IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Research on teacher education programs: Logic model approach


  • Newton, Xiaoxia A.
  • Poon, Rebecca C.
  • Nunes, Nicole L.
  • Stone, Elisa M.


Teacher education programs in the United States face increasing pressure to demonstrate their effectiveness through pupils’ learning gains in classrooms where program graduates teach. The link between teacher candidates’ learning in teacher education programs and pupils’ learning in K-12 classrooms implicit in the policy discourse suggests a one-to-one correspondence. However, the logical steps leading from what teacher candidates have learned in their programs to what they are doing in classrooms that may contribute to their pupils’ learning are anything but straightforward. In this paper, we argue that the logic model approach from scholarship on evaluation can enhance research on teacher education by making explicit the logical links between program processes and intended outcomes. We demonstrate the usefulness of the logic model approach through our own work on designing a longitudinal study that focuses on examining the process and impact of an undergraduate mathematics and science teacher education program.

Suggested Citation

  • Newton, Xiaoxia A. & Poon, Rebecca C. & Nunes, Nicole L. & Stone, Elisa M., 2013. "Research on teacher education programs: Logic model approach," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 88-96.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:36:y:2013:i:1:p:88-96
    DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2012.08.001

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Donald Boyd & Pamela Grossman & Hamilton Lankford & Susanna Loeb & James Wyckoff, 2006. "How Changes in Entry Requirements Alter the Teacher Workforce and Affect Student Achievement," Education Finance and Policy, MIT Press, vol. 1(2), pages 176-216, April.
    2. Donald Boyd & Hamilton Lankford & Susanna Loeb & Jonah Rockoff & James Wyckoff, 2008. "The narrowing gap in New York City teacher qualifications and its implications for student achievement in high-poverty schools," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(4), pages 793-818.
    3. Donald Boyd & Hamilton Lankford & Susanna Loeb, 2003. "The Draw of Home: How Teachers' Preferences for Proximity Disadvantage Urban Schools," NBER Working Papers 9953, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. McLaughlin, John A. & Jordan, Gretchen B., 1999. "Logic models: a tool for telling your programs performance story," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 65-72.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. repec:eee:epplan:v:65:y:2017:i:c:p:156-162 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Gervais, Christine & de Montigny, Francine & Lacharité, Carl & Dubeau, Diane, 2015. "The Father Friendly Initiative within Families: Using a logic model to develop program theory for a father support program," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 133-141.
    3. Clapham, Kathleen & Manning, Claire & Williams, Kathryn & O’Brien, Ginger & Sutherland, Margaret, 2017. "Using a logic model to evaluate the Kids Together early education inclusion program for children with disabilities and additional needs," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 96-105.
    4. Sherman, Paul David, 2016. "Using RUFDATA to guide a logic model for a quality assurance process in an undergraduate university program," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 112-119.
    5. Crea, Thomas M., 2016. "Refugee higher education: Contextual challenges and implications for program design, delivery, and accompaniment," International Journal of Educational Development, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 12-22.


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:36:y:2013:i:1:p:88-96. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.