A Closer Look: Research and Risk Taking in Teacher Preparation (Voices)
You are here
An Introduction to Maleka Donaldson’s “A Closer Look: Research and Risk Taking in Teacher Preparation”
Frances O’Connell Rust, Voices Executive Editor
“Wide-Awakeness”: That is what Maxine Greene called for as a way of being among teachers. She described it as “attentiveness, and an interest in things” (1978, 42) and as a moral stance. That is what I thought of as I read Maleka Donaldson’s effort to initiate preservice teachers to science teaching and to the disposition of teacher research by asking each of them to take 15 minutes to observe drops of water on waxed paper. There is in the task itself and in her framing of that task an approach to teaching that positions attentiveness, this act of noticing, as essential to sense making and, so, to knowing what to do next. That is research! So simple. So hard to do when one thinks one ought to know already that there is a right way to do everything—especially teaching.
In this piece, Donaldson challenges teacher educators, teachers, and teachers-in-the-making to notice what is working and not working and, on the basis of that noticing, to do something with it and about it in the moment and beyond. She plays on the reflective properties in a drop of water—what one sees, what one sees reflected—and asks her students to write about what they see. She pushes the concept of reflection into a habit of mind as an internal dialogue: Here’s what I saw, and I’m writing it down, so I don’t forget, and once I’ve done that, I’m talking about what I saw, and I’m getting others’ ideas, and I’m thinking, wow! I didn’t see that! And I’m adding that to my list of observations, and I’m thinking that there is so much to see in a drop of water. It’s amazing!
The message that Donaldson is sending here is that there is so much to see in teaching and so much to share among practitioners. Her message is that knowing extends far beyond one example, one instance, toward a kind of fluidity in one’s thinking about teaching. Hers is a challenge for the teacher educator and for the soon-to-be teachers to model and move into authenticity in their teaching. As Donaldson is suggesting to us, teacher educators must take their students along with them. They have to reflect in the moment like their students. Then, they have to take them out beyond the experiment to the ways in which reflection impinges on and shapes teaching. She is asking those of us who teach to take the time to consider our work—to look, to see, to share with one another, to celebrate in the discovery of new understandings of teaching, to be wideawake.
Reference
Greene, M. 1978. Landscapes of Learning. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Observe water droplets on wax paper—this is the basis of a commonly used inquiry-based lab that I have led countless times with preservice teachers. To start, I give them some relatively simple instructions for the task at hand:
I will give each of you a toothpick, a piece of wax paper, and a bottle of water, so you can make small droplets on your wax paper. I want you to observe the water very carefully, in as many ways as you can. What do you see? Take your time; we’ll spend at least 15 minutes on this, maybe longer. Be sure to write down at least 10 specific observations on your sheet—the more specific, the better. Any questions? Let’s get started!
At this moment, I want my students to be curious, observant, and playful. I ask that they look closely at what is right in front of them—seeing the familiar in a different way. As the room falls quiet, I always catch a puzzled face or two. While the task itself is straightforward, I have noticed over the years that sometimes they have a hard time easing into an inquiry stance and being playfully present in the experience.
In my STEM methods courses, I have worked for years to directly model for preservice teachers how to facilitate authentic inquiry-based experiences in early childhood classrooms, which inherently rely on risk taking, playfulness, “messing about,” and learning from mistakes. Building on my prior experience as a science curriculum designer and as an early childhood classroom teacher, I integrate many key principles from inquiry-friendly instructional design frameworks (e.g., Teaching for Understanding and Understanding by Design) into my work with preservice teachers. Not only do I encourage preservice teachers to directly apply these principles in their future STEM instruction, but I have an additional aspiration: to promote habits of authentic and inquiry-focused engagement that continue into their future professional lives, including robust reflective practices like teacher research.
So that preservice teachers may sustain professional growth over the course of their careers, they need to proactively explore areas for their own development and improvement through fruitful self-examination and intellectual risk taking. Teacher research offers a powerful means of continued professional development, affording teachers opportunities for lifelong learning (Santori, Ven, & Hennessey 2019). As someone committed to joyful, curious, inquiry-driven learning and ongoing improvement, I want preservice teachers to be open and eager to learn from their mistakes, engage in self-reflection, seek opportunities for growth, and take the risks necessary to expand their professional knowledge and abilities year after year.
So that preservice teachers may sustain professional growth over the course of their careers, they need to proactively explore areas for their own development and improvement through fruitful self-examination and intellectual risk taking.
By the time they have enrolled in my STEM methods course, many of these highly capable prospective teachers have successfully navigated years of formal education, often obtaining excellent grades in each required class along the way. They are near experts at identifying and meeting a professor’s expectations—until I push them in an unfamiliar direction through my water observation prompt. In this small moment, I ask them to do something that has nothing to do with state licensure, grades, or task completion. All I want is for them to take a close look at a few water droplets. Often, shortly after the observations start, someone will ask, “What exactly do you want me to write down?”; “Am I doing this right?”; or “What are you looking for with this?” Others might rush to jot down a quick list of surface-level observations, such as “The water is transparent” or “The water sticks to the wax paper,” and then stare at me wide-eyed. Occasionally, someone will say, “I’m done,” after four to five minutes. In response, I say, “Remember to go slowly, look carefully, and be curious”—something they are not always prompted to do in a fast-paced, demanding teacher education program with many requirements to complete.
Teacher Research Versus Compulsory Classroom-Based Projects
Teacher research is “intentional, systematic inquiry by teachers with the goals of gaining insights into teaching and learning, becoming more reflective practitioners, effecting changes in the classroom or school, and improving the lives of children” (Henderson et al. 2012, 1). Through teacher research, educators can take steps toward continual growth and learning by developing meaningful and personal questions, observing and documenting what happens, reviewing the documentation, and recording, analyzing, and reflecting on the trends that emerge. With inquiry as the crux of teacher research, this endeavor has the potential to empower teachers as change agents in their school communities as they make positive changes in their own practices with children, families, and colleagues (Cochran-Smith & Lytle 2009; Dana & Yendol-Hoppey 2019).
However, some recent studies suggest that despite learning the value of inquiry-based research during their teacher training, many preservice teachers do not intend to do research in the future and would prefer to funnel their energies into other aspects of the profession, such as refining instructional practice or broadening involvement in the school community (van Katwijk et al. 2019; van Katwijk, Jansen, & van Veen 2021). Why is this the case? And what can be done to orient preservice teachers toward teacher research as an avenue for self-driven professional development? What can be done—when they are in preparation—to help preservice teachers to develop the inquiry stance, intellectual risk taking, playfulness, and quest for lifelong learning that are emblematic of the effective teacher research practices that we, as teacher educators, hope they will engage in as in-service teachers?
As a teacher educator, I have had the wonderful opportunity to train future teachers in two strong yet distinct postsecondary educational contexts—a regional university and a small liberal arts college. At the university, students’ entire junior and senior year schedules—the scope and sequence of their coursework—are prescribed by the teacher preparation program to ensure they can meet all expectations for state licensure, along with general education course requirements for their degrees. At the liberal arts college, there is an open curriculum with only a small number of preset graduation requirements. Students seeking an elementary teaching license often pursue a depth of knowledge in multiple disciplines, combining education with a second major or a minor. In their first years at the college, they work to meet all subject matter knowledge requirements for state licensure and then devote their senior year schedule to student teaching and methods coursework.
While these two programs offer their students substantially different undergraduate experiences, preservice teachers in both of these learning contexts have to engage at some point in one or more very structured, compulsory classroom-based projects to qualify for state licensure, making them high stakes for a preservice teacher’s trajectory. They will not be able to complete their program or obtain their teaching credential from the state if they cannot meet the task demands or reach a particular cut score.
Often, compulsory classroom-based projects are among the very first experiences preservice teachers have with conducting research in a classroom where they are one of the teachers. These include performance-based assessments of teaching like the edTPA or other similarly structured state- or program-mandated assessments. In my observation, these requirements emphasize compliance: preservice teachers must follow specific instructions in designing and completing a task, so they can fulfill a gateway and/or meet the demands of a state credentialing board. The weight and importance of these projects vary depending on the program, ranging from a minor, perfunctory checkpoint to a sizable gatekeeping hurdle. While standards and expectations for teachers-in-training are reasonable and necessary, compulsory projects like the one embedded within the edTPA can be a challenging introduction to teacher research. Collecting artifacts of student work, recording a lesson for later playback, and journaling about the ups and downs of the day’s instruction can inadvertently wind up framed as risky and required endeavors rather than the inquisitive, playful, and elective explorations that lead to professional learning and growth and that are meant to be the hallmarks of teacher research.
Helping Preservice Teachers Reframe Mistakes and Exploration
As the time ticks by during the water droplet exploration, the room often falls silent with concentration. A few minutes in, I remind students, “Don’t forget to write down everything you notice on your observation sheet!” Occasionally, there is a question; inevitably, there’s a spill, which we easily wipe up. After a sustained period of independent exploration, I invite the class into a discussion in which they collaboratively name and articulate the properties of water that they directly observed. They share things like: “I noticed that a small droplet won’t move very easily, even if I turn the wax paper upside down. But big droplets roll around very easily,” and “When I touch a droplet and then pull the toothpick away, I can change its shape. When I remove the toothpick, the water always goes back to its original circular shape.” The comments go on and on, and I capture them in a shared document on the projector as we reflect on the observations together.
Although we all use water every day of our lives, few in my classes have previously considered it in this way. By the end of the session, they have collectively defined for themselves the basic workings of surface tension. This first lab is a starting point for a semester-long discussion about inquiry-based learning, constructivism, the power of observation, and the strength, brilliance, and capability of young children. But it is more than that. It is the launch of my sincere effort to shift how teachers see themselves as learners and to show them how they—alongside their students—can take intellectual risks in their future classrooms.
Activities like the water droplet exploration, in which the process is vastly more important than the product, can energize preservice teachers if they are willing to yield to the wonder and playfulness of the moment. In an inquiry-based learning activity, the goal is for them to slow down the pace of the exploration, let curiosity be their guide, and playfully take some intellectual risks along the way. This can prepare preservice teachers to engage in playful participatory research. In this form of teacher research, “teachers act as agents of play and playfulness . . . using the classroom environment, materials, and curriculum to test out new ideas for playful learning” (Baker et al. 2016, 3), which has the potential to foster creative and generative experiences for teachers. However, when up against the real-world constraints of the classroom context, “playful experiences (where learning objectives and outcomes may not be linear) [are] often the first to hit the cutting room floor” (Baker et al. 2016, 3).
Bearing this in mind, specific action must be taken to help center playfulness, inquiry-based learning, and free exploration for preservice teachers. I have observed that, particularly at the beginning of the semester, my teacher education students often find it challenging to deeply engage in activities in which there is no single, clear answer or endpoint. Repeatedly over the years, I have had students share sentiments like “I want to make sure I understand the instructions, so I can get this right the first time” or “Could you clarify again what you need for this assignment? With my busy school schedule, I don’t have time to redo any work.” While I appreciate their candor, I worry that the frantic pace of teacher training makes it difficult to embrace cycles of drafting, feedback, and revision that can serve them well as they hone their craft in the years ahead. When learning something new, it is not reasonable to expect to get everything right the first time around. In my water droplet activity, I do not have a set of correct answers that I need them to promptly identify and capture on paper so that I can either praise them for a perfect score or deduct points for errors. Instead, my purpose is to teach them to set aside these deeply ingrained impulses to get everything right or to give me “what I’m looking for.” I want them to be fully present and engaged with their own internal thinking while also taking a playfully curious, inquiry learning stance that facilitates their ongoing professional development as early childhood educators.
Specific action must be taken to help center playfulness, inquiry-based learning, and free exploration for preservice teachers.
In contrast to the adaptive view of children’s mistakes put forward by most of the in-service teachers I have interviewed in my research (Donaldson 2019, 2021), I find that the preservice teachers I have worked with are not always as positive about the role of mistakes and taking risks in their past and present experiences as learners. It is well established that making mistakes, receiving corrective feedback, and subsequently acting on the feedback are key aspects of improvement for any learner (Metcalfe 2017; Winstone et al. 2017). Yet it is easy for preservice teachers to become overly anxious about making mistakes in the classroom—due to experience with assessments for licensure (Petchauer et al. 2015), daily performance stressors during the practicum (Klassen et al. 2013), or other factors. An overfocus on perfectionism and rumination on the potential for future failures impede the learning process by diverting cognitive resources away from completing the challenge and toward managing negative emotions (Flett, Nepon, & Hewitt 2015).
As teacher educators, we have an opportunity to prepare preservice teachers to boldly face the host of challenges that will undoubtedly arise throughout their teaching careers. I have personally faced and witnessed other early childhood teachers navigate common occurrences such as switching grade levels or schools, learning a newly adopted curriculum, or recovering from a lesson that did not go as planned. The inquiry stance inherent to teacher research provides a lens through which to productively process these challenging experiences that positions the novelty, risk, and difficulty of a new endeavor as something to be carefully examined, tinkered with, and learned from. From that viewpoint, making mistakes is an expected part of the journey and germane to the process of professional development. When it comes to our students—and the children entrusted to their care—we want to prime a disposition in which mistakes are welcomed and readily leveraged in service of learning (Steuer & Dresel 2015) and to foster a growth mindset, which is defined as the belief that one’s ability can be expanded with effort and practice (Dweck & Yeager 2019). A growth mindset emphasizes the power that learners, both children and teachers, have in shaping their own future abilities and accomplishments and frames mistakes as course corrections along the road to future possibilities.
Aspirations for and Challenges to Conducting Teacher Research
Too often, perfectionism and the pressure to achieve can impede community trust, openness to risk taking, and the lightness and joy that make for successful, satisfying, and playful inquiry experiences in the classroom (Baker et al. 2021)—for students and teachers alike. As an early step to counteract this, I prompt preservice teachers in my courses to reflect on themselves as learners, past and present. Through experiences like the water droplet exploration as well as written assignments, class discussions, and more, I urge them to remember what it feels like to be in the shoes of their young students. For one assignment, I have them describe the most exciting and engaging learning experience they can recall, including what they loved the most about it. The submissions describe exciting adventures they had reading and reenacting classic books or plays, exploring materials in science labs, pushing their writing abilities into new frontiers, embodying history through acting or creative projects, and myriad other learning experiences in a wide range of contexts, developmental levels, and content areas.
As they swap stories during our discussions, the group is energized, realizing the common threads across their most treasured memories of learning: the fun of choosing their own paths, the exhilaration of a hard-won triumph, the pride of conquering a new challenge, and the deep connections forged with teachers and peers along the way. As they realize the power of these experiences, the preservice teachers express an eagerness to recreate this level of positive engagement for their own future students. There is hope and great promise in supporting inquiry-based learning that centers playfulness, seeks to meet children where they are, and upholds young learners’ sense of agency in their learning (Halls 2022). But to do this in their own classrooms means they will have to press up against boundaries—externally and internally imposed—to figure out how far they can push their pedagogical innovations.
Thinking pragmatically, today’s teachers are operating in a time in which risk taking and exploration are not necessarily supported by the school environment. Implementing inquiry-based approaches that push against the long-standing status quo is difficult, if not impossible, to do without adequate time, professional autonomy, and support from school leaders, families, and district-level policymakers (Maaß & Artigue 2013; Boutros 2019). In many locales, teachers face intense expectations to adhere to pacing guidelines and are expected to deliver results from formal, academic assessments—even for very young children (Bauml 2015; Im 2017). On a day-to-day basis, early career educators may feel stressed by the frenzy of hectic time schedules, heavy workloads, and a glut of administrative requirements (McCarthy 2019; Ansley et al. 2021). Concerns about negative evaluations or other consequences of trying new approaches may erode teacher autonomy and dissuade innovation (Parcerisa, Verger, & Browes 2022). Additionally, there is a precedent that teachers in the United States have faced sanctions or even lost their jobs for taking the “wrong” types of professional risks: for example, selecting a particular book to read (Cramer & Grullón Paz 2022; Hauser 2023) or pushing back against a district policy (Campbell 2018; Choi 2023).
In light of these difficult circumstances, preservice teachers, without preparation, may be at great risk of abandoning for themselves some of the precious gifts that they most hope to bestow upon their students—genuine curiosity, the ability to learn from mistakes, and time to explore and wonder. Fortunately, teacher research supports all these capacities. As teacher educators, we can illustrate to preservice teachers, who are early in their careers, that making time and space for reflective, inquiry-based teacher research has the potential to push the boundaries of their knowledge and skill, deepen their connections to students, equip them to solve the ever-evolving challenges ahead, and sustain their passion for the field for years to come.
Looking Forward
Over the past decade, I have interviewed numerous in-service early childhood teachers, asking them to explain their experiences with mistakes in the classroom (e.g., Donaldson 2019, 2021). I have found that a few key phrases come up again and again: “Everybody makes mistakes,” “Mistakes are no big deal,” and “Making mistakes is how people learn.” The teachers I have spoken with share that they regularly and eagerly invite young children to try out myriad new skills, tasks, and activities, supporting their continued growth and development. When describing the kind of classroom culture they wish to create for their students, they consistently emphasize the critical importance of normalizing mistakes. Many teachers tell me that they urge children to expect—and even welcome—errors in the learning process and to feel emotionally safe taking risks in the classroom.
When teacher educators foster the same open-minded, inquiry stance during teacher training, opportunities for preservice and early career teachers to discover and improve abound once they eventually engage in the teacher research process. Some things they choose to try out might work well, while others might not. But the first step into research and continued learning is to take a risk by choosing to take a closer look at their students, their instruction, and their mistakes. When introducing preservice teachers to inquiry learning, teacher educators can facilitate robust learning experiences by doing the following:
- Center on essential questions that are enduring and pique interest, addressing issues that are relevant to their lives (past and present) and to their communities. The future teacher research projects they pursue should be personally meaningful and motivating, helping them push the boundaries of their professional expertise.
- Dive into evocative, immersive experiences that spark genuine curiosity and wonder through problem solving, engaging labs, and other authentic activities that are similar to inquiry-based learning with children. By helping preservice teachers recall what it feels like to try something new, we encourage them to build empathy for their future students and consider what it is like to navigate challenges amid uncertainty. These experiences also build the skills, knowledge, and mindsets that set the stage for meaningful, ongoing teacher research in the future. Once in their own classrooms, preservice teachers can use teacher research to discern how best to support these experiences for young children within their own nuanced school context.
- Foster autonomy by inviting them to identify and pursue questions they want and need to answer. This requires teacher educators to provide targeted scaffolding, materials, and, most importantly, a genuine invitation for preservice teachers to deeply explore ideas and materials at their own pace and in their own ways. Learning and teaching are positioned as exploratory and adaptable endeavors rather than prescriptive, predetermined, and one-size-fits-all.
When teacher educators foster the same open-minded, inquiry stance during teacher training, opportunities for preservice and early career teachers to discover and improve abound once they eventually engage in the teacher research process.
We are facing a profound teacher shortage in the United States (Fortin & Fawcett 2022), and burnout and job satisfaction are major factors in teachers’ decisions to exit the profession (Madigan & Kim 2021). One way to help address this upfront in teacher preparation programs is to equip preservice teachers to engage in inquiry-based research as part of their professional toolkit, which is increasingly necessary for sustained growth and a fulfilling career in the education profession. Teacher research enriches the reflection and feedback that are much needed to help new and veteran teachers improve their instructional practice. As in the water droplet exploration, newly minted teachers need to pick up their metaphorical toothpick and start pushing the water across the wax paper.
Voices of Practitioners: Teacher Research in Early Childhood Education is NAEYC’s online journal devoted to teacher research. Visit NAEYC.org/resources/pubs/vop to
- peruse an archive of Voices articles
- read the Winter 2023 Voices compilation
Photograph: © Getty Images
Copyright © 2024 by the National Association for the Education of Young Children. See Permissions and Reprints online at NAEYC.org/resources/permissions.
References
Ansley, B.M., D.E. Houchins, K. Varjas, A. Roach, D. Patterson, et al. 2021. “The Impact of an Online Stress Intervention on Burnout and Teacher Efficacy.” Teaching and Teacher Education 98. doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103251.
Baker, M., M. Krechevsky, K. Ertel, J. Ryan, D. Wilson, et al. 2016. “Playful Participatory Research: An Emerging Methodology for Developing a Pedagogy of Play.” Working paper. Cambridge, MA: Project Zero. pz.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/Playful%20Participatory%20Research.pdf.
Baker, M., S.C. Suárez, B. Acero, P. Martalock, D. Nelson, et al. 2021. “Leading Through Inquiry: Voices from a Community of Early Childhood Teacher Researchers.” Young Children 76 (3): 66–74.
Bauml, M. 2015. “Beginning Primary Teachers’ Experiences with Curriculum Guides and Pacing Calendars for Math and Science Instruction.” Journal of Research in Childhood Education 29 (3): 390–409.
Boutros, I. 2019. “Barriers to Inquiry-Based Instruction.” SocArXiv. April 28. doi:10.31235/osf.io/a6nsk.
Campbell, C. 2018. “Florida Teacher Says She Was Fired for Defying School’s ‘No Zero’ Policy.” Knox News. Sept 25, 2018. knoxnews.com/story/news/2018/09/25/florida-teacher-says-she-fired-not-crediting-students-unsubmitted-work-port-st-lucie-wptv/1421953002.
Choi, M. 2023. “Parents Rally Outside HISD Campuses After Teacher Says She Was Fired for Questioning NES Model.” KHOU-11. September 18, 2023. khou.com/article/news/education/hisd-rally-nes/285-0f023700-ff9a-4eeb-a169-26d550506d1c.
Cochran-Smith, M., & S.L. Lytle. 2009. “Teacher Research as Stance.” In The SAGE Handbook of Educational Action Research, eds. S.E. Noffke & B. Somekh, 39–49. London, UK: SAGE Publications.
Cramer, M., & I. Grullón Paz. 2022. “An Educator Read ‘I Need a New Butt!’ to Children. Then He Was Fired.” The New York Times. March 11, 2022. nytimes.com/2022/03/11/us/toby-price-mississippi.html.
Dana, N.F., & D. Yendol-Hoppey. 2019. The Reflective Educator’s Guide to Classroom Research: Learning to Teach and Teaching to Learn Through Practitioner Inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Donaldson, M. 2019. “Harnessing the Power of Fantastic Attempts: Kindergarten Teacher Perspectives on Children’s Mistakes.” Journal of Educational Research 112 (4): 535–49.
Donaldson, M. 2021. From Oops to Aha: Portraits of Learning from Mistakes in Kindergarten. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Dweck, C.S., & D.S. Yeager. 2019. “Mindsets: A View from Two Eras.” Perspectives on Psychological Science 14 (3): 481–96.
Flett, G.L., T. Nepon, & P.L. Hewitt. 2016. “Perfectionism, Worry, and Rumination in Health and Mental Health: A Review and a Conceptual Framework for a Cognitive Theory of Perfectionism.” In Perfectionism, Health, and Well-Being, eds. F.M. Sirois & D.S. Molnar, 121–55. New York, NY: Springer.
Fortin, J., & E. Fawcett. 2022. “How Bad Is the Teacher Shortage? Depends Where You Live.” The New York Times. August 29, 2022. nytimes.com/2022/08/29/us/schools-teacher-shortages.html.
Halls, K. 2022. “How A Teacher’s Questioning Affects the Math Concepts Discussed During Play.” Young Children 77 (3): 60–69.
Hauser, C. 2023. “Teacher Is Fired for Reading Book on Gender Identity in Class.” The New York Times. August 18, 2023. nytimes.com/2023/08/18/us/georgia-teacher-fired-gender-book.html.
Henderson, B., D.R. Meier, G. Perry, & A.J. Stremmel. 2012. “The Nature of Teacher Research.” Voices of Practitioners. NAEYC.org/sites/default/files/globally-shared/downloads/PDFs/resources/pubs/Nature%20of%20Teacher%20Research.pdf.
Im, H. 2017. “Kindergarten Standardized Testing and Reading Achievement in the US: Evidence from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study.” Studies in Educational Evaluation 55 (1): 9–18.
Klassen, R., E. Wilson, A.F.Y. Siu, W. Hannok, M.W. Wong, et al. 2013. “Preservice Teachers’ Work Stress, Self-Efficacy, and Occupational Commitment in Four Countries.” European Journal of Psychology of Education 28 (4): 1289–1309.
Maaß, K., & M. Artigue. 2013. “Implementation of Inquiry-Based Learning in Day-to-Day Teaching: A Synthesis.” ZDM Mathematics Education 45: 779–95.
Madigan, D.J., & L.E. Kim. 2021. “Towards an Understanding of Teacher Attrition: A Meta-Analysis of Burnout, Job Satisfaction, and Teachers’ Intentions to Quit.” Teaching and Teacher Education 105. doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103425.
McCarthy, C.J. 2019. “Teacher Stress: Balancing Demands and Resources.” Phi Delta Kappan. October 28, 2019. kappanonline.org/teacher-stress-balancing-demands-resources-mccarthy.
Metcalfe, J. 2017. “Learning from Errors.” Annual Review of Psychology 68: 465–89.
Parcerisa, L., A. Verger, & N. Browes. 2022. “Teacher Autonomy in the Age of Performance-Based Accountability: A Review Based on Teaching Profession Regulatory Models (2017–2020).” Education Policy Analysis Archives 30 (100).
Petchauer, E., K.J. Baker-Doyle, L. Mawhinney, & B. Ciarkowski. 2015. “ ‘Since Feeling is First’: Exploring the Affective Dimension of Teacher Licensure Exams.” Multidisciplinary Journal of Educational Research 5 (2): 167–95.
Santori, D., K. Ven, & K. Hennessey. 2019. “Collaborative Exploration of Classroom Discourse.” Young Children 74 (3): 64–72.
Steuer, G., & M. Dresel. 2015. “A Constructive Error Climate as an Element of Effective Learning Environments.” Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling 57 (2): 262–75.
van Katwijk, L., A. Berry, E. Jansen, & K. van Veen. 2019. “ ‘It’s Important, but I’m Not Going to Keep Doing It!’: Perceived Purposes, Learning Outcomes, and Value of Preservice Teacher Research Among Educators.” Teaching and Teacher Education 86 (10): 1–11.
van Katwijk, L., E. Jansen, & K. van Veen. 2021. “Preservice Teacher Research: A Way to Future-Proof Teachers?” European Journal of Teacher Education 46 (3): 435–55.
Wiggins, G., & J. McTighe. 2005. Understanding by Design. 2nd ed. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Winstone, N.E., R.A. Nash, M. Parker, & J. Rowntree. 2017. “Supporting Learners’ Agentic Engagement with Feedback: A Systematic Review and a Taxonomy of Recipience Processes.” Educational Psychologist 52 (1): 17–37.