This Institutional and Community Transformation study focused on the implementation of the Professional Development: Research, Implementation, and Evaluation (PrimeD) framework to improve mathematics teacher preparation programs at four institutions. Our project community included 245 preservice teachers across the four institutions with some participants maintaining an active role in the project for the entire duration of funding. By intentionally leveraging the Networked Improvement Communities model, current students studying to become teachers, recent alumni who are currently teaching, school-based mentors, university mentors, and university faculty from our middle/secondary mathematics teacher preparation programs worked together within each institution to explore problems of practice and change ideas.

Program Outcomes

• Stronger Connections and Communication: We created regular monthly meetings called Networked Improvement Communities (NICs) where everyone, including experienced mentor teachers, university supervisors, the teacher candidates themselves, past graduates who are now teaching, and university faculty, came together. These were focused discussions about the real challenges and practical problems faced in classrooms. By having everyone share their experiences and ideas, we built stronger relationships and a better understanding of each other's contexts. This improved communication meant that everyone was on the same page and could work together more effectively to support future mathematics teachers.
• Developing a Shared Focus for Continuous Improvement: Our collaborative PrimeD program made a deliberate effort to identify and agree upon a central challenge or area for improvement in how we prepare new teachers. This "challenge space" became a consistent topic of discussion and focus across all the participating universities throughout the year. This allowed us to explore different ways to address the challenge and to learn from each other's approaches, ultimately leading to more coherent and effective teacher preparation.
• Integrating Feedback and Research for Ongoing Program Enhancement: We made evaluation and research a fundamental part of our teacher preparation program, not just an afterthought. We consistently gathered feedback through regular evaluations each semester and across all the universities involved. This "formative evaluation" wasn't just about checking progress; it was actively used to understand what was working well and what needed to be improved. By carefully analyzing this feedback and incorporating research-based practices, we were able to make informed decisions and continuously refine the program to better prepare future educators.

Participant Outcomes

• Supporting Successful Entry and Long-Term Commitment to the Teaching Profession: Our teacher candidates consistently demonstrated their ability to successfully complete the rigorous preparation program at each university. Furthermore, our graduates were highly sought after and consistently found teaching positions quickly after completing the program. This high completion and hiring rate highlights the effectiveness of our preparation in equipping individuals for successful and lasting careers in education.
• Enhancing Collaboration and Professional Growth Among Future and Current Educators: We significantly improved how future teachers learn from and with their peers and experienced educators. Through the monthly meetings we created a powerful environment for professional learning and the sharing of best practices for classroom teaching. Experienced mentor teachers particularly valued the opportunity to connect and learn from each other, which ultimately strengthened the support they could provide to their teacher candidates.
• Strengthening Research-Based Teaching Skills and Classroom Innovation: Our teacher candidates actively engaged in using effective teaching strategies through their participation in the Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle activities. These projects involved identifying a classroom challenge, planning and trying out a new approach, studying its impact, and making adjustments based on the evidence. We observed a significant improvement in the scope and depth of these projects in the latest year compared to previous years. This suggests that our continued emphasis on the quality of the data collected and analyzed within the PDSA cycles has helped teacher candidates develop a deeper understanding of how to use research to inform and improve their teaching practice.

Overall, we established a robust and interconnected model for collaborative teacher preparation and sustained support. One of our key achievements has been the intentional development of a highly collaborative network across our four partner universities. We implemented specific strategies to make this happen. We organized our grant team into evaluation and implementation teams to focus expertise. Crucially, we ensured that a lead investigator from each university actively participated in the Networked Improvement Community meetings of the other three institutions. This "cross-pollination" of ideas not only enriched the evaluation process but also allowed each university to bring valuable insights and innovative practices back to their own programs. Furthermore, we held regular, consistent meetings that brought together all members of our project team from across all four universities. This consistent communication and collaboration, coupled with overwhelmingly positive feedback from participants who described the sustained community as transformative, has created a lasting and impactful model for how universities can work together to elevate the preparation of future mathematics teachers, fundamentally changing the landscape of our teacher education communities.

Last Modified: 07/02/2025
Modified by: Christopher Rakes