Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 1091e1106

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

More or better student teaching?

Matthew Ronfeldt a, *, Michelle Reininger b
a
University of Michigan, 610 E. University Ave., Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1259, USA
b
Stanford University, USA

h i g h l i g h t s

< We survey 1057 student teachers before and after student teaching.
< Lengthening student teaching has little effect on teacher outcomes.
< The quality of student teaching has a positive and significant effect.
< The effect of quality is greater when student teaching is shorter.
< The effect is also greater in schools with more black and Hispanic students.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Drawing from data on over 1000 prospective teachers in a large urban district including pre and post-
Received 19 November 2011 student teaching survey data, this study investigates whether lengthening student teaching improves
Received in revised form teachers’ perceptions of instructional preparedness, efficacy, and career plans. The findings suggest that
14 May 2012
the duration of student teaching has little effect on teacher outcomes; however, the quality of student
Accepted 13 June 2012
teaching has significant and positive effects. Moreover, the magnitude of the effects of student teaching
quality are greater when student teaching is shorter and in schools with more historically underserved
Keywords:
racial groups. The authors discuss policy implications and directions for further research.
Student teaching
Teacher education
Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Field experience
Professional preparation

1. Introduction Consistent with international trends, U.S. policymakers are

In recent decades, school-based clinical preparation has gained
increased international attention among teacher educators
(Korthagen & Kessels, 1999; Maandag, Folkert Deinum, Adriaan
Hofman, & Buitink, 2007; Villegas-Reimers, 2003). Goodson
(1993) describes a “developing global tendency for more teacher
education to become field-based” (p. 218). Perhaps the most vivid
example has been in England where, in response to concerns over
university training being too far removed from practice, began the
“back to schools” movement of the 1980s. This led to a policy
overhaul in the 1990s, highlighted by the Education Secretary
calling to transfer 80 percent of training from the university to
secondary schools (Goodson, 1993, p. 221). Today, a strong clinical
practice experience is viewed as central to teacher preparation
worldwide (Darling-Hammond & Cobb, 1995; Musset, 2010; Wang,
Coleman, Coley, & Phelps, 2003).
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 7349363656.
E-mail address: ronfeldt@umich.edu (M. Ronfeldt).
focusing increasingly on clinical experience, including student
teaching, as a key dimension of teacher preparation. The recent
National Research Council report (NRC, 2010) went so far as to
identify field (clinical) experience as one of three “aspects of
preparation that have the highest potential for effects on outcomes
for students” (p. 180). In the wake of the NRC report, a blue ribbon
panel for the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Educa-
tion (NCATE, 2010) called to turn teacher education “upside-down”
by focusing professional preparation more squarely on clinical
experiences.
With the emphasis on clinical preparation has come an inter-
national trend toward increasing the amount of clinical experiences
required during pre-service preparation (Mickelson, 1980; Morine-
Dershimer & Leighfield, 1995; Villegas-Reimers, 2003). For
example, in 1991 the Japanese Ministry of Education increased the
minimum requirements for student teaching from two to four
weeks. Likewise, in 1989 the National Council for the Accreditation
of Teacher Education (NCATE) issued new guidelines to increase
minimum student teaching requirements in the United States from
eight to ten weeks. Since, many states throughout the U.S. have

0742-051X/$ e see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.06.003
1092 M. Ronfeldt, M. Reininger / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 1091e1106
increased the minimum certification requirements for the duration
of student teaching.
Even as policymakers increase the duration of clinical experi-
ences, review after review has identified the effects of extending
these experiences to be a gap in the literature. In their 1996
examination of the research on pre-service field experience,
McIntyre, Byrd and Foxx lamented, “[T]here does not exist enough
data to determine that extending field experiences. will develop
more effective thoughtful teachers” (p. 176). More recently, Clift and
Brady (2005) concluded, “We did not find answers to structural or
comparative questions such as: Does it matter if there are no field
experiences as opposed to intensive field experiences?” (p. 330).
This is one of the first studies to provide large-scale, cross-insti-
tutional evidence about the effects of extending student teaching.
Implicit in most policies that extend clinical experiences is the
assumption that teachers learn from experience so more experi-
ence is likely valuable. However, Dewey (1938) cautioned that
experience is not necessarily educative, and can be miseducative.
Since, a number of researchers have raised concern that school-
based clinical experiences can have harmful socializing effects
(Zeichner & Gore, 1990), e.g. leading teachers to reproduce the
status quo and become more custodial in orientation (Britzman,
1991; Hoy, 1968). These studies have advocated instead for more
attention to the quality, rather than quantity, of field experiences.
Drawing on surveys of 1057 student teachers in the district
across multiple years and across programs responsible for
preparing teachers, this study examines the effects of having longer
and better quality student teaching on a variety of outcomes. It
asks:
1. How do teachers’ perceptions of instructional preparedness,
efficacy, and career plans change across student teaching?
2. What is the effect of having longer or better student teaching
on perceptions of preparedness, teacher efficacy, and career
plans?
3. Do the effects of length or quality of student teaching vary by
the demographic characteristics of students in schools that are
used as field placement sites?
By examining these questions, we begin to provide an empirical
basis for policy trends, in the U.S. and abroad, aiming to improve
teacher quality by increasing the amount of clinical experiences.
Before describing the methods and analyses used in this study,
we review relevant prior literature. To begin, we consider how
student teaching varies within and across countries. Next, we
examine literature related to duration and quality of student
teaching. Finally, we provide a rationale for the self-report
outcomes used in our study by reviewing evidence for their rela-
tionships to observable teacher and student outcomes.
1.1. Variation in practice (student) teaching in the U.S. and abroad
Within the U.S. and abroad there is substantial variation in how
practice teaching experiences are structured. Internationally,
practice teaching typically occurs toward the end of preparation,
after coursework has been completed; though early field experi-
ences and practica simultaneous with coursework are becoming
increasingly common (Darling-Hammond & Cobb, 1995). As an
example, in Norway and Denmark practice teaching opportunities
are spread out in regular intervals throughout semesters
(TemaNord, 2009).
In the United States, field experiences generally take two forms.
Early field experiences are shorter in duration, and often integrated
as part of coursework, where prospective teachers take an obser-
vational or assistant role to “cooperating” (mentor) teachers. Most
U.S. programs culminate with “student teaching,” which requires
substantial lead teaching responsibilities still under the guidance of
an in-service teacher.1
There is tremendous cross-national variation in duration of
practice teaching, from a four-week session in New Zealand to
a full-year internship in Belgium, Chinese Taipei, and Germany
(Cobb, 1999; National Commission on Teaching and America’s
Future, 1996). There is also substantial variation within countries.
In Israel, the length of practice teaching depends on the kind of
preparation provider (Morine-Dershimer & Leighfield, 1995).
Universities typically prioritize theory and require only 14e40 h of
practicum, while teacher education colleges require 80e150 h each
year, across 3e4 years.2 Given tremendous within- and across-
nation variation in duration of practice teaching, understanding
whether extending field experiences is beneficial in the U.S. context
has implications for teacher education globally.
In the United States, student teaching is usually a semester in
length (12e15 weeks), though this varies by institution, certifica-
tion level (elementary or secondary), degree type (graduate or
undergraduate), and preparation route (alternative or traditional).
At one extreme, fast-track, alternative route programs expect fewer
weeks of student teaching. Teach for America requires a five-week
intensive summer experience in non-traditional classroom settings
immediately before becoming teacher of record in the fall. At the
other extreme, some traditional graduate and residency-based
programs require yearlong, supervised practice teaching experi-
ences, including some paid internships. Even traditional, semester-
long student teaching experiences vary substantially in terms of
how many total days and hours are spent in classrooms because
some are full-time while others only part-time (e.g. four days
a week, or half-day). Within the same program can exist substantial
variation; in our sample, approximately half of the variance in
length of student teaching is within-institution.
Though there exists substantial within- and across-nation
variation in how student teaching is designed, very little substan-
tive research exists on whether some designs are better for teacher
training than others. In the section that follows, we review existing
literature on the effects of lengthening student teaching. We then
turn to other features of student teaching that are related to its
quality.
1.2. Literature on the length of student teaching
Most existing research on the effects of extending student
teaching relies upon rather coarse comparisons e one versus two
semesters of student teaching or some versus no student teaching.
Studies have found no differences between teachers who
completed one versus two semesters of student teaching in terms
of classroom management, self-efficacy beliefs, and self-perceived
teaching ability (Chambers & Hardy, 2005; Spooner, Flowers,
Lambert, & Algozzine, 2008). On the other hand, Silvernail and
Costello (1983) show that prospective teachers in a yearlong
student teaching experience demonstrated a significant reduction
in anxiety, while those in the traditional, one-semester experience
did not.
Because of research design limitations, as well as mixed results,
there is little we can conclude about the effects of extending
student teaching from studies comparing one and two semester
experiences. These studies are typically of a single institution and
1
Usually student teaching occurs after completing coursework, though is
sometimes simultaneous with it.
2
Using a conversion of 30 h per week, which is typical in the U.S., some Israeli
programs require as many as 20 weeks across four years.
 M. Ronfeldt, M. Reininger / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 1091e1106
include relatively few teachers in each condition. Moreover, none of
them adequately account for other characteristics of student
teaching that may differ systematically between groups; thus, we
cannot necessarily differentiate between the effects of more and
better student teaching.
Studies comparing the effects of some versus no student
teaching have much larger samples (thousands of teachers).
Results from a longitudinal analysis of a nationally representative
pool of teachers suggests that teachers who never student taught
left teaching in the first five years at about twice the rate
(29 percent) as those who had student taught (15 percent)
(Henke, Xianglei, Geis, & Knepper, 2000). However, there is mixed
evidence on whether having student teaching is related to
instructional improvement. California State University (CSU, 2002)
found that new teachers who student taught felt better prepared
to teach reading-language arts than did peers who never student
taught. On the other hand, Boyd, Grossman, Lankford, Loeb, and
Wyckoff (2009) estimated the effects of having no student
teaching on teachers’ effectiveness at raising student achievement
and found estimates to be unstable, varying substantially across
model specifications.
Henke et al. (2000) and CSU (2002) present descriptive trends
from, respectively, national-level and state-level surveys, but fall far
short of establishing a causal link between student teaching and
teacher outcomes.3 Boyd, Grossman, Lankford, Loeb, and Wyckoff
(2009) provide the best, pseudo-causal estimates by controlling
for a number of student, classroom, teacher, and program charac-
teristics, but their results are inconclusive.
The study described here uses a similar comparative design and
set of controls as Boyd et al. (2009). However, it examines multiple
teacher outcomes and signals length of student teaching more
precisely (number of weeks) than the coarse measures used by
studies described above.4 Additionally, our study accounts for
substantially more comprehensive information on student
teaching features, including the characteristics of placement
schools. In so doing, we provide some of the best estimates to date
of the effects of extending field experiences.
Having considered the literature on the effects of lengthening
student teaching, we now turn to the other major focus of this
study e the quality of student teaching.
1.3. Dimensions of student teaching quality
Prior research defines the “quality” of student teaching in
various ways and estimates its effects by using a number of
different outcomes. A comprehensive review of what makes for
high quality student teaching is beyond the scope of this manu-
script; instead, we provide a brief overview of the research on the
following dimensions of student teaching that are repeatedly
highlighted e the contexts of field placement sites (including
3
For instance, those who never student taught likely differed in a number of
substantive ways that could have explained the observed trend e they were
probably more likely to enter through alternative route pathways and to work in
private schools (which hire more teachers without certification).
4
Though we have made improvements over prior research in terms of the
precision of our measure, we did not ask how many days per week or hour per
day. Given the tremendous variation in how field experiences are designed,
a week of student teaching in one program may translate into many more hours
than a week in another program. Even so, our findings are consistent in models
that use preparation program fixed-effects which compare prospective teachers
to peers in their same programs. This is significant because the number of days
per week and hours per day are likely to be similar amongst individuals in the
same program. The first author is currently conducting a study in Miami using
days and hours of student teaching that will show whether the precision of the
measure matters.
1093
faculty support and collegiality), cooperating teacher quality, and
university supervisor quality.5 In doing so, we provide a rationale
for using these features to signal student teaching quality.
1.3.1. Field placement contexts
The school settings in which student teaching takes place have
a substantial influence on student teachers (Huang & Waxman,
2009; Ronfeldt, 2012; Zeichner & Gore, 1990). Early studies por-
trayed field placement schools as strong socializing forces, making
student teachers more custodial and controlling (Hoy, 1969; Hoy &
Rees, 1977). More recently, studies of field experiences in one kind
of context e professional development schools (PDS) e have
demonstrated generally beneficial effects on teachers’ beliefs, effi-
cacy, instructional preparedness, retention, and practice (Boyle-
Baise & McIntyre, 2008; Clift & Brady, 2005; Grossman, Ronfeldt,
& Cohen, 2011). Given the growing trend among teacher prepara-
tion programs internationally toward establishing school partner-
ships (Darling-Hammond & Cobb, 1995; Maandag et al., 2007),
these findings are promising.
As with PDS settings, learning to teach in urban and multicul-
tural contexts generally has positive effects on teachers’ efficacy,
cultural competency, recruitment, retention, and attitudes
(Grossman et al., 2011). At the same time, fieldwork in urban
settings can be challenging, sometimes reinforcing negative atti-
tudes and deterring prospective teachers from continuing in similar
settings (Buehler, Ruggles Gere, Dallavis, & Shaw Haviland, 2009;
Grande, Burns, Schmidt, & Marable, 2009; Mello, 2003). Ronfeldt
(2012) suggests that working conditions make some urban
settings better sites for teacher learning. A related study of teacher
preparation in Taiwan found the field placement environment,
including levels of instructional autonomy and collegiality, affects
teachers’ commitment and satisfaction (Huang & Waxman, 2009).
These findings are consistent with studies of in-service school
settings that demonstrate positive working conditions, including
trust and collegiality among faculty and strong leadership, are
critical to teacher induction (Bryk & Schneider, 2002; Johnson &
Birkeland, 2003).
1.3.2. Cooperating teachers
Many have suggested that cooperating teachers, more than
other figures, have the strongest influence on pre-service teacher
attitudes and learning during student teaching, and perhaps across
teacher preparation generally (Cook, 2007; Karmos & Jacko, 1977;
Manning, 1977; Smagorinsky, Sanford, & Konopak, 2006). The
nature of the influence, however, is often characterized as
“controlling,” “traditional,” and as maintaining the status quo in
schools, sometimes running counter to more progressive beliefs
and practices learned in university settings (Britzman, 1991;
Feiman-Nemser & Buchmann, 1985; Hoy, 1968; Iannaccone, 1963;
Ronfeldt & Grossman, 2008; Zeichner & Gore, 1990).
Valencia, Martin, Place, and Grossman (2009) suggest that
cooperating teachers who provide autonomy to student teachers
allow them to develop alternative instructional practices. Other
studies have shown that cooperating teachers support teacher
learning by modeling practice and professionalism (Koerner, Rust, &
Baumgartner, 2002; Zembal-Saul, Krajcik, & Blumenfeld, 2002).
Cooperating teachers can also provide mentorship beyond modeling
(Glenn, 2006; Graham, 2006; Street, 2004; Yendol-Hoppey, 2007),
including feedback critical to student teacher learning (Conderman,
Morin, & Stephens, 2005; Fernandez & Erbilgin, 2009).
5
For more comprehensive reviews of the literature on field experience, see
Boyle-Baise and McIntyre (2008), Clift and Brady (2005), McIntyre et al. (1996),
Grossman et al. (2011), and Wilson, Floden, and Ferrini-Mundy (2001).
1094 M. Ronfeldt, M. Reininger / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 1091e1106
1.3.3. University supervisors
Early research on university supervision found some positive
effects on student teachers’ performance, critical reflection, and
attitudes, though the majority of evidence showed little effect
(McIntyre, Byrd, & Foxx, 1996). According to Grossman et al. (2011),
more recent literature demonstrates a positive impact of university
supervisors on student teachers’ pedagogy, classroom manage-
ment, autonomy, and efficacy. Increased frequency of supervision
has also been shown to predict teachers’ planned persistence (Oh,
Ankers, Llamas, & Tomyoy, 2005) and effectiveness (Boyd et al.,
2009).
1.4. Literature on outcome measures
In this section we review the literature on the outcomes used in
this study e teacher efficacy, perceptions of instructional
preparedness, and career plans. These are all self-reported, indirect
measures, prone to bias, misperception, and the limitations of
memory. Thus, it is important to make a case for their use in our
research. Rather than present a comprehensive review of the
literature on these measures, our intent is to justify their use by
illustrating their relationships to desirable teacher and student
outcomes, including observable ones. Where possible, we draw on
literature specifically related to field experiences.
1.4.1. Teacher efficacy
There has been extensive empirical and theoretical study of
teacher efficacy.6 Teacher efficacy predicts a number of desirable
student outcomes, including achievement, motivation, and efficacy
(Anderson, Greene, & Loewen, 1988; Armor et al., 1976; Ashton &
Webb, 1986; Berman, McLaughlin, Bass, Pauly, & Zellman, 1977;
Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy, & Hoy, 1998). It is also related
to desirable teacher outcomes, including behavioral differences
that likely predict student achievement (Gibson & Dembo, 1984),
teaching commitment (Coladarci, 1992), and persistence (Glickman
& Tamashiro, 1982). Teacher efficacy mostly increases during
student teaching (Hoy & Woolfolk, 1990; Woolfolk Hoy & Burke
Spero, 2005), regardless of whether it occurs in urban, rural, or
suburban schools (Knoblauch & Hoy, 2008).7
1.4.2. Perceptions of instructional preparedness
Compared to the literature on teacher efficacy the literature on
perceptions of instructional preparedness is less robust. We are
unaware of any studies that demonstrate a relationship between
perceptions of and actual instructional preparedness. A number of
studies, though, demonstrate that perceptions of instructional
preparedness are related to increased efficacy, which, as described
above, predicts desirable student and teacher outcomes (Darling-
Hammond, Cheung, & Frelow, 2002; Raudenbush, Rowen, &
Cheong, 1992). There is some evidence that student teaching may
improve teachers’ perceptions of instructional preparedness (Oh
et al., 2005; Reynolds, Ross, & Rakow, 2002).
1.4.3. Career plans
Both planned persistence and a related construct e initial
teaching commitment e predict actual persistence (Corbell, 2008;
Chapman, 1984; Chapman & Green, 1986; Johnson & Birkeland,
2003). Rots, Aelterman, Vlerick, and Vermeulen (2007) found that
6
See Tschannen-Moran et al. (1998) for a comprehensive review.
7
Contrary to these generally positive trends, Hoy and Woolfolk (1990) found
general efficacy to increase during early coursework but to then decrease during
student teaching. The latter results are consistent with Weinstein (1990) who
shows that prospective teachers enter student teaching with unrealistic optimism.
commitment to teaching among graduates from preparation
programs also predicted initial entry into the profession and
teacher efficacy; in turn, the kinds of mentorship provided by the
cooperating teacher predicted graduates’ commitment.
Given that schools with historically underserved student
populations have higher teacher turnover, are chronically under-
staffed, and have fewer qualified teachers (Loeb, Darling-
Hammond, & Luczak, 2005; Ronfeldt, Loeb, & Wyckoff, in press)
it is important to find ways to increase teachers’ willingness to
enter and to stay in these kinds of settings. As described in
Section 1.3.1, studies on student teaching in urban and multicul-
tural settings generally find positive effects on teachers’ attitudes
toward working with historically underserved student pop-
ulations. It is less clear whether increased preferences for working
with underserved students increases the likelihood of entering
positions in similar underserved settings, though the evidence
that exists is generally positive (Helfeldt, Capraro, Capraro, Foster,
& Carter, 2009).
2. Methodology
2.1. Data
The data for this study come from student teaching registration
files, surveys of teachers prior to and following student teaching,
and district administrative data on schools. The district requires
that all prospective teachers register to student teach in the district.
The registration data offers basic demographic information on
student teachers, indicates the schools used as field placements,
and allows us to identify our target sample for surveying e indi-
viduals who student taught in the district from fall 2008 to spring
2010.
Four cohorts (fall 2008; spring 2009; fall 2009; spring 2010) of
prospective teachers were surveyed both immediately before
(entry surveys) and immediately following (exit surveys) student
teaching. Surveys provided information about prospective
teachers’ demographic characteristics, background experiences,
perceptions of preparation, and career plans. We removed from
our sample all individuals who, on registration lists, had invalid
email addresses or who indicated they were not student teaching.
The overall response rate for entry surveys was 50 percent and
this represents the lower bound, as it is likely that individuals
registered to student teach but never did. We then sent exit
surveys to all entry survey respondents, with an overall response
rate of 61 percent. In prior analyses we found little evidence for
non-response bias on either survey (Shirrell & Reininger, 2011).
Respondents were similar to non-respondents on a variety of
teacher characteristics and student taught in similar kinds of
schools.
2.1.1. Student teacher characteristics
To isolate the effects of features of student teaching on various
teacher outcomes it is critical to control for baseline scores on these
outcomes prior to entering student teaching. Thus, we limited our
sample to 1057 teacher candidates for whom we could obtain both
entry and exit survey responses.
Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of student teachers in
our sample. On average, student teachers are 31 years of age and 81
percent female. One out of five is a parents/guardian of at least one
child. About two-thirds of student teachers are Caucasian, 16
percent are Hispanic/Latino, and 12 percent are African-American.
Similar to other studies that have shown teachers work nearby to
where they grew up (Boyd, Lankford, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2005;
Reininger, 2012), two-thirds of respondents attended high school
in the district or its suburbs.
 M. Ronfeldt, M. Reininger / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 1091e1106 1095

Table 1 Table 2
Summary of teacher characteristics. Summary of field placement school characteristics.

Variable Mean FP school-level features (4 year average: 07e10) Mean

Age 30.73 Received highest performance rating (across all 4 years) 0.22
Proportion female 0.81 % Asian 4.68
Proportion with children 0.21 % Black 37.96
% White 11.93
Race % Hispanic/Latino 43.48
Proportion White 0.67 % “Other” race 1.96
Proportion African-American 0.12 % Qualifying for free/reduced lunch 78.42
Proportion Asian 0.07 % Individualized education programs (IEPs) 13.22
Proportion Hispanic/Latino 0.16 % Limited English proficient (LEP) 14.88
Proportion native American 0.01 % Female 49.86
Proportion Other 0.02 Enrollment (per 100) 8.03

Where attended high school

Proportion HS in the district 0.32
Proportion HS in district suburbs 0.34 2.1.3. Length of student teaching
Proportion HS in other urban 0.05 Fig. 1 shows the distribution in length of student teaching. The
Proportion HS in other suburb 0.17 average length was about fourteen weeks, but ranged from two to
Proportion HS in rural 0.07
36 weeks. The vast majority (90 percent) of student teaching
Proportion HS non-U.S. 0.03
Proportion GED 0.01 experiences lasted between ten and sixteen weeks inclusive. Only
four percent of respondents student taught for less than ten weeks,
Level of expected certification while six percent student taught more than sixteen weeks. The
Proportion PreKe3 certification 0.10 mode was 16 weeks, with over 30 percent of student teachers in
Proportion Ke9 certification 0.45
this group. About 50 percent of the variation in weeks of student
Proportion 6e12 certification 0.18
Proportion 9e12 certification 0.07
teaching is between institutions (university or college). Due to the
Proportion Ke12 certification 0.18 substantial variation both within and across programs, our analyses
Proportion other certification 0.01 include models with and without program fixed-effects.

Type of expected degree 2.1.4. Student teaching satisfaction and quality

Proportion MA degree
Proportion BA degree
Proportion other degree
Student teachers identified 36 different training institutions in
which they were being prepared.8 As part of their training, most
student teachers pursued elementary certification (45 percent),
while over one-third (36 percent) pursued secondary certification
(either 6e12 or 9e12). In fulfilling certification requirements, over
half pursued a bachelor’s and 40 percent a master’s degree. Though
we did not survey student teachers about the duration of their
preparation programs, our sample included individuals attending
four- and five-year bachelors degree programs, five-year joint
bachelors and masters programs leading to certification, and
yearlong graduate (MA) certification programs.
0.40
0.52
As illustrated in Table 3, prospective teachers in our sample
0.07 were, on average, quite satisfied with various dimensions of
student teaching. At least 80 percent of respondents reported being
either “completely” or “mostly” satisfied with their student
teaching experiences overall, their cooperating teachers, their
placement schools, and other faculty at their placement schools.
Less than ten percent of student teachers rated any of these features
of student teaching lower than “neutral” (i.e., “somewhat,”
“mostly” or “completely” dissatisfied). Satisfaction with cooperat-
ing teachers was the dimension of student teaching with the
greatest variation, including the highest percentage of student
teachers feeling “completely satisfied,” as well as the highest
percentage “somewhat” to “completely” dissatisfied.
.4

2.1.2. Field placement school characteristics

Individuals in our sample student taught in 295 district schools
across two years. As shown in Table 2, on average more than three-
quarters of students qualified for free or reduced priced lunch and
.3

over 80 percent were either Hispanic or black. About 13 percent of

students had individualized education programs (IEPs) and 15
Density

percent were limited English proficient (LEPs). Average enrollment

.2

was about 800 students with roughly equal proportions of female

and male students. Finally, 22 percent of field placement schools
received the district’s top performance policy rating e out of three
levels9 e across four years.
.1

8
0

We do not know how many student teachers were actually enrolled in each 0 5 10 15 20 25
institution, though have information on the number of survey respondents from # weeks you student taught
each. On average, there were 27 respondents for each institution, across cohorts.
The minimum number of respondents was one, while the maximum was 179.
9
As part of the district’s accountability policy, each school is assigned to Fig. 1. Distribution of student teaching length. Note: for purposes of illustrating more
a performance level (1, 2, or 3) based upon a number of criteria, including student subtle variation among those with more typical student teaching experiences, in this
performance on achievement tests and attendance rates. Schools that receive the diagram we removed one observation that had an unusually long student teaching
lowest rating (3) are placed on probation. experience (36 weeks).
1096 M. Ronfeldt, M. Reininger / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 1091e1106

Table 3 exists outside of individual experience is an open question, and

Satisfaction with various dimensions of student teaching. one beyond the scope of this study to resolve. Even so, in the next
Satisfaction Satisfaction Satisfaction Satisfaction section we demonstrate this factor is related to dimensions of
with student with cooperating with other with placement student teaching that our literature review suggests are central to
teaching teacher placement school student teaching quality.
experience teachers/staff
overall
2.1.5. Validation of quality measure
% Completely 1.6 2.87 0.56 1.04
dissatisfied As a validation exercise to determine whether this factor indeed
% Mostly 2.15 2.71 0.72 1.12 signals the overall quality of student teaching, we examined its
dissatisfied association with other features that we expected, based upon our
% Somewhat 3.99 4.07 2.55 2.63 literature review (Section 1.3), to be important components of
dissatisfied
% Neutral 2.15 2.87 4.94 4.46
student teaching quality. To this end, we generated four, internally
% Somewhat 7.58 7.74 11.08 8.21 consistent factors: Cooperating Teacher Quality (alpha ¼ 0.96),
satisfied Supervisor Quality (alpha ¼ 0.89), Student Teacher Autonomy/
% Mostly 33.36 21.31 35.49 26.29 Control (alpha ¼ 0.84) and Faculty and Staff Welcomeness/Support
satisfied
(alpha ¼ 0.77). Appendix Tables AeD summarize the items used to
% Completely 49.16 58.42 44.66 56.25
satisfied construct each of these factors.
Table 4 shows the results for linear regression models esti-
mating the Student Teaching Quality Factor as a function of these
four components of student teaching.10 Models presented here
In order to generate a signal for “overall perceived quality of include no other controls, but cluster standard errors at the prep-
student teaching” we constructed a factor using the items
aration program level to account for the non-independence of
summarized in Table 3. Though satisfaction with experiences is not participants in the same program. Each of these predictors is
the same as the quality of experiences, we suspected that overall
positively and significantly related to the Student Teaching Quality
perceived quality of student teaching would be an underlying factor Factor, providing evidence for construct validity. Estimate magni-
reflected in student teachers’ satisfaction with dimensions of
tudes indicate that cooperating teacher quality was the strongest
student teaching that prior research has shown to matter (see predictor of the overall quality construct.
Section 1.3). The four items held together very well in a single,
As indicated in the literature review, “quality” of student
principal-component factor (alpha ¼ 0.87). Fig. 2 shows the teaching has been defined and measured in various ways. Rather
distribution of scores on this factor, which is right-skewed due to
than examine every possible dimension of quality, the central
general satisfaction with student teaching. purpose of this study is to compare the effects of quality, measured
Though it would be more accurate to label this measure the
generally using a single factor, to the effects of quantity of student
“Perceived Student Teaching Quality” Factor, to keep our prose as teaching. If we find that the overall quality predicts teacher
succinct as possible, we simply refer to the “Student Teaching
outcomes our strategy will be to decompose our general measure
Quality” or “quality” factor. We highlight this point, however, into its constituent parts (e.g. quality of cooperating teacher;
because it is important to bear in mind that the measure signals
quality of placement school) to estimate their independent effects.
a subjective, perceived quality, based upon a set of self-report
survey items. There are benefits and limitations to this approach
2.1.6. Outcome measures
to signaling quality. On the one hand, it acknowledges the fact that In order to examine our research questions, we created three
the experience of quality is largely subjective, so it could be
factors to represent latent constructs to be used as outcome vari-
dangerous to impose a single view of quality on everyone. On the ables in our analyses. The items used to construct each factor are
other hand, given the imperfections of human perception and
summarized in Tables 5ae5c. All three factors had strong internal
memory, individuals may fail to recognize or report “quality” even consistency e Perceptions of Instructional Preparedness
when they experience it. Whether or not the perceived quality
(alpha ¼ 0.94), Teacher Efficacy (alpha ¼ 0.83), and Preference to
signaled by this construct is related to a more objective quality that Work with Underserved Students (alpha ¼ 0.73). In addition to the
above outcomes, Tables 5d and 5e describe two other survey items
about career plans e planned persistence in teaching and in the
district. Correlations between outcome measures were small to
2

moderate (0.1e0.4).
1.5

2.2. Methods

Using the above factors as dependent variables we ran separate

Density

linear regression models to estimate teachers’ efficacy, perceptions of

1

instructional preparedness, and preferences to work with under-

served students as a function of the length and quality of student
teaching. Regression models took the following general form:
.5

Fex ¼ b0 þ Lb1 þ Q b2 þ Fen b3 þ T b4 þ Sb5 þ 4 þ 3 (1)

In the above equation, the factor score upon exit from student
0

-6 -4 -2 0 2
Scores for factor 1

10
In models using program fixed-effects, results were similar. Due to space
Fig. 2. Distribution of student teaching quality factor. constraints results are not presented but are available upon request from authors.
 M. Ronfeldt, M. Reininger / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 1091e1106 1097

Table 4
Testing student teaching quality factor construct validity.

Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5

CT quality factor 0.792*** (0.022) 0.635*** (0.023)
Supervisor quality factor 0.166*** (0.032) 0.033 (0.022)
Student teacher autonomy/control factor 0.400*** (0.033) 0.022 (0.024)
Faculty/staff welcomeness factor 0.609*** (0.026) 0.274*** (0.022)
Constant 0.007 (0.020) 0.001 (0.029) 0.002 (0.024) 0.001 (0.024) 0.007 (0.019)
Observations 1181 1203 1232 1232 1148
R-squared 0.621 0.027 0.159 0.371 0.676

*** p < 0.001.

teaching (Fex) is a function of the length of student teaching (L), In the above equation, planned persistence in teaching or in the
the Student Teaching Quality Factor (Q), baseline (entry) factor district (Pex) is a function of the length of student teaching (L), the
score (Fen), teacher characteristics including preparation program Student Teaching Quality Factor (Q), baseline planned persistence
fixed-effects (T; see Table 1 for details), field placement school (Pen), teacher characteristics including preparation fixed-effects
characteristics (S; see Table 2 for details), grade level indicators (T), field placement school characteristics (S), and grade level
(4), and a random error term (3). To leverage both within and indicators (4).
between program variation, we ran models first without program
fixed-effects. A concern, however, is that student teaching length
and quality may vary with other program features (e.g. amount of 3. Results
coursework) that predict outcomes. We then also ran models
with program fixed-effects to compare student teachers to peers 3.1. How do teachers’ perceptions of instructional preparedness,
in the same program, who have otherwise similar preparation. efficacy, and career plans change across student teaching?
We also examined whether length or quality of student teaching
predicts planned persistence in teaching and in the district. Our survey 3.1.1. Perceptions of instructional preparedness
measures for planned persistence are ordered but have unequal Table 5a summarizes respondents’ perceptions of preparedness on
distances between categories, making ordinal logistic regression more different dimensions of instruction, prior to and following student
appropriate. Thus, our model was specified as follows: teaching. We ran two-sample, paired mean comparison tests to see
whether scores differed significantly before and after student
PrðPex ¼ mjxi Þ ¼ Fðsm  xbÞ  Fðsm1  xbÞ (2) teaching. Across areas of instruction, student teachers felt significantly
better prepared after completing student teaching. Respondents re-
Where xb ¼ b0 þ Lb1 þ Q b2 þ Pen b3 þ T b4 þ Sb5 þ 4 ported the greatest gains in “taking over the classroom, full-time”,
“managing student behavior,” and “managing classroom routines.”
Table 5a is organized such that items with the highest mean exit
scores are at the top of the table. After completing student teaching,
Table 5a respondents felt most prepared to perform routine administrative
Perceptions of preparedness for different areas of instruction prior to and following tasks, teach subject matter, and deliver meaningful, engaging, and
student teaching.
relevant lessons. They felt least prepared to work with students
How prepared do you feel to. Obs Entry Exit t-Score p-Value
mean mean Table 5b
Perform routine 939 4.10 4.50 11.85 0.00 Sense of teacher efficacy prior to and following student teaching.
administrative tasks
Teach your subject matter 942 4.21 4.48 9.75 0.00 Survey items Obs Entry Exit t-Score p-Value
Deliver meaningful, 947 4.08 4.44 13.14 0.00 mean mean
engaging, and relevant When I really try, 929 4.82 5.03 5.68 0.00
lessons I can get through
Plan effective lessons 945 4.02 4.42 13.86 0.00 to most difficult
Use a variety of 946 4.10 4.41 10.68 0.00 students.
instructional methods If a student in my 928 4.68 4.95 7.61 0.00
Overall, take over a 933 3.74 4.37 20.28 0.00 class becomes
classroom full-time disruptive and noisy,
Manage classroom routines 943 3.82 4.35 17.20 0.00 I feel assured that I
Adapt and use curriculum 940 4.01 4.35 11.21 0.00 know some techniques
and instructional materials to redirect him/her quickly.
Assess students’ work 937 3.80 4.25 14.71 0.00 If I really try hard, I can 932 4.77 4.94 5.00 0.00
Manage your time to complete 944 3.75 4.24 15.09 0.00 get through to even the
necessary tasks in the most difficult or unmotivated
time available students.
Target instruction to individual 943 3.84 4.17 10.41 0.00 If one of my students couldn’t 930 4.52 4.79 6.97 0.00
students do a class assignment, I would
Manage students’ behavior 942 3.47 4.03 17.77 0.00 be able to accurately assess
Interact with school administration 944 3.59 4.01 11.89 0.00 whether the assignment was
Respond to non-academic 938 3.51 3.99 14.80 0.00 at the correct level of difficulty.
challenges facing individual If a student did not remember 925 4.36 4.61 6.53 0.00
students information I gave in a previous
Interact with parents 945 3.37 3.98 16.08 0.00 lesson, I would know how to
Work with students with 940 3.42 3.77 10.51 0.00 increase his/her retention in
special needs the next lesson.
1098 M. Ronfeldt, M. Reininger / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 1091e1106

Table 5c Table 5e
Preferences to teach different underserved student populations prior to and Anticipated plans to stay in teaching and in the district prior to and following
following student teaching. student teaching.

Survey item Obs Entry Exit t-Score p-Value Survey item Obs Entry Exit t-Score p-Value
mean mean mean mean
Prefer to teach a racially 905 3.76 3.81 1.54 0.12 Planned length of 930 4.21 4.11 3.08 0.00
diverse student population time in teaching
Prefer to teach students of poverty 909 2.65 2.76 3.9 0.00 Planned length of 904 2.97 2.86 2.43 0.02
Prefer to teach English 905 2.58 2.59 0.32 0.75 time in district
language learners
Prefer to teach low-achieving students 907 2.45 2.55 3.06 0.00

Across student teaching, respondents generally increased in

with special needs, interact with parents and administrators, and
respond to non-academic challenges facing individual students.
3.1.2. Teacher efficacy
Table 5b is organized in the same way as Table 5a, but
summarizes survey items that measure aspects of teachers’ efficacy.
Similar to results from last section, t-tests reveal that mean scores
on all items were higher after student teaching than before, indi-
cating significant growth across signals for efficacy. Both prior to
and following student teaching, respondents scored highest on the
item: “When I really try, I can get through to most difficult
students” while they scored lowest on the item: “If a student did
not remember information I gave in a previous lesson, I would
know how to increase his/her retention in the next lesson.”
their perceptions of instructional preparedness, efficacy, and pref-
erences to work with underserved populations. By contrast,
Table 5e demonstrates that teacher candidates decreased signifi-
cantly in terms of planned persistence in the district and in
teaching. These results seemed somewhat contradictory, as we
suspected that feeling better prepared and efficacious might lead
teachers to want to stay longer in teaching and in the district.
Both prior to and following student teaching, prospective
teachers planned to teach between 6 and 10 years on average, but
planned only 3e5 years in the district. Results were similar even
when we limited the sample to teachers who initially planned any
years in the district; thus this difference was not due to the 10
percent of teachers who, at entry, planned never to teach in the
district. Rather, teachers intending to work in the district plan
significantly fewer years than peers who intend to teach elsewhere.

3.1.3. Career plans

Table 5c summarizes teacher candidates’ mean response scores to
questions about their strength of preferences to work with different
student populations, both prior to and following student teaching.
Across student teaching, teacher candidates increased significantly in
their average preferences to work with low-income and low-achieving
students. They increased slightly in preferences for working in racially
diverse settings, though the change was non-significant. In terms of
preferences to work with English language learners, mean scores
remained virtually constant across student teaching. Compared to
other kinds of schools, teacher candidates expressed the strongest
preference to work with racially diverse student populations, falling
between “somewhat preferring” and “preferring.” Average prefer-
ences for working with low-income, ELL, and low-achieving students
fell between “neutral” and “somewhat preferring.”
Table 5d shows the distribution of planned persistence in
teaching and in the district. At entry, about one percent of teacher
candidates planned to teach “not at all” while almost ten percent
planned to teach in the district “not at all”. At exit, the percentage of
teacher candidates planning not to teach remained about the same,
while the percentage who planned no years in the district increased
to sixteen percent. At entry, about half of respondents planned to
teach their entire lives and about one-quarter planned to teach
3.2. What is the effect of having longer or better student teaching
on perceptions of instructional preparedness, efficacy, and career
plans?
Tables 6ae6e summarize model estimates for the effects of
length and quality of student teaching on perceptions of instruc-
tional preparedness (6a), efficacy (6b), preferences for under-
served students (6c), and planned persistence in teaching (6d) and
in the district (6e). Across tables, Model 1 estimates outcome
scores at exit as a function of the length and quality of student
teaching, controlling only for the outcome score at entry. Model 2
also controls for teacher characteristics and includes indicator
variables for the institution (e.g. college, university) where teacher
candidates pursued their certification, the kind of degree they
pursued (e.g. B.A., M.A.), their certification level (e.g. elementary,
secondary), and grade level of field placements. Model 3 controls
for the characteristics of field placement schools (e.g. enrollment,
percent of students qualifying for free/reduced lunch).
Table 6a
Perceptions of instructional preparedness as a function of length and quality of
student teaching.

their entire lives in the district; these percentages remained fairly Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5
constant across student teaching. # Weeks student 0.002 0.029w 0.034* 0.034 0.035
teaching (0.010) (0.015) (0.017) (0.028) (0.027)
Table 5d Student teaching 0.204*** 0.240*** 0.241*** 0.221*** 1.089***
Tabulation of length of teaching and teaching in the district, by entry and exit. quality factor (0.034) (0.038) (0.041) (0.049) (0.259)
# Weeks  quality 0.064***
How long do you How long do you interaction (0.019)
plan to teach? plan in district? Observations 869 768 704 709 709
R-squared 0.255 0.370 0.390 0.268 0.293
Percent Percent Percent Percent
Teacher characteristics x x x x
(entry) (exit) (entry) (exit)
Institution, degree, x x
Not at all 0.77 1.13 9.75 16.05 cert level indicators
1e2 Years 0.77 0.87 9.52 6.59 ST grade level indicators x x x x
3e5 Years 5.14 6.85 21.37 20.29 ST school controls x x x
6e10 Years 14.43 15.44 17.05 15.26 Preparation program x x
11 or More years 28.09 26.97 18.27 17.35 fixed-effects
Entire working life 50.82 48.74 24.03 24.46
*** p < 0.001, * p < 0.05, w p < 0.1.
 M. Ronfeldt, M. Reininger / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 1091e1106 1099

Table 6b
Teacher efficacy as a function of length and quality of student teaching.

Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5

# Weeks student teaching 0.016w (0.010) 0.006 (0.017) 0.005 (0.017) 0.006 (0.028) 0.006 (0.028)
Student teaching quality factor 0.114*** (0.032) 0.129*** (0.034) 0.127*** (0.038) 0.116* (0.050) 0.342 (0.264)
# Weeks  quality interaction 0.017 (0.019)
Observations 898 788 724 729 729
R-squared 0.282 0.352 0.387 0.289 0.290
Teacher characteristics x x x x
Institution, degree, cert level indicators x x
ST grade level indicators x x x x
ST school controls x x x
Preparation program fixed-effects x x

*** p < 0.001, * p < 0.05, w p < 0.1.

Model 4 includes the same controls as Model 3 but uses program

fixed-effects instead of separate indicator variables for institution,
degree type, and level of certification (we refer to the latter as
“preparation indicators” henceforth). In these models, “program” is
defined more precisely as institution  degree  level  cohort.11
Model 5 includes also an interaction term between our measures
for the length and quality of student teaching. For models without
program fixed-effects (Models 1e3), standard errors are clustered at
the program level to account for the non-independence of student
teachers in the same preparation programs.

3.2.1. Perceptions of instructional preparedness

Table 6a summarizes model estimates for the effects of length
and quality of student teaching on perceptions of instructional
preparedness. Across models, estimates on the Student Teaching
Quality Factor are positive and statistically significant. These find-
ings indicate that prospective teachers who report higher quality
student teaching experiences feel significantly better prepared to
teach. In terms of length of student teaching, effect estimates are
close to zero in Model 1, but after including teacher characteristics
and preparation indicators (Models 2 and 3) are positive and
moderately to statistically significant. The magnitudes of the esti-
mates remain similar in models with program fixed-effects (Models
4 and 5) but are not statistically significant, likely due to the
inflation of standard errors. These results provide weak evidence
that teacher candidates who report longer student teaching expe-
riences feel better instructionally prepared as compared to similar
peers in their same preparation program.12
We also examined whether the effect of student teaching quality
on perceptions of preparedness varied by the length of the student
teaching experience. As an initial test, we included an interaction
term between length and quality of student teaching (Table 6a,
11
This strategy allows for more precision in identifying “program”; that is,
student teachers who graduate from a “program” defined in this way are more
likely to have had similar preparation experiences. By defining program more
precisely, however, we also diminish the number of observations per program and
thus increase standard errors of estimates. As a result of having so few observations
per program, a number of programs dropped from ordinal logistic regression
analyses of planned persistence that used program fixed-effects (no within-
program variation). Thus, Tables 6d and 6e include models with preparation indi-
cators but not with program fixed-effects.
12
One reviewer raised the possibility that teachers who felt (or were) less
prepared might want to (or get asked to) complete additional weeks of student
teaching, perhaps explaining why the relationship is weak. We have reason to
doubt that these kinds of extensions occur frequently enough to affect our results.
Regardless, if indeed lengthening student teaching has a positive effect on
perceptions of instructional preparedness then even initially less prepared indi-
viduals should still benefit from more student teaching. Thus, we would expect the
factor scores of the “initially less prepared” (as measured at baseline) individuals
who complete additional weeks of training to be higher at exit (relative to baseline)
than they would have been with fewer weeks of training.
Fig. 3. Predicted perceptions of preparedness as a function of student teaching quality,
comparing long versus short student teaching.
Model 5). The coefficient is negative and statistically significant,
indicating that, as length of student teaching increases, the effect of
student teaching quality weakens. To help interpret the interaction,
we separated our sample into three, similarly sized groups e teacher
candidates with short (1e12 weeks), medium (13e15 weeks), and
long (15 or more weeks) student teaching experiences. Table 7
summarizes model estimates for each group separately; estimates
are greatest in magnitude and statistically significant for the shortest
student teaching experiences; estimates decrease in magnitude and
are not statistically significant as the duration increases. Exploring
this interaction further, Fig. 3 demonstrates that, for respondents
who reported 13 or fewer weeks of student teaching, the positive
effect of student teaching quality on perceptions of instructional
preparedness was about three times stronger (m ¼ 0.36, p < 0.001)
as compared to respondents who completed 14 or more weeks
(m ¼ 0.12, p < 0.001).13
3.2.2. Teacher efficacy
Table 6b shows model estimates for the effects of length and
quality of student teaching on teacher efficacy. Similar to the
13
Here we use models without program fixed-effects, as it is easier to graph
predicted values. For models with program fixed-effects the estimates were similar:
m ¼ 0.37 (p < 0.001) for shorter duration group; m ¼ 0.10 (p ¼ 0.019) for longer
duration group. To examine whether the effect of more student teaching may
depend upon the quality of these experiences, we also divided our sample into
tertiles on the Student Teaching Quality factor. As the quality of student teaching
increases, the effect of length of student teaching on instructional preparedness
does not vary significantly. The results are available upon request from the authors.
1100 M. Ronfeldt, M. Reininger / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 1091e1106

Table 6c
Preference to work with underserved student populations as a function of length and quality of student teaching.

Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5

# Weeks student teaching 0.015 (0.009) 0.015 (0.014) 0.012 (0.014) 0.002 (0.023) 0.003 (0.023)
Student teaching quality factor 0.003 (0.025) 0.031 (0.030) 0.056w (0.032) 0.057 (0.042) 0.197 (0.220)
# Weeks  quality interaction 0.010 (0.016)
Observations 889 792 731 736 736
R-squared 0.366 0.454 0.477 0.515 0.516
Teacher characteristics x x x x
Institution, degree, cert level indicators x x
ST grade level indicators x x x x
ST school controls x x x
Preparation program fixed-effects x x

w p < 0.1.

Table 6d
Planned persistence in teaching as a function of length and quality of student teaching.

Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

# Weeks student teaching 0.032 (0.022) 0.035 (0.026) 0.041 (0.042) 0.042 (0.042)
Student teaching quality factor 0.217*** (0.066) 0.221** (0.071) 0.248** (0.088) 0.348 (0.445)
# Weeks  quality interaction 0.007 (0.033)
Observations 923 819 747 747
Teacher characteristics x x x
Institution, degree, cert level indicators x x x
ST grade level indicators x x x
ST school controls x x

*** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01.

Table 6e
Planned persistence in the district as a function of length & quality of student teaching.

Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

# Weeks student teaching 0.042* (0.021) 0.035 (0.025) 0.007 (0.038) 0.010 (0.039)
Student teaching quality factor 0.282*** (0.064) 0.293*** (0.069) 0.370*** (0.086) 0.618 (0.436)
# Weeks  quality interaction 0.018 (0.032)
Observations 898 801 732 732
Teacher characteristics x x x
Institution, degree, cert level indicators x x x
ST grade level indicators x x x
ST school controls x x

*** p < 0.001, * p < 0.05.

results for perceptions of preparedness, the estimates for student 3.2.3. Preferences for teaching in underserved schools
teaching quality are positive and significant across model speci- Table 6c presents model estimates for the effect of length and
fications, including ones using preparation program fixed-effects. quality of student teaching on teacher candidates’ preferences for
Thus, teachers who report better quality student teaching feel working with historically underserved student populations. Across
more efficacious, even when compared to similar teachers from models that employ preparation or program fixed-effects (Models
the same preparation program but who report lower quality 2e5), the estimates on both length and quality trend positive but
student teaching. Estimates for the effect of duration of student are not statistically significant.
teaching were non-significant suggesting that teachers who had We wondered whether the effects of student teaching quality
longer student teaching experiences felt no more or less effica- vary according to initial preferences (at baseline). On the one
cious. Moreover, estimates for the interaction between length and hand, strong preferences might be more resistant to change
quality of student teaching were not statistically significant, regardless of the quality of experience; on the other hand, strong
indicating that the effect of quality does not vary as the duration preferences might be indicative of idealism or an “unrealistic
of student teaching varies. optimism” (Weinstein, 1990) that might be especially vulnerable
to poor quality student teaching experiences. Looking separately
Table 7
Perceptions of preparedness as a function of student teaching quality, as length of
at prospective teachers who, at baseline, were in the bottom,
student teaching varies. middle, and top tertile on preferences, Table 8 shows estimates
for the effect of student teaching quality to be statistically
Shortest ST Medium ST Longest ST
significant (and positive) only for prospective teachers with
Quality of student teaching 0.433** (0.127) 0.102 (0.103) 0.082 (0.128)
moderate (middle tertile) initial preferences. For prospective
Observations 246 218 245
R-squared 0.541 0.548 0.523 teachers who entered student teaching with the strongest and
weakest preferences for working with underserved student pop-
All models include preparation program fixed-effects, and control for teacher
characters, school characteristics, and grade level.
ulations, student teaching quality had no significant effect on later
** p < 0.01. preferences.
 M. Ronfeldt, M. Reininger / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 1091e1106 1101

Table 8
Preferences for working with underserved student populations as a function of student teaching length, quality, and student populations.

Bottom tertile Middle tertile Top tertile

# Weeks ST 0.030 (0.047) 0.025 (0.046) 0.011 (0.088) 0.006 (0.086) 0.070 (0.067) 0.099 (0.070)
ST quality factor 0.114 (0.073) 0.002 (0.246) 0.289* (0.139) 0.396 (0.469) 0.060 (0.127) 0.857 (0.834)
Performance level 2 or 3 0.072 (0.242) 0.157 (0.252) 0.287 (0.459) 0.454 (0.494) 0.284 (0.490) 0.283 (0.564)
% Free reduced lunch 0.007 (0.007) 0.009 (0.008) 0.022 (0.015) 0.034* (0.015) 0.009 (0.016) 0.002 (0.016)
% Black 0.004 (0.007) 0.005 (0.007) 0.018 (0.017) 0.029 (0.017) 0.020 (0.022) 0.021 (0.023)
% Hispanic 0.010 (0.008) 0.012 (0.008) 0.027 (0.016) 0.035w (0.018) 0.008 (0.022) 0.004 (0.023)
Quality  % free lunch 0.009 (0.006) 0.006 (0.009) 0.044* (0.021)
Quality  performance level 0.402w (0.208) 1.178w (0.594) 0.942 (0.894)
Quality  % black 0.007 (0.005) 0.020* (0.008) 0.018 (0.019)
Quality  % Hispanic 0.006 (0.005) 0.036** (0.012) 0.022 (0.022)
Observations 294 294 203 203 240 240
R-squared 0.535 0.570 0.629 0.731 0.530 0.603

** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05, w p < 0.1.

3.2.4. Career plans
Table 6d summarizes estimates for the effects of length and
quality of student teaching on planned persistence in teaching,
while Table 6e summarizes the estimates on planned persistence in
the district. Effect estimates on student teaching quality are posi-
tive and significant across models. The results indicate that teacher
candidates who report better quality student teaching experiences
plan to stay in the profession and in the district longer than
comparable candidates who report worse quality student teaching
but similar preparation otherwise.
Across model specifications, estimates for the effect of length of
student teaching on planned persistence in teaching (Table 6d) are
non-significant. Compared with prospective teachers who had
shorter student teaching experiences, those who had longer
experiences planned to stay in teaching for similar durations. The
estimates for length of student teaching on planned persistence in
the district (Table 6e) are positive across model specifications, but
only reach levels of statistical significance in Model 1. This may be
weak evidence that longer student teaching positively predicts
planned persistence in the district, but the instability of estimates
suggests more research is needed.
3.2.5. Examining components of quality of student teaching
Given that results suggest a significant and positive relationship
between the Student Teaching Quality Factor and four out of five
outcomes, we looked separately at the individual items that make up
the factor e teachers’ satisfaction with the cooperating teacher, with
other faculty at the placement school, and with the placement school
in general e to test whether certain features are driving the observed
effects.14 We reproduced prior analyses but entered these individual
items as predictors, first independently and then together.
Table 9 summarizes the results for models examining the rela-
tionships between the individual items that make up the Student
Teaching Quality Factor and various teacher outcomes. Results in
the left columns (Models 1 and 2) are from base models, which
control for baseline responses prior to entering student teaching
but include no teacher or school controls. Model 1 shows estimates
when each predictor is entered into the model independently;
Model 2 shows results when predictors are entered together. The
models in the columns on the right (Models 3 and 4) include
teacher preparation fixed-effects, as well as teacher and field
placement school controls.
When predictors are entered independently (Models 1 and 3) all
are positively and significantly associated with perceptions of
instructional preparedness, efficacy, and planned persistence in
teaching and in the district. Only satisfaction with the field
placement school was significantly associated with underserved
preferences, and only in models with preparation fixed-effects.
When predictors are included together (Models 2 and 4),
satisfaction with the cooperating teacher is the only predictor that
remains significantly and positively related to perceptions of
preparedness and teacher efficacy, apparently explaining much of
the effects of the other predictors. By contrast, satisfaction with the
placement site is the only predictor that remains positively and
significantly related to planned persistence in the district and to
preferences for underserved students; the latter holds only in
models with preparation fixed-effects. These findings suggest that
the quality of the cooperating teacher may have the strongest,
positive effect on perceived preparedness and efficacy, while the
quality of the placement school may have the strongest, positive
effect on planned district persistence and underserved preferences.
In this section, we have demonstrated that the quality, more than
the quantity of student teaching, positively predicts various teacher
outcomes. We wondered, though, if results might vary by student
populations within field placement schools. Even though longer
student teaching experiences did not increase average preferences
for working with underserved students, for instance, we wondered
whether longer student teaching in school with more underserved
student populations might. In the next section we examine whether
the effects of student teaching quantity and quality vary by the kinds
of student populations in field placement schools.
3.3. Do the effects of length or quality of student teaching vary by
student teaching school characteristics?
To test whether the effects of length or quality of student
teaching vary by field placement school characteristics, we created
separate interaction terms between student teaching length or
quality and four different district administrative measures used to
signal underserved schools: the percentage of black students,
percentage of Hispanic students, percentage of students qualifying
for free/reduced priced lunch, and an indicator variable for whether
a school ever failed to receive the district’s highest “performance”
rating (1 ¼ did not receive ‘highest’ rating in at least one year).
Table 10 summarizes the estimates for interaction effects on
teachers’ perceptions of instructional preparedness. We also esti-
mated the effects of interaction terms on other outcome measures
and found none to be statistically significant; due to space
constraints, we have not included results here.15 All models control
for baseline scores on the outcome measures, teacher characteris-
tics, and school characteristics; they also include preparation fixed-

15
For all other outcome measures, estimates for the effects of interaction terms
14
See Table 3 for items included in the Student Teaching Quality Factor. were non-significant. Results are available upon request from the authors.
1102 M. Ronfeldt, M. Reininger / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 1091e1106

Table 9
Examining separate components of student teaching quality factor on various teacher outcomes.

Outcomes Predictors Base model (no FE) Preparation FE model

Entered independently Entered together Entered independently Entered together

Instructional preparedness Satisfaction with CT 0.133*** (0.022) 0.117*** (0.030) 0.152*** (0.028) 0.139*** (0.036)
Satisfaction staff/teachers 0.113*** (0.029) 0.011 (0.040) 0.140*** (0.036) 0.055 (0.046)
Satisfaction placement site 0.119*** (0.029) 0.025 (0.044) 0.122*** (0.035) 0.019 (0.051)
Teacher efficacy Satisfaction with CT 0.072*** (0.019) 0.046* (0.020) 0.083*** (0.022) 0.066* (0.026)
Satisfaction staff/teachers 0.077** (0.027) 0.010 (0.032) 0.098** (0.036) 0.048 (0.044)
Satisfaction placement site 0.091*** (0.027) 0.046 (0.032) 0.083** (0.031) 0.004 (0.040)
Preferences for underserved students Satisfaction with CT 0.011 (0.017) 0.026 (0.020) 0.012 (0.020) 0.034 (0.025)
Satisfaction staff/teachers 0.004 (0.021) 0.011 (0.029) 0.044 (0.030) 0.013 (0.042)
Satisfaction placement site 0.015 (0.022) 0.041 (0.030) 0.074** (0.028) 0.096** (0.037)
Planned length in teaching Satisfaction with CT 0.115** (0.044) 0.058 (0.057) 0.108* (0.055) 0.035 (0.070)
Satisfaction staff/teachers 0.172** (0.058) 0.103 (0.079) 0.225** (0.076) 0.179w (0.099)
Satisfaction placement site 0.144** (0.055) 0.029 (0.077) 0.167* (0.076) 0.012 (0.103)
Planned length in the district Satisfaction with CT 0.117** (0.042) 0.016 (0.053) 0.150** (0.052) 0.014 (0.064)
Satisfaction staff/teachers 0.213*** (0.057) 0.072 (0.075) 0.195** (0.073) 0.028 (0.092)
Satisfaction placement site 0.262*** (0.054) 0.228** (0.073) 0.375*** (0.074) 0.374*** (0.096)

*** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05, w p < 0.1.

effects, though results were similar without them. Model 1 is the relationships between student teaching quality and efficacy or
baseline model without any interaction terms. Model 2 includes career plans do not vary significantly when student teaching occurs
interactions between student teaching school characteristics and in different kinds of schools. When considering perceptions of
length of student teaching. Model 3 includes interactions with preparedness, however, two interaction estimates are positive and
student teaching quality. significant e between student teaching quality and the percentage
Across outcomes, the estimates for the main effects of different of black students and between student teaching quality and the
school characteristics (in Model 1) are not statistically significant, percentage of Hispanic students.
suggesting that learning to teach in field placements with more In order to better understand these results, we looked at the
black, Hispanic, low-income, or low-performing students is unre- effects of the quality of the student teaching on perceptions of
lated to perceptions of preparedness, efficacy, underserved pref- preparedness in three different kinds of schools e those in the
erences, and planned persistence. Similarly, across outcomes, bottom, middle, and top tertile on the percentage of black and
Model 2 estimates for interaction terms are also non-significant, Hispanic students (combined). Schools in the bottom tertile had, on
indicating that effects do not vary significantly by length of average, 43 percent of students who were either black or Hispanic;
student teaching. That is, student teaching in more underserved the middle tertile had 82 percent, and the top tertile had 98
and lower-performing schools has no effect on the various percent. As shown in Table 11, increasing student teaching quality
outcomes, regardless of how long student teaching lasts. has a positive relationship with perceptions of preparedness
For all outcome measures except perceptions of preparedness, regardless of whether in schools with few or many Hispanic and
Model 3 estimates for the effects of interactions with student black students. However, the magnitude of the effect increases
teaching quality are also non-significant. In other words, the substantially as student groups also increase. The positive effect of
the quality of student teaching is more than 3 times stronger for
teacher candidates placed in schools with the most black and
Table 10 Hispanic students as compared to those placed in schools with the
Perceptions of preparedness as a function of interactions between length or quality
fewest. These results are consistent with Ronfeldt (2012) who
of student teaching and school characteristics.
found that prospective teachers who learned to teach in better-
Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 functioning placement schools were more effective, and that
# Weeks ST 0.031 (0.027) 0.116w (0.065) 0.034 (0.026) these effects were strongest when placement schools also had
ST quality factor 0.236*** (0.048) 0.234*** (0.048) 0.145 (0.169)
more black students. In other words, field placements that combine
Performance policy 0.096 (0.159) 0.413 (0.714) 0.138 (0.163)
levels 2 or 3
quality with large populations of historically underserved students
(level 1 ¼ highest) may make particularly desirable sites for teacher development.
% Free/reduced 0.004 (0.005) 0.025 (0.019) 0.006 (0.005) Described previously, this same interaction term e between
priced lunch student teaching quality and proportion of black and Hispanic
% Black 0.002 (0.005) 0.005 (0.018) 0.002 (0.005)
students e did not significantly predict average preferences for
% Hispanic 0.004 (0.005) 0.006 (0.021) 0.004 (0.005)
# Weeks ST  performance 0.035 (0.050) underserved students. This was somewhat surprising, as we
levels 2 or 3 anticipated that student teaching in schools with more black and
# Weeks  % free/reduced 0.002 (0.001) Hispanic students might increase teachers’ later preferences for
lunch
# Weeks  % black 0.001 (0.001)
Table 11
# Weeks  % Hispanic 0.001 (0.001)
Perceptions of preparedness as a function of quality of student teaching by tertile of
ST quality  performance 0.183 (0.155)
percentage of black and Hispanic students (combined).
levels 2 or 3
ST quality  % free/reduced 0.000 (0.004) Tertile of combined black and Hispanic students percentage
lunch
ST quality  % black 0.008** (0.003) Bottom Middle Top
ST quality  % Hispanic 0.007* (0.003) ST quality factor 0.124 (0.089) 0.316** (0.109) 0.418*** (0.089)
Observations 710 710 710 Observations 272 278 249
R-squared 0.222 0.231 0.249 R-squared 0.274 0.294 0.366

*** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05, ~ p < 0.1. *** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01.
 M. Ronfeldt, M. Reininger / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 1091e1106
working with similar student populations, especially when these
experiences were also high quality. Examining this further,
however, we found effects to depend upon initial preferences.
Looking by tertile on initial preferences, Table 8 shows that the
interaction between student teaching quality and the proportion of
black and Hispanic students to be statistically significant only for
student teachers in the middle tertile of baseline preferences. Only
for prospective teachers that have moderate preferences at base-
line, better quality student teaching experiences increase prefer-
ences for working with underserved students; this relationship is
strongest in settings with more black and Hispanic students. Main
and interaction effects are non-significant for student teachers with
weak or strong preferences (in bottom or top tertiles) at baseline.
4. Discussion
4.1. Conclusions
This study’s results indicate that the student teaching experi-
ence has a significant impact on prospective teachers, albeit
a somewhat complicated one. On average, teacher candidates exit
student teaching feeling more prepared, more efficacious, and
somewhat more interested in working with underserved student
populations than when they entered student teaching. Given these
promising results, we expected that prospective teachers would
also plan to stay in teaching and in the district longer. Compared to
entry, however, they actually plan fewer years in teaching and in
the district at exit.
This study looks closely at whether the quantity or quality of
student teaching explains observed changes in perceptions of
instructional preparedness, efficacy, and career plans. It finds that
prospective teachers who report better quality student teaching
experiences feel more prepared to teach, more efficacious, and plan
more years in teaching and in the district than peers who report
lower quality experiences. The results show further that the positive
effects of student teaching quality on perceptions of preparedness
vary by other features of student teaching. In particular, the
magnitude of the effect is substantially stronger when student
teaching is short and in schools with more black and Hispanic
students. Compared to quality, the quantity of student teaching is
unrelated to teachers’ efficacy or career plans, and only weakly and
positively related to perceptions of preparedness.
From the district’s perspective, the observed decrease across
student teaching in planned years in the district (and in teaching) is
likely troubling. Even so, this study provides some reason to be
hopeful. The increase in planned persistence among student teachers
who report better quality student teaching suggests that investment
in pre-service clinical preparation has potential to reverse this trend.
This study’s findings have important policy implications for
teacher preparation. They provide empirical support for the global
trend toward making teacher preparation more “clinically-based”,
though caution against narrow interpretations of what this means.
Specifically, the study’s findings suggest that the policy trend
toward increasing the length of student teaching may not alone
have a substantial impact on teacher preparation. Rather, policy
changes targeting the quality of student teaching are likely more
promising, especially when student teaching is shorter and in
schools with more historically underserved racial groups.
This study is an important contribution to research on teacher
preparation as well. It adds to the thin, but growing, body of research
examining features of teacher education by looking across many
institutions that prepare teachers. In particular, findings from this
study are consistent with recent evidence that well-designed
student teaching can have meaningful effects on teacher effective-
ness and career trajectories (Boyd et al., 2009; Ronfeldt, 2012).
1103
Findings are also consistent with prior research finding little effect of
extending student teaching (Boyd et al., 2009; Chambers & Hardy,
2005; Spooner et al., 2008). By using a finer signal for student
teaching duration and controlling for many teacher and school
characteristics that might explain the effects of duration, this study
provides more precise estimates than previous studies.
An important limitation of this study is that outcomes are based
upon self-reported information from surveys, so will not necessarily
translate into behavioral outcomes for students or teachers. Though
prior studies have shown the outcomes used in this study to predict
teacher effectiveness and career trajectories (see Section 1.4), more
research is needed to link features of student teaching directly to
observable measures (e.g., Ronfeldt, 2012). To this end, the first
author is currently analyzing a different large, urban district to test
whether teachers who have longer student teaching experiences or
who are placed in different kinds of field placement schools are
better at raising student test scores, are more likely to take jobs in
underserved settings, or are more likely to stay in the profession.
4.2. Implications and future research
Though this study demonstrates that overall quality of student
teaching matters, from a policy perspective it is more important to
understand whether certain dimensions of quality matter more than
others. If some dimensions (e.g. cooperating teacher quality) explain
effects more than others then programs and policymakers can
allocate resources accordingly. To this end, we examine separately
the individual items that make up the Student Teaching Quality
Factor. We find preliminary evidence that different dimensions of
student teaching quality predict different teacher outcomes. The
quality of the cooperating teacher is the strongest predictor of
perceptions of instructional preparedness and efficacy. Given the
cooperating teacher has more direct contact with student teachers
than perhaps anyone else, and is best positioned to model instruc-
tion and provide feedback, these findings make intuitive sense. The
findings are also consistent with cross-national evidence that
mentorship and modeling provided by supervising teachers have
important influences on student teachers’ instructional practice
(Cook, 2007; European Agency for Development in Special Needs
Education [EADSNE], 2010; Murray, Nuttall, & Mitchell, 2008).
In terms of planned number of years in the district and in
teaching, satisfaction with the placement school, rather than with
the cooperating teacher, is the strongest predictor. These results are
consistent with recent evidence that the field placement school
setting predicts teachers planned and actual persistence in teaching.
In Taiwan, for example, Huang and Waxman (2009) demonstrated
that the field placement school environment, including the kinds of
collegiality and autonomy it offers, predicts student teachers’
commitment to teaching. Similarly, Ronfeldt (2012) found evidence
in New York City that teachers who learned to teach in field place-
ment settings with better working conditions were more likely to
remain in teaching in their first five years. These findings are also
consistent with cross-national evidence that school working
conditions predict in-service teachers’ persistence and commitment
(Borg & Riding, 1991; Johnson & Birkeland, 2003). Given these
promising preliminary findings, we are now pursuing a more
systematic examination of whether, and which, specific features of
student teaching are related to better teacher outcomes. This
research promises to shed light on what may contribute to better
quality student teaching experiences.
Our study finds evidence that prospective teachers have
stronger average preferences for working with some underserved
groups following student teaching than they had before. However,
it makes only minor progress in identifying the specific features of
student teaching that explain these observed changes. Because
1104 M. Ronfeldt, M. Reininger / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 1091e1106
schools with more historically underserved student populations
tend to be harder to staff and have fewer qualified teachers,
a promising direction for future research will be in identifying
features of student teaching that increase prospective teachers’
preferences for working in underserved settings. Making progress
toward identifying such features of preparation is especially
important given the current international focus on better preparing
teachers for diverse and multicultural settings (Musset, 2010).
In trying to prepare teachers for multicultural and diverse
settings, a global trend has been toward requiring clinical and
practicum experiences in these kinds of settings (EADSNE, 2010).
An assumption underlying many of these efforts is that exposure to
students from different backgrounds will have a positive impact on
teachers’ attitudes and beliefs. Though prior research has found
evidence that field placements in multicultural placements can
improve student teachers’ attitudes toward underserved groups
(Burant & Kirby, 2002; Hill, Phelps, & Friedland, 2007), our results
are generally consistent with studies showing little effect on
teachers’ career trajectories and effectiveness (Grande et al., 2009;
Ronfeldt, 2012). We find that being placed in schools with more
non-white, low-income, and low-performing students does not
significantly increase prospective teachers’ preference to work with
historically underserved populations. Even when experiences with
underserved student populations are longer and of better quality,
mostly they don’t predict later preferences. The only exception is
for teachers whose initial preferences are relatively moderate. For
this sub-group, better quality student teaching experiences predict
later preferences, and effects are stronger when student teaching
occurs in settings with more black and Hispanic students. These
findings suggest that targeting student teaching placements
according to initial preferences for underserved populations may
have some warrant. However, more research is needed to account
for why and how prospective teachers’ plans to work in under-
served settings change across student teaching.
Given that strong clinical training is a centerpiece of teacher
preparation worldwide, and given many cross-national similarities
in how clinical experiences are designed, the findings from this
study have implications for teacher preparation globally. Even so,
more research is needed to directly test whether the effects of
different features of student teaching are similar cross-nationally.
What we are learning from descriptive international studies is
that tremendous within- and cross-national variation exists in how
student teaching is structured. Future research might leverage
these sources of variation to identify features of student teaching
that have desirable cross-national outcomes.
Appendices
Appendix Table A
Survey items used to construct cooperating teacher quality factor.
To what extent do the following statements describe the
cooperating teacher you had while you were student teaching? My
cooperating teacher .
modeled effective teaching strategies in everyday presentations and
discussions.
taught in ways that were similar to the methods I was learning in
my preparation courses.
was knowledgeable about my teacher education program.
allowed me to try out the strategies and techniques I was learning
in my preparation classes.
met regularly with me to discuss my progress.
provided me with useful feedback about my teaching.
provided me with effective classroom management strategies.
would be a good mentor for future student teachers.
provided helpful support.
helped me grow as a teacher.
Appendix Table B
Survey items used to construct supervisor quality factor.
Please indicate the degree to which you agree with the
following statements:
My university supervisor provided me with effective instructional strategies.
My university supervisor played an instrumental role in supporting me and
providing direction and guidance during my student teaching experience.
Appendix Table C
Survey items used to construct student teacher autonomy/control factor.
By the END of your student teaching experience, how much control over
decisions did you have in each of the following areas?
Selecting content, topics, and skills to be taught
Selecting teaching techniques
Evaluating and grading students
Disciplining students
Determining the amount of homework to be assigned
Appendix Table D
Survey items used to construct faculty/staff welcomeness and support factor.
Please indicate the degree to which you agree with the following
statements about your student teaching experience.
I felt included in the daily activities of the school.
I felt welcomed and supported by the principal.
I felt welcomed and supported by the community of teachers.
References
Anderson, R., Greene, M., & Loewen, P. (1988). Relationships among teachers’ and
students’ thinking skills, sense of efficacy, and student achievement. Alberta
Journal of Educational Research, 24(2), 148e165.
Armor, D., Conroy-Oseguera, P., Cox, M., King, N., McDonnell, L., Pascal, A., et al.
(1976). Analysis of the school preferred reading programs in selected Los Angeles
minority schools. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
Ashton, P., & Webb, R. B. (1986). Making a difference: teachers’ sense of efficacy and
student achievement. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Berman, P., McLaughlin, M., Bass, G., Pauly, E., & Zellman, G. (1977). Factors affecting
implementation and continuationIn Federal programs supporting educational
change, Vol. VII. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
Borg, M. G., & Riding, R. J. (1991). Occupational stress and satisfaction in teaching.
British Educational Research Journal, 17, 263e281.
Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2009). Teacher prepa-
ration and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
31(4), 416e440.
Boyd, D., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2005). Explaining the short careers of
high-achieving teachers in schools with low-performing students. American
Economic Review, 95(2), 166e171.
Boyle-Baise, M., & McIntyre, D. J. (2008). What kind of experience? Preparing
teachers in PDS or community settings. In M. Cochran-Smith, S. Feiman-Nem-
ser, & D. J. McIntyre (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (3rd ed.).
(pp. 307e330) New York: Routledge.
Britzman, D. P. (1991). Practice makes practice: A critical study of learning to teach.
Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Bryk, A., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement.
New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Buehler, J., Ruggles Gere, A., Dallavis, C., & Shaw Haviland, V. (2009). Normalizing
the fraughtness: how emotion, race, and school context complicate cultural
competence. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(4), 408e418.
Burant, T. A., & Kirby, D. (2002). Beyond classroom-based early field experiences:
understanding an “educative practicum” in an urban school and community.
Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies,
18, 561e575.
California State University. (2002). First systemwide evaluation of teacher education
programs in the California State University: Summary report.
Chambers, S., & Hardy, J. (2005). Length of time in student teaching: effects on
classroom control orientation and self-efficacy beliefs. Educational Research
Quarterly, 28(3), 3e9.
Chapman, D. W. (1984). Teacher retention: the test of a model. American Educational
Research Journal, 21(3), 645e648.
Chapman, D. W., & Green, M. S. (1986). Teacher retention: a further examination.
Journal of Educational Research, 79(5), 273e279.
Clift, R. T., & Brady, P. (2005). Research on methods courses and field experiences. In
M. Cochran-Smith, & K. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report
on the AERA panel on research and teacher education (pp. 309e424). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
 M. Ronfeldt, M. Reininger / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 1091e1106
Cobb, V. (1999). An international comparison of teacher education. Washington, DC:
ERIC Clearinghouse on Teaching and Teacher Education.
Coladarci, T. (1992). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and commitment to teaching. Journal
of Experimental Education, 60, 323e337.
Conderman, G., Morin, J., & Stephens, J. T. (2005). Special education student
teaching practices. Preventing School Failure, 49(3), 5e10.
Cook, L. (2007). When in Rome: influences on special education student teachers’
teaching. International Journal of Special Education, 22(3), 119e130.
Corbell, K. (2008). Evaluating the perceptions of success inventory for beginning
teachers and its connection to teacher retention. Doctoral dissertation, North
Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina. Retrieved 17.08.11 from http://
www.lib.ncsu.edu/theses/available/etd-02262008-102151/unrestricted/etd.pdf.
Darling-Hammond, L., Cheung, R., & Frelow, F. (2002). Variation in teacher prepa-
ration: how well do different pathways prepare teachers to teach? Journal of
Teacher Education, 53(4), 286e302.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Cobb, V. L. (1995). Teacher preparation and professional
development in APEC members: A comparative study. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Education.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, N.Y.: Touchstone.
European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education [EADSNE]. (2010).
Teacher education for inclusion e International literature review. Odense,
Denmark: EADSNE.
Feiman-Nemser, S., & Buchmann, M. (1985). Pitfalls of experience in teacher
preparation. Teachers College Record, 87, 49e65.
Fernandez, M. L., & Erbilgin, E. (2009). Examining the supervision of mathematics
student teachers through analysis of conference communications. Educational
Studies in Mathematics, 72, 93e110.
Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. (1984). Teacher efficacy: a construct validation. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 76(4), 569e582.
Glenn, W. J. (2006). Model versus mentor: defining the necessary qualities of the
effective cooperating teacher. Teacher Education Quarterly, 33(1), 85e95.
Glickman, C., & Tamashiro, R. (1982). A comparison of first-year, fifth-year, and
former teachers on efficacy, ego development, and problem solving. Psychology
in Schools, 19, 558e562.
Goodson, I. F. (1993). Forms of knowledge and teacher education. Journal of
Education for Teaching, 19(4), 217e230.
Graham, B. (2006). Conditions for successful field experiences: perceptions of
cooperating teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of
Research and Studies, 22(8), 1118e1129.
Grande, M., Burns, B., Schmidt, R., & Marable, A. (2009). Impact of a paid urban field
experience on teacher candidates’ willingness to work in urban schools. Teacher
Educator, 44(3), 188e203.
Grossman, P., Ronfeldt, M., & Cohen, J. (2011). The power of setting: the role of
field experience in learning to teach. In K. Harris, S. Graham, T. Urdan, A. Bus,
S. Major, & H. L. Swanson (Eds.), Applications to teaching and learning. American
Psychological Association (APA) educational psychology handbook, Vol. 3 (pp.
311e334).
Helfeldt, J. P., Capraro, R. M., Capraro, M. M., Foster, E., & Carter, N. (2009). An urban
schoolseuniversity partnership that prepares and retains quality teachers for
“high need” schools. Teacher Educator, 44(1), 1e20.
Henke, R., Xianglei, C., Geis, S., & Knepper, P. (2000). Progress through the teacher
pipeline: 1992e1993 College graduates and elementary/secondary school teaching
as of 1997. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics.
Hill, P., Phelps, S., & Friedland, E. S. (2007). Preservice educators’ perceptions of
teaching in an urban middle school setting: a lesson from the Amistad. Multi-
cultural Education, 15(1), 33e37.
Hoy, W. K. (1968). The influence of experience on the beginning teacher. The School
Review, 76(3), 312e323.
Hoy, W. K. (1969). Pupil control ideology and organizational socialization: a further
examination of the influence of experience on the beginning teacher. The School
Review, 77(3/4), 257e265.
Hoy, W. K., & Rees, R. (1977). The bureaucratic socialization of student teachers.
Journal of Teacher Education, 28(1), 23e26.
Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk, A. E. (1990). Socialization of student teachers. American
Educational Research Journal, 27(2), 279e300.
Huang, S. L., & Waxman, H. C. (2009). The association of school environment to
teachers’ satisfaction and teaching commitment. Teaching and Teacher Educa-
tion: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 25(2), 235e243.
Iannaccone, L. (1963). Student teaching: a transitional stage in the making of
a teacher. Theory Into Practice, 2(2), 73e80.
Johnson, S. M., & Birkeland, S. E. (2003). Pursuing a “sense of success”: new teachers
explain their career decisions. American Educational Research Journal, 40(3),
581e617.
Karmos, A., & Jacko, C. (1977). The role of significant others during the student
teaching experience. Research in Teacher Education, 28, 51e55.
Knoblauch, D., & Hoy, A. W. (2008). Maybe I can teach “those” kids. The influence of
contextual factors on student teachers’ efficacy beliefs. Teaching and Teacher
Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 24(1), 166e179.
Koerner, M., Rust, F. O., & Baumgartner, F. (2002). Exploring roles in student
teaching placements. Teacher Education Quarterly, 29(2), 35e58.
Korthagen, F., & Kessels, M. (1999). Linking theory and practice: changing the
pedagogy of teacher education. Educational Researcher, 28(4), 4e17.
Loeb, S., Darling-Hammond, L., & Luczak, J. (2005). How teaching conditions predict
teacher turnover in California schools. Peabody Journal of Education, 80(3),
44e70.
1105
Maandag, D. W., Folkert Deinum, J., Adriaan Hofman, W. H., & Buitink, J. (2007).
Teacher education in schools: an international comparison. European Journal of
Teacher Education, 30(2), 151e173.
Manning, D. T. (1977). The influence of key individuals on student teachers in urban
and suburban settings. Teacher Educator, 12(3), 2e8.
McIntyre, D. J., Byrd, D. M., & Foxx, S. M. (1996). Field and laboratory experiences. In
J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed.). (pp.
171e193) New York: Macmillan.
Mello, R. A. (2003). The integrated cohort program: an evaluation of a pre-
professional course of study. Educational Forum, 67(4), 354e363.
Mickelson, N. I. (1980). Practice teaching: a comment and a partial solution.
Canadian Journal of Education, 5(1), 87e90.
Morine-Dershimer, G., & Leighfield, K. (1995). Student teaching and field experi-
ences. In L. W. Anderson (Ed.), International encyclopedia of teaching and teacher
education (pp. 588e593). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science Ltd.
Murray, S., Nuttall, J., & Mitchell, J. (2008). Research into initial teacher education in
Australia: a survey of the literature 1995e2004. Teaching and Teacher Education:
An International Journal of Research and Studies, 24(1), 225e239.
Musset, P. (2010). Initial teacher education and continuing training policies in
a comparative perspective: Current practices in OECD countries and a literature
review on potential effects. OECD education working papers, no. 48. OECD
Publishing.
National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. (1996). What matters most:
Teaching for America’s future. New York: NCTAF.
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2010). Transforming
teacher education through clinical practice: A national strategy to prepare effective
teachers. Report of blue ribbon panel on clinical preparation and partnerships
for improved student learning. Washington, D.C.: NCATE.
National Research Council. (2010). Preparing teachers: Building evidence for sound
policy. Report by the Committee on the study of teacher preparation programs
in the United states. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.
Oh, D. M., Ankers, A. M., Llamas, J. M., & Tomyoy, C. (2005). Impact of pre-service
student teaching experience on urban school teachers. Journal of Instructional
Psychology, 32(1), 82e98.
Raudenbush, S., Rowen, B., & Cheong, Y. (1992). Contextual effects on the self-
perceived efficacy of high school teachers. Sociology of Education, 65(2), 150e167.
Reininger. (2012). Hometown disadvantage? It depends on where you’re from:
teachers’ location preferences and the implications for staffing schools.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 34(2), 127e145.
Reynolds, A., Ross, S. M., & Rakow, J. H. (2002). Teacher retention, teaching effec-
tiveness, and professional preparation: a comparison of professional develop-
ment school and non-professional development school graduates. Teaching and
Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 18(3),
289e303.
Ronfeldt, M. (2012). Where should student teachers learn to teach?: effects of field
placement school characteristics on teacher retention and effectiveness.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 34, 3e26.
Ronfeldt, M., & Grossman, P. (2008). Becoming a professional: experimenting with
possible selves in professional preparation. Teacher Education Quarterly, 41e60.
Ronfeldt, M., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. How teacher turnover harms student achieve-
ment. American Educational Research Journal e Social and Institutional Analysis,
in press.
Rots, I., Aelterman, A., Vlerick, P., & Vermeulen, K. (2007). Teacher education,
graduates’ teaching commitment and entrance into the teaching profession.
Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies,
23(5), 543e556.
Shirrell, M., & Reininger, M. (2011). Do student teachers’ career plans change during
student teaching? Evidence from an urban district. Working paper.
Silvernail, D., & Costello, M. (1983). The impact of student teaching and internship
programs on preservice teachers’ pupil control perspectives, anxiety levels, and
teaching concerns. Journal of Teacher Education, 34(4), 32e36.
Smagorinsky, P., Sanford, A. D., & Konopak, B. (2006). Functional literacy in
a constructivist key: a nontraditional student teacher’s apprenticeship in a rural
elementary school. Teacher Education Quarterly, 33(4), 93e109.
Spooner, M., Flowers, C., Lambert, R., & Algozzine, B. (2008). Is more really better?
Examining perceived benefits of an extended student teaching experience. The
Clearing House, 81(6), 263e269.
Street, C. (2004). Examining learning to teach through a social lens: how mentors
guide newcomers into a professional community of learners. Teacher Education
Quarterly, 31(2), 7e24.
TemaNord. (2009). Comparative study of Nordic teacher-training programmes.
Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers.
Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. (1998). Teacher efficacy: its meaning
and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202e248.
Valencia, S. W., Martin, S. D., Place, N. A., & Grossman, P. (2009). Complex inter-
actions in student teaching: lost opportunities for learning. Journal of Teacher
Education, 60(3), 304e322.
Villegas-Reimers, E. (2003). Teacher professional development: An international
review of the literature. Paris: UNESCO International Institution for Educational
Planning.
Wang, A. H., Coleman, A. B., Coley, R. J., & Phelps, R. P. (2003). Preparing teachers
around the world. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Weinstein, C. (1990). Prospective elementary teachers’ beliefs about teaching:
implications for teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education: An Inter-
national Journal of Research and Studies, 6(3), 279e290.
1106 M. Ronfeldt, M. Reininger / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 1091e1106

Wilson, S. M., Floden, R., & Ferrini-Mundy, J. (2001). Teacher preparation research:
Current knowledge, gaps, and recommendations. A research report prepared for
the U. S. Department of Education. Seattle: Center for the Study of Teaching and
Policy, University of Washington.
Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Burke Spero, R. (2005). Changes in teacher efficacy during the
early years of teaching: a comparison of four measures. Teaching and Teacher
Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 21(4), 343e356.
Yendol-Hoppey, D. (2007). Mentor teachers’ work with prospective teachers in
a newly formed professional development school: two illustrations. Teachers
College Record, 109, 669e698.
Zeichner, K., & Gore, J. (1990). Teacher socialization. In W. R. Houston (Ed.), Hand-
book of research on teacher education (pp. 329e348). New York: Macmillan.
Zembal-Saul, C., Krajcik, J., & Blumenfeld, P. (2002). Elementary student teachers’ science
content representations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 443e463.