF

Organizational agility and agile development methods: an evaluation study

PDF

Administrators' role in supporting teachers through feedback

PDF

Supporting teachers' mental health: an evaluation study

PDF

Representation in the teaching force: recruitment of teachers of color

PDF

Managers’ learning transfer from the leadership challenge training to work setting: an evaluation study

PDF

Developing physician trainees leadership skills: an innovation study

PDF

The Education Teacher Performance Assessment: a model for teacher preparation?

PDF

Embedded academic support for high school student success: an innovation study

PDF

The knowledge, motivation, and organization influences affecting the frequency of empathetic teaching practice used in the classroom: an evaluation study

PDF

Bridging the empathy gap: a mixed-method approach to evaluating teacher support in bullying prevention and intervention at an urban middle school in India

PDF

An evaluation study of... What do teachers know about gifted students?

PDF

First-generation college students and persistence to a degree: an evaluation study

PDF

A wellness paradigm to attenuate attrition

PDF

Teacher perception on positive behavior interventions and supports’ (PBIS) cultivation for positive teacher-student relationships in high schools: an evaluation study

PDF

The board fundraising challenge after nonprofit mergers: an evaluation study

PDF

Primary care physicians' experiences working within the patient-portal to improve the quality of patient care

PDF

High attrition rate of preschool teachers in Hong Kong: an evaluation study

Asset Metadata

Creator Francis, Jennifer D. (author)

Core Title Evaluating the teacher residency model: a new first way

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 04/12/2018

Defense Date 02/22/2018

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag faculty development,faculty support,OAI-PMH Harvest,teacher residents,Teachers

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Hyde, Corinne (committee chair), Gastic, Billie (committee member), Hirabayashi, Kimberly (committee member)

Creator Email crossjd@usu.edu,jenniferdfrancis@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-8930

Unique identifier UC11670749

Identifier etd-FrancisJen-6239.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-8930 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-FrancisJen-6239.pdf

Dmrecord 8930

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Francis, Jennifer D.

Type texts

Source 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 a...

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