chapter 14 on ed.tech 2

Rethinking the connections between campus courses and field experiences in
College and University-based teacher education
Rethinking the Connections Between Campus Courses and Field
Experiences in College and University-based Teacher Education
Ken Zeichner*
Abstract
In this paper, I discuss one of the central problems that has plagued college and
university-based pre-service teacher education for many years, the disconnect
between the campus and school-based components of programs. First, I will
draw on my own experiences as a teacher educator and administrator over the
last thirty plus years at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the literature
to lay out various dimensions of this issue. Then, utililizing the concept of hybridity
and “third space,” I will discuss a variety of current work in programs across the
U.S. that offers much promise in deepening the quality of teacher learning in
college and university-based teacher education programs and the ability of teacher
education graduates to enact desired teaching practices in complex school
settings. This work in creating hybrid spaces in teacher education where
academic and practitioner knowledge and knowledge that exists in communities
come together in new less hierarchical ways in the service of teacher learning
represents a paradigm shift in the epistemology of teacher education programs.
I argue that this shift toward more democratic and inclusive ways of working with
schools and communities is necessary for colleges and universities to fulfill their
mission in the education of teachers.
Keywords: Education of teachers; Campus and school-based; Programs across.
Repensando as conexões entre a formação na universidade e as
experiências de campo na formação de professores em faculdades e
universidades
Resumo
Neste artigo, discuto um dos problemas centrais que tem afligido, já há alguns
anos, os cursos de formação inicial de professores nas faculdades e nas univer-sidades,
a desconexão entre os componentes curriculares acadêmicos e a par-cela
da formação docente que acontece nas escolas. Primeiro, extrairei de mi-nha
experiência como formador de professores e administrador durante mais de
trinta anos na Universidade de Wisconsin – Madison e da literatura, elementos
para discorrer sobre as várias dimensões dessa questão. Assim, usando o con-ceito
de hibridismo e “terceiro espaço”, discutirei vários trabalhos, em andamen-to
em programas formativos nos Estados Unidos, promissores quanto à qualifi-
* Boeing Professor of Teacher Education – University of Washington-Seattle.
Educação, Santa Maria, v. 35, n. 3, p. 479-501, set./dez. 2010 479

Ken Zeichner
cação da aprendizagem docente nos cursos de formação de professores das
universidades e das faculdades, assim como a habilidade dos graduados dos
cursos de formação de professores para realizar práticas de ensino desejadas
em espaços escolares complexos. Esse trabalho de criação de espaços híbri-dos
na formação de professores no qual o conhecimento empírico e acadêmico
e o conhecimento que existe nas comunidades estão juntos de modos menos
hierárquicos a serviço da aprendizagem docente representam uma mudança de
paradigma na epistemologia dos programas de formação de professores. Discu-to
que essa mudança rumo a modos mais democráticos e inclusivos de traba-lhar
com escolas e comunidades é necessária para as faculdades e as universi-dades,
a fim de que elas possam cumprir sua missão na formação de professo-res.
Palavras-chave: Formação de professores; Universidade-escola; Programas
formativos.
Staffed with graduate students, temporary and part-time
faculty and with few resources to develop field
placements, U.S. teacher certification programs are the
Cinderellas of the American university. Ideas and money
are rarely spent on coordinating what is learned on
campus with what goes on in schools (Featherstone,
2007, p. 210).
Often, the clinical side of teacher education has been
fairly haphazard, depending on the idiosyncrasies of
loosely selected placements with little guidance about
what happens in them and little connection to university
work (Darling-Hammond, 2009, p. 11).
In this paper, I discuss one of the central problems that has plagued
college and university-based pre-service teacher education for many years, the
disconnect between the campus and school-based components of programs.
First, I will draw on my own experiences as a teacher educator and administrator
over the last thirty plus years at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the
literature to lay out various dimensions of this issue. Then, utililizing the concept
of hybridity and “third space,” I will discuss a variety of current work in programs
across the U.S. that offers much promise in deepening the quality of teacher
learning in college and university-based teacher education programs and the
ability of teacher education graduates to enact desired teaching practices in
complex school settings. This work in creating hybrid spaces in teacher education
where academic and practitioner knowledge and knowledge that exists in
communities come together in new less hierarchical ways in the service of teacher
learning represents a paradigm shift in the epistemology of teacher education
programs. I argue that this shift toward more democratic and inclusive ways of
working with schools and communities is necessary for colleges and universities
to fulfill their mission in the education of teachers.
480 Educação, Santa Maria, v. 35, n. 3, p. 479-501, set./dez. 2010

In order to enable me to focus on campus-field connections in this
paper, I am using the term academic knowledge to represent the diverse forms of
knowledge and expertise that exists among college and university faculty and
staff. In doing so, I recognize that this is an oversimplification and that within
colleges and universities there are various cultures that are often in tension with
each other within and outside of the schools, colleges and departments of
education (Bullough et al. 1997; Goodlad, 1990; Labaree, 2004). My use of the
term academic knowledge includes both the knowledge acquired in arts and
science and education courses. An examination of the internal tensions within
teacher education institutions is beyond the scope of this paper.
For most of my career as a university-based teacher educator, I have
been responsible for organizing and supporting field-based experiences in schools
and communities for prospective teachers and in doing research on the proces-ses
of student teacher learning in pre-service teacher education programs. One
of the most difficult challenges for me over the years has been to mobilize
intellectual energy in my department around strengthening the connections
between what our student teachers do in their school and community placements
and the rest of their teacher education program. For the most part, the supervision
of student teacher work in schools and the teaching of campus courses have
been done at UW-Madison by doctoral students and this work serves as their
main source of financial support during their graduate studies (Zeichner, 2005).
While most of these graduate students are interested in doing an
outstanding job in teaching and/or supervising pre-service students, many of
them are not interested in teacher education as a field of study and do not
participate in any of the graduate courses that are available to them that address
the literature on teacher education and learning to teach. Although they may be
experts in the teaching or reading or mathematics and have a number of years of
successful P-12 teaching experience, they are often not aware of what is known
from research about how to support teacher learning and its transfer to the early
years of teaching in the context of a university-based teacher education program
(e.g., Cochran-Smith & Zeichner, 2005; Darling-Hammond, 2006; Smagorinsky,
Cook & Johnson, 2003) and they do not necessarily think of themselves as
teacher educators.
Even when graduate students have the knowledge and expertise related
to supporting student teacher learning and do a good job in their work, their time
in the program is limited and each fall a new cohort of graduate students enters
the department with little knowledge of the specifics of the work that has gone on
before and the process of inducting them into an ongoing process of program
renewal begins anew. Because graduate student supervisors often come to
Madison from around the world to complete their studies, they are often not
familiar with the local schools, and the manner in which their roles are often
structured has them working in several different schools at any moment and in
somewhat different schools each semester. Also, with the exception of the two

Ken Zeichner
elementary education professional development school cohorts where students
stay with the same university supervisor and the same two schools over 4
semesters, each semester a supervisor is responsible for working with a different
group of practicum students or student teachers, a situation that makes it more
difficult to go into depth in the supervision process (Zeichner & Miller, 1997).
Even in UW-Madison programs and in other institutions where
permanent faculty and/or staff participate in a significant way in teaching campus
courses in teacher education programs and in supervising students in their field
placements the disconnection between campus and field-based teacher education
has been a perennial problem (Vick, 2006). It has been clearly documented for
many years (e.g., Clifford & Guthrie, 1988; Goodlad, 1990; Labaree, 2004), there
are few incentives for tenure-track faculty to invest time in coordinating campus
and field-based teacher education components and closely mentoring and
monitoring the work of field-based supervisors. Sometimes institutions have turned
to using a corps of clinical faculty (e.g., recently retired teachers) to do the work
of supervising students in their school placements, but often these very dedicated
and competent individuals lack the authority to participate in decisions about the
teacher education programs and are not in close touch with the campus-based
portions of the programs (Bullough et al. 1997; Bullough et al. 2004; Cornbleth &
Ellsworth, 1994; Zeichner, 2002).
Often the placement process in college and universities is “outsourced”
to a central administrative placement office rather than being based in
departments, and cooperating teacher availability and administrative considerations
rather than what is best for the learning of the novice teachers often determines
where prospective teachers are placed for their school experiences (Zeichner,
1996).
On the school side, the classroom teachers who are asked to mentor
teacher candidates who are placed in their classrooms for varying periods of
time during practicum, student teaching and internship experiences are asked
to do the work of teacher education in addition to fully carrying out the
responsibilities of classroom teaching and if they are compensated for this work
at all, they usually receive what would amount to a below minimum wage salary
if it were calculated per hour. Under the traditional view of field experience which
has been dominant for many years, these school-based teacher educators are
expected mainly to provide a place for student teachers to practice teaching and
they are usually not provided with the kind of preparation and support they would
need (Valencia et al, in press) to implement a more active and educative
conception of mentoring (Carroll, 2007; Margolis, 2007). As Gorodetsky, Barak,
& Harari (2007) point out, even in the current wave of school-university partnerships
in teacher education, colleges and universities continue to maintain hegemony
over the construction and dissemination of knowledge, and schools remain in
the position of “practice fields” (Barab & Duffy, 2000) where student teachers are
to try out the practices provided by the university.

The Traditional Divide between Campus and Field-Based Teacher
Education
In the historically dominant “application of theory” model of pre-service
teacher education in the U.S. prospective teachers are supposed to learn theories
at the university and then go to schools to practice or apply what they learned on
campus (Korthagen & Kessels, 1999; Tom, 1997). Alternatively in some of the
early entry models of teacher preparation where there is very little pre-service
preparation before candidates assume full responsibility for a classroom, it is
assumed that most of what novice teachers need to learn about teaching can be
learned on the job in the midst of practice and that the role of the university in the
process can be minimized without serious loss (Grossman & Loeb, 2008).
Although there is a growing consensus that much of what teachers
need to learn must be learned in and from practice rather than in preparing for
practice (Ball & Cohen; Hamerness et al. 2005) there is much disagreement
about the conditions for teacher learning that must exist for this learning in and
from practice to be educative and enduring. For example, the point at which a
teacher should become the teacher of record is an issue about which there has
been much disagreement (Stoddart & Floden, 1996). Advocates of “early entry”
programs have argued that with careful selection and a minimum of pre-service
training, individuals can become teachers of record fairly quickly and learn what
they need to learn about teaching with the support of a good mentor (Grossman
& Loeb, 2008). Others advocate for a more gradual entry to teaching with the
assumption of full responsibility for a classroom coming after or in conjunction
with a substantive coursework component and an extended internship or residency
under the careful guidance of a mentor teacher who is responsible for the
classroom. The teacher residency models that are the focus of a $100 million
dollars of federal stimulus money in the first year of the Obama administration
are an example of programs that represent the later position (Berry, Montgomery,
& Snyder, 2008).
A perennial problem in traditional college and university sponsored
teacher education programs has been the lack of connection between campus-based
university-based teacher education courses and field experiences. Although
most university-based teacher education programs now include multiple field
experiences over the length of the program and often situate field experiences in
some type of school-university partnership (e.g., professional development
schools, partner schools), the disconnect between what students are taught in
campus courses and their opportunities for learning to enact these practices in
their school placements is often very great even within professional development
and partner schools (Bullough et al, 1997; Bullough, et al. 1999; Zeichner, 2007).
For example, it is very common for cooperating teachers with whom
students work during their field placements know very little about the specifics of
the methods and foundations courses that their student teachers have completed

Ken Zeichner
on campus and the people teaching the campus courses often know very little
about the specific practices used in the P-12 classrooms where their students
are placed. Student teachers frequently do not have opportunities to observe, try
out and receive focused feedback about their teaching of methods learned about
in their campus courses. Even if the practices advocated in campus courses
exist in the classrooms where student teachers teach, they do not necessarily
get access to the thinking and decision making processes of their experienced
mentors (Hammerness et.al. 2005; Zeichner, 1996) who are usually vastly under
compensated for the complex and difficult work they are expected to do to mentor
prospective teachers. Darling-Hammond (2009) has referred to the lack of
connection between campus courses and field experiences as the Achilles heal
of teacher education.
Although many programs include field experiences throughout the
curriculum, the time that teaching candidates spend in schools is often not
carefully planned like campus-based courses with a “clinical curriculum” (Turney
et al. 1985). With the exception of a few assignments in methods courses that
students are asked to complete in their field placements, student teachers or
interns and their cooperating teachers are often left to work out the daily business
of student teaching by themselves with little guidance and connection to campus
courses and it is often assumed that good teaching practices are caught rather
than taught (Darling-Hammond, 2009; Valencia et al. in press).
Research has clearly shown that field experiences are important
occasions for teacher learning rather than merely times for teacher candidates
to demonstrate or apply things previously learned (Zeichner, 1996). Rosaen &
Florio-Ruane (2008) discuss how taken-for-granted assumptions about the
purposes of field experience in teacher education limit their value as teacher
learning experiences and offer ideas for rethinking field experiences as more
productive learning environments. Cochran-Smith & Lytle’s (2009) ideas about
using teaching practice as a site for inquiry are another example of changing the
paradigm for thinking about the role of field experiences in educating teachers.
Two of the most in-depth national studies of teacher education in the U.S. have
shown that carefully constructed field experiences that are coordinated with
campus courses are more influential and effective in supporting student teacher
learning than the unguided and disconnected field experiences that have historically
been dominant in American teacher education (Darling-Hammond, 2006, Tatto,
1996). There are numerous studies that have demonstrated for many years, the
obstacles to student teacher learning that are associated with the traditional
loosely planned and monitored model of field experiences (e.g., Feiman-Nemser
& Buchmann, 1985; Griffin et.al. 1983; Stones & Morris, 1977; Zeichner, 1996).
Over the years teacher educators have tried a variety of approaches
to strengthening the connections between campus and field-based teacher
education and some have even argued that clinical experiences should be the
central focus of pre-service teacher education from which everything else in a

program emanates (Turney, et al. 1985; Ball & Forzani, 2009). These strategies
have included creating campus-based laboratory schools on college and university
campuses where particular teaching approaches can be demonstrated practiced
under the guidance of university faculty and staff (Fraser, 2007). Short of opening
whole schools on campuses, teacher educators have also created smaller clinical
laboratories on campuses where specific teaching skills and practices are taught
(Berliner, 1985; Grossman, 2005; Metcalf & Kahlich, 1996), have sought to model
in campus courses the practices that they hope their students will use in P-12
classrooms, created simulations of classroom situations or assembling records
of classroom practice using tools such as hypermedia, written and multimedia
cases, and have created assignments that students are expected to implement
and analyze in their school placements. Additionally, in some programs, the
same individuals serve as the methods instructors and field supervisors (e.g.
Cohn, 1981).
Since the early 1970s, John Goodlad has advocated for the creation of
Centers of Pedagogy on college and university campuses as a structure within
which teacher education should be located. According to Goodlad (2004a), this
structure:
Is a setting that brings together and blends harmoniously
and coherently the 3 essential ingredients of a teacher’s
education: general, liberal education, the study of
educational practice and the guided exercise of the art,
science and skill of teaching. (pp.2-3).
Currently, there are a number of institutions within the National Network
for Educational Renewal (http://www.nnerpartnerships.org/) that have implemented
the concept of a Center of Pedagogy such as Montclair State University and
Brigham Young University (Patterson, Michelli & Pacheco, 1999). Although in
some respects these structures have created a more neutral space where the
constituents of teacher education (except for the broader community) can come
together in a relationship of mutual benefit and mutual respect, it appears to me
as an observer from the outside, that the universities and schools in these
partnerships have maintained their separate cultures and unique forms of discourse
and that the institutional aspect of the renewal process has been limited. The
kinds of collaborations that will be discussed in this paper focus more on creating
new kinds of roles for teacher educators and ways of bringing academic,
practitioner and community-based knowledge together in the teacher education
process rather than on structural change in teacher education institutions.
In this paper, I will use the concept of “third space” as a lens to discuss
various kinds of boundary crossings between campus and schools that are
currently being enacted in teacher education programs across the U.S. With the
emergence of school-focused teacher preparation in the teacher residency models
that are being promoted in the current federal administration in the U.S. (Berry.

Ken Zeichner
et.al. 2008), clinical experiences and the teaching of practice in university-based
pre-service teacher education are receiving a significant amount of attention and
traditional ways of organizing both campus and field-based teacher education
are being rethought.
Creating New Hybrid Spaces Linking Practitioner and Academic
Knowledge
The idea of a third space comes from hybridity theory and recognizes
that individuals draw on multiple discourses to make sense of the world (Bhabba,
1990). Third spaces involve a rejection of binaries such as practitioner and
academic knowledge, and theory and practice, and involve the integration of
what are often seen as competing discourses in new ways- an either/or perspective
is transformed into a both/also point of view. The concept of third space has been
used in fields such as geography, the arts, postcolonial studies, feminist studies
and most recently in education (e.g., Gutierrez, 2008; Moje, et.al. 2004; Soja,
1996) including teacher education (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999).
My use of third space in this paper is concerned with the creation of
hybrid spaces in pre-service teacher education programs that bring together school
and university- based teacher educators and practitioner and academic knowledge
in new ways to enhance the learning of prospective teachers. Contrary to the
traditional disconnection of campus and schools and to the valorization of academic
knowledge as the authoritative source of knowledge for learning about teaching
in traditional college and university models of teacher education (Smagorinsky,
Cook & Johnson, 2003), third spaces bring practitioner and academic knowledge
together in less hierarchical ways to create new learning opportunities for
prospective teachers. Gutierrez (2008) argues that a third space is “a transformative
space where the potential for an expanded form of learning and the development
of new knowledge are heightened.” (p, 152). Gorodetsky & Barak’s (2008)
discussion of “edge communities” in school-university partnerships in teacher
education which is a kind of third space, claim that these hybrid spaces encourage
a more egalitarian status for its participants than conventional school-university
partnerships.
From the college and university perspective, the solution to the
disconnect between the campus and schools in teacher education and continuing
professional development for P-12 teachers has often been seen as figuring out
better ways to bring the expertise of college and university academics to P-12
educators. This has been an outside-inside model where expertise is seen to lie
primarily among academics and not among P-12 educators (Zeichner, 1995).
Creating third spaces in teacher education involves an equal and more dialectical
relationship between academic and practitioner knowledge in support of student
teacher learning.

Boundary Crossings and the Creation of Third Spaces in Teacher Education
I will now describe several different kinds of boundary crossings that
have been occurring in some college and university-based teacher education
programs in recent years in an effort to bring academic and practitioner knowledge
together in a more synergistic way in support of student teacher learning. Although
these experiments in shifting the epistemology of pre-service teacher preparation
from a place where academic knowledge in the university is seen as the primary
source of knowledge about teaching to a situation where academic knowledge
and the knowledge of expert P-12 teachers is treated with the equal respect.
This is not a comprehensive listing of all of the institutions where this kind of
work is going on. My goal is to illustrate different types of hybrid spaces that are
being created in teacher education by citing just a few examples of each with
which I am familiar.
Bringing P-12 Teachers and their Knowledge into Campus Courses and
Field Experiences
For many years, it has been common for colleges and universities to
hire P-12 educators on an adjunct basis to teach sections or portions of required
courses in pre-service teacher education programs. Beyond these short term
appointments, a number of programs have seconded teachers for longer periods
of time to be involved in teaching and co-teaching, supervising students, and
participating in ongoing program renewal and evaluation. The faculty associate
positions at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia and Brigham Young
University (Beynon et al, 2004; Bullough et al. 2004) and the teacher-in-residence
position at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (Post, et.al. 2006) are examples
of this approach.
For example, at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, the Teachers
in Residence program seeks to create a stronger link between academic teacher
preparation , and the expertise of experienced urban teachers. Teachers with
evidence of a high level of competence in the classroom spend two years working
in all aspects of the pre-service teacher education program including student
recruitment, general education and liberal arts courses, the professional education
sequence, ongoing program evaluation and renewal efforts, and in supporting
graduates in their early years of teaching. During their two-year residency, these
teachers participate in ongoing seminars intended to develop teacher leadership
skills and then after their residency they go back to Milwaukee public schools. I
had the opportunity to interview several university faculty and teacher residents
during the two years that I recently spent as the external evaluator for the U.W.-
Milwaukee Teachers for a New Era Project and several of the faculty whom I
interviewed spoke very positively about the significant impact of the teacher
residents on their courses.

Ken Zeichner
Incorporating Representations of Teachers Practices in Campus Courses
An alternative to bringing teachers into campus-based teacher education
activities directly is to create opportunities for representations of teachers’
practices to be brought into courses. One example of this strategy has been to
incorporate the writing and research of P-12 teachers (e.g., Gallas, 2004;
Goldstone, 2003; Hanson, 2008) into the campus-based curriculum so that
students examine both academic and practitioner generated knowledge related
to particular aspects of teaching. In addition to providing teacher candidates with
insights into the complexities of particular teaching practices, this strategy also
provides novices with models of teachers who are able to learn in and from their
practice over time.
For over ten years, the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement worked
with K-12 teachers a cross the country to create multimedia, web-based
representations of their teaching practice (Pointer, Mace, 2009) Following this, a
group of teacher educators across the country with support from the Carnegie
Foundation used the K-12 teacher websites in their campus-based courses and
created their own multi-media websites of their use of the K-12 teacher sites with
their pre-service students. For example, Pam Grossman, a teacher educator at
Stanford, created a site where she documented how she incorporated the website
of an experienced L.A. high school English teacher (Yvonne Divans Hutchinson)
in her English methods course at Stanford. One aspect of this work focused on
the task of engaging students in text-based discussions of literature. In addition
to reading academic literature on this topic, students utilized Hutchinson’s website
which includes images of her leading discussions around text in which students
were very engaged, interviews with Hutchinson and statements by her students,
as well as examples of student work and methods and materials that Hutchinson
used to prepare her students for the discussions.
An alternative to university-based teacher educators using
representations of P-12 teacher practice is for them to create representations of
their own teaching of elementary or secondary children and to utilize these
representations in their campus-based courses. Flessner’s (2008) work at the
University of Wisconsin-Madison where he constructed representations of his
teaching math to elementary children and then used these representations (video
clips, examples of student work) in his campus math methods course is an
example of this work. Lampert & Ball’s (1998) strategic documentation of their
teaching of elementary math using hypermedia is another example.
Mediated Instruction and Field Experiences
For a number of years, it has been common for university-based
instructors to hold a portion or all of a campus methods course in an elementary
or secondary school. Holding a course in a school in and of itself does not mean
however, that the course will be any different from a campus-based version. Some

teacher educators though have taken advantage of the school location and have
strategically connected their school-based methods course to the practices and
expertise of teachers in those schools. One example of this is the work during
the past few years at the University of Washington, Seattle where methods
instructors in elementary and secondary teacher education have held a portion
of their courses in a K-12 partner school. Motivated by their own research that
showed that their students were not taking up the ideas and practices that were
advocated in their campus courses, the elementary and secondary teacher
education faculty who teach methods courses all committed to mediate the
gaps between their campus courses and the students’ school experiences. For
example, with regard to the secondary mathematics program:
Interns did not have a vision or concrete model of what a
classroom would look like where the promoted practices
were used to teach math for understanding (Campbell,
2008, p.).
One out of two meetings per week of the math methods course in
secondary teacher education was held at a local high school where teachers
were using practices similar to those being promoted in the methods course.
The class and instructor observed the same 9th grade class each week with
debriefings with the teacher following the observed lesson.
The work in Seattle is similar to work done at Michigan State University
in the 1990s where efforts were made to redefine the role of cooperating teachers
in selected professional development schools to one where they would play a
more active role in demonstrating and helping interns and pre-interns analyze
specific teaching practices. In one example of this work that was documented
by Michigan State researchers, a group of math methods students in elementary
education spent a week in Kathy Beasley’s elementary classroom observing her
teach math. Prior to and subsequent to each math period, the group of methods
students met with Kathy and her MSU intern to analyze the practices that were
observed. ((Feiman-Nemser & Beasley, 2007).
A third example of this mediated instruction and field experiences is
the work over the last decade at the University of Wisconsin-Madison where a
literacy methods course has been held in a professional development school
associated with the university. Here the internal PDS coordinator works with the
methods instructor who is usually a doctoral student to go over the syllabus and
connect the concepts and practices taught in the course to expertise that exists
within the school staff. As the methods students are studying about particular
approaches to literacy instruction such as balanced literacy they have a chance
to observe and interact with teachers who are experts in these practices.
Sometimes the class goes out on “grand rounds” (See Troen et al. 1997) into a
classroom to watch a teacher engaged in a particular practice and then meet
with that teacher following the observation and at the times a teacher will come

Ken Zeichner
into the methods class and discuss their work often bringing artifacts of their
practice such as pupil work. In both cases, there is a deliberate effort to
strategically connect academic and practitioner knowledge in support of student
teachers learning how to enact specific teaching practices advocated in methods
courses .
Hybrid Teacher Educators
Some teacher education institutions have established clinical faculty
positions where the work of teacher educators takes place both in elementary
and secondary schools and on a college and university campus. I began my
career as a university teacher educator in such a boundary spanning position in
the mid 1970s (Howey & Zimpher, 2006) as a team leader in the National Teacher
Corps project in Syracuse New York. My role as a team leader was to supervise
the work of a team of interns who were engaged in a two-year school-based
teacher education program in an urban elementary school. As a team leader, I
needed to be intimately familiar with the coursework and community work of the
interns as I supervised their field experiences over a two year period and I had to
function both as a staff member in the public school in which I had taught and on
the university campus.
There are a variety of different types of hybrid teacher educator positions
that exist today across the nation. These include positions where clinical faculty
(often not on the tenure track) work to build partnerships with local schools that
focus on pre-service teacher education and sometimes also on continuing teacher
professional development (Boyle-Baise & McIntyre, 2008), and positions where
clinical faculty are based primarily in an elementary or secondary school and
where they make placements for teacher candidates at the school level and
supervise their school experiences.
For a three-year period in the 1990s, I served as the faculty liaison to
two elementary professional development schools that were two of the four schools
that were affiliated with UW-Madison’s experimental “Teach for Diversity” program
(Ladson-Billings, 1999). During this period, I received credit for one course a year
for my work in co-teaching a weekly seminar for Teach for Diversity interns with
a school-based university supervisor from each school in which we helped the
interns analyze their work in schools in relation to a variety of concepts and
perspectives that were introduced to them in their campus courses. I also worked
with school staff to organize and sometimes participate in teaching in professional
development activities that were designed with and for school staff, student
teachers and sometimes parents. While serving as a university faculty member
in elementary education and the department of Curriculum & Instruction I also
had a desk in the schools and periodically attended staff meetings. These
boundary spanning positions increased greatly across the country along with
the growth of the professional development school movement since the mid 1980s
(Zeichner, 2007).

Incorporating Knowledge from Communities into Pre-service Teacher
Education
For many years, teacher educators have advocated broadening the
site for pre-service teacher education from the campus and schools to the broader
communities in which schools are situated (e.g., Cuban, 1969 Flowers et.al.
1948). Although some community-based field experiences in teacher education
have focused on service learning and on tutoring pupils and do not give student
teachers contact with adults in the broader community, other lines of work in
community-based teacher education have focused on strategically utilizing the
expertise that exists in the broader community to educate prospective teachers
about how to be successful teachers in their communities (e.g., Boyle-Baise &
McIntyre, 2008; Mahan, 1982; Sleeter, 2008a; Zeichner & Melnick, 1996). Barbara
Seidel and Gloria Friend’s work over a decade in Columbus Ohio (e.g., Seidel &
Friend, 2002) is an example of the later approach to community-based learning.
In this work, prospective teachers in elementary education at Ohio State University
were paired up with equal status adults in an African American Baptist church
educational program and the researchers were able to document the impact of
these equal status relationships with adults on the development of cultural
competence in prospective teachers. Finally, the work of teacher educators at
the University of Massachusetts-Boston illustrates yet another approach to utilizing
community expertise in teacher education. In this case community members
were used as resources for educating the faculty about the communities for
which they were preparing teachers to teach (Koerner & Abdul-Tawwab, 2006).
Conclusion
Since the early days of teacher education programs in colleges and
universities in the U.S. scholars have argued against unguided school experience
and for carefully planned and purposeful school experiences based on the quality
of teacher learning that is associated with each (e.g., Dewey, 1904). In this
paper, I have discussed a number of contemporary efforts in the U.S. to bridge
the gaps between campus and school-based teacher education and the gaps
between both of these and the broader communities in which schools and colleges
and universities exist.
These efforts involve a shift in the epistemology of teacher education
from a situation where academic knowledge is seen as the authoritative source
of knowledge about teaching to one where different aspects of expertise that
exist in schools and communities are brought into teacher education and co-exist
on a more equal plane with academic knowledge. It is argued that this
broader view about the kinds of expertise that are needed to educate teachers
expands opportunities for teacher learning as new synergies are created through
the interplay of knowledge from different sources. Recent research using activity
theory on school to work transitions and the interaction of different activity systems
supports this assertion (e.g., Tuomi-Grohn, 2007). While the creation of these

Ken Zeichner
kind of hybrid spaces in teacher education does not directly address the
institutional and cultural problems that have persistently undermined the quality
of teacher education in colleges and universities and schools for many years
(e.g., its low status, the lack of rewards for good work in teacher education, the
lack of adequate funding), it does create spaces for student teacher learning that
take advantage of multiple sources of expertise that can support high quality
teaching.
Although high quality research on the impact of various forms of
coursework, and school and community field experiences on prospective teachers’
perspectives and practices is fairly limited (e.g., Clift & Brady, 2006; Floden,
2005), some research has begun to document the impact of certain kinds of
teacher education experiences and programs on influencing prospective teacher
learning in desired directions. For example, Darling-Hammond et.al. (2006) and
Zeichner & Conklin (2008) have concluded that the extant research on exemplary
teacher education programs shows that where field experiences are carefully
coordinated with coursework and carefully mentored, teacher educators are better
able to accomplish their goals in preparing teachers to successfully enact complex
teaching practices. In another example, Campbell (2008) reports that at the
University of Washington, Seattle where interns participated in mediated instruction
in their math certification program, they developed a deeper understanding of the
promoted teaching practices and were more successful in enacting the practices
in diverse urban secondary schools.
The growing contemporary focus on rethinking and redesigning the
connection of college and university coursework in pre-service teacher education
to the schools and communities for which teachers are being prepared to work is
a hopeful sign that the traditional distanced and disconnected model of university-based
pre-service teacher education is on its way out. It is necessary though
that colleges and universities and P-12 schools begin to better recognize and
reward those faculty and staff who do exemplary work within the hybrid spaces
that are created or the impact of this work will be minimal on the field as a whole.
The continued lack of reward and recognition available to faculty in
research-oriented universities for doing good work in teacher education has resulted
in an increased reliance on clinical faculty and graduate students to staff teacher
education programs and the abandonment of this work by many tenure-track
faculty (Bullough et al. 1997; Goodlad, 1994). Although these graduate students
and clinical faculty have brought many positive things to college and university-based
teacher education programs from their recent experiences in schools, the
kind of transformation in the epistemology of teacher education that has been
discussed in this paper cannot be realized in research oriented universities without
the direct engagement of these tenure-track faculty. In order for these faculty to
be involved, senior tenured faculty and administrators must assume leadership
in creating the conditions where faculty will be rewarded for their engagement
and for creating and sustaining exemplary teacher education programs.

It is also important that in the current fiscal climate of consistently
diminishing budgets in colleges and universities (Lyall & Sell, 2006) that teacher
education receive its fair share of institutional resources to provide high quality
teacher preparation programs with rigorous and carefully planned clinical
components. The kind of work that has been described in this paper cannot be
done well on a large scale with the kind of under funding that teacher education
has often experienced on college and university campuses.
Many of the examples of boundary crossing that I have mentioned in
this paper are located at research universities and/or were supported with some
external funding. It is important to figure out how to enact these kinds of hybrid
practices in all kinds of teacher education programs including early entry programs,
in different kinds of teacher education institutions, and with regular ongoing funding.
Currently, there are a lot of resources that are being devoted to meeting
elaborate accountability mechanisms to monitor the compliance of teacher
education institutions to state requirements. It is clear that much of this monitoring
activity does not address or contribute to improving the quality of teacher education
programs (Johnson et al. 2005; Sleeter, 2008b; Zeichner, 2008) and that a more
significant impact on enhancing program quality and student teacher learning
can be achieved by developing more streamlined and relevant accountability
systems and reallocating much of the money now being spent on the bureaucratic
and hyper-rationalized monitoring of programs to support the kind of school-university
and community connections that have been described in this paper.
There is some empirical evidence that the human effort and financial resources
that teacher education institutions have had to devote to producing detailed and
extensive reports to states and accreditation agencies on their programs have
diverted the attention of teacher educators away from creating the kind of innovative
practices that have been discussed in this paper (Kornfeld et al. 2007; Rennett-
Ariev, 2008). Providing competitive funding for developing high quality school-university-
community collaborations in teacher education like the examples
discussed in this paper would be a far better use of money than what is currently
taking place.
Another way to support the development and continual improvement of
these practices in a variety of institutions and programs is to support the networking
of institutions focused on the creation of these kinds of boundary spanning and
hybrid practices. The National Network for Educational Renewal created by John
Goodlad and his colleagues in 1986 is an example of such a network. Networks
like the NNER can provide opportunities for teacher educators to learn from one
another about how to create successful examples of hybrid practices in a variety
of contexts, can provide technical assistance in doing so, and can help provide
opportunities for the funding of some of these initiatives. Currently, the NNER is
launching a project that is focused on preparing new teacher educators to engage
in the kinds of hybrid practices discussed in this paper.

Ken Zeichner
There is a great deal of impatience with colleges and universities across
the country for what is perceived to be our unwillingness to change and work
with schools and communities in closer and more respectful ways across
teachers’ careers (e.g., Hartocollis, 2005). Despite the complexity of bringing
this new epistemology of teacher education into the mainstream, unless we are
able to do so relatively soon, college and university-based teacher education
may be replaced as the main source of teachers for the nation’s public schools.
The explosion of fast track programs and other providers where the role of colleges
and university faculty and staff is minimal (Holland, 2004) will be come the norm.
This will be to the detriment of both teacher and pupil learning because the
expanded learning opportunities that are created through the interplay of different
sources of knowledge will not be realized.
References
Ball, D. & Cohen, D. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Toward
a practice-based theory of professional education. In L. Darling-Hammond & G.
Sykes (Eds). Teaching as the learning profession. (pp.3-32). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Ball, D. & Forzani, F. (2009), The work of teaching and the challenge for teacher
education. Journal of Teacher Education,60(5),497-511.
Barab, S.A. & Duffy T. (2000) From practice fields to communities of practice. In
D. Jonassen & S. Land (Eds). Theoretical foundations of learning environments.
(pp. 25-56). New York: Routledge.
Berliner, D. (1985). Laboratory settings and the study of teacher education. Journal
of Teacher Education, 36(2),
Berry, B.; Montgomery, D. & Snyder, J. (August, 2008). Urban teacher residency
models and institutes of higher education: Implications for teacher preparation.
Washington, DC: NCATE.
Berry, B.; Montgomery, D.; Curtis, R. Hernandez, M.; Wurtzel, J. & Snyder, J.
(August, 2008). Creating and sustaining urban teacher residencies. Hillsborough,
NC: Center for Teaching Quality and the Aspen Institute.
Beynon, J.; Grout, J. & Wideen, M. (2004). From teacher to teacher educator.
Vancouver, CA: Pacific Education Press.
Bhabba, H. (1990). The third space. In J. Rutherford (Ed.). Identity, community,
culture and difference. (pp. 207-221). London: Lawrence and Wishart.
Boyle, Baise, M. & McIntyre, D.J. (2008). What kind of experience? Preparing
teachers in PDS or community settings. In M. Cochran-Smith , S. Feiman-Nemser
& D.J. McIntyre (Eds). Handbook of research on teacher education (3rd edition).
(pp. 307-330). New York: Routledge.

Bullough, R,; Hobbs, S.; Kauchak, D.; Crow, N. & Stokes, D. (1997). Long-term
PDS development in research universities and the clinicalization of teacher
education. Journal of Teacher Education, 48(2), 85-93.
Bullough, R.; Birrell, J.; Young, J.; Clark, D.; Erickson, L.; Earle, R. et al. (1999).
Paradise unrealized: Teacher education and the costs and benefits of school-university
partnerships. Journal of Teacher Education, 50(5), 381-390.
Bullough, R.V.; Draper, M.J.; Smith, L.; & Burrell, J. (2004). Moving beyond
collusion: Clinical faculty and university/public school partnership. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 20, 505-521.
Campbell, S.S. (March, 2008). Mediated field experiences in learning progressive
teaching: A design experiment in teacher education. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York
City.
Carroll, D. (2007).Helping teachers become teacher educators. In D. Carroll; H.
Featherstone; J. Featherstone; S. Feiman-Nemser; & D. Roosevelt (Eds.).
Transforming teacher education: Reflections from the field. (pp. 181-202).
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Clifford, G.J. & Guthrie, J.W. (1988). Ed school: A brief for professional education.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Clift, R. & Brady, P. (2005). Research on methods courses and field experiences.
In M. Cochran-Smith & K. Zeichner (Eds). Studying teacher education. (pp. 309-
424). New York: Routledge.
Cochran-Smith, M. & Lytle, S. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice:
Teacher learning in communities. Review of Research in Education, 24, 249-
306.Cochran-Smith, M. & Lytle, S. (2009). Inquiry as a stance: Practitioner
research in the next generation. New York: Teachers College Press.
Cochran-Smith, M. & Zeichner, K. (2005) (Eds). Studying teacher ducation. New
York: Routledge.
Cohn, M. (1981). A new supervision model for linking theory to practice. Journal
of Teacher Education, 32(3), 26-30.
Cornbleth, C. & Ellsworth, J. (1994). Teachers in teacher education: Clinical
faculty roles and relationships. American Educational Research Journal, 31(1),
49-70.
Cuban, L. (1969). The teacher and community. Harvard Educational Review, 39(2),
253- 272.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Powerful teacher education. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.

Ken Zeichner
Darling-Hammond, L. (February, 2009). Teacher education and the American
future.
Charles W. Hunt Lecture. Presented at the annual meeting of the American
Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, Chicago.
Darling-Hammond, L.; Hammerness, K.; Grossman, P.; Rust, F. & Shulman, L.
(2005).
The design of teacher education programs. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford
(Eds). Preparing teachers for a changing world. (pp. 390-441). San Francisco:
Jossey Bass.
Dewey, J. (1904/1965). The relation of theory to practice in education. In M.
Borrowman
(Ed.). Teacher education in America: A documentary history. In M. Borrowman
(Ed.). Teacher education in America: A documentary history. (pp. 140-171). New
York: Teachers College Press. (Originally published in the Third yearbook of the
National Society for the Study of Education, pp. 9-30).
Featherstone, J. (2007). Values and the big university education school. In D.
Carroll, H. Featherstone, J. Featherstone, S. Feiman-Nemser, & D. Roosevelt
(Eds). Transforming teacher education: Reflections from the field. (pp. 203-220).
Feiman-Nemser, S. & Beasley, K. (2007). Discovering and sharing knowledge:
Inventing a new role for cooperating teachers. In D. Carroll, H. Featherstone, J.
Featherstone, S. Feiman-Nemser, & D. Roosevelt (Eds). Transforming teacher
education: Reflections from the field. (pp. 139-160). Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Education Press.
Feiman- Nemser, S. & Buchmann, M. (1985). Pitfalls of experience in teacher
education. Teachers College Record, 87, 49-65.
Flessner, R. (2008). Living in Multiple Worlds: Utilizing Third Space Theory to
Re-envision Pedagogy in the Field of Teacher Education. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Floden, R. (2005). Research on the effects of coursework in the arts and sciences
and in the foundations of education. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. Zeichner (Eds).
Studying teacher education (pp. 261-308). New York: Routledge.
Flowers, J.G.; Patterson, A.; Stratemeyer, F.; & Lindsey, M. (1948). School and
community laboratory experiences in teacher education. Oneata, N.Y.: American
Association of Teachers Colleges.
Fraser, J. W. (2007). Preparing America’s teachers: A history. New York: Teachers
College Press.

Gallas, K. (2004) Look, Karen, I’m running like jello: Imagination as a question,
a topic, a tool for literacy research and learning. In C. Ballanger (Ed.) Regarding
children’s words: Teacher research on language and literacy. (pp. 119-148). New
York: Teachers College Press. (Brookline MA Teacher Researcher Seminar).
Goldstone, L. (2003) The mother tongue: The role of parent-teacher communication
in helping students reach new standards. In F.E. Meyers and F. Rust (Eds.)
Taking action with teacher research. (pp. 63-78). Portsmouth, N.H. : Heinemann.
(Teachers Network Policy Institute, NYC).
Goodlad, J. (1990). Teachers for our nation’s schools. San Francisco: Jossey
Bass.
Goodlad, J. (1994a). Educational renewal: Better teachers, better schools. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Goodlad, J. (2004b). The National Network for Educational renewal. Phi Delta
Kappan, 75(8), 32-38.
Gorodetsky, M. & Barak, J. (2008). The educational-cultural edge: A participative
learning environment for co-emergence of personal and institutional growth.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 24,1907-1918.
Gorodetsky, M.; Barak, J. & Harrari, H. (2007). A cultural-ecological edge: A
model for a collaborative community of practice. In M. Zellermayer & E. Munthe
(Eds). Teachers learning in communities: International perspectives. (pp. 99-
112). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Griffin, G. (1983). Clinical pre-service teacher education: Final report. Austin,
TX:Research and Development Center for Teacher Education, University of Texas-
Austin.
Grossman, P. (2005). Pedagogical approaches in teacher education. In M.
Cochran-Smith & K. Zeichner. (Eds). Studying teacher education. (pp. 425-476).
Grossman, P. & Loeb, S. (2008) (Eds.). Taking stock: An examination of alternative
certification. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Grossman, P.; Compton, C.; Igra, D; Ronfeldt, M.;Shahan, E. & Williamson, P.
(2009). Teaching practice: A cross-professional perspective. Teachers College
Record, 111(9). Accessed from tcrecord.org, July 1, 2009.
Gutierrez, K. (2008). Developing sociocultural literacy in the third space. Reading
Research Quarterly, 43(2), 148-164.
Hamnerness, K.; Darling-Hammond, L. & Bransford, J. (2005). How teachers
learn and develop. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds). Preparing teachers
for a changing world. (pp. 358-389). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Ken Zeichner
Hanson, D. (2008) Crossing the bridges of culture, color and language. In C.
Caro-Bruce, M. Klehr, & K. Zeichner (Eds.) Using action research to create
equitable classrooms. Thousand Oaks: Corwin.
Hartocoltis, A. (July 31, 2003). Who needs education schools? New York Times
(Education Life). (pp. 24-28).
Holland, R.G. (2004). To build a better teacher: The emergence of a competitive
education industry. Westport, CT: Prager.
Howey, K. & Zimpher, N. (2006) (Eds.). Boundary spanners. Washington, DC:
American Association of State Colleges and Universities.
Johnson, D.; Johnson, B.; Farenga, S. & Ness, D. (2005). Trivializing teacher
education: The accreditation squeeze. Lanham, MD: Roman & Littlefield.Koerner,
M.E. & Abdul-Tawwab, N. (2006). Using community as a resource for teacher
education: A case study. Equity and Excellence in Education, 39(1), 37-46.
Kornfeld, J.; Grady, K. Marker, P. & Ruddell, M. (2007). Caught in the current: A
self-study of state-mandated compliance in a teacher education program. Teachers
College Record, 109(8), 1902-1930.
Korthagen, F. & Kessels, J. (1999). Linking theory and practice: Changing the
pedagogy of teacher education. Educational Researcher, 28(3), 4-17.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2001) Crossing over to Canaan: The journey of new teachers
in diverse classrooms. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Labaree, D. (2004). The trouble with ed schools. New Haven: Yale University
Press.
Lampert, M.& Ball,M.(1998). Mathematics teaching and multimedia: Investigations
of real practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
Lyall, K. & Sell, K. (2006). The true genius of America at risk: Are we losing our
public universities to de facto privatization? Westport CT: Prager.
Mahan, J. (1982). Native Americans as teacher trainers: Anatomy and outcomes
of a cultural immersion project. Journal of Equity and Leadership, 2(2), 100-109.
Margolis, J. (2007). Improving relationships between mentor teachers and student
teachers: Engaging in a pedagogy of explicitness. The New Educator, 3, 75-94.
Metcalf, K. & Kahlich, P. (1996). Laboratory experiences ad transition from campus
to field. In D.J. McIntyre & D. M. Byrd (Eds.) Preparing tomorrow’s teachers: The
field experience. (pp. 97-114).
Moje, E.; Ciechanowski, K.’ Kramer, K.; Ellis, L.; Carrillo, R.; Collazo, T. (2004).
Working toward third space in content area literacy: An examination of everyday
funds of knowledge and discourse. Reading Research Quarterly 39(1), 38-70.

Patterson, R.S.; Michelli, N.M. & Pacheco, A. (1999). Centers of pedagogy.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Pointer Mace, D. (2009). Teacher practice online: Sharing wisdom, opening doors.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Post, L.; Pugach, M.; Harris, S.; Hughes, M. (2006). The Teachers-In-Residence
Program: Veteran urban teachers as teacher leaders in boundary-spanning ro-les.
In K. Howey, & N. Zimpher (2006) (Eds). Boundary spanners: A key to
success in urban P-16 university-school partnerships.(pp. 211-236). Washing-ton,
DC: American Association of State Colleges and Universities and Land Grant
Colleges.
Rennert-Ariev, P. (2008). The hidden curriculum of performance-based teacher
education. Teachers College Record, 110(1), 105-138.
Rosaen, C. & Florio-Ruane, S. (2008). The metaphors by which we teach:
Experience, metaphor and culture in teacher education. In M. Cochran-Smith,
S. Nemser & D.J. McIntyre (Eds). Handbook of research on teacher education.
(3rd edition, pp. 706-731). New York: Routledge.
Sawchuck, S. (July, 15, 2009). NCATE offers multiple reaccreditation paths.
Education Week,28(36), p.11.
Seidel, B. & Friend, G. (2002). Leaving authority at the door: Equal status,
community-based experiences and the preparation of teachers for diverse
classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 421-433.
Sleeter, C. (2008a). Preparing white teachers for diverse students. In M. Cochran-
Smith, S. Feiman-Nemser & D.J. McIntyre (Eds). Handbook of research on teacher
education (3rd edition). (pp.559-582). New York: Routledge.
Sleeter, C. (2008b). Equity, democracy, and neo-liberal assaults on teacher
education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(8), 1947-1957.
Smagorinsky, P.; Cook, L.S. & Johnson, T.S. (2003). The twisting path of concept
development in learning to teach. Teachers College Record, 105(8), 1399-1436.
Soja, E. (1996). Thirdspace. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Stoddart, T. & Floden, R. Traditional and alternative routes to teacher certification:
Issues, assumptions and misconceptions. In K.Zeichner, S. Melnick & M.L.
Gomez (Eds.).Currents of reform in pre-service teacher education. (pp. 80-108).
New York: Teachers College Press.
Stones, E. & Morris, S. (1977). Teaching practice: Problems and perspectives.
London: Methuen.
Tatto, T. (1996). Examining the values and beliefs about teaching diverse students:
Understanding the challenges for teacher education. Educational Evaluation and
Policy Analysis, 18(2), 155-180.

Ken Zeichner
Tom, A. (1997). Redesigning teacher education. Albany, SUNY Press.
Troen, V.; Kamii, M.; & Boles, K. (April, 1997). From carriers of culture to agents
of change: Teacher-initiated professional development in the learning/teaching
collaborative inquiry seminars. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
Tuomi-Grohn, T. (2007). Developmental transfer as a goal of internship in practical
nursing. In T. Tuomi-Grohn & Y. Engestrom (Eds). Between school and work:
New perspectives on transfer and boundary- crossing. (pp. 199-232). Bingley,
UK: JAI Press.
Turney, C.; Eltis, K. Towler, J. & Wright, R. (1985). A new basis for teacher
education: The practicum curriculum. Sydney: University of Sydney Press.
Valencia, S.; Martin, S.; Place, N. & Grossman, P. (in press). Complex
interactions in student teaching: Lost opportunities for learning. Journal of Teacher
Education.
Vick, M. (2006). It’s a difficult matter: Historical perspectives on the enduring
problem of the practicum in teacher preparation. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher
Education, 34(2), 181-198.
Wise, A. (1979). Legislated learning: The bureaucratization of the American
classroom. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Zeichner, K. (1995). Beyond the divide of teacher research and academic research.
Teachers & Teaching, 1(2), 153-172
Zeichner, K. (1996). Designing educative practicum experiences for prospective
teachers. In K. Zeichner, S. Melnick, & M.L. Gomez (Eds). Currents of reform in
pre-service teacher education. (pp, pp. 215-234). New York: Teachers College
Press.
Zeichner, K. (2002). Beyond traditional structures of student teaching. Teacher
Education Quarterly, 59-64.
Zeichner, K. (2005). Becoming a teacher educator. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 21, 117-124.
Zeichner, K. (2007). Professional development schools in a culture of evidence
and accountability. School-University Partnerships, 1(1), 9-17.
Zeichner, K. (October, 2008). Neo-liberal ideas and the transformation of teacher
education in the U.S. Keynote address presented at the International Conference,
Justice, Equality and Efficiency: Educational Policy Under the Situation of Multiple
Societies. East China Normal University Shanghai, China.

Zeichner, K. & Conklin, H. (2005). Teacher education programs. In M. Cochran-
Smith & K. Zeichner (Eds). Studying teacher education. (pp. 645-735). New
York; Routledge.
Zeichner, K. & Melnick, S. (1996).The role of community field experiences in
preparing teachers for cultural diversity. In K. Zeichner, S. Melnick & M.L. Gomez
(Eds). Currents of reform in pre-service teacher education. (pp. 176-198). New
York: Teachers College Press.
Zeichner, K. & Miller, M. (1997). Learning to teach in professional development
schools. In M. Levine & R. Trachtman (Eds.) Making professional development
schools work: Politics, practice and policy.(pp. 15-32). New York: Teachers College
Press.
Notas
¹ This includes attention to how practice is taught in other professional preparation programs
(Grossman, et al. 2009).
² Cochran-Smith & Lytle use the term “third culture” rather than third space.
³ Both the K-12 teacher sites and the teacher educator sites can be accessed at insideteaching.org
4 By hyper-rationality, I mean extreme pressure on teacher education institutions to rationalize
their programs and student assessment systems to a point where the demands for accountability
and compliance begin to interfere with and undermine the accomplishment of the goal of
educating teachers (See Wise, 1979 for a discussion of this term with regard to K-12 education).
See Zeichner (2008) for a discussion of more reasonable and cost effective accountability
measures for teacher education.
5 It should be noted that NCATE is currently engaged in a major effort to address widespread
concerns about hyper-rationalization in their accreditation process.
Correspondência
Ken Zeichner – University of Washington-Seattle.
E-mail: kenzeich@uw.edu
Recebido em 24 de agosto de 2010
Aprovado em 23 de novembro de 2010

chapter 14 on ed.tech 2

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to chapter 14 on ed.tech 2

Recently uploaded

chapter 14 on ed.tech 2