Theory Into Practice

ISSN: 0040-5841 (Print) 1543-0421 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/htip20

Cultivating teacher candidates who support

student agency: Four promising practices

Dixie D. Massey & Amanda Wall

To cite this article: Dixie D. Massey & Amanda Wall (2020) Cultivating teacher candidates who
support student agency: Four promising practices, Theory Into Practice, 59:2, 172-181, DOI:
10.1080/00405841.2019.1702449

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2019.1702449

Accepted author version posted online: 09

Dec 2019.
Published online: 04 Feb 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 100

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=htip20
THEORY INTO PRACTICE
2020, VOL. 59, NO. 2, 172–181
https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2019.1702449

Cultivating teacher candidates who support student agency:

Four promising practices
Dixie D. Masseya and Amanda Wallb
a
Department of Curriculum and Instruction, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA; bDepartment
of Middle Grades and Secondary Education, Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, Georgia, USA

ABSTRACT
In this article, we consider how teacher educators can support the devel-
opment of agency in teacher candidates. Using a sociocultural under-
standing of agency, we describe four promising practices for helping
teacher candidates develop agency as individuals and as a collective. We
consider helping teacher candidates develop their own professional iden-
tities, their long-term goals and visions for teaching, their focus on stu-
dents, and their ability to conduct systematic examinations of their own
practices through teacher research.

As teacher educators, we see student agency as central for preparing teacher candidates.
However, when teacher candidates develop lesson plans, they may describe feeling the
pressure to comply with grade level, district, or curricular expectations, surfacing the
question of how educators acknowledge their own agency in relation to their students’
agency. Our visions for teaching include helping our teacher candidates design learning
that cultivates classroom environments where their future students can engage in mean-
ingful learning that is personally relevant for them—in other words, where teachers enact
their own agency in order to support their students’ agency.
In this article, we synthesize understandings of how teacher educators can cultivate an
agentic mind-set in teacher candidates so that they plan for student agency in their
teaching. Drawing from theory and research, we share empirical findings from across
our research and that of teacher educators who have enacted student agency among their
teacher candidates (e.g., Leigh, 2012; Lipponen & Kumpulainen, 2011).

Defining agency
Etalepelto, Vahasantanen, Hokka, and Paloniemi (2013) reviewed the literature on agency
and observed that there had not been “any explicit definition of its core meaning” (p. 46).
Related concepts include intentionality, forethought, self-reflectiveness, autonomy, moti-
vation, and identity (Bandura, 2006; Emirbayer & Mische, 1998; Etalepelto et al., 2013;
Wenger, 1999). Here we follow Bandura’s idea that “To be an agent is to influence
intentionally one’s functioning and life circumstances” (2006, p. 164). An agentic indivi-
dual exercises “desire, ability, and power to determine their own course of action”
(Vaughn, 2018, p. 63), or as Biesta, Priestley, and Robinson (2015) wrote, “Agency, in

CONTACT Dixie D. Massey ddmassey@uw.edu Department of Curriculum and Instruction, University of

Washington, Seattle, WA 98195-3600, USA.
© 2020 The College of Education and Human Ecology, The Ohio State University
 THEORY INTO PRACTICE 173

other words, is not something that people can have—as a property, capacity or compe-
tence—but is something that people do” (p. 626).
Further, we align our work with a sociocultural view of agency, which posits that
individuals can affect their contexts (agency) but that agency is always shaped by the
contexts or environments of the individuals (Kayi-Aydar, 2015; Lasky, 2005, p. 900).
Further, the contexts of interaction are not confined to present action. Instead, agency
is situated in environments across time. Emirbayer and Mische (1998) included this
notion of time as it relates to agency as follows:
A temporally embedded process of social engagement, informed by the past (in its habitual
aspect), but also oriented toward the future (as a capacity to imagine alternative possibilities)
and toward the present (as a capacity to contextualize past habits and future projects with the
contingencies of the moment. (p. 963)

Finally, agency forms a reciprocal relationship with identity (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger,
1999), what Hokka, Vahasantanen, and Mahlakaarto (2017) described as “identity-agency.”
According to Wenger (1999), identity develops both through individual agency and through
social practice. The social practice can provide necessary levels of trust, allowing students to
identify themselves as part of a learning community (Biesta & Tedder, 2006). It is agency that
allows individuals to author new identities (Tan, Barton, Kang, & O’Neill, 2013). At the same
time, Tao and Gao (2017) noted the reverse to be true: “It appears that a shared understanding
of collective identity directs collective agency” (p. 44).
Agency and identity are not either/or propositions. Moore (2007) described science
teacher candidates as demonstrating weak or strong agency and weak or strong teaching
identities. Thus, candidates might exhibit any combination of strong and weak disposi-
tions within agency and identity. For example, some candidates exhibited strong beliefs
about needed changes in the teaching of science but believed that those changes should
come from external places rather than from their own teaching. Moore (2007) coded these
candidates as demonstrating strong agency but weak teacher identity. Agency and identity
are reciprocal in that each can support or hinder the other. When a teacher candidate, for
example, enacts a strong identity as a teacher, that may enhance their agency for teaching
as well.
In sum, agency is both individual and social. Agency is embedded in past, present, and
future actions. It forms a reciprocal relationship with identity. Based on these under-
standings, we believe that teacher educators can support teacher candidates’ agency and
that the environments we create within our teacher education programs help foster
agentic actions of our teacher candidates.

Agency and teaching candidates

One of our goals as teacher educators is to support teacher candidates to develop their own
agency and their students’ agency. We focused our review of the literature on how teacher
educators can create environments that support agency and cultivate an agentic mind-set in
teacher candidates (Biesta et al., 2015). Our quest reminded us that there is limited research
that directly addresses how teacher educators can support the emergent agentic behaviors of
teacher candidates (Biesta et al., 2015). Areas that are linked to the increased agency of
teacher candidates include supporting the development of a professional identity, clarifying
174 D. D. MASSEY AND A. WALL

visions and long-term goals for teaching, focusing on students, and researching their own
practices.

Supporting the development of professional identity

If agency is supported and enhanced by one’s identity, then how do teacher educators help
teacher candidates develop professional identities? Teacher candidates bring a variety of
already-established identities, based on their experiences and beliefs. Lortie (1975)
observed that teacher candidates enter into coursework with ideas of effective pedagogy,
academic knowledge, and knowledge of schooling. Some of these identities may even be in
opposition to certain program goals and philosophies of the teacher education program
(Ruohotie-Lyhty & Moate, 2016).
In order to support teacher candidates in developing agency, teacher educators can help
teacher candidates access professional identities—such as viewing teaching as a profession,
viewing themselves as teachers, and advocating for the profession. Teacher candidates do not
necessarily view themselves as teachers (Crawford-Garrett & Riley, 2016; Moore, 2007). As
Moore (2007) noted, teacher candidates indicated that they could not be “agents of change”
(Moore, 2007, p. 598) because they did not have their own classrooms. For example, one teacher
candidate reflected,

I do not know if I am an agent of change right now because I am not a teacher yet. I do hope that
I will be able to be an agent of change though. Instead of giving up on students that need the most
help, I want to hang in there when teaching gets tough, and to do my best .(Moore, 2007, p. 599)

In this vignette, as well as others from Moore’s study, teacher candidates viewed control as
critical to being agentic. They believed that if teachers could control their own classrooms,
then they could create change.
Helping candidates develop their identities as teachers within the profession of teaching
begins with helping them explore the identities that they already bring, as well as the
experiences and beliefs in which these identities are rooted (Massey, Miller, & Metzger,
2017). To support teacher candidates’ development of professional identities, we typically
begin with assignments that ask them to reflect on their own identities and experiences as
learners. For example, regular reflection prompts ask teacher candidates to connect ideas from
readings to their own emerging practices as teachers. Additionally, structured observation
protocols can include spaces for teacher candidates to highlight aspects of their cooperating
teacher’s practices that they would like to adapt to their own teaching. These reflections and
observations become part of a larger class discussion about teaching as a profession and the
ways in which professionals take part in their professions. At a basic level, we may require
students to attend staff meetings, out-of-school events, and trainings. We require that they
attend a conference offered by an educators’ association. Participation in these professional
activities supports their growing identities as educators. These course assignments and
program requirements afford teacher candidates the opportunities to note specific ideas and
to take specific actions while developing professional identities and agency. We follow these
concrete steps by asking them to clarify their visions and goals for teaching.
 THEORY INTO PRACTICE 175

Clarifying vision and long-term goals

Teacher candidates benefit from a vision of education and its purposes (Biesta et al., 2015).
These visions can include their goals for themselves and for their students. Biesta et al.
(2015) wrote,

Our data suggest strongly that many teachers struggle to locate their work within deep
consideration of the purposes of education. Teachers are driven by goals in their work, but
such goals often seem to be short-term in nature, focusing on process rather than longer-term
significance and impact. (p. 636)

One approach to helping teachers locate their work within broader educational goals is to
help teacher candidates articulate their visions (Priestley, Edwards, Miller, & Priestley,
2012). A vision is “a teacher’s sense of self, of one’s work, and of one’s mission” (Duffy,
2002, p. 334). Duffy (2005) suggested that teachers with a vision are empowered to teach
toward their vision.
Much of the research on teacher visioning focuses on practicing teachers; however,
emerging research has examined the visions of teacher candidates. Hammerness (2003,
2004, 2006, 2008) followed four teacher candidates who demonstrated strong visions.
When these teachers encountered barriers to enacting their visions (e.g., standardized
testing), they were able to stay true to their visions (Hammerness, 2004) and used their
visions to guide their decision-making (Hammerness, 2008). Similarly, Parsons, Vaughn,
Malloy, and Pierczynski (2017) found that teacher visions were stable across 7 years, from
teacher education programs through the first years of teaching.
These teacher visions continued to influence teachers’ instruction and decisions. When
faced with obstacles, the researchers (Parsons et al., 2017) described the teachers as “going
rogue” meaning “teachers negotiated these obstacles, such as restrictive policy mandates,
by adapting their instruction, advocating for their students, and covertly closing their
doors and doing what they thought was best for their students” (p. 20). Without a clear
vision, teachers may limit their agentic potential. Biesta et al. (2015) theorized:

The comparative lack of a clear vision about what education is for seems to seriously limit the
possibilities for action to develop a good education. Purposes that are narrowly framed inevitably
narrow consideration of what is possible, and frame subsequent action accordingly. (p. 637)

When teacher candidates articulate their vision statements, they exhibit intentional influence
over their circumstances agency for their own teaching, thereby demonstrating agency
(Bandura, 2006). Our first step is typically an assignment for teacher candidates to write
their vision statements. While reflections about their experiences look to their past, the vision
statement is intended to link their past experiences to their present and future actions. Teacher
candidates are assigned to address their goals for themselves and their students (Duffy, 1998),
the content area(s) and grade level(s) they plan to teach, and their future roles and interactions
with students, parents, colleagues, and the educational community. These visions statements
are reviewed over multiple semesters. We also share case studies of particular school situations
and ask students to reflect on how they might respond in similar situations, comparing their
responses with their visions.
176 D. D. MASSEY AND A. WALL

Focusing on the students

The increased demands of accountability, including Response to Intervention (how teachers
provide more intensive instruction for those students who need additional support),
Common Core State Standards, and teacher evaluation protocols, can easily create contexts
where teachers and teacher candidates focus on delivering the content in order to fulfill
expectations, resulting in significant impacts on teaching and learning (Baker, 2007). Teacher
candidates may view the role of the teacher as an authoritarian figure who delivers knowledge
(Kayi-Aydar, 2015). Studies of effective teaching suggest that this ignores the importance of
focusing on students and adapting the curriculum to student needs. Pearson and Hoffman
(2011) wrote, “For a teacher to simply carry on down a planned path ignoring the reality of
current circumstances is a recipe for failure” (p. 20).
The bottom line is that effective teachers adapt curriculum to their students rather than
hoping students will fit into the curriculum. These teacher candidates and teachers
leverage their content and pedagogical knowledge to address student interests, needs,
and characteristics (Wall, Massey, & Vaughn, 2018). They create spaces where responsi-
bility is shared between students and teacher and where both teachers and students act
with agency, rather than simply completing the next lesson in the curriculum (Vaughn,
Parsons, Gallagher, & Branen, 2016).
Focusing on the students requires teacher educators to provide multiple opportu-
nities for teacher candidates to observe and interact with students. One framework for
learning more about students is a shadow study (Lounsbury, 2016). During a shadow
study, a teacher candidate follows a student’s day, observing how the student interacts
with teachers and peers and how the student engages in learning throughout the day.
A critical reflection can prompt the teacher candidate to reflect on their own goals for
teaching based on this experience. Observing in classrooms, teaching small groups, and
student teaching are typical ways that teacher candidates work with students. However,
these opportunities sometimes limit the abilities of teacher candidates to really know
individual students and adapt instruction. Many teacher education programs have
included clinical or tutoring experiences as essential components for building teacher
candidates’ understanding of students (e.g. Compton-Lilly, Caloia, Quast, & McCann,
2016; Massey et al., 2017; Miller, Metzger, & Massey, 2018). In these settings, teacher
educators allow space for teacher candidates to act in agentic ways that benefit students,
develop critical content knowledge, and foster understanding of students’ identities and
practices (Hoffman, Wetzel, & Peterson, 2016).
Teacher candidates can also focus on students by gaining an understanding of the com-
munities around schools where they have field experiences. Teacher candidates can interview
school teachers, administrators, and other school professionals about the community,
research demographic and community information, and visit the community. Then, they
connect what they have learned to how they will teach in that community, drawing on the
interests of the students and the assets and characteristics of the community.
These methods of focusing on students allow teacher candidates to develop their own
agency for teaching so that they can support student agency. When teacher candidates
expand their knowledge of students, schools, and communities, they can harness this
knowledge in ways that build on and extend student agency.
 THEORY INTO PRACTICE 177

Researching one’s own practice

In the early 1900s, Dewey (1929) called for educational practices to become the data of
research. He also stated that classroom teachers’ contributions were largely ignored, calling
the practical data an unworked mine. Teacher research (used here interchangeably with
practitioner research and action research) has become a valued form of educational research
in the last several decades, supporting the idea “that teachers could be powerful agents in the
educational scene, able to make a difference by virtue of the decisions they made on a day-to-
day basis” (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999, p. 16).
Engaging in teacher research is a way for teacher candidates to take on an agentic
mind-set and to investigate how they support their students’ agency. Following one such
course taught by Dixie, an in-service teacher reflected,
Before I studied strategies for conducting my own classroom research, I would spend hours
studying the findings of others, whose context never seemed to match my own. And while
I still greatly value the research and recommendations of others, I’ve since learned that I too
have the means to find answers for my students. What used to be a ‘sense’ of the answers to
my questions has been replaced with evidence I can share. (Massey & Johnson, 2012, p. 13)

Increasingly, teacher educators have used teacher research at the preservice level as a way
to bridge the gap between theory and practice and to empower teacher candidates to see
themselves as agentic (Lattimer, 2012; Miller & Shinas, 2019). Teacher research is used as
one way to better one’s own practice instead of waiting for professional development or
other outside, decontextualized sources to provide direction. It helps teacher candidates
move beyond reflection into action (Eriksson, Romar, & Dyson, 2017).
As part of a preservice teacher program, teacher candidates receive collegial support to
learn how to conduct systematic research. Klein et al. (2015) described a layered approach
that partnered teacher candidates, teacher educators, and mentor teachers on action
research projects. In this study, teacher candidates noted the developing agency in their
students. At the same time, mentors noted the teacher candidates were developing agency
and a willingness to use their findings to affect change in their classrooms.

Conclusion
Even with an intentional focus on cultivating teacher candidates who demonstrate agency,
we acknowledge limitations. Priestley et al. (2012) reminded us that viewing agency as
actions that shape and are shaped by the social environment is a two-edged sword. These
researchers noted that if teachers view the risks as greater than the benefits of acting in
particular ways [e.g., when abandoning or adapting curricula], then teachers who suspend
their goals and stated beliefs about education are acting with agency. That is, agency is not
always marked by the action desired by many teacher educators and researchers.
In spite of the potential of agency to be used in ways that are not student-focused, we
posit that professional identity, vision and long-term goals, a student-centered focus, and
teacher research should be critical components of teacher education for at least two
reasons. First, professional identity, vision, student-centered focus, and teacher research
help teacher candidates exercise their own agency (Massey et al., 2017; Miller & Shinas,
2019; Moore, 2007; Parsons et al., 2017). Second, these components foster not just teacher
candidate agency, but also student agency (Klein et al., 2015; Miller et al., 2018).
178 D. D. MASSEY AND A. WALL

At the same time, we acknowledge that a focus on agency at an individual teacher

candidate level will not be enough to support agentic action. Agency as a socio-cultural
construct is founded upon the tenet that individuals act within social settings. Lasky
observed that, “Seen in this way, agency is always mediated by the interaction between
the individual (attributes and inclinations), and the tools and structures of a social setting.
Neither can be separated from the other” (Lasky, 2005, p. 900). Holland and colleagues
similarly noted that, “our communications with one another not only convey messages but
also make claims about who we are relative to one another” (Holland, Lachicotte, Skinner,
& Cain, 1998, p. 26). The onus for teacher educators, then, is to encourage teacher
candidates to develop networks of support that will continue to support agency.
Helping teacher candidates develop and share their visions is one step toward building
social connections that support agency (Parsons et al., 2017). Introducing them to
professional organizations offers teacher candidates opportunities to clarify their identities
as educators within a community. Ideally, this support should continue with opportunities
for reflection and collaboration (Moore, 2007).
While it is clear that we have much more work to do in order to understand how to
support teacher candidates’ development of and implementation of agency, initial work
shows promising results. Connecting agency to domains including classroom practices,
curriculum and instruction, classroom environment, and other areas of teaching (Wall
et al., 2018) allows teacher candidates to interpret their past, see possibilities not just for
their present, but for their future pedagogies and practices (Emirbayer & Mische, 1998). In
turn, teacher candidate agency supports students who demonstrate agency and help shape
their own learning.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References
Baker, E. (2007). The end(s) of testing. Educational Researcher, 36, 306–317.
Bandura, A. (2006). Toward a psychology of human agency. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1,
164–180. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00011.x
Biesta, G., Priestley, M., & Robinson, S. (2015). The role of beliefs in teacher agency. Teachers and
Teaching, 21, 624–640. doi:10.1080/13540602.2015.1044325
Biesta, G., & Tedder, M. (2006). How is agency possible? Towards an ecological understanding of
agency-as- achievement (Vol. 44). Working Paper 5, Learning Lives. Retrieved from http://www.
networkedlearningconference.org.uk/abstracts/pdf/P25.pdf
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). The teacher research movement: A decade later.
Educational Researcher, 28, 15–25. doi:10.3102/0013189X028007015
Compton-Lilly, C., Caloia, R., Quast, E., & McCann, K. (2016). A closer look at a summer reading
program: Listening to students and parents. The Reading Teacher, 70(1), 59–67. doi:10.1002/
trtr.1468
Crawford-Garrett, K., & Riley, K. (2016). Living and learning in the here-and-now: Critical Inquiry
in literacy teacher education. Journal of Language and Literacy Education, 12, 33–55.
Dewey, J. (1929). The sources of a science of education. New York, NY: Liverright.
Duffy, G. G. (1998). Teaching and the balancing of round stones. Phi Delta Kappa, 79(10), 777–780.
 THEORY INTO PRACTICE 179

Duffy, G. G. (2002). Visioning and the development of outstanding teachers. Reading Research and
Instruction, 41, 331–344. doi:10.1080/19388070209558375
Duffy, G. G. (2005). Developing metacognitive teachers: Visioning and the expert’s changing role in
teacher education and professional development. In S. E. Israel, C. C. Block, K. L. Bauserman, &
K. Kinnucan-Welsch (Eds.), Metacognition in literacy learning: Theory, assessment, instruction,
and professional development (pp. 299–314). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103, 962–1023.
doi:10.1086/231294
Eriksson, N., Romar, J. E., & Dyson, B. (2017). The action research story of a student–Teacher:
Change is not easy and it takes time, effort, and critical reflection. International Journal of Action
Research, 13, 51–74. doi:10.3224/ijar.v13i1.05
Etalepelto, A., Vahasantanen, K., Hokka, P., & Paloniemi, S. (2013). What is agency? Conceptualizing
professional agency at work. Educational Research Review, 10, 45–65. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2013.05.001
Hammerness, K. (2003). Learning to hope, or hoping to learn: The role of vision in the early professional
lives of teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 54, 43–56. doi:10.1177/0022487102238657
Hammerness, K. (2004). Teaching with vision: How one teacher negotiates the tension between
high ideals and standardized testing. Teacher Education Quarterly, 31, 33–43.
Hammerness, K. (2006). Seeing through teachers’ eyes: Professional ideals and classroom practices.
New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Hammerness, K. (2008). “If you don’t know where you are going, any path will do”: The role of teachers’
visions in teachers’ career paths. The New Educator, 4, 1–22. doi:10.1080/15476880701829184
Hoffman, J. V., Wetzel, M. M., & Peterson, K. (2016). Approximating literacy practices in tutorials:
What is learned and what matters for teacher preparation. Literacy Research and Instruction, 55
(3), 183–208. doi:10.1080/19388071.2015.1128023
Hokka, P., Vahasantanen, K., & Mahlakaarto, S. (2017). Teacher educators’ collective professional
agency and identity—Transforming marginality to strength. Teaching and Teacher Education, 63,
36–46. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2016.12.001
Holland, D., Lachicotte, W., Skinner, D., & Cain, C. (1998). Identity and agency in cultural worlds.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kayi-Aydar, H. (2015). Teacher agency, positioning, and English language learners: Voices of pre-service
classroom teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 45, 94–103. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2014.09.009
Klein, E. J., Taylor, M., Monteiro, K., Romney, W., Scipio, M., Diaz, A., … Poole, S. (2015). Making
the leap to teacher: Pre-service residents, faculty, and school mentors taking on action research
together in an urban teacher residency program. Networks: an Online Journal for Teacher
Research, 17, 547.
Lasky, S. (2005). A sociocultural approach to understanding teacher identity, agency and profes-
sional vulnerability in a context of secondary school reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21,
899–916. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2005.06.003
Lattimer, H. (2012). Action research in pre-service teacher education: Is there value added? Ie:
Inquiry in Education, 3, 5.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Leigh, S. R. (2012). The classroom is alive with the sound of thinking: The power of the exit slip.
International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 24, 189–196.
Lipponen, L., & Kumpulainen, K. (2011). Acting as accountable authors: Creating interactional
spaces for agency work in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 812–819.
doi:10.1016/j.tate.2011.01.001
Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Lounsbury, J. H. (2016). Shadow studies. In S. B. Mertens, M. M. Caskey, & N. Flowers (Eds.), The
encyclopedia of middle grades education (2nd ed., pp. 349–351). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Massey, D. D., & Johnson, R. E. (2012). Is it worth it? Reflecting on the impact of action research.
Washington State Kappan. Retrieved from https://journals.lib.washington.edu/index.php/wsk/
article/view/14181
180 D. D. MASSEY AND A. WALL

Massey, D. D., Miller, S. D., & Metzger, S. (2017). Reading is something I teach, not something they
do. Paper presented at the Literacy Research Association, Tampa, FL.
Miller, M., & Shinas, V. (2019). Inquiring about inquiry: A research journey. Journal of Practitioner
Research, 4, 7. doi:10.5038/2379-9951
Miller, S., Metzger, S., & Massey, D. D. (2018). Providing students with choice (Paper under review).
Unpublished manuscript, Department of Curriculum and Instruction, University of North
Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, NC.
Moore, F. (2007). Language in science education as a gatekeeper to learning, teaching, and professional
development. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18, 319–343. doi:10.1007/s10972-007-9040-0
Parsons, S., Vaughn, M., Malloy, J., & Pierczynski, M. (2017). The development of teachers’ visions
from preservice into their first years teaching: A longitudinal study. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 64, 12–25. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2017.01.018
Pearson, P. D., & Hoffman, J. V. (2011). Principles of practice for the teaching of reading. In
T. Rasinski (Ed.), Rebuilding the foundation: Effective reading instruction for 21st century literacy
(pp. 9–38). Bloomington, In Solution Tree.
Priestley, M., Edwards, R., Miller, K., & Priestley, A. (2012). Teacher agency in curriculum making:
Agents of change and spaces for manoeuvre. Curriculum Inquiry, 42, 191–214. Retrieved from
http://dspace.stir.ac.uk/bitstream/1893/3119/1/The%20role%20of%20teacher%20agency%20in%
20curriculum%20making_final.pdf
Ruohotie-Lyhty, M., & Moate, J. (2016). Who and how? Preservice teachers as active agents
developing professional identities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 55, 318–327. doi:10.1016/j.
tate.2016.01.022
Tan, E., Barton, A., Kang, H., & O’Neill, T. (2013). Desiring a career in STEM-related fields: How
middle school girls articulate and negotiate identities-in-practice in science. Journal of Research
in Science Teaching, 50, 1143–1179. doi:10.1002/tea.v50.10
Tao, J., & Gao, X. (2017). Teacher agency and identity in curricular reform. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 63, 346–355. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2017.01.010
Vaughn, M. (2018). Making sense of student agency in the early grades. Phi Delta Kappan, 99(7),
62–66. doi:10.1177/0031721718767864
Vaughn, M., Parsons, S., Gallagher, M., & Branen, J. (2016). Teachers’ adaptive instruction
supporting students’ literacy learning. Reading Teacher, 69, 539–547. doi:10.1002/trtr.1426
Wall, A., Massey, D., & Vaughn, M. (2018). Research summary: Student agency. Retrieved from
https://www.amle.org/BrowsebyTopic/WhatsNew/WNDet/TabId/270/ArtMID/888/ArticleID/
995/Student-Agency.aspx
Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.

Additional Resources
1. Edwards, S. (2017). Like a chameleon: A beginning teacher’s journey to implement active
learning. RMLE Online, 40, 1–11.
In this article, the author follows one teacher as she tries to implement a learning environment
that was intellectually active, socially active, and physically active. Edwards attributes commitment
and vision for teaching, as well as agency, for the teacher’s ability to persist in the face of challenges.

2. Gustein, E. (2007). “And that’s just how it starts”: Teaching mathematics and developing
student agency. Teachers College Record, 109, 420–448.
This study of the author’s own middle-level mathematics classroom showcases how practitioner
research can support agency for both teacher and students. Gutstein relied on his reflections,
students’ reflections, and indicators of academic achievement in the mathematics classroom, to
determine the successes of this approach and reiterated the importance of teachers’ creating
“conditions for students to develop agency” (p. 440).
 THEORY INTO PRACTICE 181

3. Lattimer, H., & Caillier, S. (Eds). (2015). Surviving and thriving with teacher action research:
Reflections and advice from the field. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
This book describes the experiences of 32 educators from elementary schools to universities.
These educators are honest about the challenges of conducting action research. They also speak to
the power of action research to bring change to their practices. Engaging in action research is a way
for teachers to enact agency.