Becoming teachers: embedded methods courses and teachers’ voices

We draw on a broad set of theories highlighting constructivist and sociocultural aspects of teaching and learning. We theorize teacher learning in accordance with social interaction learning theories (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Rogoff, 1990; Vygotsky, 1978, 1986) and apply these ideas to teacher education (Cochran-Smith, 2010; Richardson, 1997; Zeichner et al., 2015). Rogoff (1990) highlighted the importance of communities of practice as learners engage in guided participation and problem solving activities, which involve adapting “their understandings to new situations, structuring their problem-solving attempts and assisting them in assuming responsibility for managing problem solving” (p. 191).

These sociocultural insights inform contemporary arguments about supporting teacher candidates by connecting teacher learning to the sociocultural contexts in which they operate. For example, Grossman et al. (2009) called for privileging interactions in classrooms that connected textbook learning to classroom experiences. Richardson (1997) described how novice teachers reconstructed their understandings of teaching while attending to school/classroom contexts. Thus, teacher learning is not separate from teacher perceptions and actions which affect how subjects are taught, the individual and cultural meanings that accompany learning and what is recognized as good teaching. As a result, teacher educators must help novice educators “understand their own tacit understandings, how these have developed, and the effects of these understandings on their actions… [while exploring] new conceptions and premises as potential alternatives” (Richardson, 1997, p. 10).

Scholars (Beyer, 2001; Grossman et al., 2009; Beyer, 2001) have drawn upon sociocultural perspectives to support critical and social justice approaches to teacher education. They maintain that critical approaches invite reflective practitioners to recognize classrooms as social and ideological spaces, consider power differentials and view schools as power-laden contexts in which student and community voices are often marginalized or silenced. Similarly, Cochran-Smith (2010) argued that becoming an accomplished teacher requires teacher candidates to acknowledge the social and political nature of schools and classrooms while working for educational and societal change. Cochran-Smith described justice in teacher education as involving equitable learning opportunities, respect for all social/racial/cultural groups and the negotiation of accompanying tensions. More recently, Zeichner et al. (2015) drew on cultural historical activity theory (e.g. Vygotsky, 1986; Engeström, 2001) to theorize “new hybrid spaces in university teacher education where academic, school-based, and community-based knowledge come together in less hierarchical and haphazard ways to support teacher learning” (p. 124). This model highlights collaboration and horizontal expertise as professionals from different domains – university, school, community – work toward shared goals. As Zeichner argued, collaboration honors the complexity of teaching and the need for democratic deliberations that allow teacher candidates to learn from teachers, students and community members.

While traditional teacher education programs vary, scholars have noted that many traditional programs can be described as “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, 2006, p. 308). Kameniar et al. (2017) described traditional models of teacher education as creating an “unfavourable divide between academic studies and professional practice knowledge, tertiary institutions and schools” (p. 54). Zeichner et al. (2015) agreed, stating, “Historically, very little success has been achieved in coordinating what is done in the course and field components of teacher education programs” (p. 123). Bowman and Gottesman (2013) argued for methods classes that provide opportunities to observe, rehearse and analyze high-quality instructional practices and argued that these programmatic characteristics helped teacher candidates understand the impact of poverty and racial segregation alongside the need to challenge deficit assumptions about families and communities. Burn and Mutton (2015) centered students, noting that clinical practice must engage teacher candidates in enquiry as they seek to interpret and understand the abilities of particular students. These opportunities involve teacher candidates in “creative processes of interpretation, intervention and evaluation, drawing on diverse sources of knowledge, including research evidence as well as student data” (p. 219).

Responding to concerns with traditional programs, Zeichner (2014) proposed moving preservice teacher preparation – including methods courses into schools – “the kinds of settings in which teacher candidates will later teach” (p. 563) – and strengthening clinical components “by investing in building the capacity of schools to serve as sites for clinical teacher education and experienced teachers to serve as effective mentors” (p. 563). As Zeichner (2014) warned, this vision of teacher education required “carefully structured and well-supervised clinical experiences” (p. 563), which are “more influential and effective in supporting student teacher learning than unguided and disconnected field experiences that have historically been dominant in American teacher education” (Zeichner, 2010, p. 91). Zeichner believed that when 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” (p. 95).

Similarly, Darling-Hammond (2006) identified three “critical components” (p. 300) of effective teacher education programs: (1) coherence among courses and between courses and clinical experiences, (2) extensive and extensively supervised clinical work and (3) proactive relations with schools serving diverse students. As she argued, teacher educators must “help prospective teachers to understand deeply a wide array of things about learning, social, and cultural contexts and teaching, and be able to enact these understandings in complex classroom serving increasingly diverse students” (p. 302). Darling-Hammond (2006) argued that “extensive clinical work, intensive supervision, expert modeling of practices, and diverse students are critical to allowing candidates to learn to practice in practice with students who call for serious teaching skills” (italics in original; p. 307). She maintained that the effectiveness of practice-based teacher education experiences was replicated and confirmed by multiple studies and highlighted the contribution of PDS models. She noted that “studies of highly-developed PDSs suggest that teachers who graduate from such programs feel more knowledgeable and prepared to teach and are rated by employers, supervisors, and researchers as better prepared than other new teachers” (Darling-Hammond, 2006, p. 310).

Recent research continues to confirm the importance of practice-based approaches. For example, Wetzel et al. (2018b) explored embedded classrooms as collaborative spaces for learning and maintained that embedded spaces provide opportunities for teacher candidates to examine their own identities, recognize students’ lives and resources, explore the significance of race, understand multilingualism as a strength and engage in inquiry related to content and instruction. A conceptual framework posed by Kriewaldt et al. (2017) noted that robust clinical models for teacher education were characterized by close partnerships that involve both schools and universities, connections between coursework and professional practices, interactions between novices and mentors that highlight reasoning and questioning and communities of practice that are committed to classroom-based learning. We offer the current study as an example of what is possible when field-based experiences are intentionally integrated into methods course. We believe that our signature pedagogy has not only contributed to the positive experiences of alumni, but also provides opportunities for teacher candidates, practicing educators and university professors to collaborate and refine their practices.

This paper explores the perspectives of teachers who participated in practice-based teacher education programs and those who participated in traditional teacher education programs. We define practice-based teacher education programs as locating coursework within schools and classrooms and providing continuous opportunities for teacher candidates to collaborate with mentor teachers, course instructors and children. Specifically, we reference embedded learning experiences that involve guided observation of lessons, mentored work with children, collaboration with course instructors and teachers, carefully selected teaching mentors and extensive opportunities to reflect on these experiences. Importantly, these practice-based experiences are in addition to traditional clinical experiences, which individually place our students in local schools/classrooms with the support of university supervisors who visit, observe and confer with teacher candidates a few times during the semester. This study was approved by the IRB at our university, consent forms were obtained and pseudonyms were used. At the University of South Carolina, both early childhood and elementary programs involve embedded practice-based coursework (see Table 1). Importantly, these embedded methods courses are taught by fulltime tenure track and clinical professors. Teacher candidates in the elementary program generally take five embedded methods classes, while early childhood candidates generally take three embedded methods classes.

Over a decade ago, our embedded model was developed by literacy methods instructors in the elementary education program. Subsequently, science and later math methods course instructors in the elementary education program created similar embedded courses; social studies methods courses are sometimes, but less frequently, embedded. In the early childhood program, literacy courses are generally embedded, and social studies classes are sometimes embedded. While some analysts (e.g. Fitchett et al., 2014) have suggested that the marginalization of social studies in elementary classrooms is related to state testing policies that do not require tracking student progress in that content area, in the case of our program, the decision to not embed social studies classes was made by the professor who most often taught the course and excelled with online instruction. On other occasions, identified courses are not embedded due to instructor preferences, logistics and scheduling issues. An important institutional structure supporting our collaborative efforts is our extensive and well-established PDS network involving university and school district partners.

For this study, we recruited participants from nine local elementary schools; eight of these schools participate in our PDS network; the remaining school is a local private school established by an early childhood faculty member that hosts teacher candidates during clinical placements and student teaching but does not host embedded methods courses. Schools selected to serve as PDS schools are intentionally selected to provide our teacher candidates with opportunities to work with children from various cultural, linguistic and socioeconomic backgrounds. At each PDS, a school liaison and a university liaison are identified. These professionals are financially compensated and expected to coordinate collaboration calibrated to the needs and interests of each school. Collaborations often include coaching teachers, facilitating learning communities, providing professional development and conducting research. Among their roles is coordinating the embedded methods courses described further in the text, which are taught by university liaisons. Generally, a liaison remains at a school for multiple years and cultivates close relationships with teachers and administrators.

In our embedded methods classes, teacher candidates work directly with children for one hour each week. At each elementary school, the methods course instructor collaboratively plans with one or more classroom teachers to create meaningful teaching and learning experiences for both teacher candidates and children. Classroom teachers who work with our embedded methods courses generally have long-term relationships with university faculty. Because university faculty spend at least one day a week at the PDS school they have multiple opportunities to visit classrooms and are well-positioned to identify teachers whose expertise and teaching style aligns with our embedded methods courses. These teachers generally have at least five years of teaching experience and have been identified by their peers and administrators as expert teachers. While the work is voluntary, we intentionally seek teachers who are committed to teacher education and enjoy having weekly visitors in their classrooms. While there is no preparation program for our classroom colleagues, both teachers and university instructors inevitably learn from each other through their close collaboration, which often lead to research opportunities and conference presentations that are often funded by the PDS network. Teacher candidates benefit from exposure to high-leverage teaching practices (Grossman et al., 2009), guided opportunities to implement those practices with children, time to reflect on their interactions with children and opportunities to learn from children (also see Cochran-Smith et al., 2017; Zeichner, 2010).

In each embedded methods class, teacher candidates are assigned to work with one child across the entire semester; each course culminates with teacher candidates writing a detailed case study documenting their work with the assigned child. Participating schools, provide a designated classroom in each elementary school where course instructors introduce teacher candidates to instructional strategies and/or theories that will be the basis for the day’s lesson with children. Teacher candidates then relocate to the children’s classroom where they observe a brief modelled lesson taught by the methods course instructor and/or the classroom teacher. Immediately after the mini-lesson, each teacher candidate partners with his or her assigned child to implement the instructional strategies that were modeled during the mini-lesson. For example, in their science methods course, teacher candidates practice using probing language to nurture scientific thinking (e.g. “Where do you think the puddle of water on the sidewalk went?”) and conduct formative assessments of children’s learning (Black & Wiliam, 1998).

Across the semester and across their programs, teacher candidates increasingly assume responsibility for planning and implementing increasingly complex lessons. These teaching experiences are guided by university instructors and classroom teachers who circulate, observe, answer questions and offer suggestions as the teacher candidates engage with children. Following lessons with children, the teacher candidates return to their designated classrooms and reflect on how children responded and performed. As part of that process and with guidance from the course instructor, they analyze assignments completed by the children. Finally, teacher candidates collaborate to identify patterns in children’s thinking and learning to inform their subsequent teaching. These experiences involve teacher candidates in guided learning opportunities that center children’s thinking and knowledge. While this basic model – entailing teacher candidate preparation, modeled minilessons, one-on-one work with children and reflection – is consistent across the embedded methods courses, variations are inevitable based on curricular and content area considerations. Importantly, while embedded experiences provide teacher candidates with opportunities to explore and try out practices discussed in their coursework with the support of experienced educators, these experiences are not evaluated directly. However, teacher candidates are expected to reflect on these experiences, write journal entries and discuss their experiences in class. Embedded work with children is the basis for the case study that is due at the end of each semester.

At each school, we surveyed and interviewed teachers and administrators (see Table 2). Over half of the participating teachers were graduates of our practice-based early childhood or elementary education programs (n = 17). The remaining teachers graduated from various universities that did not offer practice-based methods courses (n = 15). These programs included both in-state and out-of-state large universities and small liberal arts colleges. Two participants were certified through alternative certification programs. The largest portion of teachers not certified through the early childhood or elementary education programs at our university attended state schools in South Carolina (n = 6) or private liberal arts schools in [State] (n = 3). While not the focus of the current paper, school administrators were also surveyed and interviewed. Several participants had served as classroom mentors for our teacher candidates. IRB human subjects approval was obtained through the University of South Carolina and signed consent was gained from all participants.

In-person surveys were followed by open-ended interview questions individually administered with each participant. The surveys used a forced-choice Likert scale (0–4) to capture participants’ general satisfaction with their undergraduate teacher preparation and practicum experiences. Because the surveys were administered one-on-one with researchers to ensure that participants answered all questions. Audio recording the administration of these surveys allowed researchers to attend to participants’ comments and questions, which were treated as data. Participants were asked to rate their satisfaction with their content area methods courses, clinical experiences and their preparation for teaching culturally and linguistically diverse children. The survey was followed by an open-ended semi-structured interview that invited qualitative responses to questions related to teacher preparation and discussion of their satisfaction with their teacher education programs. Administrators were asked to compare the preparation of practice-based graduates with graduates from other college and universities.

While not discussed here, participants were also asked if they ever considered leaving teaching and why they continue to teach. Because data collection coincided with the start of the Covid-19 pandemic, participants were asked about the effects of Covid-19 on their teaching. These topics, as well as administrator data, will be explored in future publications.

Zoom or face-to-face surveys and interviews were conducted by members of the research team, audio-recorded and transcribed in full. Transcripts were subjected to a grounded coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) based on recurring ideas and themes. Specifically, Compton-Lilly worked with Demir and Hao to collaboratively identify and define a set of grounded codes that reflected ideas presented across these data. Transcripts were color-coded by members of the research team, who then created stacks of data related to each code. Once assembled, each stack was read by a member of the research team, and an analysis was written. These analyses were circulated among members of the team and discussed at research meetings as the current paper was conceptualized. Finally, Compton-Lilly integrated these narratives into the analysis presented further in the text.

We open with findings from our teacher survey. While this survey revealed only general trends related to satisfaction with embedded and traditional methods courses, we present these data to illustrate the general level of satisfaction with embedded methods courses. We then turn to qualitative data to highlight teachers’ voices and experiences. Our qualitative analysis focuses on the significance of embedded teaching experiences, attention to diversity and equity and managing children and other teaching responsibilities. Across our sample, teachers identified aspects of embedded courses that they valued, while naming areas where they felt under-preprepared.

We surveyed teachers to explore their satisfaction with the methods courses that they took during their teacher certifications programs. Notably, not all methods courses at our university, especially those in the early childhood program, were embedded in schools and classrooms (See Table 1). In general, alumni from our university, rated their practice-based methods courses higher than alumni from other universities where embedded methods courses were not embedded in schools and classrooms (See Table 3). The biggest difference involved literacy methods courses, which were consistently embedded in both the elementary and early childhood programs at our university. Qualitative data echoed this finding with alumni from traditional programs – including Ms. Walker and Ms. Shore – being particularly critical of their literacy coursework. Ms. Walker described her literacy courses as the “least helpful,” while Ms. Shore would have liked “more classes based around literacy” explaining that she learned most from her hands-on experiences during student teaching. Notably high ratings for embedded literacy courses may reflect the long history of these embedded courses at the University of South Carolina where practice-based courses originated in literacy courses.

Significantly, social studies courses, which are only sometimes embedded in both programs were the least likely to be highly-rated by all participants. Ms. Parker, an alumna of the embedded program, recalled participating in mock trials and learning to teach about communities and law but “nothing beyond that” in her social studies methods course. Alumni from practice-based teacher preparation programs were generally more satisfied with their content area methods classes than alumni from traditional programs, while courses with well-established embedded models (i.e. literacy methods courses) fared better than courses that had recently adopted embedded practices (e.g. math methods, science methods).

However, qualitative data complicates the idea that simply embedding courses in schools is enough. Ms. Phoebe, a novice first-grade teacher from our practice-based program, complained that while hands-on science coursework was “fun” she worried that most lessons were intended for older children who she would “never probably teach.” Ms. Phoebe wanted “more ideas to get younger kids interested in science and social studies.” In contrast, Ms. White an experienced practice-based graduate, explained that her early childhood methods courses left her under-prepared for teaching older children. She reported:

While literacy courses were rated highly, some practice-based alumni described the need for upper-grade teachers to better understand the literacy learning of young children. Ms. Mindlee, a practice-based alumna, explained:

Ms. Freeman, another practice-based alumna agreed reporting that “so many children come into upper elementary missing those early foundational skills.” Similarly, Ms. Fannon, who graduated from a traditional program wondered, “What does it mean for you to really sit a child down who may not come to school knowing their ABCs?”

While practice-based, embedded courses fared significantly better than traditional courses, embedded coursework was not immune to critique. Alumni did not rank all embedded courses equally, and shared concerns about the relevance of particular activities for older or younger children, particularly given the ongoing teacher shortage which often meant that teachers were assigned to different grade levels or left teaching due to ever-increasing workloads.

Across the sample, alumni described the significance and impact of classroom-based experiences. Specifically, they highlighted the importance of varied experiences starting early in education programs. In addition, they recognized how the time spent in schools as part of their embedded programs enabled them to connect theories learned through coursework to their teaching of children. Teachers from both practice-based and traditional teacher preparation programs described the importance of experiencing a range of classroom-based placements across their programs. University of South Carolina alumni used metaphors related to sight to describe the importance of working in multiple grade levels and at different schools.

These visual analogies were not just about watching children, but also about seeing differences across schools, grade levels, classrooms and communities. Both teachers described varied experiences as eye opening. As they reported, interacting with children in different schools and classrooms helped them see differences and prepare for a range of possible future placements. Ms. Moore highlighted her personal lack of experience in differently resourced schools and described how her expectations were shattered when she was initially hired at an under-resourced school. While she anticipated having the resources that she needed, this was not the case until she transferred to a better funded school and “finally realized, this is the kind of school that I had pictured in my head, but not all schools are like this.” Working in different schools in different communities via the embedded methods courses exposed teacher candidates to children from different cultural groups and social classes. In addition, they spent time in schools that were differently funded. These experiences contributed to being able to anticipate the different teaching situations that they would encounter as novice teachers.

Traditional alumni who had only experienced traditional clinical placements for a few hours each week prior to student teaching, wished they had more and earlier classroom experience. Ms. Fannon explained that these experiences would have helped her “to really get under my belt [a sense] of what it is to teach.” Ms. Wilson agreed, “I don’t think we got in our classroom really until my senior year. I think it would have been better to be in there earlier, just to see a variety [of classroom situations].” Ms. Mindlee described the importance of being exposed to current instructional practices noting that “the hands-on” in her mathematics methods course was particularly important since math is not being taught in the same the way “I was taught when I was a child.”

Ongoing experiences working with children were often contrasted with traditional coursework. As Ms. McQuincy, a practice-based alumna, reported “I know a textbook is helpful… [but] experience helped me the most.” Teachers who did not participate in embedded methods classes critiqued focusing only on educational theories and hypothetical classrooms. For example, Ms. Heller, an alumna from a traditional program, wanted to understand how theories “look in practice” arguing that would have been better preparation “for what it was like when they handed me a classroom full of children. Ms. Heller compared her traditional clinical experiences with those of the teacher candidates that she worked with in our embedded program, “I definitely would have liked to have seen my methods courses be in the elementary setting, and going inside the classrooms, so you can actually see the practice happening with real live students.”

Practice-based alumni confirmed that working with children enabled them to implement newly-learned instructional approaches. Ms. Murray, a recent practice-based alumna, explained:

Teachers from traditional programs lamented the lack of opportunities to work with children. For example, Ms. Amens explained, “We would do lessons on differentiating instructions and the entire course was really about just creating lesson plans; there was a disconnect for how to really actually truly implement them.” She believed that her lack of practice-based experiences with children impacted her, saying “I did not feel well-prepared.”

Across these interviews, Ms. Heller, Ms. Murray and Ms. Amens all use the word actual to describe the experiences that they value for teacher preparation. Ms. Heller wanted to “actually see the practice happening with real live students,” while Ms. Murray wanted to be prepared for “for actual teaching,” and Ms. Amens wanted to know “how to really actually truly implement” lessons. In each case, teachers highlighted the importance of classroom experiences with real children rather than envisioned, intended or expected classroom scenarios. As Ms. Moore – another traditional alumna – explained, opportunities to work with children would have allowed her to “see what was working and what wasn’t”.

Teachers who experienced embedded methods courses appreciated multiple opportunities to collaborate with and learn from experienced teachers. Ms. Parker, a veteran practice-based graduate, reported:

In contrast to traditional methods courses which often entail role-play, discussions with peers and lecturing by professors who have not taught children in many years, embedded methods courses provided multiple opportunities for teacher candidates to work with teachers who were carefully chosen based on their teaching expertise and were excited to welcome emerging teachers into their classrooms.

Regardless of years of experience, teachers often reported a mismatch between what they learned in courses and what they encountered in classrooms. They criticized course activities that lacked depth, over-emphasized writing, relied on lecturing, were not collaborative and critiqued traditional practicum experiences that did not provide opportunities for meaningful collaboration. Some teachers described their traditional clinical experiences and methods courses as remaining at the “surface level.” Ms. Peters, a third-year traditionally trained teacher, explained that in her reading courses she encountered “an overload [of information]. It was more sit and listen and do the readings.” Ms. Sanders, a practice-based alumna, maintained that her best learning experiences came from her “coaching teachers” rather than course instructors. These opinions were echoed by traditional alumni. For example, Ms. Shore explained, “There were a lot of basic classes, I guess that I needed, but I wish I could have had just more practicum experience versus sitting in a University of South Carolina classroom.” Teachers valued their in-class experiences and opportunities to learn about the intricacies of classroom teaching.

As teachers reported, traditional practicum experiences generally offered limited and uneven opportunities for collaboration with experienced teachers. Ms. Wiggins, an alumna from a traditional program, questioned her contribution to her practicum classrooms. “I think most of the time, I felt I was a hindrance to the teachers.” Ms. Bella’s first traditional practicum “really wasn’t welcoming.” Ms. Davis, a practice-based alumna, described her traditional practicum placements as “just kind of in and out” experiences, noting that you’re not “building relationships [with children] and learning how to create and sustain and establish classroom community.”

Across the sample, support for the embedded methods classes at the University of South Carolina was expressed by teachers through critique of and satisfaction with their experiences. Teachers told us stories of their own teacher preparation experiences, highlighting the need for extensive opportunities to work with and collaborate with experienced mentors. Both practice-based and traditional teachers valued opportunities to work with children and agreed that these experiences should start early, involve a variety of school and classroom placements and provide opportunities to connect theories learned in coursework with teaching children. They named experiences that were less helpful, including traditional practica and lectures that were not connected to classroom experiences.

The elementary education and the early childhood and programs at our university are intentional in their commitment to developing culturally responsive teachers. While we cannot claim that every practice-based graduate has realized our goals, we were struck by the number of alumni from traditional teacher preparation programs who did not feel adequately prepared to teach children from diverse backgrounds.

Several teachers from traditional programs believed that embedded experiences would have been helpful. For example, Ms. Walker explained: “I think just being in the classrooms and seeing children, struggling readers and just different kinds of children [is] incredibly important.” Embedded coursework in culturally and linguistically diverse schools and classrooms provides teacher candidates with opportunities to work closely children from a range of backgrounds as they move through their certification programs.

Multiple experiences in diverse schools were particularly important for teachers raised in homogenous, white communities. They described working in schools with culturally and linguistically diverse children as initially challenging. Ms. Heller, a graduate of a traditional program who grew up in a white suburban community explained that understanding the “different ways that people think and view education or think and view raising their children would have been helpful…It was definitely culture shock for me at first.” Similarly, Ms. Sovern – also an alumna of a traditional program – compared her first placement at an African American school to entering a “whole new world.” As she explained, “I got initiated by fire.” Without numerous opportunities to work with culturally and linguistically diverse children, teachers described “culture shock” and initiation “by fire” making their initial experiences unnecessarily difficult and stressful. Recognizing the challenges that can accompany initial teaching experiences, Ms. Wiggins, another traditionally prepared teacher, advised young educators to “Make sure that you have experiences in lots of different kinds of schools that have different cultures so that you can see and understand it a little bit more.”

Teachers from traditional programs complained that their coursework failed to focus on the diverse student populations that they would serve in their classrooms. For example, Ms. Sovern noted that she had only a single class in African American history. Ms. Fannon, another traditionally prepared teacher agreed, explaining that we need to prepare teachers to reach “kids who speak different languages.” These teachers worried that their traditional programs did not provide them with sufficient experiences with diverse student populations.

Other teachers expressed frustration over what they viewed as a disconnect between their coursework and field experiences. Ms. Samson, who participated in several embedded courses, but whose culturally relevant pedagogy course had not been embedded, noted that they would “have these great discussions and talk about cultures and culturally relevant pedagogy, but then we never did anything with it. Ms. Heller, a traditional alumna, maintained that learning about culturally relevant pedagogy teaching required “hands-on experiences within the classroom.” She maintained that her coaching teachers did more for her than her university coursework. In some cases, traditional alumni contrasted their lack of preparation to serve diverse students with the practice-based experiences they observed in our embedded programs. Ms. Walker maintained that these experiences should have been incorporated into her initial certification program. As she explained, talking about culturally and linguistically diverse students was not the same as experiencing “real diversity” as a teacher

While teachers in our sample generally appreciated courses related to equity, some distinguished a general focus on social justice from an intentional focus on culturally and linguistically diverse children. Ms. Davis, a graduate of an embedded program explained, it’s “not just teaching about social justice, but teaching young, white teachers how to relate to African American students and Hispanic students.”

Teachers from both traditional and embedded programs often highlighted the need for more attention to bilingual students. Ms. Peters, a traditional program alumna, would have liked to have worked more with students from different linguistic backgrounds, while Ms. Phoebe, an embedded program alumna, critiqued our narrow focus on Spanish-speaking students. As she explained, “they didn’t really give us any other background or any information about any other language speakers.” Some teachers reported needing to seek out information on their own when they encountered children who spoke first languages other than Spanish. Ms. Shore, from a traditional program, described having to “go educate myself,” while Ms. Connelly, from our embedded program alumna reported having to “look up some strategies of my own and talk to people that have the experience that I did not have.”

Finally, a few teachers described learning about teaching culturally and linguistically diverse students through school district professional development. For example, Ms. Fannon, a graduate from a traditional program, noted that most of what she had learned “was through the district.”

Across these accounts, the role of embedded experiences for becoming culturally and linguistically responsive educators was clear. Several teachers from white, middle class backgrounds recognized the limits of their own experiences and described their first year of teaching as particularly challenging when they encountered children from diverse backgrounds. Teachers described the lack of coursework that directly addressed student diversity, and the affordances of working directly with culturally and linguistically diverse students. In particular, teachers from both traditional and embedded programs, reported the need for more attention to teaching bilingual children, especially children whose first language was not Spanish. Not only do teachers value experiences in diverse classrooms, opportunities to work with culturally and linguistically diverse students and observe culturally relevant teachers, they also described the ongoing need to continue to learn about various cultures and languages. Thus, providing teacher candidates with high-quality resources that they can access to learn more about the children from various language backgrounds is essential.

Based on teacher accounts, embedded classes had many affordances. However, teacher comments also suggested that embedded classes are not a perfect solution to all challenges faced by teachers. In particular, novice and experienced teachers noted difficulties related to managing classes and fulfilling other teaching responsibilities (e.g. lesson planning, paperwork, professional learning expectations).

Teachers from both our embedded program and traditional programs were adamant that teachers could not teach without classroom management skills. As Ms. Wilson, a teacher from a traditional program explained, it’s “one of the very first things.” Ms. McDunn, an alumna from our embedded program agreed, saying “You won’t be able to teach it unless you have your class under control.” Teachers prepared in traditional programs including Ms. Wiggins and Ms. Peters, explained that classroom management was best learned in classrooms rather than through textbooks or videos.

Novice teachers regularly commented on how embedded experiences directly related to classroom management and lesson planning. Ms. Shore and Ms. Peters, both from traditional programs, argued that classroom management is “something you have to be in a classroom to learn” (Ms. Shore), explained that “until you actually go in and experience it, it’s really not the same”(Ms. Peters).

While practice-based alumni were generally more satisfied, both groups of teachers reported a lack of preparation in classroom management. Ms. Mindlee, an embedded program alumna, described herself as not “prepared to come in and deal with the behavior with the children. ” Ms. Davis, another embedded program alumna, noted that this was especially true when there were “multiple behavior issues in one class.” One teacher, who had taught for over a decade, admitted that classroom management remained a challenge.

Graduates from both programs connected their lack of classroom management to overly theoretical coursework. Ms. Amens, a traditionally prepared teacher, complained that her course instructors were overly focused on “what the theory says versus how to implement.” Ms. Sovern, another traditionally prepared teacher, recalled not knowing what to do during the first week of school to prepare children for “how our routine is going to go.” Ms. Meyer, a third traditionally prepared teacher, noted the importance of knowing “how to handle different situations when they arise” and which behaviors “to address and what not to address.” Ms. McQuincy, who graduated from our embedded program, described learning classroom management on her own and from colleagues, saying “I had to ask other teachers…and then trial and error and looking up research.” As she noted, “I don’t remember getting much of that from being in school. It was just something I had to learn on my own.” Similarly, Ms. Wiggins, a traditionally prepared teacher, described learning about classroom management while working in afterschool programs, prior to becoming a certified teacher.

Across the interviews, teachers highlighted two issues. First, they noted the importance of practice-based experiences during their teacher education programs to provide them with opportunities to try various strategies to see what worked for them. Second, teachers highlighted the ongoing need for teachers to continue to figure things out during their initial years of teaching. Thus, traditionally prepared teachers reported more difficulties with classroom management than their practice-based colleagues, alumni from both programs described the need for more experience with classroom management. Because our embedded classroom model generally involves teacher candidates working with individual children, with later courses transitioning to small group instruction, whole class teaching is generally left for student teaching. However, because our students have already had extensive one-on-one and small group teaching experiences, they often move quickly into whole group instruction once they enter their student teaching placements.

In addition to classroom management, teachers also wanted more guidance in managing paperwork and other logistical aspects of teaching. Mr. Ross, an alumnus of our embedded program, reported a “little bit of shock” when he discovered all that was involved in teaching. Ms. Maguire, an administrator, agreed that teacher preparation programs needed to do more, noting, “There is a lot of paperwork.” Some practice-based alumni agreed. Ms. Monikor described paperwork as an “extra” – “on top of our already heavy workload,” while Ms. Mindlee lamented, “I feel like I’m letting myself down or letting my kids down because I feel so overwhelmed with all the outside stuff, that I don’t get a lot of time to spend actually teaching.” While our embedded program requires teacher candidates to work directly with children, we do not prepare them for the range paperwork that accompanies teaching. While we briefly discuss testing, IEP requirements, report cards and communication with parents, prospective teachers are not privy to the full demands that teachers face. Thus, like teacher candidates in traditional programs, our alumni reported being overwhelmed by the paperwork they encountered as teachers.

Differences were apparent in how more and less experienced teachers – from both traditional and embedded programs – viewed lesson planning. Teachers with less than five years of experience wanted to know “how you plan a unit” and “how to write a lesson plan.” Ms. Tucker, a graduate of an embedded program, wanted to know, “how you write a lesson that has the right flow, and it has every aspect that you may need to include.” In contrast, more experienced teachers challenged the viability of lesson planning formulas. For example, Ms. Parker, a teacher from a traditional program now teaching in the private school, described her work with teacher candidates saying,

As this teacher reported:

Ms. Fannon, an experienced graduate of a traditional program who taught in a public school, described the importance of noticing children and addressing “things in the area of their [children’s] learning.” While these experienced teachers were not arguing against lesson planning, they recognized the importance of being responsive to students. Rather than pursuing the right way to plan lessons, they focused on the children and their interests, arguing that novice teachers should be willing to deviate from plans when opportunities for “actual inquiry” with children arise.

Other experienced teachers suggested that teacher educators must help candidates to “decide what’s most important” (Ms. Wiggins, traditional alumna) while “prioritizing the [available] time” (Ms. Larson, traditional alumna). Experienced teachers noted that novice teachers needed to learn how to coordinate many responsibilities, including volunteer activities, faculty meetings, professional development experiences, new technologies, working with parents and becoming familiar with their school culture. Thus, teachers must be prepared to prioritize some activities over others and to consider competing demands. These are particularly difficult decisions given the various pressures that teachers face, including requests from administrators, curriculum coordinators, coaches and parents.

While we are confident that teacher candidates in our practice-based programs are benefitting from our embedded methods classes, we recognize that our program could better support teachers with classroom management and lesson planning. While we rely on teacher expertise to support our students as they work with children, perhaps teacher educators need to rely more on teacher expertise related to other dimensions of teaching – including classroom management and lesson planning. This might entail opportunities for teachers to tell their stories and to talk students through their thinking processes as they consider multiple challenges. However, our efforts must be carefully negotiated and calibrated to discern mandates from suggestions while creating humanizing classrooms that honor children and their families. While we value the strengths of our embedded program, we recognize that our efforts are incomplete and do not fully address the myriads of responsibilities that accompany becoming teachers

In this study, we asked how novice and experienced elementary and early childhood teachers characterized the contribution of practice-based experiences, specifically embedded methods courses. We were particularly interested in the contribution of a particular teacher education model that was developed and refined at the University of South Carolina over the past decade. Specifically, we asked participants what they learned from practice-based experiences and what else might they have needed to become skilled educators.

While our relatively small sample and our reliance on teacher-reporting (i.e. survey, interviews), limits our claims, alumni from both our certification programs and from other university programs valued time spent in classrooms. Teachers, from the University of South Carolina whose methods courses were often embedded in schools and involved teaching children, worked in more schools and classrooms than teachers prepared in traditional programs. This ensured that they participated in a variety of classroom-based experiences across their programs. They observed different children, different teaching styles and students from different communities. Teachers reported that the embedded classes allowed them to not only learn educational theories, but to observe theories in practice. Our data also reflects comments from educators who serve as teachers in our embedded classes at the University of South Carolina or who are familiar with the embedded classroom model implemented at their schools. They agreed that embedded experiences prepared teacher candidates for “actual teaching” and provided them with opportunities to collaborate with and learn from experienced teachers and children. Teachers reported moving beyond surface level learning of instructional practices to engaging in and making sense of experiences with children.

Several participants commented on how embedded learning experiences prepared them to teach children from a range of cultural and linguistic backgrounds. Because our embedded classes are offered in schools that serve diverse communities and involve teacher candidates working individually with multiple children over the course of their certification programs, our teacher candidates begin to recognize cultural, linguistic and experiential differences that affect learning. Not only do our teacher candidates talk about equity and diversity in their university classes, but they are invited to recognize and explore how the differences children bring to classrooms affect children’s learning.

While alumni valued practice-based teacher preparation experiences, we are less confident that practice-based teacher preparation, including our embedded classes, address all the challenges faced by novice teachers. As faculty, we generally assumed that continuous, mentored work in classrooms provides teachers candidates with the skills they need to manage classrooms (e.g. classroom management, lesson planning, paperwork); this is not always true. In addition, despite our intentional efforts to prepare teacher candidates to teach diverse children, some alumni reported the need for additional expertise, particularly in regard to children learning English. While the early childhood and elementary education programs at the University of South Carolina have made important strides in providing teacher candidates with embedded experiences that entail working with culturally and linguistically diverse children, we recognize that our efforts are, at best, partial (also see Cochran-Smith, 2010; Grossman et al., 2009). In short, alumni continue to describe the need for more intentional embedded work with culturally and linguistically diverse children. Thus, while we recognize the strengths of practice-based approaches, they are not panaceas.

The incomplete nature of our efforts to attend to cultural diversity may relate to behavior management and classroom organization. While our embedded experiences provide teacher candidates with marvelous opportunities to assess, teach and learn about and from individual children, teacher candidates may need additional mentored opportunities to negotiate cultural and linguistic differences during whole group instruction that includes children from multiple backgrounds. As faculty, we must model our own learning when we meet children whose backgrounds are unfamiliar and help teacher candidates locate, access and draw upon culturally and linguistically responsive resources. It is particularly important that we provide teacher candidates with additional opportunities to work with English-learning children, attend more to classroom management and provide more models for negotiating organizational demands that come with teaching. This may entail drawing on the expertise of classroom teachers already involved in our programs.

As we move forward with our embedded classes, we value lessons shared by teachers and recognize continuing challenges. First, we must conduct a deeper and grounded analysis of what is happening in our embedded programs. While course instructors, classroom teachers and children enjoy embedded activities and see value in these practices, we have not systematically documented what happens during these sessions or identified specific learning gains for teacher candidates. In addition, we are concerned about the ambivalence that some teachers expressed about the effects of embedded practices on developing culturally and linguistically responsive teachers. While we believe that working directly with children from diverse backgrounds is important and effective, we suspect that more is possible and continue to refine our program. Finally, we recognize that classroom management, lesson planning and managing other teaching responsibilities are areas that require additional attention.

This study highlights challenges that extend beyond our local program. While there is agreement on the benefits of clinical experiences, the nature of those experiences varies. We maintain that the continuous, mentored and individualized work that teacher candidates do with children, alongside opportunities for reflection and discussion are critical aspects of our program that could be widely adopted or adapted. However, implementing embedded programs requires support from both universities and local schools. Our strong and extensive PDS Network has been a huge part of our success; likewise, we enjoy strong support from college administration. While embedded practices have affordances for universities (e.g. freeing up campus classrooms, public relations), there are also challenges for teacher candidates (e.g. transportation to schools, complex schedules) and faculty (e.g. planning time with classroom teachers). In addition, creating and sustaining embedded programs requires shared commitments among faculty. Hiring is a critical consideration, and we are dedicated to continuing to recruit and hire faculty who share our vision. Part of our interview process always involves describing our embedded model to potential elementary education faculty, visiting embedded methods classes and assessing their interest in teaching embedded methods courses. Candidates who are not willing to teach methods courses in schools are not hired.

While we have focused on the advantages of embedded methods courses for our program, the lessons learned through this research are not just relevant to our teacher candidates, our embedded classes or our PDS network. As our surveys and interviews revealed, providing teacher candidates with carefully supervised time in classrooms with a focus on particular instructional content should be a priority for any teacher education program, Specifically, alumni valued opportunities to connect the theories that they were learning in coursework to their actual work with children. They appreciated having multiple opportunities to work with culturally and linguistically diverse students in multiple schools and classrooms. These are affordances that can be provided by any teacher education program.

We recommend that teacher education programs – with or without established PDS partnerships – consider the following actions:

1. Reach out to teachers and area schools to identify classrooms for possible collaboration,

2. Provide opportunities for teacher candidates to work with children under the guidance of course instructors and classroom teachers, and

3. Talk to recent alumni about what worked well for them their teacher education programs and what they would have appreciated.

At a time when schools are facing teacher shortages and teachers are deprofessionalized by scripted curriculum and onerous mandates that sometimes challenge their abilities to be respond to students, avoiding teacher burnout and maintaining teacher joy is crucial. One way to counter these looming challenges is through excellent teacher preparation that not only prepares them as knowledgeable professionals but also prepares them to navigate the challenges currently faced by the teaching profession.

As faculty in the College of Education at the University of South Carolina, we are committed to continuing to create and refine high-quality teacher education experiences. We believe that our signature teacher preparation model (Falk, 2006), which involves close collaboration with local schools and methods classes that are embedded in schools, is an example of what can happen when faculty, teachers and administrators – from schools and universities – work together. Attending to the perspectives of practicing teachers has helped us better understand the affordances of our embedded programs and identifying spaces for continued work and collaboration.