Methodological Innovation in Teacher Education: Preparing U.S. Teachers for 21st-Century Classrooms

Methodological Innovation in Teacher Education: Preparing U.S. Teachers for 21st-Century Classrooms

Hakeem A. NAFIU

Educational Administration, Carolina University, North Carolina, USA

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.908000232

Received: 18 July 2025; Accepted: 25 July 2025; Published: 05 September 2025

ABSTRACT

The 21st-century United States classroom required teachers proficient in innovative methodologies to address diverse learners, integrate advanced technology, and cultivate critical skills like problem-solving and collaboration. This mixed-methods study examined how 100 teacher education programs across four U.S. regions (Northeast, South, Midwest, West) integrated project-based learning, flipped classroom models, and culturally responsive pedagogy (CRP) to prepare pre-service teachers. Data were triangulated from curriculum audits, instructor interviews, pre-service teacher focus groups, and the Teacher Education Innovation Survey (TEIS), which showed high reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.85). The research relied on Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory, Mishra and Koehler’s Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) framework, Davis’s Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), and Ladson-Billings’ culturally responsive pedagogy (CRP). Findings revealed that 40% of programs systematically integrated these methodologies, with project-based learning most prevalent at 45%, highlighting its role in hands-on learning. Rural programs faced barriers, including limited technology access. Urban programs outperformed rural ones in adoption (85% vs. 75%) and preparedness (x̄ = 4.2 vs. 3.5, p < 0.05), with a medium effect size (Cohen’s d = 0.53), driven by better resources. Qualitative data highlighted urban teachers’ confidence from practical training, while rural participants cited resource shortages. The tested hypotheses confirmed significant differences by location (t = 3.75, p < 0.05) and funding (t = 3.20, p < 0.05), revealing socioeconomic disparities. Qualitative insights from interviews and focus groups enriched the data, showing urban teachers’ confidence from practical training, while rural participants noted resource shortages. The semester-long intervention, spanning 15–16 weeks, enhanced implementation fidelity. Based on the findings, the study recommended establishing national standards within 12 months ($500,000/state), allocating $2 million annually for 3 years to rural programs, and launching a 6-month training program in January 2026, with a cost-benefit ratio of 2:1 based on a $5 million investment and preparedness. These strategies aim to bridge urban-rural gaps, ensuring equitable preparation for diverse, technology-rich classrooms.

Keywords: Teacher education, project-based learning, flipped classroom, culturally responsive pedagogy (CRP), digital equity, Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK), Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), 21st-century skills, cloud-based learning, United States classrooms.

INTRODUCTION

Education in the United States has undergone a profound transformation in the 21st century, driven by technological advancements, increasing cultural and linguistic diversity, and a growing emphasis on skills such as critical thinking, collaboration, and problem-solving. These changes have reshaped the classroom, requiring teachers who can navigate technology-rich environments, engage diverse learners, and foster inclusive learning experiences. Traditional teaching methods, such as lectures and rote memorization, are increasingly inadequate for meeting these demands, as highlighted by Cox [4]. Instead, innovative methodologies like project-based learning, flipped classroom models, and culturally responsive pedagogy (CRP) have emerged as essential tools for preparing students to thrive in a globalized world. Teacher education programs play a critical role in equipping pre-service teachers with the skills to implement these methodologies effectively [22], [5]. Recent studies, [4] reinforce the inadequacy of traditional methods, highlighting the urgent need for innovative approaches to meet diverse learner needs in a technology-driven era This study examines how 100 teacher education programs across 10 states integrate these approaches, focusing on their effectiveness, accessibility, and barriers to adoption, with an emphasis on promoting equity and preparedness for 21st-century classrooms.

Project-based learning is a student-centered methodology that engages learners in authentic, inquiry-driven projects, encouraging them to explore real-world problems and develop skills like collaboration and critical thinking. Pre-service teachers trained in project-based learning learn to design lessons that foster student ownership and deep understanding, as emphasized by Cox [4]. This approach aligns with the needs of modern classrooms, where employers value problem-solving and teamwork. However, its integration in teacher education varies, with urban programs often having access to resources and partnerships that facilitate implementation, while rural programs face challenges like limited materials and training, as noted in Nafiu and Olaitan [17]. By preparing pre-service teachers to use project-based learning, programs can ensure future educators create engaging, relevant learning experiences.

Flipped classroom models reverse traditional instruction by delivering content online, typically through cloud-based platforms, allowing class time for interactive, hands-on activities. This approach, described by Cox [4], offers flexibility for pre-service teachers to learn at their own pace and engage collaboratively during in-person sessions. Flipped classrooms require reliable technology and digital literacy, areas where disparities exist, particularly in rural and low-income settings, as identified in Nafiu and Olaitan [18]. Teacher education programs must train pre-service teachers to use cloud-based tools effectively and design flipped lessons that accommodate diverse learners. Addressing barriers like internet access is crucial to ensure equitable adoption of this methodology.

CRP, rooted in the work of Ladson-Billings [15], emphasizes instruction that reflects students’ cultural backgrounds, promoting equity and inclusivity in diverse classrooms. Cox [4] underscored its importance in creating environments where all students feel valued. Pre-service teachers must learn to incorporate students’ experiences, values, and perspectives into their teaching, fostering academic success and social justice [6]. However, many teacher education programs, particularly in rural areas, lack comprehensive training in CRP, limiting teachers’ ability to address diverse needs, as highlighted by Villegas and Lucas [22]. By embedding this methodology, programs can prepare educators to create inclusive classrooms that meet the needs of a diverse student population.

The significance of this study lies in its potential to address critical gaps in teacher preparation and promote equitable education for all students. Inequities in technology access, faculty training, and resources hinder the adoption of innovative methodologies, particularly in rural and underfunded programs, as documented in Nafiu and Olaitan [17], [18]. These disparities leave some pre-service teachers underprepared, perpetuating educational inequalities. By investigating how project-based learning, flipped classroom models, and CRP are integrated across diverse settings, this study provides actionable insights for educators and policymakers. It aims to inform national standards, professional development, and resource allocation strategies, ensuring all pre-service teachers are equipped to create inclusive, technology-enhanced classrooms where students can succeed in the 21st century.

Statement of the Problem

The preparation of pre-service teachers for 21st-century United States classrooms presents a significant challenge, as many teacher education programs struggle to integrate innovative methodologies like project-based learning, flipped classroom models, and CRP. These approaches are essential for equipping teachers to engage diverse learners, leverage technology, and foster critical skills such as problem-solving and collaboration. However, their adoption is inconsistent, particularly in rural and underfunded institutions, where barriers like limited access to technology, inadequate faculty training, and insufficient culturally responsive resources prevail. These challenges, compounded by socioeconomic disparities, restrict access to cloud-based tools and hinder equitable implementation, leaving some pre-service teachers unprepared for modern classrooms, as noted in Nafiu and Olaitan [18]. Addressing these gaps is critical to ensuring all teachers can create inclusive, technology-rich learning environments.

Previous research has explored aspects of innovative methodologies in teacher education, providing valuable but limited insights. Williams et al. [26] investigated pre-service teachers’ attitudes toward technology integration, finding that targeted training enhanced confidence in using tools like flipped classrooms, but their study focused primarily on urban settings. Darling-Hammond et al. [6] emphasized the role of professional development in adopting student-centered approaches like project-based learning, highlighting urban programs’ success due to robust university–K–12 partnerships. Villegas and Lucas [22] examined culturally responsive training, identifying significant gaps in rural programs where faculty lack expertise. While these studies advance the field, they address individual methodologies or specific contexts, lacking a comprehensive analysis of multiple innovative approaches across diverse urban and rural settings.

This study fills a critical gap by investigating the integration of project-based learning, flipped classroom models, and CRP in 100 teacher education programs across 10 states, with a focus on equity and accessibility. Unlike prior research, it employs a mixed-methods design, triangulating data from curriculum audits, instructor interviews, pre-service teacher focus groups, and surveys to provide a holistic understanding. By examining barriers such as technology access, training disparities, and resource inequities, the study builds on findings from Nafiu and Olaitan [17], [18] and offers strategies to ensure all pre-service teachers are prepared for 21st-century classrooms. Its findings aim to inform policy and practice, promoting equitable teacher preparation nationwide.

Therefore, the specific objectives of this study are to:

1. assess the effectiveness of project-based learning in enhancing pre-service teachers’ pedagogical skills and readiness for student-centered instruction;
2. evaluate the usability and accessibility of flipped classroom models in teacher training, focusing on cloud-based platforms;
3. investigate the integration of CRP to prepare pre-service teachers for diverse, inclusive classrooms;
4. identify socioeconomic and regional barriers to adopting these methodologies; and
5. propose evidence-based strategies to enhance methodological innovation, addressing digital equity and training needs.

Hypotheses

Ho1: There is no significant difference in the adoption of project-based learning, flipped classroom models, and CRP between urban and rural teacher education programs.

Ho2: There is no significant difference in pre-service teachers’ preparedness for 21st-century classrooms by institutional funding level.

Ho3: There is no significant difference in pre-service teachers’ perceived usability of cloud-based tools for flipped classrooms by socioeconomic status.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Interactive Innovative Pedagogies in Teacher Education

The 21st-century classroom requires teachers to move beyond traditional methods, adopting innovative pedagogies that foster critical thinking, collaboration, and inclusivity. Cox [4] and Villegas and Lucas [22] highlighted the shift from lectures to student-centered approaches like project-based learning, flipped classrooms, and CRP, which empower learners to thrive in a globalized world. Recent research by Cox [4] reinforces this shift, emphasizing the role of innovative pedagogies in meeting global demands, while Katz and Gonzalez [14] highlight resource disparities affecting adoption. These methodologies align with the demands of modern education, where employers value skills like problem-solving and adaptability. However, their integration in teacher education programs varies, with urban institutions often leading due to access to resources, technology, and trained faculty, as noted in Nafiu and Olaitan [17]. In contrast, rural programs face significant barriers, limiting their ability to prepare pre-service teachers effectively.

Research emphasizes the need for systematic integration of innovative pedagogies to ensure teacher preparedness. Darling-Hammond et al. [6] advocated for professional development to support student-centered methods, noting their impact on fostering 21st-century skills. Their study found that programs with robust training programs produced teachers better equipped to implement project-based learning and flipped classrooms. Williams et al. [26] explored technology integration, finding that pre-service teachers trained in innovative tools showed greater confidence, particularly in urban settings with advanced infrastructure. However, these studies highlight a persistent challenge: equitable adoption across diverse contexts remains elusive, as rural programs struggle with resource constraints, a theme echoed in Nafiu and Olaitan [18].

Addressing these disparities requires a focus on accessibility, training, and policy support. Reich et al. [20] documented digital divides in under-resourced programs, where limited technology access hinders methodology integration. Crompton and Burke [5] proposed mobile technology solutions to bridge these gaps, suggesting that targeted interventions can enhance equity. By examining how innovative pedagogies are embedded in teacher education, this study identifies best practices and barriers, contributing to strategies for equitable preparation. It builds on prior work by exploring multiple methodologies across urban and rural settings, offering a comprehensive perspective on teacher education reform.

Digital Project-Based Learning

Project-based learning engages pre-service teachers in authentic, inquiry-driven projects, preparing them to facilitate student-centered lessons that foster critical thinking and collaboration. Cox [4] emphasized its role in promoting deep understanding, as students tackle real-world challenges that mirror workplace demands. Guo et al. [12] found that project-based learning enhances pedagogical skills when integrated with field experiences, allowing pre-service teachers to apply theory in practice. Guo et al. [12] further validate this, showing enhanced confidence with extended field experiences, supported by Crompton and Burke [5] who advocate mobile tech solutions. Their study reported that teachers trained in project-based learning were more confident in designing engaging lessons, particularly in urban programs with access to resources. Urban teacher education programs often benefit from university–K–12 partnerships, which provide materials, mentorship, and opportunities for pre-service teachers to implement project-based learning, as noted in Nafiu and Olaitan [17]. These partnerships enable hands-on training, where pre-service teachers collaborate with experienced educators to develop projects that address real-world issues. In contrast, rural programs face significant barriers, including limited access to technology, materials, and trained faculty, which hinder project-based learning’s effectiveness, as highlighted by Donohue and Schomburg [8]. These disparities create inequities in teacher preparation, leaving rural educators less equipped to foster student-centered classrooms. To address these challenges, teacher education programs must prioritize faculty training and resource allocation. Crompton and Burke [5] suggested mobile tech labs for rural areas, which could provide access to digital tools and project materials. Additionally, Katz and Gonzalez [14] advocated for policy interventions to fund rural programs, ensuring equitable access to project-based learning resources. This study explores how programs implement project-based learning, identifying strategies to overcome barriers and enhance teacher preparedness across diverse contexts. By examining urban and rural settings, it provides insights into scalable solutions for equitable adoption.

Flipped Classroom Models

Flipped classroom models deliver content online, often through cloud-based platforms, allowing class time for interactive, hands-on activities. Cox [4] highlighted their flexibility, enabling pre-service teachers to learn at their own pace and engage collaboratively during in-person sessions. Akçayır and Akçayır [1] reported that flipped classrooms improve engagement and retention, as students actively apply knowledge in class. Their study found that pre-service teachers trained in flipped models were better prepared to facilitate student-centered lessons, particularly in programs with reliable technology. However, flipped classrooms require robust infrastructure, a challenge for rural and underfunded programs. Nafiu and Olaitan [18] reinforced access barriers to cloud-based tools, noting that rural pre-service teachers often lack reliable internet and devices. This digital divide limits the methodology’s effectiveness, as teachers cannot fully engage with online content. Williams et al. [26] found that urban programs with advanced infrastructure integrated flipped classrooms more effectively, with pre-service teachers reporting higher confidence in using digital tools. These disparities highlight the need for targeted interventions to ensure equitable access. The TPCK framework guides flipped classroom integration, emphasizing the need for technological and pedagogical expertise. Mishra and Koehler [16] argued that teachers must master these domains to design effective flipped lessons. Faculty training is critical, as emphasized in Nafiu and Olaitan [17], to ensure pre-service teachers can navigate cloud-based platforms and create engaging in-class activities. This study evaluates flipped classrooms’ usability and accessibility, exploring barriers like connectivity and proposing solutions to promote equitable adoption across diverse settings.

Culturally Responsive Pedagogy

CRP ensures instruction reflects students’ cultural backgrounds, promoting equity and inclusivity in diverse classrooms. Cox [4] emphasizes its role in creating environments where all students feel valued, while Ladson-Billings [15] advocates for teaching that fosters academic success and social justice. Gay [10] found that CRP improves student outcomes by connecting lessons to learners’ experiences, but its integration requires extensive training and resources. Rural teacher education programs often lack culturally responsive training, as highlighted by Villegas and Lucas [22]. This gap limits pre-service teachers’ ability to address diverse needs, perpetuating inequities in classroom practice. Urban programs, with access to diverse student populations and trained faculty, show stronger integration, as noted in Nafiu and Olaitan [17]. These programs embed CRP in curricula and field experiences, preparing teachers to create inclusive lessons that reflect students’ identities. To enhance CRP, programs must provide professional development and diverse field placements. Hirsh-Pasek et al. [13] suggested immersive training that exposes pre-service teachers to varied cultural contexts, fostering competence. Additionally, Katz and Gonzalez [14] advocated for curriculum reforms that prioritize inclusivity. This study examines how CRP is integrated, identifying strategies to prepare pre-service teachers for diverse, inclusive classrooms and address training disparities.

Technology Integration and Cloud-Based Learning

Cloud-based platforms are integral to flipped classrooms and project-based learning, offering flexible, interactive content delivery. Eze et al. [9] highlighted their potential to enhance teacher training by enabling asynchronous learning and collaboration. However, infrastructure gaps hinder adoption, particularly in rural areas, as noted in Nafiu and Olaitan [18]. Rural pre-service teachers often lack access to reliable internet and devices, limiting their engagement with cloud-based tools. The TAM, proposed by Davis [7], suggested that perceived usefulness and ease of use drive technology adoption. Williams et al. [26] found that pre-service teachers trained in cloud-based platforms were more likely to embrace them, particularly when supported by user-friendly interfaces. In contrast, Reich et al. [20] reported significant barriers in low-income programs, where device shortages and connectivity issues restricted access. These findings underscore the need for infrastructure investments to ensure equitable technology integration. Addressing these barriers requires policy interventions and training. Crompton and Burke [5] proposed device subsidies and mobile tech labs for rural areas, which could enhance access to cloud-based learning. Additionally, Bates [2] emphasized faculty training to improve digital literacy among pre-service teachers. This study explores cloud-based learning’s role in teacher education, focusing on usability, accessibility, and strategies to bridge digital divides across diverse contexts.

Barriers and Equity Gaps

Resource disparities, inadequate training, and policy misalignment hinder the adoption of innovative methodologies in teacher education. Rural programs face significant barriers, including limited connectivity, device shortages, and insufficient faculty expertise, as documented in Nafiu and Olaitan [17]. These challenges restrict the integration of project-based learning, flipped classrooms, and CRP, leaving rural pre-service teachers underprepared. Urban programs benefit from robust infrastructure, funding, and university–K–12 partnerships, enabling effective methodology integration, as noted by Darling-Hammond et al. [6]. These partnerships provide access to resources, mentorship, and field experiences, enhancing teacher preparedness. In contrast, rural programs lack such support, exacerbating inequities, as highlighted by Donohue and Schomburg [8]. Socioeconomic disparities further compound these challenges, limiting access to cloud-based tools, as seen in Nafiu and Olaitan [18]. To address these gaps, policy interventions are essential. Crompton and Burke [5] recommended targeted funding and mobile technology solutions to support rural programs. Katz and Gonzalez [14] suggested national standards to ensure equitable training, while Guernsey and Levine [11] emphasized the role of partnerships in bridging resource gaps. This study identifies barriers and proposes evidence-based strategies to promote equitable teacher preparation, ensuring all pre-service teachers are equipped for 21st-century classrooms.

Theoretical Framework

This study integrates four complementary frameworks—Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory, Mishra and Koehler’s TPCK framework, Davis’s TAM, and Ladson-Billings’ CRP—to guide the investigation of methodological innovation in teacher education. These frameworks are visualized in a single diagram to illustrate their interconnected roles in fostering equitable, technology-enhanced, and inclusive teacher preparation.

Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory. Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory [25] posited that learning occurs through social interaction and cultural tools, shaped by the learner’s context. In teacher education, project-based learning and flipped classrooms foster collaborative learning, where pre-service teachers engage with peers and instructors to develop pedagogical skills. Technology, such as cloud-based platforms, serves as a cultural tool, facilitating access to resources and enabling interaction, as highlighted in Nafiu and Olaitan [17]. This theory emphasizes the importance of equitable access to learning environments, ensuring all pre-service teachers can participate in social and cultural contexts that support their development. By grounding the study in this framework, the research explores how social interactions and technology shape teacher preparedness, particularly in diverse urban and rural settings.

Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Framework. Mishra and Koehler’s TPCK framework [16] integrates technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge, providing a roadmap for effective technology use in education. In teacher education, this framework guides the integration of cloud-based tools in flipped classrooms and project-based learning, ensuring pre-service teachers can design lessons that combine technology with sound pedagogy and content expertise. Williams et al. [26] emphasized its relevance, noting that teachers trained in TPCK are more confident in using innovative tools. The framework underscores the need for faculty training to develop pre-service teachers’ technological skills, addressing barriers like digital literacy gaps in rural programs, as seen in Nafiu and Olaitan [18]. This study uses TPCK to evaluate how programs prepare teachers for technology-enhanced classrooms, focusing on the interplay of these knowledge domains.

Technology Acceptance Model. Davis’s TAM [7] assesses technology adoption based on perceived usefulness and ease of use, critical factors for pre-service teachers’ engagement with cloud-based platforms. Nafiu and Olaitan [18] highlighted its applicability in evaluating flipped classrooms, where user-friendly tools enhance adoption. The model suggests that pre-service teachers are more likely to embrace technology when they perceive it as valuable and accessible, as supported by Williams et al. [26]. In rural settings, barriers like unreliable internet reduce perceived ease of use, limiting adoption, as noted by Reich et al. [20]. By applying this framework, the study examines how perceptions influence technology integration, identifying strategies to improve usability and accessibility across diverse contexts.

Culturally Responsive Pedagody. Ladson-Billings’ CRP [15] advocated for instruction that reflects students’ cultural backgrounds, promoting equity and inclusivity. Cox [4] emphasized its role in fostering environments where diverse learners thrive. In teacher education, this framework ensures pre-service teachers learn to create lessons that value students’ experiences, fostering academic success and social justice. Villegas and Lucas [22] noted that culturally responsive training is often lacking in rural programs, limiting teachers’ ability to address diverse needs. This study uses this framework to explore how programs integrate CRP, addressing training disparities and promoting inclusive teacher preparation.

Figure 1 below integrates key components of the four frameworks, illustrating their interconnected roles in guiding the study. Sociocultural interaction supports collaborative learning, TPCK components ensure effective technology integration, TAM factors drive adoption, and CRP principles promote inclusivity

Figure 1: Integrated Theoretical Framework

METHODS

Research Design. This study employed a mixed-methods design, combining quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews/focus groups to provide a comprehensive understanding of methodological innovation in teacher education. A quasi-experimental approach compared urban and rural programs, with an experimental group receiving training in project-based learning, flipped classrooms, and CRP, and a control group following standard curricula. Curriculum audits complement these methods by analyzing program documents. This design, adapted from Nafiu and Olaitan [17], ensured robust insights into effectiveness, accessibility, and barriers, triangulating data to enhance validity.

Population and Sample. The population included approximately 1,300 United States teacher education programs, as reported by the National Center for Education Statistics [19]. To enhance generalizability, the study adopted a stratified random sampling across the U.S., stratifying by region (Northeast, South, Midwest, West) and urban-rural status. This involved randomly selecting 25 programs per region (100 total), with 60% urban (60 programs) and 40% rural (40 programs), ensuring broader representation. The sample includes 200 pre-service teachers (2 per program) and 50 instructors (5 per region), reflecting diverse demographics across public and private institutions.

Sample Size Justification and Power Analysis. A power analysis was conducted using G^*Power (version 3.1) to justify the sample size. Assuming a medium effect size (Cohen’s d = 0.5) for the difference in preparedness between urban and rural programs, an alpha level of 0.05, and a power of 0.80, the required sample size per group is approximately 64 programs (128 total). The proposed 100-program sample (60 urban, 40 rural) exceeds this threshold, accounting for potential attrition and providing 85% power. This analysis supports the stratified random sampling strategy, enhancing the study’s statistical robustness and generalizability.

Instrumentation. Four instruments collected data to address the research objectives. The TEIS, a 30-item instrument, assessed the integration of project-based learning, flipped classrooms, and CRP, focusing on usability, accessibility, and effectiveness (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.85). Semi-structured instructor interviews, lasting 20–30 minutes, explored implementation challenges, training needs, and partnership impacts. Pre-service teacher focus groups, conducted in 60-minute sessions with 6–8 participants, discussed preparedness and experiences. Curriculum audits analyzed syllabi and program documents to evaluate methodological integration. These instruments ensured comprehensive data collection, aligning with the study’s mixed-methods design.

Data Collection Procedures. Data collection spanned one full semester (approximately 15–16 weeks) to allow sufficient time for meaningful implementation and assessment of pedagogical changes. The TEIS was administered pre- and post-intervention to 200 pre-service teachers, capturing changes in perceptions and preparedness. The semester-long intervention trained the experimental group in project-based learning, flipped classrooms, and CRP, using a structured protocol detailed below. Instructors (50) participated in semi-structured interviews during weeks 14–15, providing insights into implementation challenges. Pre-service teacher focus groups (20 groups) were conducted concurrently, exploring experiences and barriers. Curriculum audits analyzed 100 program documents, including syllabi and course descriptions, to assess methodology integration. Data were securely stored and anonymized, following protocols from Nafiu and Olaitan [17].

Intervention Protocol. The intervention protocol was designed to ensure replicability and consistent implementation across sites. It spanned 15 weeks, divided into three phases as follows:

• Phase 1 (Weeks 1–5: Foundation Building): Pre-service teachers in the experimental group (n = 120) completed 10 hours of project-based learning workshops, focusing on designing inquiry-driven projects, and 8 hours of flipped classroom training using Google Classroom, emphasizing CRP training (6 hours) introduced cultural competence through case studies and discussions.
• Phase 2 (Weeks 6–12: Application): Participants engaged in 40 hours of field experiences with K–12 partners, implementing one project-based learning unit, two flipped classroom lessons, and one CRP-integrated lesson. Weekly 2-hour mentoring sessions with instructors provided feedback, ensuring fidelity. Online modules (10 hours total) reinforced skills, accessible via a secure platform.
• Phase 3 (Weeks 13–15: Reflection and Assessment): Participants reflected on their experiences in 4-hour debriefing sessions, refining lesson plans. Implementation fidelity was monitored through weekly logs submitted by instructors, reviewed by a central coordinator to ensure 90% adherence to the protocol. Training materials, including syllabi and module guides, are available upon request.

Data Analysis. Quantitative data from the TEIS were analyzed using descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations) to summarize adoption rates and preparedness levels. Independent t-tests compared urban and rural programs, while ANOVA examined differences by funding level. Qualitative data from interviews, focus groups, and curriculum audits were thematically coded using NVivo, following Braun and Clarke’s [3] thematic analysis framework. Themes such as training needs, technology access, and cultural responsiveness were identified and triangulated with quantitative findings to provide robust insights. This approach ensured a comprehensive analysis of the data.

Ethical Considerations. Ethical considerations are paramount to protect participants’ rights and ensure research integrity. Informed consent was obtained from all pre-service teachers and instructors, with clear explanations of the study’s objective, procedures, and voluntary participation. For pre-service teachers under 21, child assent and parental consent were secured. Data were anonymized to protect identities, stored securely on encrypted servers, and accessible only to the research team. Prior to data collection, the study complied with all ethical standards.

RESULTS

The results section presents findings from a mixed-methods study examining the integration of project-based learning, flipped classroom models, and CRP in 100 teacher education programs across 10 States in the United States (California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Georgia, North Carolina, Ohio, Michigan, Arizona). Data were gathered using four instruments: the TEIS (TEIS), semi-structured instructor interviews, pre-service teacher focus groups, and curriculum audits. The TEIS, a 30-item instrument, measures usability, accessibility, and effectiveness with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.85. Interviews (20–30 minutes) explored implementation challenges, training needs, and partnership impacts, focus groups (60 minutes, 6–8 participants) discussed preparedness and experiences, and curriculum audits analyzed syllabi and program documents to assess methodological integration. Findings are presented for demographic data, research questions, and hypotheses, with quantitative data from the TEIS complemented by rich qualitative insights.

Table 1: Demographic Data of Pre-Service Teachers and Instructors

Source: Field Survey, 2025

The demographic profile of the 200 pre-service teachers and 50 instructors offers a detailed picture of the study’s participants, ensuring a diverse representation that supports the analysis of methodological innovation. Among pre-service teachers, 140 individuals, or 70%, fall within the 20–25 age range, indicating a majority of young learners who are likely recent high school graduates or early undergraduates entering teacher education programs. The remaining 60 participants, or 30%, are aged 26–30 years, suggesting a segment of mature learners who may be transitioning from other careers or returning to education, adding varied life experiences to the cohort. Gender distribution shows 120 females, accounting for 60% of pre-service teachers, and 80 males, making up 40%, which reflects the national trend where teaching attracts more women, as reported by the National Center for Education Statistics [19]. Location data indicate that 120 pre-service teachers, or 60%, are enrolled in urban programs, aligning with the higher density of educational institutions in cities, while 80, or 40%, are from rural areas, ensuring geographic diversity critical for comparing urban and rural experiences. Socioeconomic status reveals that 70 pre-service teachers, or 35%, come from low-income backgrounds, facing potential barriers to technology access, while 130, or 65%, are from middle/high-income families, providing a balanced perspective on economic influences, as noted in Nafiu and Olaitan [18].

For instructors, the sample includes 30 individuals, or 60%, with 1–10 years of experience, bringing fresh pedagogical approaches and recent training to the study, and 20, or 40%, with over 11 years of experience, offering deep institutional knowledge and seasoned perspectives. The location split mirrors the pre-service teacher distribution, with 30 instructors, or 60%, from urban programs and 20, or 40%, from rural programs, ensuring consistency in analyzing regional differences. This demographic diversity enriches the study, allowing for a nuanced understanding of how age, gender, location, socioeconomic status, and experience shape perceptions and implementation of innovative methodologies. The balanced representation across these categories provides a solid foundation for interpreting the quantitative and qualitative findings that follow.

Research Question One: How effective is project-based learning in enhancing pre-service teachers’ pedagogical skills and readiness for student-centered instruction?

Table 2: Effectiveness of Project-Based Learning in Enhancing Pre-Service Teachers’ Pedagogical Skills and Readiness for Student-Centered Instruction

Source: Field Survey, 2025

The TEIS results in Table 2 demonstrate that project-based learning is highly effective in enhancing pedagogical skills among urban pre-service teachers, with 85% of the experimental group agreeing (x̄ = 1.25, SD = 0.43), compared to 60% in the rural control group (x̄ = 1.50, SD = 0.51). The effect size, calculated as Cohen’s d = (1.50 – 1.25) / √((0.43² + 0.51²)/2) = 0.25 / 0.47 ≈ 0.53, indicates a medium practical significance. The lower mean and standard deviation in urban programs suggest a consistent positive perception, likely due to structured training and access to resources that allow pre-service teachers to practice designing student-centered lessons. Similarly, 80% of urban participants agreed that project-based learning prepares them for student-centered instruction (x̄ = 1.30, SD = 0.45), while only 55% of rural participants agreed (x̄ = 1.55, SD = 0.52), with Cohen’s d = (1.55 – 1.30) / 0.49 ≈ 0.51, also showing medium significance.

Qualitative insights from curriculum audits reveal that 70% of urban syllabi include project-based learning components, such as assignments requiring pre-service teachers to develop community-based projects or collaborate with local schools, aligning with Cox [4] and Guo et al. [12]. In contrast, rural syllabi show only 30% integration, often confined to theoretical discussions without practical application, reflecting resource constraints noted in Nafiu and Olaitan [17]. Focus groups in urban programs provided rich feedback, with one participant explaining, “Working on a project about local environmental issues with a real school class helped me understand how to keep students interested and involved.” Rural focus groups, however, expressed frustration, with a participant stating, “We learned about project-based learning in theory, but we could not try it because we lacked materials like computers or project kits.” Instructor interviews further illuminated these differences, with urban instructors describing successful partnerships with K–12 schools that provide mentorship and resources, while rural instructors highlighted a lack of funding and training, echoing Darling-Hammond et al. [6].

Research Question Two: What is the level of the usability and accessibility of flipped classroom models in teacher training, focusing on cloud-based platforms?

Table 3: Level of the Usability and Accessibility of Flipped Classroom Models in Teacher Training, Focusing on Cloud-Based Platforms

Source: Field Survey, 2025

The TEIS results in Table 3 indicate strong usability of flipped classroom models in urban programs, with 80% of experimental group pre-service teachers agreeing that cloud-based tools are accessible (x̄ = 1.30, SD = 0.46), compared to 50% in rural control groups (x̄ = 1.60, SD = 0.53). This suggests that urban pre-service teachers benefit from consistent access to reliable internet and devices, contributing to a lower standard deviation. Additionally, 75% of urban participants agreed that flipped models enhance engagement (x̄ = 1.35, SD = 0.48), while only 45% of rural participants agreed (x̄ = 1.65, SD = 0.55), reflecting greater variability and lower engagement due to technological barriers.

Curriculum audits showed that 65% of urban syllabi incorporate flipped classroom activities, such as pre-recorded lectures and online discussions using Google Classroom, as highlighted by Cox [4] and Akçayır and Akçayır [1]. Rural syllabi, however, included only 25% of such activities, often noting infrastructure limitations like poor internet connectivity. Urban focus groups provided detailed insights, with one participant sharing, “Watching lectures at home and then discussing them in class with my peers made learning more interactive and fun.” Rural focus groups, in contrast, reported significant challenges, with a participant noting, “I tried to watch a flipped lesson video, but my internet dropped out, and I could not catch up.” Instructor interviews revealed that urban programs offer regular training on cloud-based platforms, boosting usability, as supported by Williams et al. [26], while rural instructors admitted to limited expertise and access to technology, aligning with Nafiu and Olaitan [18].

Research Question Three: To what extent is the integration of CRP to prepare pre-service teachers for diverse, inclusive classrooms?

Table 4: Extent of the Integration of CRP to Prepare Pre-Service Teachers for Diverse, Inclusive Classrooms

Source: Field Survey, 2025

The TEIS results in Table 4 demonstrate that CRP is well-integrated in urban programs, with 78% of experimental group pre-service teachers agreeing it prepares them for diverse classrooms (x̄ = 1.32, SD = 0.47), compared to 48% in rural control groups (x̄ = 1.62, SD = 0.54). Similarly, 75% of urban participants agreed that it reflects cultural backgrounds (x̄ = 1.35, SD = 0.49), while only 45% of rural participants agreed (x̄ = 1.65, SD = 0.56), indicating greater inconsistency in rural perceptions. This suggests that urban pre-service teachers benefit from targeted training, while rural teachers face gaps in implementation.

Curriculum audits indicated that 60% of urban syllabi include CRP, featuring assignments like lesson plans that incorporate students’ cultural stories or traditions, as advocated by Ladson-Billings [15] and Gay [10]. Rural syllabi showed only 20% integration, often limited to brief mentions of diversity without practical application. Urban focus groups provided rich feedback, with one participant stating, “Learning to include students’ cultural holidays in my lessons made me feel ready to teach in a diverse school.” Rural focus groups, however, expressed limited exposure, with a participant noting, “We had one session on diversity, but it did not teach us how to use it in class.” Instructor interviews highlighted that urban programs offer workshops led by culturally diverse faculty, while rural instructors reported a lack of training resources, consistent with Villegas and Lucas [22].

Hypothesis One: There is no significant difference in the adoption of project-based learning, flipped classroom models, and CRP between urban and rural teacher education programs.

Table 5: T–test of the Significant Difference in the Adoption of Project-Based Learning, Flipped Classroom Models, and CRP Between Urban and Rural Teacher Education Programs

Significant at α = 0.05**

Source: Field Survey, 2025

The t-test in Table 5 rejects the null hypothesis (p < 0.05), confirming significant differences in the adoption of project-based learning, flipped classroom models, and CRP between urban and rural programs. Urban programs exhibit higher adoption rates, with means of 85.0 for project-based learning, 80.0 for flipped classrooms, and 78.0 for CRP, compared to rural means of 75.0, 70.0, and 68.0, respectively. This indicates a clear advantage for urban settings. Curriculum audits support these findings, showing that 65–70% of urban syllabi embed these methodologies through detailed assignments and practical activities, while rural syllabi include only 20–30%, often limited to theoretical content. Urban instructors, in interviews, emphasized the role of robust infrastructure and partnerships with K–12 schools. Rural instructors, however, highlighted challenges such as insufficient funding and outdated technology, aligning with Nafiu and Olaitan [17].

Focus groups added depth to these quantitative results. Urban pre-service teachers expressed confidence, with one stating, “Our program’s resources and training let us use projects, flipped lessons, and cultural strategies with ease.” Rural participants, conversely, shared frustrations, with a participant noting, “We know these methods are important, but we cannot practice them because we lack support and materials.” These qualitative insights underscore the systemic advantages urban programs enjoy, supported by recent literature. Trust et al. [21] found that urban programs benefit from funding and technology access, enabling methodology integration, while Reich et al. [20] highlighted rural connectivity issues as a barrier. To address these disparities, interventions like mobile tech labs, as suggested by Crompton and Burke [5], could enhance rural adoption, ensuring equitable preparation across regions.

Hypothesis Two: There is no significant difference in pre-service teachers’ preparedness for 21st-century classrooms by institutional funding level.

Table 6: ANOVA of the Significant Difference in Pre-Service Teachers’ Preparedness for 21^st-Century Classrooms by Institutional Funding Level

Significant at α = 0.05**

Source: Field Survey, 2025

The ANOVA results in Table 6 reject the null hypothesis (p < 0.05), indicating significant differences in pre-service teachers’ preparedness based on funding level. Well-funded programs, predominantly urban, report a mean preparedness score of 4.2 (SD = 0.6), suggesting strong confidence and readiness to implement innovative methodologies. In contrast, underfunded programs, often rural, have a mean score of 3.5 (SD = 0.7), indicating lower preparedness likely due to resource limitations. The effect size, calculated as η² = (between-group SS / total SS), approximated at 0.15 based on variance explained, suggests a moderate practical impact. Curriculum audits revealed that well-funded programs integrate methodologies in 70% of syllabi, including advanced training modules and technology-supported activities, while underfunded programs show only 25% integration, relying on basic theoretical content. Instructors from well-funded programs, in interviews, described comprehensive professional development and access to modern tools, enhancing preparedness, as supported by Crompton and Burke [5].

Focus groups provided further insight, with a participant from a well-funded program stating, “The training and technology we received made me feel fully prepared to teach in any classroom.” Participants from underfunded programs, however, expressed concerns, with one noting, “We lack the tools and guidance to feel ready for modern teaching methods.” This disparity aligns with Darling-Hammond et al. [6], who emphasized that funding supports effective teacher preparation. Recent studies, such as Katz and Gonzalez [14], suggested that targeted funding for underfunded programs could bridge this gap by providing resources and training, ensuring all pre-service teachers achieve high preparedness levels regardless of funding status.

Hypothesis Three: There is no significant difference in pre-service teachers’ perceived usability of cloud-based tools for flipped classrooms by socioeconomic status.

Table 7: ANOVA of the Significant Difference in Pre-Service Teachers’ Perceived Usability of Cloud-Based Tools for Flipped Classrooms by Socioeconomic Status

Significant at α = 0.05**

Source: Field Survey, 2025

The t-test results in Table 7 reject the null hypothesis (p < 0.05), confirming significant differences in the usability of cloud-based tools based on socioeconomic status. Middle/high-income pre-service teachers report a higher agreement rate of 80% (x̄ = 1.20, SD = 0.35), indicating strong confidence in using tools like Google Classroom for flipped learning. In contrast, low-income pre-service teachers report a 70% agreement rate (x̄ = 1.40, SD = 0.45), suggesting moderate usability hindered by resource constraints. Cohen’s d = (1.40 – 1.20) / 0.40 ≈ 0.50, indicating medium practical significance. Focus groups revealed that low-income participants often rely on shared devices or unstable home internet, with one stating, “I have to use the library computer, which is not always available when I need it.” Curriculum audits showed that programs serving middle/high-income students provide device access in 60% of courses, including loaner laptops, while those serving low-income students offer only 30% access, often limited to campus labs.

Instructor interviews highlighted these disparities, with one urban instructor noting, “Our middle-income students have personal devices, making flipped learning smooth,” while a rural instructor from a low-income area said, “Many of my students cannot afford internet at home, which affects their participation.” These findings align with Nafiu and Olaitan [18] and Reich et al. [20], who emphasized socioeconomic barriers to technology access. Recent research by Eze et al. [9] suggested that providing subsidies for devices and internet could improve usability for low-income students, a strategy that could level the playing field. This study underscores the need for targeted support to ensure equitable access to cloud-based tools across socioeconomic groups.

DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS

The findings illuminate the transformative potential of project-based learning, flipped classroom models, and CRP in preparing pre-service teachers for 21st-century United States classrooms, while highlighting persistent inequities in their adoption.

Effectiveness of Project-Based Learning

Project-based learning proves highly effective in enhancing pre-service teachers’ pedagogical skills and readiness for student-centered instruction, particularly in urban programs where resources and training are abundant. The TEIS results show that 85% of urban experimental group participants agreed that project-based learning enhances pedagogical skills (x̄ = 1.25), compared to 60% in rural control groups (x̄ = 1.50), indicating a significant urban advantage. This aligns with Cox [4], who highlighted project-based learning’s role in fostering critical thinking and collaboration through real-world projects. Curriculum audits revealed that 70% of urban syllabi include practical project-based assignments, such as designing community service projects, which allow pre-service teachers to apply skills directly, as supported by Guo et al. [12]. Urban focus groups provided vivid insights, with one participant explaining, “Creating a project about local history with a real school class taught me how to keep students engaged and thinking deeply.” This hands-on experience builds confidence and competence.

In contrast, rural programs show lower effectiveness, with only 30% of syllabi integrating project-based learning, often limited to theoretical discussions due to resource shortages. Rural focus groups expressed disappointment, with a participant noting, “We read about project-based learning, but without materials like computers or art supplies, we could not practice it.” Instructor interviews reinforced this gap, with urban instructors describing successful K–12 partnerships that provide mentorship and resources, as seen in Darling-Hammond et al. [6], while rural instructors cited funding limitations, echoing Nafiu and Olaitan [17]. These findings align with Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory [25], which emphasized learning through social interaction and cultural tools. Urban pre-service teachers’ collaborative project experiences foster growth, while rural teachers’ lack of resources hinders development.

Recent studies further support these results. Belland et al. [23] found that project-based learning improves problem-solving when supported by scaffolded training, a practice evident in urban programs. However, rural programs’ higher standard deviation (0.51) suggests inconsistent implementation, likely due to inadequate infrastructure, as noted by Crompton and Burke [5]. To maximize effectiveness, teacher education programs must provide equitable access to materials and training. Katz and Gonzalez [14] proposed funding for rural areas to support project-based learning, ensuring all pre-service teachers can design student-centered lessons. This study highlights project-based learning’s potential but stresses the need for systemic support to bridge urban-rural disparities.

Usability of Flipped Classroom Models

Flipped classroom models demonstrate strong usability in urban programs but face significant challenges in rural settings, particularly in accessing cloud-based tools, affecting overall engagement. The TEIS results indicate that 80% of urban experimental group pre-service teachers found cloud-based tools accessible (x̄ = 1.30), compared to 50% in rural control groups (x̄ = 1.60), reflecting a clear digital divide. Additionally, 75% of urban participants agreed that flipped models enhance engagement (x̄ = 1.35), while only 45% of rural participants agreed (x̄ = 1.65), suggesting lower participation due to technological barriers. This aligns with Cox [4], who praises flipped classrooms’ flexibility, and Akçayır and Akçayır [1], who noted improved engagement with proper support. Curriculum audits showed that 65% of urban syllabi include flipped assignments, such as pre-recorded lectures on Google Classroom, while rural syllabi reflect only 25% integration, often citing connectivity issues.

Urban focus groups provided detailed feedback, with one participant stating, “Watching lectures at home and then discussing them in class with my group was a game-changer for my learning.” Rural focus groups, however, highlighted struggles, with a participant noting, “I could not watch the flipped videos because my internet kept failing, and I fell behind.” Instructor interviews revealed that urban programs offer regular training on cloud-based platforms, boosting usability, as supported by Williams et al. [26], while rural instructors reported limited expertise and unreliable technology, aligning with Nafiu and Olaitan [18]. The TAM [7] explained urban teachers’ higher adoption, as reliable infrastructure enhances perceived ease of use.

Recent literature reinforces these findings. Bergmann and Sams [24] found that flipped classrooms increase engagement when supported by robust technology, a condition met in urban settings. Reich et al. [20] highlighted rural connectivity issues as a barrier, consistent with this study’s rural data. Crompton and Burke [5] suggested mobile tech labs to provide rural pre-service teachers with access to cloud-based tools, a strategy that could enhance usability. The higher standard deviation in rural responses (0.55) indicates inconsistent experiences, while urban programs’ lower variability (0.48) reflects uniform access. This study emphasizes the need for infrastructure investments and training to ensure all pre-service teachers can benefit from flipped classrooms, aligning with the TPCK framework [16].

Integration of Culturally Responsive Pedagogy

CRP is effectively integrated in urban programs, preparing pre-service teachers for diverse classrooms, but rural programs lag due to insufficient training and resources, limiting its impact. The TEIS results show that 78% of urban experimental group pre-service teachers agreed that CRP prepares them for diverse classrooms (x̄ = 1.32), compared to 48% in rural control groups (x̄ = 1.62). Similarly, 75% of urban participants agreed it reflects cultural backgrounds (x̄ = 1.35), while only 45% of rural participants agreed (x̄ = 1.65), indicating a significant urban advantage. This aligns with Cox [4] and Ladson-Billings [15], who emphasized its role in fostering inclusivity. Curriculum audits revealed that 60% of urban syllabi include culturally responsive assignments, such as lesson plans incorporating students’ cultural stories, while rural syllabi show only 20% integration, often limited to brief diversity mentions.

Urban focus groups provided rich insights, with one participant explaining, “Learning to include students’ cultural festivals in my lessons made me feel ready to teach in a multicultural school.” Rural focus groups, however, reported minimal exposure, with a participant noting, “We had one lecture on diversity, but it did not show us how to teach it practically.” Instructor interviews highlighted that urban programs offer workshops led by culturally diverse faculty, enhancing integration, while rural instructors cited a lack of training resources, consistent with Villegas and Lucas [22]. These findings reflect urban programs’ access to diverse communities, facilitating practical training, as noted in Nafiu and Olaitan [17].

Recent studies support these results. Howard (2021) found that culturally responsive training improves pre-service teachers’ ability to engage diverse learners when embedded in curricula, as in urban programs. Bergmann and Sam [24] noted that rural programs’ lack of faculty diversity and training perpetuates gaps, aligning with qualitative insights. Hirsh-Pasek et al. [13] suggested mandatory training and diverse field experiences to address these disparities. The higher standard deviation in rural responses (0.56) indicates inconsistent training, while urban programs’ lower variability (0.49) suggests uniform integration. This study underscores CRP’s potential to foster inclusive classrooms but highlights the need for systemic support to ensure equitable training, aligning with Ladson-Billings’ framework [15].

The t-test results rejected the null hypothesis (p < 0.05), confirming significant differences in the adoption of project-based learning, flipped classroom models, and CRP between urban and rural programs. Urban programs show higher adoption rates, with means of 85.0 for project-based learning, 80.0 for flipped classrooms, and 78.0 for CRP, compared to rural means of 75.0, 70.0, and 68.0, respectively. This reflects urban programs’ systemic advantages. Curriculum audits support these findings, showing 65–70% of urban syllabi embedding these methodologies through detailed assignments, while rural syllabi include only 20–30%, often limited to theory. Urban instructors, in interviews, emphasized robust infrastructure and K–12 partnerships, facilitating implementation, as seen in Darling-Hammond et al. [6]. Rural instructors cited resource shortages, aligning with Nafiu and Olaitan [17]. Focus groups added depth, with urban pre-service teachers expressing confidence, one saying, “Our program’s resources and training let us use these methods effectively.” Rural participants noted, “We know these methods are valuable, but we cannot practice them due to lack of support.” Trust et al. [21] found that urban programs benefit from funding and technology, while Reich et al. [20] highlighted rural connectivity issues. Crompton and Burke [5] proposed mobile tech labs to bridge these gaps, ensuring equitable adoption. This study’s mixed-methods approach confirms urban advantages, necessitating targeted interventions for rural programs.

The ANOVA results rejected the null hypothesis (p < 0.05), indicating significant differences in preparedness by funding level, with well-funded programs reporting a mean of 4.2 and underfunded programs a mean of 3.5. Curriculum audits showed that well-funded programs integrate methodologies in 70% of syllabi, supported by advanced training and technology, while underfunded programs reflect only 25% integration. Instructors from well-funded programs, in interviews, described comprehensive professional development, enhancing preparedness, as in Crompton and Burke [5]. Focus groups from well-funded settings noted, “The training and tools we received made me feel ready for any classroom.” Underfunded participants said, “We lack resources to feel prepared.” These findings align with Darling-Hammond et al. [6], emphasizing funding’s role in preparation. Katz and Gonzalez [14] suggested targeted funding to bridge gaps, ensuring equitable readiness. The study highlights the need for resource allocation to boost underfunded program preparedness.

The t-test rejected the null hypothesis (p < 0.05), confirming differences in usability, with middle/high-income teachers at 80% agreement and low-income at 70%. Focus groups revealed low-income reliance on shared devices, with one saying, “I use the library computer, which is not always available.” Curriculum audits showed 60% device access in middle/high-income programs versus 30% in low-income ones. Instructors noted connectivity challenges for low-income students, aligning with Nafiu and Olaitan [18] and Reich et al. [20]. Eze et al. [9] suggested subsidies to improve usability, ensuring equitable access across socioeconomic groups.

CONCLUSION

The study demonstrates that project-based learning, flipped classroom models, and CRP hold immense potential for preparing pre-service teachers for 21st-century United States classrooms, effectively equipping them with the skills to engage diverse learners, leverage technology, and foster inclusive environments. Quantitative findings from the TEIS revealed significant differences, with urban programs outperforming rural ones in adoption rates and preparedness, reflecting the impact of robust infrastructure and training. Qualitative insights from instructor interviews, pre-service teacher focus groups, and curriculum audits further illuminate these disparities, highlighting urban programs’ success with K–12 partnerships and resource availability, as seen in 70% of urban syllabi integrating methodologies, compared to 20–30% in rural settings. However, the study echoes persistent inequities, particularly in rural and underfunded programs, where limited resources, connectivity issues, and inadequate training hinder implementation, perpetuating gaps in teacher preparedness.

The implications of these findings extend beyond individual programs to the broader educational landscape, calling for systemic reforms to ensure equitable teacher education across the United States. The theoretical frameworks, Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory, Mishra and Koehler’s TPAK, Davis’s TAM, and Ladson-Billings’ CRP, provide a solid foundation for understanding how social interaction, technology integration, usability perceptions, and cultural competence shape learning outcomes. Urban pre-service teachers’ collaborative experiences and access to cloud-based tools enhance their readiness, while rural teachers’ lack of similar opportunities limits their development. This study’s mixed-methods approach, triangulating data from surveys, interviews, focus groups, and audits, offers a comprehensive view, confirming that while these methodologies transform teacher preparation, their success depends on addressing socioeconomic and regional disparities.

The evidence suggests that without targeted interventions, the goal of preparing all pre-service teachers for diverse, technology-rich classrooms remains out of reach, necessitating immediate action to bridge these gaps and promote educational equity. Potential limitations include instructor experience, institutional culture, and student demographics, which may have influenced urban-rural differences. Urban programs’ prior tech exposure or established K–12 partnerships may contribute to their higher adoption rates, beyond resource disparities alone. Future research should control for these variables to isolate the effects of the intervention.

In light of the forgoing, the findings pave the way for a more inclusive and technologically advanced teacher education system, provided stakeholders act on the identified needs. The higher adoption and preparedness in urban, well-funded programs demonstrate what is possible when resources and training align with pedagogical innovation, offering a model for national standards and policy development. Rural and underfunded programs, despite challenges, show potential for growth with proper support, as seen in qualitative feedback expressing enthusiasm for these methods when resources are available. This study builds on prior works, which advocate for systemic support, and contributes new insights into the specific barriers faced by low-income and rural pre-service teachers. These disparities, rooted in socioeconomic and regional factors, align with recent findings [4], [14], which necessitate the need for targeted interventions.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The findings of the study lead to the following actionable recommendations to enhance the integration of project-based learning, flipped classroom models, and CRP in teacher education programs across the United States, ensuring equitable preparation for all pre-service teachers. Each recommendation is grounded in the study’s quantitative and qualitative data, previous literature, and practical considerations to address the identified barriers and promote systemic improvement:

1. Develop national standards mandating the integration of these methodologies, tailored to regional contexts. Implement within 12 months, requiring 20-hour training modules and $500,000 in initial funding per state, monitored by accreditation bodies.
2. Provide $2 million annually for 3 years to fund devices, internet connectivity, and faculty training, deploying mobile labs with 20 devices each, as proposed by Crompton and Burke [5].
3. Facilitate partnerships with joint workshops and shared resources, starting within 6 months, to enhance field experiences, as suggested by Darling-Hammond et al. [6]
4. Launch a 6-month online training program in January 2026, targeting 50 rural instructors with hands-on sessions on cloud-based tools, addressing the 50% accessibility gap [18].
5. Deploy labs with trained staff, scheduled biweekly, within 18 months, raising rural usability from 50% to urban levels, per Crompton and Burke [4].
6. Integrate mandatory CRP training with diverse field placements, rolling out over 12 months, to match urban integration levels (78%), as recommended by Hirsh-Pasek et al. [13].
7. Offer device and internet subsidies within 9 months, targeting low-income teachers to close the 10% usability gap, based on Eze et al. [9].

Cost-Benefit Analysis. A cost-benefit analysis estimates the total cost of these interventions at $5 million over 3 years, including $2 million for rural funding, $1.5 million for training and labs, and $1.5 million for subsidies. Benefits include a projected 20% increase in rural preparedness (from 3.5 to 4.2), aligning with urban levels, based on TEIS data. This could enhance student outcomes by 15% (e.g., engagement, according to [4], reducing future educational disparities. The benefit-cost ratio, assuming a $10 million long-term educational value, is approximately 2:1, justifying the investment.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

To educators, researchers, and policymakers dedicated to advancing 21st-century education, your tireless efforts inspire this work.

REFERENCES

1. Akçayır, G., & Akçayır, M. (2018). The flipped classroom: A review of its advantages and challenges. Computers & Education, 126, 334–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.07.021
2. Bates, A. W. (2019). Teaching in a digital age (2nd ed.). Tony Bates Associates Ltd.
3. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
4. Cox, J. (2023). Teaching methods for the 21st century. https://www.graduateprogram.org/blog/teaching-methods-for-the-21st-century/
5. Crompton, H., & Burke, D. (2022). Mobile learning in teacher education: Addressing equity through technology. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 54(4), 567–582. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2021.1893578
6. Darling-Hammond, L., Flook, L., Cook-Harvey, C., Barron, B., & Osher, D. (2020). Implications for educational practice of the science of learning and development. Applied Developmental Science, 24(2), 97–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2018.1537791
7. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
8. Donohue, C., & Schomburg, R. (2017). Technology and young children: Bridging the gap. Young Children, 72(4), 72–78.
9. Eze, S. C., Chinedu-Eze, V. C., & Bello, A. O. (2018). Cloud-based learning: Opportunities and challenges in higher education. Journal of Educational Technology, 45(3), 231–245.
10. Gay, G. (2018). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice (3rd ed.). Teachers College Press.
11. Guernsey, L., & Levine, M. H. (2020). Tap, click, read: Growing readers in a world of screens. Jossey-Bass.
12. Guo, P., Saab, N., Post, L. S., & Admiraal, W. (2020). A review of project-based learning in higher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 94, 103–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103118
13. Hirsh-Pasek, K., Golinkoff, R. M., & Hassinger-Das, B. (2019). A whole new world: Education meets the digital age. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 20(2), 67–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100619876261
14. Katz, V. S., & Gonzalez, C. (2022). Digital equity in education: Addressing disparities in access. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 58, 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2021.08.003
15. Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312032003465
16. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
17. Nafiu, H. A., & Olaitan, A. O. (2025a). Enhancing early childhood education through technology integration in U.S. classrooms. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, 9(3S), 3427–3452. https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.903SEDU0253
18. Nafiu, H. A., & Olaitan, A. O. (2025b). Perceptions of cloud-based learning facilities among U.S. college students. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, 9(3S), 3036–3053. https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.903SEDU0230
19. National Center for Education Statistics. (2023). Teacher education programs in the U.S. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cfa
20. Reich, J., Levinson, M., & Johnston, W. (2020). Remote learning in a pandemic: Challenges and opportunities. Harvard Educational Review, 90(2), 233–256. https://doi.org/10.17763/1943-5045-90.2.233
21. Trust, T., Krutka, D. G., & Carpenter, J. P. (2019). “Together we are better”: Professional learning networks for teachers. Computers & Education, 143,
22. Villegas, A. M., & Lucas, T. (2021). Preparing culturally responsive teachers: A coherent approach. Harvard Educational Review, 91(1), 97–122. https://doi.org/10.17763/1943-5045-91.1.97
23. Belland, B. R., Kim, C., & Hannafin, M. J. (2019). A framework for designing scaffolds that improve problem-solving in project-based learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67(3), 567–589.
24. Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2019). Flipped learning and student engagement: The role of technology support. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 22(4), 45–60.
25. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
26. Williams, M. K., Foulger, T. S., & Wetzel, K. (2019). Preparing preservice teachers for 21st century classrooms: Transforming attitudes and behaviors about innovative technology. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 17(3), 393–418. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/28216