Transformative Pedagogies for Teacher Education: Moving Towards Critical Praxis in an Era of Change 9781641131070, 9781641131087, 9781641131094

Citation preview

Transformative Pedagogies for Teacher Education Moving Towards Critical Praxis in an Era of Change

A Volume in Transformative Pedagogies in Teacher Education Series Editors Ann E. Lopez University of Toronto Elsie L. Olan University of Central Florida

Transformative Pedagogies in Teacher Education Ann E. Lopez and Elsie Lindy Olan, Editor Transformative Pedagogies for Teacher Education: Moving Towards Critical Praxis in an Era of Change (2018) edited by Ann E. Lopez and Elsie Lindy Olan

Transformative Pedagogies for Teacher Education Moving Towards Critical Praxis in an Era of Change edited by

Ann E. Lopez

University of Toronto and

Elsie Lindy Olan

University of Central Florida

-

INFORMATION AGE PUBLISHING, INC. Charlotte, NC • www.infoagepub.com

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data CIP record for this book is available from the Library of Congress http://www.loc.gov

ISBNs: 978-1-64113-107-0 (Paperback)

978-1-64113-108-7 (Hardcover)



978-1-64113-109-4 (ebook)

Copyright © 2018 Information Age Publishing Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording or otherwise, without written permission from the publisher. Printed in the United States of America

CONTENTS About the Series Ann E. Lopez and Elsie Lindy Olan.................................................... vii Foreword Christine Sleeter...................................................................................xi Preface Ann E. Lopez and Elsie Lindy Olan.....................................................xv Acknowledgments.................................................................................... xxi 1. Disrupting and Problematizing Teachers’ Notions of Equity Pedagogy: Narrative Pedagogy and Dialogic Interactions as Transformative Practices Elsie Lindy Olan.................................................................................. 1 2. When Effective Instruction Is Not Enough: A Critical Look at Emergent Understandings of Liberatory Pedagoy by Teachers in a Master’s Program Misty Sailors, Miriam Martinez, Logan Manning, Dennis S. Davis, Rebecca Stortz, and Teresa Sellers............................. 15 3. “I’m Just Playing Devil’s Advocate”: Preservice Teachers’ Identity Construction Through Dialogic Talk Eileen M. Shanahan............................................................................31 4. A Framework for Enacting the Metapedagogy Method in Teacher Education: What Why Where When and How Matthew Thomas and Ann Yehle......................................................... 51

v

vi  CONTENTS

5. Enacting Theory-and-Practice Pedagogies Within a Teacher Preparation Program: Experiences of Teacher Candidates Kevin O’Connor, Gladys Sterenberg, and David Dillon........................ 69 6. Toward Transformative Practices in Teacher Development: Lessons From Research With Youth of Color Louie F. Rodriguez and Tara Brown................................................... 87 7. What Is the Skill of Teaching? A New Framework of Teachers’ Social Emotional Cognition Vanessa Rodriguez and Bryan Mascio................................................103 8. Teaching Cases as Pedagogical Tools for Transformative Practice AnnMarie Gunn, Susan Bennett, James Welsh, and Barbara Peterson.............................................................................. 123 9. [Un]Consciously [Dis]Serving English Learners: A Reflection of Bilingual Teacher Educators on the Border Jeanette Haynes Writer, Lida J. Uribe-Florez, and Blanca Araujo........141 10. Disruptive Pedagogy: Critical Approach to Diversity in Teacher Education Ann E. Lopez................................................................................... 157 11. “I Don’t Have the Resources to Learn, or … the Time to Do That”: Teacher Educators’ Perspectives and Practices of Preparing Preservice Teachers for English Language Learners Guofang Li, Yue Bian, and Jose Manuel Martinez..............................175 About the Editors/Authors...................................................................... 195

ABOUT THE SERIES Ann E. Lopez and Elsie Lindy Olan

Transformative Pedagogies for Teacher Education is a book series that feature the work of teacher educators across the globe that are engaging in alternative pedagogies grounded in social justice to meet the needs of students. This series is about praxis—connecting theory to educational practices that practitioners, scholars and activists can draw on as they seek to create meaningful and lasting change in the lives of students. The research, experiences and practices highlighted in this series foreground the voices and experiences of teacher educators who are working with teacher candidates and in classrooms; all on a journey to create more equitable practices no matter their contexts. We live in a world where borders are shrinking and people are on the move. As teacher educators, we must vow to include the richness that this diversity brings to education. Each author is committed to the cause and to the goals of equity, guided by their own experiences and contexts. The teacher educators who contributed to this series are unique in their own way, each sharing narratives and experiences that inform their journey. Their research reflect new and different ways to prepare teacher candidates to enter classrooms and schools that have vastly changed over the last 20 years. It is our hope that this project will encourage not only teacher educators and teacher candidates, but also educational leaders and policymakers to seek out alternative approaches to education to addresses the needs of students who have traditionally been marginalized.

Transformative Pedagogies for Teacher Education: Moving Towards Critical Praxis in an Era of Change, pp. vii–ix Copyright © 2018 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

vii

viii  A. E. LOPEZ and E. L. OLAN

Transformative pedagogy empowers students to critically examine beliefs, values, and knowledge with the aim of developing new epistemologies, center multiple ways of knowing, and develop a sense of critical consciousness and agency. Singer and Pezone (2000) urge teacher educators not to become pessimistic and overwhelmed by societal and educational challenges, but seek out ways to engage in transformative actions. Grounded in the work of Dewey and Freire, the works in this series take a critical approach to education. Freire (1970) pedagogical aim was to ensure that the oppressed had educational experiences that allowed them to take control over their own lives. It is important for teacher candidates and teacher educators to work keep this at the forefront of their work given the current complexities of schooling. Freire believed that education should be a vehicle for hope for society at large. In this endeavour both educators and students should explicitly challenge social injustice and oppression. According to Freire, knowledge emerges through invention and re-invention, through the restless, impatient, continuing, hopeful inquiry human beings pursue in the world, with the world and with each other. The authors seek to enact teacher education in the traditions of Dewy (1961) who suggests the ideals of democratic education must translate into experiential learning, and pragmatic actions combined with reflective thinking. If we are to advance the education then theory must be connected to practice. By examining our practices as teacher educators we engage in continuous learning that enables new knowledge to emerge in the hope of creating change in education and society. As Freire (1970) argues the role of the teacher is to ask questions by engaging in problem-posing methodologies, support students to discover new ideas, value their life experiences and include prior experiences as the basis for new academic understanding and social action, a process he refers to as conscientization. Different and alternative transformative pedagogical approaches weave through this series. Through the frame of liberatory pedagogy (Freire, 1970), that focuses on raising critical consciousness and recognizes that education is political; culturally responsive pedagogy (Gay, 2010; Ladson-Billings, 1995a; Villegas & Lucas, 2008) which argues for the cultural references of students to be represented in all aspects of learning; participatory action research (Reason & Bradbury, 2001) that captures the voices and experiences of urban youths and advances practical knowledge in pursuit of social action; case studies (Merseth, 1994; Shulman, 1992) that bridge theory to practice divide; the voices of teacher educators working on the border; and disruptive pedagogy (Lee, 2014) authors share narratives, colaboring with the students sharing experiences in pursuit of teacher education to transform education and social change. Teacher educators share not only their aspirations for education, but also their vulnerabilities on the journey of liberatory education.

About the Series   ix

We hope that different approaches and pedagogies highlighted in this series will advance the work of educators committed to social justice and more equitable outcomes for students who are at the margins, a better society and a more democratic world. Indeed this is the aim of transformative education. REFERENCES Dewey, J. (1961). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. Oakland, CA: Macmillan Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Herder and Herder. Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491. Lee, B. (2014). Teaching disruptively: Pedagogical strategies to teach cultural diversity and race. In E. Fernandez (Ed.), Teaching for culturally diverse and racially just world (pp. 147–166). Eugene, OR: Cascade Books. Lucas, T., Villegas, A. M., & Freedson-Gonzalez, M. (2008). Linguistically responsive teacher education: Preparing classroom teachers to teach English language learners. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(4), 361–373. Merseth, K. K. (1994). Cases and case method in teacher education. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 722–744). New York, NY: MacMillan. Reason, P., & Bradbury. H. (2001), Introduction: Inquiry and participation in search of a world worthy of human aspiration. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research (pp. 1–14). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Shulman, L. S. (1992). Toward a pedagogy of cases. In J. L. Shulman (Ed.), Case method in teacher education (pp. 1–32). New York, NY: Teacher College Press. Singer, A., & Pezone, M. (2000). A response to Annette Hemming’s ‘high school democratic dialogues: Possibilities for praxis’. American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 535–539.

FOREWORD Christine Sleeter

Transformative Pedagogies for Teacher Education arrives at a time when such a book is not only welcomed, but also much needed. Currently teacher educators who are committed to social justice face numerous challenges. For one thing, all over the world student populations continue to diversify as migrants seek economic opportunity and refugees flee violence. As a result, educators struggle to figure out how to teach their increasingly diverse students in countries ranging from Greece and Italy, to South Korea, from Australia and New Zealand, to India. For example, in the United States, by 2013, public school students were 50% of color; as this book went to print, there was no racial/ethnic student majority (National Center for Education Statistics, 2016), and in the context of growing economic inequality, a majority of students came from families living in poverty (Layton, 2015). The growing diversity of students, often enmeshed within growing economic inequality, presents urgent challenges that go beyond attempts to frame policy. In Greece, for example, the national law promoting crosscultural education uses vague wording that allows for a wide range of interpretations, while normalizing segregation and obsessing on cultural differences (Mitakidou, 2011). Canada, which national policy frames as bilingual and multicultural, grapples with its foundation in settler colonialism, and its casting of differences in terms of language and culture but not race (Haque, 2014). European Union policies that purport to include

Transformative Pedagogies for Teacher Education: Moving Towards Critical Praxis in an Era of Change, pp. xi–xiv Copyright © 2018 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

xi

xii  C. SLEETER

Roma students often fail to impact how students are actually treated in schools and classrooms (Miskovic & Curcic, 2016). For teachers and teacher educators, multiculturalism as lived out in schools and communities presents urgent challenges, particularly in contexts of backlash against immigration. For example, Eksner and Cheema (2017) report interviews with Muslim youth who grew up in Germany where currently about 5% of the population are members of ethnic communities that identify as majority Muslim. The authors write that, Youths marked as Muslim experience intersectional “othering” as being marked as (1st, 2nd, 3rd) immigrants, ethnocultural “others” and because of their assumed religious membership. “Othering” of youths marked as Muslim is based on certain visible markers (e.g., phenotype or name) and works via the ascription of both religious membership (i.e., being born into a Muslim family) and religious orientation (i.e., de facto beliefs), both of which are discursively connected to conservative and radical political and cultural beliefs and practices. (p. 169)

Their “othering” is underscored by media representations that stereotype and oversimplify the students’ communities, and implicitly link Islam with terrorism. For teacher educators, the question becomes: How do we prepare teachers to respond proactively and constructively to their students, given larger contexts of difference and power within which children and youth live? And how do we do this work in contexts where neoliberalism has increased the privatization of education, policies have deprofessionalized teaching and shortened teacher education (e.g., Zeichner, 2008), and testing regimes narrowly constrain what students are to learn? While this book arrived during a time of challenges and changes, it also arrives at a propitious time of growing knowledge about culturally responsive and social justice teaching, as well as work on behalf of schools as sites for liberation and justice. For example, in the United States, the research on the academic and social impact of ethnic studies on children and youth (Sleeter, 2011) has been instrumental in supporting grassroots mobilizing in numerous school districts to institutionalize ethnic studies teaching in schools. Conferences are regularly held in which teachers and teacher educators share progressive and activist practices and learn from each other. Examples include the National Association for Multicultural Education and the Teacher Activist Groups in the United States, and the Korean Association for Multicultural Education’s annual conference. Indigenous communities in many parts of the world are reconstituting education as tribal-centered and aimed toward cultural reclamation, empowerment, and self-determination (e.g., McCarty & Lee, 2014).

Foreword  xiii

Transformative Pedagogies for Teacher Education resonates well with Milner’s (2008) extrapolation of several core principles from social movements to the work of transforming teacher education. First, Milner writes that activists must establish a common agenda and vision. Social justice-minded teacher educators and their collaborators must develop enough conceptual convergence that despite differences, they can work as a unified collective. Transformative Pedagogies for Teacher Education represents an important part of that process of developing a common collective vision. Even though the chapters speak to various innovations within different teacher education programs, they are similarly anchored in a vision that values differences, dialog across those differences, critical analysis of unequal power relations, and the potential of teachers learning to work in collaboration with their students. Second, Milner (2008) argues that social movement work takes account of contexts, realities, and resources. There is no one formula; local work is necessary. This principle is beautifully embodied in this book, in which authors speak from their own work with programs in specific contexts, while sharing insights that others may draw on, learn from, and perhaps adapt. Third, Milner (2008) points out that movements connect “pro-action, re-action, and prediction” (p. 340) using evidence of impacts of past practices and trends to make a case for changes for the future. Many of the chapters in this book not only describe innovative practices, but also report data on the transformative impact of their work, data that can guide future developments. Finally, movements involve persistent long-term work. In that sense, the series in which Transformative Pedagogies for Teacher Education appears represents numerous teacher educators coming together to dialogue, share strategies, and draw strength and inspiration from each other for the long haul of transforming teacher education. I commend this book to readers, who, by engaging with it, become part of the dialogue and ongoing collective transformational work. REFERENCES Eksner, H. J., & Cheema, S. N. (2017). “Who gere is a Real German?” German Muslim youths, othering, and education. In J. A. Banks (Ed.), Citizenship education and global migration (pp. 161–181). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Haque, E. (2014). Multiculturalism within a bilingual framework: A retrospective. Canadian Ethnic Studies, 46(2), 119–125.

xiv  C. SLEETER Layton, L. (2015, January). Majority of U.S. public schools students are in poverty. The Washington Post. Retrieved from www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/ majority-of-us-public-school-students-are-in-poverty/ McCarty, T. L., & Lee, T. S. (2014). Critically culturally sustaining/revitalizing pedagogy and Indigenous education sovereignty. Harvard Educational Review 84(1), 101–124. Milner, H. R., IV. (2008). Critical race theory and interest convergence as analytic tools in teacher education policies and practices. Journal of Teacher Education, 59, 332–346. Miskovic, M., & Curcic, S. (2016). Beyond inclusion: Reconsidering policies, curriculum, and pedagogy for Roma students. International Journal of Multicultural Education 18(2), 1–14. Mitakidou, S. (2011). Cross-cultural education in Greece: History and prospects. In C. A. Grant & A. Portera (Eds.), Intercultural and multicultural education (pp. 83–97). New York, NY: Routledge. National Center for Education Statistics (2016, May). Racial/ethnic enrollment in public schools. The Condition of Education. Retrieved from nces.ed.gov/ programs/coe/indicator_cge.asp Sleeter, C. E. (2011). The academic and social value of ethnic studies. Washington, DC: National Education Association. Zeichner, K. M. (2008). Teacher education and the struggle for social justice. New York, NY: Routledge.

PREFACE Faced with an era of change, political uncertainty and demographic shifts that transcend borders, we, teacher educator researchers and practitioners, envisioned a text where teacher educators, teacher leaders, educational activist and teacher candidates would problematize, disrupt and re-envision the current teacher practices. Demographic shift and increasing ethnic and cultural diversity in schools and higher education has created urgencies for educators to prepare students to participate in an increasingly diverse democracy, but also to respond to such diversity within their own sites of learning and teaching (DeMulder & Eby, 1999). Transformative pedagogy is about teaching and learning that critically examines educational structures and systems, posits alternative knowledge, includes multiple perspectives, and supports students in developing critical consciousness and agency to act and bring about change. Transformative pedagogy “engages students as critical thinkers, participatory and active learners, and envisioners of alternative possibilities of social reality (Nagda, Gurin, & Lopez, 2003, p. 167). According to Nagda, Gurin, and Lopez (2003), this requires educators to understand both the practical and political nature of teaching if meaningful change is to occur. In a period of dramatic technological and social change, educators need to foster a variety of transformative pedagogies to make education relevant to the demands of a new millennium. This must be grounded in critical approaches and as Gay (2010) asserts, requires an ongoing process of changing the environmental, cognitive, and pedagogical contexts in which teaching and learning occurs. Transformative learning has become

Transformative Pedagogies for Teacher Education: Moving Towards Critical Praxis in an Era of Change, pp. xv–xix Copyright © 2018 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

xv

xvi  A. E. LOPEZ and E. L. OLAN

a dominant teaching paradigm and approach within the field of adult education and has interested scholars and educators from all areas of education (Mezirow & Taylor, 2011). More specifically, the problem this book attempts to address is how critical educators can create a language that enables teachers to examine the role that schooling plays in joining transformative pedagogies for teacher education. It is undergirded by Freire (1970) notion of dialogic education that challenges what Freire calls the “banking approach to education” in favor of an approach that centers the knowledge, perspectives and experiences of students and teachers in the education process. Our assumptions are that transformative pedagogies and critical praxis are altering every aspect of our society and culture, and that we need to comprehend and make use of them both to understand and transform our worlds. Introducing transformative pedagogies to empower individuals and groups traditionally excluded would require a reconstruction of education to make it more responsive to the challenges of a democratic and multicultural society. Through critical theoretical frameworks we excavate biases and assumptions and see what is possible in our sphere of influence as educators (Lopez, 2016). According to McLaren, (2015) critical educators advocate for social justice, live with the understanding that knowledge is always partial and incomplete. He suggests, “educators must unravel and understand the relationship among schooling, the wider capitalist social relations that inform it and the historically constructed needs and competencies that students bring to school” (p. xxi). Critical frameworks must be linked to practices and behaviors for change to occur (Montano, Lopez-Torres, DeLissovoy, Pacheo, & Stillman, 2002). This book seeks to create that linkage. It is about praxis, connecting theory to action. Freire (1970) reminds us that educators must take action within a theoretical framework of thought, critical inquiry with others, engage in creative reflection and action in order to change the world. This text draws on the experiences of teacher educators in bridging the theory to practice divide that teacher candidates experience on their journey of learning to teach. By examining dissonance and tensions that teacher candidates and teachers experience, we hope to unite a chorus of voices where dialogue is fostered, experiences and practices are shared, and teachers are challenged to think about, deconstruct and problematize what it means to educate new teachers in forever changing schools and classrooms contexts. When we look at the dynamics that equity, diversity, social justice and sustainability play in our education, it is easy to see why it can be challenging to provide teacher candidates with alternative transformative approaches to learning and teaching. In book one, Transformative Pedagogies: Moving Towards Critical Praxis in an Era of Change, we provide a range of empirical and experiential accounts of teacher educators, scholars and educational activists engaging in transformative praxis as they work towards creating

Preface  xvii

meaningful experiences for both learners and teachers. We had three main goals in writing this text: • Highlight possibilities for action not only in the preparation of teachers for increasingly changing contexts, but schooling as a conduit for global diversity and competence. • Support teacher educators, scholars and educational activist engaging culturally responsive practices that are sustainable. • Provide a platform where teacher educators, scholars and educational activists’ empirical and experiential research can better inform the education system (locally and globally) in order to support the whole child and the teaching profession.

APPROACH The title of book 1, Transformative Pedagogies: Moving Towards Critical Praxis in an Era of Change, of our book series, Transformative Pedagogies in Teacher Education, speaks to two fundamental components of transformative practices: the critical examination of beliefs, values, and knowledge with the aim of developing new epistemologies, center multiple ways of knowing, and developing a sense of critical consciousness and agency and the discovery of alternative and more authentic ways to engage both “across and within the various ethnic and racial communities” (Howard, 2016). In this text, readers will discover a valuable resource in teacher education courses in both methods and foundation courses examining the social and political context of schools as well as curricular initiative and implementations that impacts both teachers and students. This text is also of great value as a resource for professional development. As schools become diverse, there is an imminent call for teacher educators to be transformative. Now, more that ever teacher education programs are called upon to prepare teachers and educational activist so that they can respond to the growing needs of diverse students. Increasing diversity in Canadian and American schools is a reality that cannot be ignored and presents significant challenges for teachers and educational leaders (Beachum & McCray, 2004). Demographic shifts have brought about greater diversity in Western countries. Populations have become more diverse ethnically, racially, socially, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, physical abilities, languages spoken and religion. There still continues to be calls for publications that go beyond theorizing, but also share practices and strategies that others can learn from.

xviii  A. E. LOPEZ and E. L. OLAN

ORGANIZATION In each chapter, authors draw on current research and literature; examine gaps as well as areas of convergence and divergence. Teacher educators identify, describe, and analyze transformative pedagogies. By presenting dialogic interaction and talk, liberatory pedagogy, and poetic inquiry, authors share teacher narratives about working on the border while disrupting existing pedagogies. They present frameworks that enact transformative pedagogies in teacher preparation programs and school settings. As they engage in advancing practical knowledge in pursuit of social action, authors capture the voices, lived experiences and tensions of youth of color, teachers and those invested in teacher preparation programs. Authors share narratives about colaboring with students and colleagues where notions are framed utilizing not only their aspirations for education, but also their pursuit to transform education and bring social change. It is important for educators to collaborate as they work towards greater justice in society and education, and seek better outcomes for all students, but most importantly for students who are marginalized and oppressed. As Howard (2007) argues educators must move beyond blame and befuddlement and work to transforming not only ourselves, but also our schools so that we can serve all students well. This is what a book and a series about transformative pedagogies in teacher education seek to do. Ann E. Lopez Elsie Lindy Olan REFERENCES Beachum, F., & McCray, C. (2004). Cultural collision in urban schools. Current Issues in Education, 7(4), 1–5. DeMulder, E. K., & Eby, K. K. (1999). Bridging troubled waters: Learning communities for the 21st century. American Behavioral Scientist, 42(3), 892–901. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum Gay, G. (2010). Acting on beliefs in teacher education for cultural diversity. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1–2), 143–152. Howard, G. R. (2016). We can’t teach what we don’t know: White teachers, multiracial schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Lopez A. E. (2016). Culturally Responsive and socially just leadership in diverse contexts: From theory to action. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan McLaren, P. (2015). Life in schools: An introduction to critical pedagogy in the foundations of education. New York, NY: Routledge. Montaño, T., López-Torres, L., DeLissovoy, N., Pacheco, M., & Stillman, J. (2002). Teachers as activists. Teacher development and alternate sites of learning. Equity & Excellence in Education, 35(3), 265–276.

Preface  xix Nagda, B., Gurin, P., & Lopez, G. (2003). Transformative pedagogy for democracy and social justice. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 6(2) 165–191. Mezirow, J., & Taylor, E. W. (Eds.). (2011). Transformative learning in practice: Insights from community, workplace, and higher education. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This series represent a vision realized. It is dedicated to teacher educators who work with teacher candidates and in teacher education programs, across the globe to prepare new teachers to enter increasingly diverse schools and communities. The first book in this series would not have been possible without the contributions of dedicated teacher educators, for which we are grateful. Their contributions have made this journey a rich learning experience. It is our hope that they will find this first book in the series useful as they seek to engage in transformative and radical teaching, to improve the learning outcomes for students. We owe a debt of gratitude to Natalia Ortiz for her artistic vision and design of the book cover, which we hope will capture the imagination of educators everywhere. We acknowledge the helpful suggestions of Dr. Marcus Anthony Vu, Marcelo Julio Maturana and of the many anonymous reviewers. We thank Benjamin Gonzalez and George Johnson from Information Age Publishing for their feedback, patience and guidance throughout this project. Your support has been invaluable. Thanks to our families for their support throughout this process. Their love and support have kept us going through many hours at the computer and long nights. Ann would like to acknowledge her grandmother who is her inspiration, who taught her to challenge injustice everywhere, and to find joy in learning. Our hope is that researchers and practitioners will find this first book in the series useful as they seek to connect theory to practice through meaningful and transformative actions. We have colabored on this project

Transformative Pedagogies for Teacher Education: Moving Towards Critical Praxis in an Era of Change, pp. xxi–xxii Copyright © 2018 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

xxi

xxii  ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

with a sense of common purpose and conviction as educators seeking to create radical change undergirded by a Freirean philosophy that is learnercentered and liberatory. We hope this book will inspire and enrich the educational process and journey of teacher educators.

CHAPTER 1

DISRUPTING AND PROBLEMATIZING TEACHERS’ NOTIONS OF EQUITY PEDAGOGY Narrative Pedagogy and Dialogic Interactions as Transformative Practices Elsie Lindy Olan

INTRODUCTION According to Banks (1997) the ethnic texture of the United States is changing and most teachers are likely to have students from diverse ethnic, racial, language, and religious groups in their classrooms, which has given rise to interracial tensions and conflicts. In teacher education, this conundrum has brought into focus how teachers are trained to enter and teach in schools within this new reality. Banks (2009) suggests that race relations in schools and classrooms must be improved so that all students acquire the knowledge, attitudes, and skills needed to participate in cross-cultural interactions and personal, social and civic action that will help make the nation more democratic and just. If teachers are going to meet the needs Transformative Pedagogies for Teacher Education: Moving Towards Critical Praxis in an Era of Change, pp. 1–14 Copyright © 2018 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

1

2  E. L. OLAN

of students, then space must be created that allows for reflective inquiry on the teaching and learning process. Adopting an equity pedagogy, that is, modifying one’s teaching to bring about the academic achievement of students from diverse racial, ethnic, culture, gender and social class groups (Banks, 2009), can assist learners from varied backgrounds to “attain the knowledge, skills, and attitudes needed to function effectively within, and help perpetuate a just, humane, and democratic society” (McGee, Banks, & Banks, 1995, p. 152). Howard (2016) argues that teachers must engage in transformationist pedagogy and step out of their comfort zones to discover alternative and more authentic ways to engage both across and within the various ethnic and racial communities. Transformation, according to Mezirow (2000) involves alienation from earlier established conceptions of values and one’s actions in the world, “reframing new perspectives, and re-engaging life with a greater degree of self-determination” (p. xii). I recognize that these pedagogical practices, classroom environments and perspectives contribute significantly to teachers’ dialogic interactions. Drawing from Gipps’ (2003) work, I use the working definition of pedagogy as “the interaction between the teacher, pupils, the learning environment and tasks” (p. 2) This definition encompasses the taught curriculum, the hidden curriculum, the dominant narratives, teachers’ narratives and pedagogical practices. This chapter sheds light on how three teachers’ narratives and dialogic interactions during weekly meetings disrupt and problematize their notions and experiences with equity pedagogy. It is my hope that readers can identify teachers’ resistance when talking about their notions of equity pedagogy while reflecting on their own experiences and teaching. The focus of this chapter is on year one of a 3-year qualitative study where three English language arts teachers (two Caucasian and one African American) met once a week for 2 hours at a campus conference room and shared their teaching experiences in public high schools where 82% or higher of the students come from low-income families. During these meetings, teachers crafted and shared personal narratives and reflections about their pedagogical practices, values and beliefs while engaging in dialogic interactions where notions of equity pedagogy were disrupted and problematized. Narrative Pedagogy and Dialogic Interactions Narratives are examined in order to learn how to appreciate the wider context of teachers’ lives and to understand their narrative accounts, and how these personal stories can illustrate their teacher development and teacher identity formation. Riessman (1993) suggests that the reported narrative form arguably gives stories more power than even resistant subversive acts. Telling the story “makes the moment live beyond the moment”

Disrupting and Problematizing Teachers’ Notions of Equity Pedagogy   3

(Riessman, 2008). Narratives and “life history approaches are widely used in the study of teachers’ lives” (Goodson & Gill, 2011, p. 31; Beattie, 2003; Cortazzi, 1993; Day, 2004; Goodson, 1991; Hargreaves & Goodson, 1996) Additionally, these studies focus on teachers’ thinking and personal and professional development (Carter, 1995; Casey, 1995; Clandinin & Connelly, 2000; Cole & Knowles, 2000, 2001; Connelly & Clandinin, 1990; Elbaz, 1990; Goodson & Goodson, 1992; Witherell & Noddings, 1991). Narrative pedagogy asserts that knowledge is constructed through reflection and dialogical conversations (Goodson & Gill, 2011). Literacy practices are hewn by understanding the social and historical context in which knowledge is learned (Street, 2003). Narrative understandings are founded on the observed and recorded actions of everyday lived experiences (Barton, Hamilton, & Ivanič, 2000). Learning is an active engagement that is defined by more than learning a set of skills. Instead, knowledge is negotiated, contested and enjoined (Gee, 2008) so as to incorporate and define our understanding of the world. Teacher educators acknowledge the importance of dialogic interactions present in narratives and conversations because it is through dialogic expression that ideas are probed, questioned and reflected upon. According to Bakhtin (1986), At any moment in the development of the dialogue there are immense, boundless masses of forgotten contextual meanings, but at certain moments of dialogues subsequent development along the way they are recalled and invigorated in renewed form (in a new context). (p. 170)

Through these dialogues, teachers in this study informed their pedagogical practices and beliefs and concurrently, recognized current issues, initiatives, and environments affecting their teaching. Bakhtin (1984) wrote about the medieval carnival-a time when, through anonymous play in the streets, the hierarchies of the world could be momentarily suspended “in which all take part … all are considered equal” (p. 7). As teachers’ interactions progressed, their level of comfort increased and they expressed feelings of equality. Teachers inquired, probed, elicited ‘truths’ and responded in storied fashion. During these dialogic interactions, teachers shared their fears, hopes, aspirations and frustrations. When people engage in dialogic interactions with the world around them, they need ways of navigating and traversing by and through “cultural stances that sustain integrity, and accommodate uncertainty that creates a sense of wobble” (Fecho, 2011; Garcia & O’Donnell-Allen, 2015). There is interplay, “spectrums and intersectionalities of cultural stances” that can help teachers step away from the binary thinking and categorization of cultures that is so problematic and prevalent in the current education and political climate (Fecho & Clifton, 2016).

4  E. L. OLAN

Culturally Relevant Pedagogy and Transformative Practices Twenty-two years ago Gloria Ladson-Billings (1995) published the groundbreaking article “Toward a Theory of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy,” giving teachers and teacher researchers, like myself hope and inspiration by what it means to make teaching and learning relevant to and for ALL students. Research continues to show that engagement among diverse students requires an approach where the how, what, and why of teaching are unified and meaningful (Ogbu 1995). Culturally relevant pedagogy addresses the multiple identities and experiences of students and suggest that their culture is an asset in teaching and learning instead of a deficit (Irvine & Armento, 2011). Culturally relevant teaching embraces the sociocultural realities and histories of students through not only pedagogy but also by the ways teachers negotiate classrooms cultures with their students. In this process, teachers become aware of their own learning, teaching and socialization, and how these experiences impact the teaching and learning process. Teachers are encouraged to engage in reflective thinking and writing as they begin to think about factors that impact student learning such as racism, homophobia, sexism and other forms of oppression. Gay (2013) states that culturally relevant teaching, in idea and action, emphasizes localism and contextual specificity. That is, it exemplifies the notion that instructional practices should be shaped by the sociocultural characteristics of the settings in which they occur, and the populations for whom they are designed. (p. 63)

When teachers experience difficult, troublesome events and/or experience situations they cannot immediately resolve, teachers step back to question and analyze their experiences. They ask themselves how can they support their students in valuing and maintaining the cultural and linguistic competence of their communities. Mezirow (2009) defines as “the expansion of consciousness through the transformation of basic worldview and specific capacities of the self: transformative learning results from a disorienting dilemma ... resulted from an accumulation of transformations in meaning schemes over a period of time” (p. 9). Culturally relevant teaching and cultural sustaining pedagogy involve transformative learning and practices. Paris (2012) offers the term of culturally sustaining pedagogy as an alternative that goes beyond pedagogies that are identified as relevant or responsive. He states that culturally sustaining pedagogy requires that teacher pedagogies be more than responsive of or relevant to the cultural experiences and practices of young people-it

Disrupting and Problematizing Teachers’ Notions of Equity Pedagogy   5

requires that they “support the value of our multiethnic and multilingual present and future” (p. 95). Paris and Alim (2017) clarify: In our conceptualization of Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy, we have moved away from (sometimes even progressive) pedagogies that are too closely aligned with linguistic, literate, and cultural hegemony. We are committed to envisioning and enacting pedagogies that are not filtered through the glass of amused contempt and pity (e.g., the “achievement gap”), but rather are centered on contending in complex ways with the rich and innovative linguistic, literate, and cultural practices of Indigenous, Black, Latinx, Asian, Pacific Islander, and other youth and communities of color. (p. 2)

Culturally sustaining pedagogy challenges all of those invested in education, global citizens, and equity pedagogy to move beyond visions of traditional schooling, standardization, binary systems and prescribed curricula in order to embody a “critical, emancipatory vision of schooling that reframes the object of critique from our children to oppressive systems” (p. 3) The Study: Disrupting and Problematizing Teacher’s Notions Equity Pedagogy By engaging in narrative pedagogy and dialogic interactions, Carly, Casey, and Malcolm are encouraged to continually weave backwards and forwards (protocol) through the experiences they share in their writings to revisit assumptions at various points, and to refine expectations, particularly in response to insights, inquiries and interpretations provided by others. During the second week of this study, teachers talked amongst themselves as I observed and developed field notes about their interactions. After much discussion, Carly, Casey, and Malcolm (pseudonyms) agreed upon formulating (in written form) the following question: What do you grapple with about your past that affects your teaching today? It was the their belief that by answering this question, each one of them would “get to know where they are coming from and what they bring to the table.” Below teachers described their struggles, fears and identities; subsequently, I analyzed and interpreted their responses. Carly’s Narrative When I was a little girl, I always pictured myself inspiring students to find their own creativity to become innovators rather than filling children’s minds with facts like filling pails. As an eleventh grade teacher with eleven years under my belt, it is disheartening to see myself slowly shift to focus more on data analysis, to where I now

6  E. L. OLAN see students as numbers instead of unique souls to be fostered. I feel like I’m in school again … faceless … invisible and not worthy (pause … silence). I am not privileged. My family was dirt poor as many of my students of color [pause … red-faced ... silence]. I do not want to forget where I come from and the access I have but I know that because of where my students are from they won’t trust me.

Casey’s Narrative As a child, I did not know what poverty meant. I attended private school with people that looked like me. From the moment I decided to become a teacher, I knew this was part of my story I needed to share with my ninth graders. I could not pretend to understand, nor could I say words of comfort like “I know how you are feeling.” After my fifth year of teaching, I was told by one of my students that my savior complex would wear off and that I was so invested in my students because of white guilt. I think that is the first time I listened really hard at some of the comments stated at the teachers’ lounge. “Don’t worry-don’t even try those kids are never going to learn that, and anyway that’s not part of the curriculum … you have to keep up”—I was horrified and troubled. I do not want to lose the creative fire to stimulate students in our system but would rather reform it to where teachers have the freedom to do so.

Malcolm’s Narrative I am a black male eleventh grade teacher that wrestles with the “angry black man” stigma. As a black man, I teach because I believe that teachers have the power to change the world every day, no matter how small a change that may be. Each time a teacher makes a student smile or encourages someone on their work or rewards a student’s effort they change that students’ world. Teachers hold great power, and they can make the world a better place in the blink of an eye. All I got to do is look in the mirror and that is my daily reminder of where I come from and what I’m judged by. I truly believe that the first misconception is that all black men are angry black men that come from poverty. When I was a boy, I was invisible to some or visible to all. If I was in class, I could blend with the rest of my classmates. Teachers would not look at the color of my skin and question my intellect. When I was out in gym class or during lunch, I was no longer invisible. I was a black boy that was too loud during recess. Teachers would jump if I jostled with another classmate or even if I laughed too loud.

After teachers read aloud their responses, they exchanged their writings. All teachers identified that they had in some way or another included a story. All three written responses began with a “bold” statement, followed by a teaching statement, and finally they all wrote about poverty. I instructed teachers to engage in further dialogue by asking them to share with each other what they would like to know more about. As for Carly’s written response, Casey and Malcolm wanted to know more about why she

Disrupting and Problematizing Teachers’ Notions of Equity Pedagogy   7

does not want to forget where she comes from. In Casey’s case, Carly and Malcolm wanted to know more about why was she listening to the comments made by teachers at the teachers’ lounge. Finally, Carly and Casey asked Malcolm about the angry black man stigma. Not one of these teachers mentioned or talked about experiences with poverty or lack of that was explicitly stated throughout their written responses. Before the meeting concluded, I asked the teachers to think about the context poverty was used throughout the writings they read and why had they not talked about it. I asked for them to write down their responses and that they could talk about it during our next meeting. I could not help but to think about how are these teachers enacting equity pedagogy when they themselves are uncomfortable talking about poverty or issues about race. How are these teachers fostering race relations in classrooms so that all students acquire the knowledge, attitudes, and skills needed to participate in cross-cultural interactions and personal, social and civic actions (Banks, 2006) that will help make the nation more democratic and just? During the third meeting, teachers were asked to read the responses to my question about why they did not talk about poverty, which in fact had been explicitly mentioned in each one of the written responses. Malcolm initiated the conversation: “Here goes the angry black man again. Obviously,I know what poverty is and I don’t mention it because it is not a badge of honor for me.” Carly responded, “poverty is not a badge of honor for me, but I do want my students to know that I too know what it feels to be poor. I did not mention it because not all of us share that feeling. I do not feel I have the right to talk because it is not expected from me.” Casey jumped in and said, “I didn’t feel like I could participate of the conversation because it seems hypocritical. I am who I am and I can’t change that even though I know what my students go through every day is tough and I’m supposed to make it better.”

All three teachers were writing about narratives of resistance to feelings of alienation, disenfranchisement, and discrimination that resulted from their daily interactions with students and colleagues. Carly’s struggle resides in her inability to connect to her students in spite of their “shared” impoverished upbringing. She also struggles with her passion for teaching and her students and how teaching and learning is no longer individualized and differentiated. On the other hand, Casey struggles with how her students perceive her “authenticity” and if she will ever really know if the “white guilt” and “savior complex” her student mentioned is something real. She

8  E. L. OLAN

is also concerned about being lost in this failure rhetoric where some students do not face a chance. Malcolm’s struggle relies on his conscientious balance between the “angry black man stigma” he cannot get away from and the power knowledge has bestowed upon him. Like Casey, Malcolm wrestles with the misconception that because he is a black man, he is angry and poor. Malcolm’s narrative not only questions identification and membership, but also self-expression, recognition and enactment. Following the protocol, teachers convened and crafted their next question. Their question was about teaching concepts of poverty, social justice and inequality and how teaching these concepts may or may not affect them as teachers, teacher-leaders and /or community members. Below are excerpts of teachers’ responses, followed by a critical analysis. Carly began by sharing: Having been at my school for the past eleven years, my journey is now taking me elsewhere and my opportunities are nearly limitless. Having had a plethora of unique and interesting experiences growing up, I knew that the teacher I would become would be vastly different than the types of teachers I had experienced throughout my journey. In addition, the realization that I was more than likely an undiagnosed gifted child growing up has also played a major role on the teacher I have become. One of the first major aspects that make up my theoretical framework as a teacher is giving my students choice whenever the opportunity arises. Having been blessed with many opportunities to choose what I learned and how I assessed my learning, I have always wanted my students to have those same opportunities in my classroom.”

Carly’s written response does not explicitly state how she teaches or taught the concepts of poverty, social justice and inequality, but her statements are indicative of how policies and practices in our public schools intended to promote a strong sense of efficacy, self-worth and civic participation and contribution contribute instead to feelings of incompetence, degradation, and alienation. Carly talks about her missed opportunity of being placed in gifted education and that was unfair. She cannot come from a position where she can talk about race and poverty, but she expresses that her lack of diagnosis equates to inequalites her students face. Her perception of equity for students relies on granting her students with choice. She expressed how she feels an affinity with her students because she has had to teach them with a scripted curriculum and acknowledges that as a student she was blessed because she was not exposed to a scripted curriculum. Once again, her inability to relate to her students’ experiences and talk to them about poverty, race and inequality is part of her struggle with her white privilege. Carly seems far removed from her students’ realities. Carly’s last statement identifies her positionality with equity pedagogy in her classroom where she has had a desire for her students to have the same opportunities that she had in her classroom.

Disrupting and Problematizing Teachers’ Notions of Equity Pedagogy   9

Casey commented: Although I have found some hope and freedom through the IB [The International Baccalaureate] programs, I still feel constrained in some ways. It is because of this restraint that over the last year I have been searching for a way out in order to teach the way I know is best for kids. Truth be told, I am so fed up with the way administrators want us to “educate.” I see our current secondary education system producing hollow drones rather than evolving souls to better humanity. Our system should be challenging students to think critically.

Casey’s response to poverty, social justice, and inequality is based on her teaching experience, her students’ learning or lack thereof, and disdain for a system that has “constrained her.” She acknowledged that her students deserved more than a system that is riddled with patterns of destruction and injustice for those that are members of the under-represented and under-served communities. She explained how the education system she works for is disinvested in students’ learning, emotional and physical needs, and civic participation and contribution. Casey’s response highlights her personal responsibility that comes with enhanced awareness about how the system is delaying our youth’s capacities and opportunities to demonstrate that they are capable of original insights, active participation and advocating /negotiating for more equitable opportunities. Malcolm followed and declared: I am the energetic, go-getter. The passionate “crazy” teacher who loves books and writing—the one who values everything my students have. Some kids might call me crazy after witnessing my eccentricities, but they know I am very knowledgeable and fun. I know I can make myself a better teacher because I am a lifelong learner and I continuously work to make the classroom a fair place. I do not want my students to walk in my class and look at me as the angry black teacher, but the teacher that treated them fairly. Students need to know that the system put in place will not let them down, and wants them to succeed. They need to be edified and validated. When they lose faith in their teachers they lose faith in themselves. Students need to know they are respected and they are valued on every level as smart and independent, free thinking individuals. Students need to know they are respected and they are valued on every level as smart and independent, free thinking individuals.”

Malcolm’s response is less about his lived experiences and teaching and more about his students’ learning and journey, and his expectations for them. He shared his belief that the education system he works for can offer his students a more promising response to pressing social and political structures and concerns-such as growing up as a member of an underrepresented and underserved community. Malcolm’s upbringing, educational opportunities and access, and his experiences of “deep” democracy in schools and society are not comparable to his students, thus the belief he

10  E. L. OLAN

has in his students’ abilities does not exclude the significant barriers, challenges and inequalities they continue to face. Malcolm’s response depicts his altruism and advocacy for his students’ learning nevertheless, it is his system that provides his students with limited and uncertain support that is characterized by reluctance and condescension. Findings The following five themes are particularly significant for the understanding of our participants’ problematizing and disrupting their notions of equity pedagogy: Flights of Fantasy—Teachers expressed a hope that their students will want to learn or at least accept the invitation to engage in learning activities, become invested, centered, better informed citizens and more proactive versus reactive in their decision making. On another hand, some teachers might believe the educational system does provide an egalitarian space where all students have access and acquire knowledge needed for students’ civic responsibility. Fight or Flight—Teachers are in some consensus on their aspirations for public education, equity pedagogy and social justice and they decide to stay and fight the lonely battle or they “fly away” where their intentions and actions are valued and make a difference. School’s Pervasive Culture of Overlooking the Disadvantaged—All three teachers’ struggle with or acknowledge their school’s pervasive culture of overlooking the disadvantaged and the larger political culture that infringes upon teachers’ academic freedom and students’ learning. Teachers and students in these impoverished school districts generally receive limited and uncertain support. Past Still Informs Present—Teachers responded in storied fashioned sharing lived experiences where issues about race, inequalities, social justice, and poverty shaped and defined their passions, professional goals and teaching. Narratives of Resistance—Teachers were writing about narratives of resistance to feelings of alienation, institutional disenfranchisement, displacement and judgment that resulted from their lived experiences and interactions with students and colleagues. CONCLUSION When teachers are afforded spaces and opportunities to engage in narrative practices to share and reflect on their experiences, they revisit their

Disrupting and Problematizing Teachers’ Notions of Equity Pedagogy   11

assumptions and make decisions regarding their pedagogical practices, values and beliefs. In this study, teachers’ storied responses were marked by inherent predilections, aspirations and contradictions. Nevertheless, these narratives depicted common themes where teachers experienced ideologies related to flights of fancy, appropriated a fight or flight stance, struggled with their school’s pervasive culture of overlooking the disadvantaged, had their lived experiences—past informed their present, and shared their vulnerabilities via their narratives of resistance. Teachers also shared how they wrestled with a system that is not equitable, promotes prescribed curricula, and gives teachers little to no academic freedom. These teachers identified and problematized the dominant narrative of a system that “will not let their students down” by inquiring how can they teach based on their students’ needs without support. Teachers disrupted the notion of “schools for all students” by questioning how can school administrators ensure that certain practices, opportunities and inclusive activities continue present in the grade they teach or school climate, specifically, if no one really knows what teachers do beyond the prescribed curriculum. The first three themes identified throughout teachers’ storied responses explored participants’ struggle with their teacher perception of power and change, and equity pedagogy. The last two themes were reflective of teachers’ values and challenges of sharing in an environment where power in not perceived as equal. As noted in teachers’ storied responses, high-stakes testing and standardized curriculum are the bulwarks of today’s public school classrooms. Teachers spoke openly and honestly about who they were, what they taught, and why they taught it. Teachers problematized the idea of closing an achievement gap or comparing student success based on their racial and cultural backgrounds. Teachers acknowledged that they face unrealistic demands and constraints that often obtrude upon their natural inclinations to provide free-flowing and personal classroom instruction. The desire to “fit in,” to “teach to the test” and/or to “conform to today’s demanding and rigorous classroom standards” can often impede the judgment of even the most knowledgeable and progressive classroom teacher. Nevertheless, even though teachers came from different backgrounds they shared similar positionality regarding their students equitable access to learning opportunities, social services, community—based initiatives and culture. Students, as well, face unrealistic demands when the educational system fails to acknowledge that many times their experiences cross racial and ethnic borders. These three teachers expressed an interest of equipping their students with the knowledge, skills and attitudes necessary to function effectively, and help create and perpetuate a just, humane, and democratic society (Banks, 2001). Teachers’ storied responses shed light to how three experienced teachers came to terms with their feelings about teaching in

12  E. L. OLAN

challenging environments, shared their interest in contributing to end inequality, and extended hope while inciting reflection on why teachers teach what they teach and what they can do differently. There is no explicit statement where these teachers stated an intention to disrupt the pervasive culture of disregarding the needs of disadvantaged and under-represented students or to rid the systemic and racial inequalities that are intricately woven into our schooling’s quilt. Part of these teachers’ narratives of resistance is their acknowledgment that at one time or another they felt alienated. Beyond the discomfort of revisiting their written responses and weave their own story, these teachers were able to recognize that talking about poverty, social justice and equity pedagogy in the context of their lived experiences and teaching is disrupting, threatening and uncomfortable. REFERENCES Bakhtin, M. M. (1984). Rabelais and his world (Vol. 341). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. In C. Emerson & M. Holquist (Eds.), (Vern W. McGee, Trans). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Banks, J. A. (2001). Citizenship education and diversity: Implications for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(1), 5–16. Banks, J. A. (2006). Improving race relations in schools: From theory and research to practice. Journal of Social Issues, 62(3), 607–614. Banks, J. A. (1997). Educating citizens in a multicultural society: Multicultural education series. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Banks, J. A. (2009). Dimensions and paradigms. The Routledge International Companionto Multicultural Education, 9. Barton, D., Hamilton, M., & Ivanič, R. (Eds.). (2000). Situated literacies: Reading and writing in context. London, UK: Routledge Psychology Press. Beattie, L. E. (Ed.). (2003). Conversations with Kentucky writers. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky. Carter, K. (1995). Teaching stories and local understandings. The Journal of Educational Research, 88(6), 326–330. Casey, C. (1995). Work, self, and society: After industrialism. London, UK: RoutledgePsychology Press. Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Experience and story in qualitative research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1990). Stories of experience and narrative inquiry. Educational researcher, 19(5), 2–14. Cole, A. L., & Knowles, J. G. (2000). Researching teaching. Exploring Teacher Development Through Reflexive Inquiry, 78.

Disrupting and Problematizing Teachers’ Notions of Equity Pedagogy   13 Cole, A. L., & Knowles, J. G. (Eds.). (2001). Lives in context: The art of life history research. Landham, MD:Rowman Altamira. Cortazzi, M. (1993). Narrative analysis (Vol. 12). London, England: Routledge Psychology Press. Day, C., & Sachs, J. (Eds.). (2004)Berkshire, England: McGraw-Hill International. Elbaz, F. (1990). Knowledge and discourse: The evolution of research on teacher thinking. In C. Day, M. Pope, & P. Denicolo (Eds.), Insights into teachers’ thinking and practice (pp. 15–42). London, England: Falmer Press. Fecho, B. (2011). Writing in the dialogical classroom: Students and teachers responding to the texts of their lives. Washington, DC: National Council of Teachers of English. Fecho, B., & Clifton, J. (2016). Dialoguing across cultures, identities, and learning: Crosscurrents and complexities in literacy classrooms. London, England: Taylor & Francis. Fecho, B., & Clifton, J. (2016). Dialoguing Across Cultures, Identities, and Learning: Crosscurrents and Complexities in Literacy Classrooms. London, UK: Taylor & Francis. Garcia, A., & O’Donnell-Allen, C. (2015). Pose, wobble, flow: A culturally proactive approach to literacy instruction. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Gay, G. (2013). Cultural Diversity and Multicultural Education. Curriculum Inquiry, 43(1), 48–70. Gee, J. P. (2008). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. London, England: Routledge. Gipps, C. V. (2003). Equity in the classroom: Towards effective pedagogy for girls and boys. London, UK: Routledge. Goodson, I. F. (1991). Sponsoring the teacher’s voice: Teachers’ lives and teacher development. Cambridge Journal of Education, 21(1), 35–45. Goodson, I., & Goodson, I. F. (Eds.). (1992). Studying teachers’ lives. London, UK: Routledge Psychology Press. Goodson, I., & Gill, S. (2011). Narrative pedagogy: Life history and learning. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Hargreaves, A., & Goodson, I. (Eds.). (1996). Teachers’ professional lives: Aspirations and actualities. In Teachers’ professional lives (pp. 1–27). London, England: Falmer Press. Howard, G. R. (2016). We can’t teach what we don’t know: White teachers, multiracial schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Irvine, J. J., & Armento, B. J. (2001). Culturally responsive teaching: Lesson planning for elementary and middle grades. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 46–491. McGee Banks, C. A., & Banks, J. A. (1995). Equity pedagogy: An essential component of multicultural education. Theory into practice, 34(3), 152–158. Ogbu, J. U. (1995). Cultural problems in minority education: Their interpretations and consequences—Part two: Case studies. The Urban Review, 27(4), 271–297. Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress (The Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

14  E. L. OLAN Paris, D. (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A needed change in stance, terminology, and practice. Educational Researcher, 41(3), 93–97. Paris, D., & Alim, H. S. (Eds.). (2017). Culturally sustaining pedagogies: Teaching and learning for justice in a changing world. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Riessman, C. K. (1993). Narrative analysis (Vol. 30). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Riessman, C. K. (2008). Narrative methods for the human sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Street, B. (2003). What’s “new” in New Literacy Studies? Critical approaches to literacy in theory and practice. Current Issues in Comparative Education, 5(2), 77–91. Witherell, C., & Noddings, N. (Eds.). (1991). Stories lives tell: Narrative and dialogue in education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

CHAPTER 2

WHEN EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTION IS NOT ENOUGH A Critical Look at the Emergent Understandings of Liberatory Pedagogy by Teachers in a Master’s Program Misty Sailors, Miriam Martinez, Logan Manning, Dennis S. Davis, Rebeccca Stortz, and Teresa Sellers

INTRODUCTION Traditionally conceived, literacy education has a history of neutrality that has only been reinforced in the current era of standardization and statedriven accountability. While promoting technically sound “good teaching” many teacher preparation programs fall short of equipping literacy educators to become literacy leaders who work against social inequities reproduced in hegemonic schooling practices. Given the well-documented failure of schools to meet the needs of all students, this study examines the emergent understandings of liberatory teaching of a cohort of in-service teachers attending a graduate literacy program that was in transition toward the embodiment of more overtly critical practices in literacy leadership. The

Transformative Pedagogies for Teacher Education: Moving Towards Critical Praxis in an Era of Change, pp. 15–30 Copyright © 2018 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

15

16  M. SAILORS ET AL.

program aimed to nurture critical literacy pedagogues who saw teaching for social justice as an imperative. This stance is important as the educational system continues to change without teacher input (Hargreaves & Bascia, 2000). As such, teachers must be able to adjust to and manage the change around them (Swanepoel, 2008). In order to teach toward transformation, teachers must participate socially and politically, demanding opportunities for political learning and community decision-making (Gastager, Patry, & Wiedemair, 2012). Furthermore, when teachers participate in school change, they feel more positive about the change and are willing to engage in future change (Poppleton & Williamson, 2004). Although many teachers want to be involved in change, most are not empowered to participate in the decision-making processes of schools (Swanepoel, 2008). Therefore, it is important that colleges of education prepare teachers to link their moral purpose for teaching with tools that will prepare them to engage in such change (Fullan, 1993), nurturing transformative spaces that encourage them to grapple with contradictions arising from their own schooling experiences (McWhinney & Marcos, 2003). Those tools might center on issues of diversity, social justice, and multiculturalism in teacher education programs (Goodwin et al., 2014). According to some scholars, social justice embraces all moral virtues because it predisposes an individual to be guided by one’s own virtuous goals, as well as those of others (Baumert, Rothmund, Thomas, Gollwitzer, & Schmitt, 2013). Nieto’s (2000) definition of social encompasses the values of a moral stance in that it requires a teacher to look “critically at why and how our schools are unjust for some students” (p. 183). Furthermore, it is a practice that involves “analyzing school policies and practices—the curriculum, textbooks and materials, instructional strategies, tracking, recruitment and hiring of staff, and parent involvement strategies—that devalue the identities of some students while overvaluing others” (p. 183). To better support teachers in their socially just educational practices, we worked to facilitate a “nonhierarchical interplay between academic, practitioner, and community expertise” (Zeichner, 2010, p. 89) in our formation of formed a district-based, master’s degree cohort of 14 teachers from one local school district. These students would seek a master of arts in education (MAEd) and would be prepared to apply for the state reading specialist certification. This was the first such cohort formed in our department, and because the core values of our department address leadership and social responsibility, we saw this as an opportunity to investigate the ways in which the cohort model supported the development of literacy leaders who were willing and able to participate in change with political clarity in their work (Bartolomé, 1994). We sought to answer the following midprogram research question: What is the understanding of liberatory pedagogy by

When Effective Instruction Is Not Enough   17

teachers enrolled in our MAEd program? And, how can we use the findings of this research question to assist us in revising our program? Theoretical Frame Freirean (1985) pedagogy asserts that education is always political and deals with relations of power. Becoming a liberatory educator involves the recognition of tensions related to dominant structures and the empowering of learners as subjects rather than objects of learning. It also involves critical questioning of our stances in order to forge “critical perceptions of reality” (p. 44) that raise our awareness and drive shifts toward transformative practice. Freire reminds readers that education is not neutral and that power is at the center of education (Freire, 1985, 2000; Freire & Macedo, 1987). The genesis of knowing is in the dialectical relationship between social actors and the social and historical contexts in which they operate. Accordingly, liberatory education must account for the relations of power that are at play for all stakeholders in schools. Freire (2000) discussed a model in which literacy is something that is given to people is not one that will move toward freedom. Freire (2000) explained the process of codification as one in which learners defamiliarize a known concept or experience in order to problematize it and understand the contradictions and complex social meanings behind it. Rather than receive information, learners analyze aspects of their own existential experience represented in the codification (p. 23). Through the coding process learners understand the ways they, often unknowingly, replicate hegemonic power hierarchies in their daily work. Freire (2000) asserts that literacy, as cultural action, requires a supplanting of mechanistic processes with dialogic ones. According to Freire, “teaching to read and write is no longer an inconsequential matter of ba, be, bi, bo, bu, of memorizing an alienated word, but a difficult apprenticeship in naming the world” (p. 19, emphasis original). We applied Freire’s work as a theoretical frame for understanding the multiple layers of literacy learning contained within our data set. Through a critical analysis we hope to better understand the practices that engender liberatory teaching and enable both teachers and their students to become subjects in the teaching and learning process (Bartolomé, 1994). Methodology We situate this study within the literature known as self-study, a method rooted in the tradition of research carried out by teachers (Lunenberg,

18  M. SAILORS ET AL.

Zwart, & Korthagen, 2010) known as action research. Self-study is selfinitiated, aimed at improving practices and programs, interactive, uses qualitative methods, and has a validation process based in trustworthiness (LaBoskey, 2009). Self-study is a fitting framework for teacher education programs that have social justice at their core (LaBoskey, 2009) as it allows teacher educators to examine their own practices to see if their beliefs align with their intentions (Loughran, 2007) and practices (Hamilton & Pinnegar, 2000). COHORT DESCRIPTION Cohort teachers were from a small, predominantly Latino, inner-city district in South Texas. The district approached us approximately one year prior to this study, requesting a partnership with our institution. We proposed to create a cohort of teachers who would enroll in our master of arts in education program with the goal of improving literacy instruction in district classrooms by working with these teachers, as they became “literacy leaders.” The program had a number of distinctive characteristics. First, we solicited cohort applicants from elementary, middle, and high school. Second, the district established a competitive application process to ensure that teachers with leadership potential were represented. Third, the district committed to paying a generous portion of teachers’ expenses. Finally, the University committed to offering (most) courses in the district. Fourteen teachers enrolled in the program; they represented grades 1, 2, 4, 6–11, and 12. The average years of teaching across these teachers was 8.2 years. More than half of these teachers grew up in the community in which they were now teaching. Faculty designed a program to fulfill degree requirements to prepare teachers to take the state reading specialist exam and address issues of concern in the district. Students would complete their program in five semesters. At the time of this study, the cohort had completed two semesters and 30 hours of fieldwork. Thirteen of the 14 teachers agreed to participate in this study. DATA SOURCES We used focus groups as our primary means of data collection because “people sometimes need to hear others’ ideas to recognize their own” (Pinnegar & Hamilton, 2009, p. 125). Focus groups also allow researchers to gather information about different perspectives that can be useful in self-studies (Pinnegar & Hamilton, 2009). We held a total of eight focus

When Effective Instruction Is Not Enough   19

group meetings: an initial set of four groups and a follow-up set 2 months later. Each lasted between 60 and 90 minutes; members remained in the same group across meetings. As a starting point for the first focus group conversation about their conceptualizations and enactments of liberatory pedagogy, teachers were asked to bring an artifact that represented their moral or professional dispositions as an educator. Our protocol consisted of semistructured questions, writing prompts, and follow-up, probes. Faculty members facilitated the groups, with another faculty member or doctoral student taking narrative field notes. Focus group facilitators transcribed their respective interviews and a second researcher verified each transcript for accuracy. Using digital images, we captured the various artifacts and writing prompts discussed during the meetings. Two months later, we organized for the second focus group meetings and asked teachers to study their own talk (via the transcripts) in order to problematize and unveil codified ways of being/acting/thinking about teaching. This activity was not only pedagogical in nature, but it also generated more data. As Freire 1985 wrote, “to study is not to consume ideas, but to create and re-create them” (p. 4). In this same spirit, we hoped that our students might use the opportunity to recreate their dispositions while coconstructing our understanding of our MAEd program. We sent each group their respective transcript and asked them to read it twice, first in its entirety to stimulate their memory of the previous focus group conversations and then to focus on, “Something that you noticed about the transcript/ conversation (a phrase or passage) that particularly resonated with you?” We opened each focus group with an invitation to make general comments on the content of the transcript and then moved into conversations about what they noticed. We followed the previously described process for data collection and transcription only this time their interpretations of their first transcripts entered into our data analysis. DATA ANALYSIS In the first phase of data analysis, we met as a full team to discuss preliminary thoughts about the data and thoughts about the cohort experience thus far in the program. We turned to the work of Jackson and Mazzei (2012) to guide our analysis as they “challenge qualitative researchers to use theory to think with their data (or use data to think with theory) in order to accomplish a reading of data that is both within and against interpretivism” (p. vi). This method resonated with us, as we were aware that we were not taking a neutral stance toward our data.

20  M. SAILORS ET AL.

Jackson and Mazzei’s (2013) process of “plugging in” enabled us to maintain fluidity between our theoretical stance, the coconstructed talk of teachers (data), and our emergent critique of our program as well as the development of a vision for a more liberatory praxis in our work with literacy educators. As the research team read and discussed the transcripts, we looked not only at the research question of what teachers at this moment in their graduate studies understood about liberatory pedagogy, but what this said about our own practices as teacher educators. We thought through the data with Freire’s theories noting similarities, differences, and contradictions as we “plugged in” theory, data, and self-reflection. Our analysis was conversational and resulted in initial interpretations of the data. In these initial meetings, we were struck by the ways that liberatory stances were largely absent from the data. It was through this initial analysis that we also reflected on what the data were telling us about the cohort experience in reference to the core values of our department. Following initial conversations, we divided into two research teams, each consisting of faculty and doctoral students. We alternated between small team and whole team meetings to discuss emergent articulations of our work. We found ourselves puzzling through the data, wondering about the ways in which teachers were talking about liberatory pedagogy, as well as what this data meant for the remainder of the cohort experience. We also discussed implications of the data for students enrolled in traditional programs. While Jackson and Mazzei (2013) urge against strict coding and categorizing of data, we found that through our conversations engaging theory, data, and reflection on our own practices, that several threads began to emerge in response to our research question; these threads also pushed our vision and praxis for the evolution of our graduate program. As we examined the data from the second set of focus groups, we found that there were hardly any new articulations by teachers; when we asked them to look at the transcripts, they also echoed these sentiments. Therefore, we have used initial focus group data for our presentation of findings, incorporating data from the second round only if it represented a shift in articulation. When we member-checked our data, we encouraged our teachers to help us think about our data in light of what our program was attempting to do: disrupt notions of hegemony in public school (e.g., PK– Grade 12) education as well as within our own MAEd program. We used their input in our discussion section. FINDINGS Our findings suggest that teachers in the program (hereby called teachers) grappled with emergent conceptions of what it meant to teach toward

When Effective Instruction Is Not Enough   21

freedom. Four articulations of responses emerged: (a) the way our students perceived liberatory pedagogy; (b) how that perception framed teachers and teaching in terms of ‘promising practices’; (c) how that perception framed students, and (d) how that perception framed others. Our findings flow from descriptive to more interpretive findings where we problematize and unpack the data in a more critical light. PERCEPTIONS OF LIBERATORY PEDAGOGY The teachers saw liberatory pedagogy as “humanizing” and viewed the human element as important. For example, Fabiola (all names are pseudonyms) stated that liberatory pedagogy has at its center, A focus on the children, giving them that opportunity to have that better education. It is preparing them for the real world…. It is teaching them that they are valued not only at home and in school, but in society.

As a concept, liberatory pedagogy was seen as an “open door” opportunity within a “democratic process.” This came up several times, and according to José, the open door provides [every child with] “the same opportunity as others regardless of socioeconomic status, gender, or religion.” Liberatory pedagogy was part of a change process, according to the teachers. For example, Maggie stated “liberatory pedagogy is to be a teacher of change or to help with change in the educational system,” while Karina reported that her goal was “to prepare my students to be change agents through my class.” The teachers saw liberatory pedagogy as the process by which this change could happen. This change required “flexibility” and “being able to give up control” in classrooms. Likewise, teachers recognized and understood that there would be resistance within this process. Karina told us, “And, sometimes I feel like, and I’ve read it … Ira Shor or Freire said when … bell hooks said it ... and they’re like, you’re going to come to a point where students resist it.” Others recognized self-imposed resistance in the process. Ricardo told us, “Cause a lot of times you’re limited by your possibilities, the same way the kids are. If you look around you and you don’t see anybody doing it, you could easily say to yourself ‘that’s not possible.’ ” Teachers recognized risks involved in shifting toward liberatory practices. However, they knew that they were not alone. For example, Ricardo stated, “The best thing is just seeing that you’re not alone in the fight.” Teachers recognized the need to belong within a group of like-minded people. Julie summed it up when she said,

22  M. SAILORS ET AL. But, that got me thinking about this cohort. What’s going to happen to us; we are all strong in different ways and I bet if we could work together then apart then we’d be able to do more liberatory change for the betterment of this district.

Cohort members recognized that “people around you can be your support system just like you’re trying to be for your students.” The teachers valued the importance of the cohort in sustaining their evolving pedagogies. Finally, even though the teachers could see that liberatory pedagogy offered “opportunities,” they agreed that it was “challenging.” Alicia told us, “It’s easy to want to do the same thing cause it’s comfortable and safe ... liberatory pedagogy is very difficult.” Another participant described this challenge as a “weight” that “teachers carry.” Teachers seemingly recognized the affordances of liberatory pedagogies and understood how it departed from previously held beliefs about teaching and learning. FRAMING OF TEACHERS AND TEACHING: PROMISING PRACTICES Teachers also voiced their understandings of liberatory pedagogy in terms of how it framed them as teachers and their teaching. They spoke about themselves as “protectors” and “advocates” of students--and what it meant for their learning environment, curriculum, and instruction. The teachers appeared to be operating from a place of what we call “promising practices” approach (Sailors & Price, 2015). Features of Their Learning Environment The learning environment played a significant role in the way these teachers talked about liberatory pedagogy. They talked about the need to disrupt traditional, hierarchical classroom roles and interactions. For example, Maggie said she hung student-made posters around the classroom and “stood back” to let students interact with each other around the posters. Samantha agreed, stating that “standing back” allows for the “knowing and valuing [of] the interpretation of what they see or what they feel” and that “acknowledging it” means “there is no right way or wrong way.” According to José, this allows [teachers] to fulfill their “mission, to see that each child receives what they need to grow up to be capable individuals.” According to the teachers, their learning environments had become more “authentic” and “engaging.” Many had abandoned worksheets because as Melissa said, “reading is not a worksheet.” They believed that

When Effective Instruction Is Not Enough   23

creating an authentic learning environment allowed students to “see the genuine empowerment inside of learning” and that it is “so valuable and meaningful that they come back for more.” The teachers believed that this move toward more authentic teaching led them to a more nuanced look at the needs of their students. Additionally, several of the teachers talked about how they had physically restructured their classrooms, creating spaces that were aesthetically pleasing and served an instructional purpose. For example, Ricardo decided early in the school year that his physical classroom could not support his vision of teaching and learning. He decided to change it, Well, I use it [a paint brush] to make my classroom beautiful and a wonderful place to be in, instead of staying with different color paint, and just an eyesore. Like, if I can’t stand to be in it, then I guarantee you a child probably can’t. And if it’s a place that I want to be in, then it’s a place that they probably wouldn’t mind being stuck in.

Another teacher at the same school was just as eager to talk about the change Ricardo had made to his classroom: That classroom has seen three different teachers within the first year … and once they saw [Ricardo] take ownership and … residency in the room, it has changed those [their] attitudes…. It was write-ups … kids walking out … door slamming. Now you walk by the room … the kids are engaged, they’re talking with Ricardo, they’re truly taking an ownership over their own education.

Many of the teachers echoed this talk about the changing nature of their classroom environment and the relationship between physical space and the learning process. Reframing Instruction Teachers also talked about how they were reframing their instruction. They talked about the use of materials that were interesting to students and grounded in “choice” for students and about how they interacted with students and their role in the classroom. Most told us they had become more discussion-oriented in their practices. For example, early in this transition, Maggie reported that discussions with her students were now mirrored in the ways she talked to the preservice teacher in her classroom: “I kind of stand back to see what the [beginning teacher] will do ... I don’t jump in immediately; I don’t correct her ... I’m trying to give her that opportunity as

24  M. SAILORS ET AL.

well.” Our teachers’ emergent beliefs appeared to mark a beginning departure from the hegemonic discourse surrounding learners in this district. Teachers reported that even though “things do have to be structured in some sort of way for middle school, “a liberatory classroom would look “like loud, controlled chaos” that would be “messy.” This “chaos” would have “moments of calm where they’re all just engaged in it, and just completely listening.” Furthermore, the teachers went on to say that even though their classrooms are “loud” to “outsiders,” there is a gentle hum that people “in the know” would recognize and understand as active and engaged learning. Again, this is evidence that these teachers were trying out ways of being with their students that broke from traditional notions of order and control. Yet their descriptions of these departures were still situated in the perceived expectations of administrators. FRAMING OF STUDENTS Teachers across focus groups understood liberatory pedagogy as encompassing practices that garner student interest and result in classroom spaces that reflect the students’ work. One teacher explained, “To be a teacher of liberatory pedagogy means that it is my responsibility to help students learn in a way that fosters their interest.” Teachers also associated some level of student choice with a liberatory approach. One teacher, Angelica, connected work in the classroom to the social context beyond the school, saying that the aim of liberatory pedagogy is “to help [students] stay true to who they are and to help them be knowledgeable about the world in which they live.” While data revealed the ways in which teachers were rethinking their practice, their talk also demonstrated contradiction in their framing of students. While teachers frequently positioned themselves as studentcentered and expressed a desire to be liberatory, they often spoke about students as objects rather than subjects of the educational process. For many teachers, liberatory pedagogy was rooted in student-centered stances but ultimately fell short of breaking through hierarchical conceptions of teacher-student roles. Teachers held contradiction in terms of their framing of students as they expressed valuing of student choice and capacity for growth while also sorting them using testing language and positioning them as the objects, rather than the subjects, of the learning process. Teachers espoused student-centeredness in their desire to have classrooms where students are free to “discover their talents and sensibilities.” They described wanting to “try to see the world from their eyes and what matters to them,” yet they objectified students through their use of sorting mechanisms such as “high students” and “low students.” For example, Karina shared a graphic

When Effective Instruction Is Not Enough   25

organizer that she explained was “for my low-performing students.” While the teacher was ostensibly trying to provide extra support, she was in effect reinforcing the tracking and labeling of students. Despite a shifting emphasis on student choice, the talk of the teachers sometimes evidenced what Freire characterized as a banking model of education in which students were described as blank slates, and sometimes even described through deficit terms. While these teachers encouraged freethinking, they offered these messages through a hegemonic approach whereby learning flowed from teacher to student. For example in describing student freedom, Samantha explained that in a student-centered classroom the teacher is “giving [students] the freedom to learn.” José described how teachers should “provide the child with a sense of selfworth.” Melissa defined liberatory pedagogy as “provid[ing] them with the necessities needed to be successful for yesterday, today, and tomorrow.” While these sentiments attest to beliefs that students are capable of success, they also position the teacher as the one providing, teaching, and giving, a frame counter-productive to Freirean practice. Framing of Others: “Us vs. Them” Teachers appeared to have developed strong identities as cohort members and valued their cohort colleagues. For example, Karina justified her use of certain texts and reading practices because another cohort teacher implemented them. She said, “I heard Samantha in class saying that once a week her students just read.... So what I did is, I started doing that.” Within the cohort, teachers trusted one another. Melissa explained that in the cohort there was a feeling of “I got your back, you got my back.” Teachers recognized the diversity of strengths within the cohort and the potential for change-making and collaboration. While teachers often expressed feelings of marginalization in their respective schools, they forged alliances with other cohort teachers and felt a shared sense of purpose. In contrast to the trust of fellow cohort members, teachers positioned themselves as apart from and sometimes in opposition to noncohort teachers and administrators. This “us vs. them” positioning was most evident when talking about administrators. Julie even defined liberatory pedagogy in opposition to anticipated responses from administration saying, “I think it means that teachers teach for the good learning of students and not to please administrators or anyone else that is evaluating them.” These “others” came to represent hegemonic pedagogical practices in the district that teachers characterized as having a strong focus on testing, rote learning, and a lack of student choice and critical thinking.

26  M. SAILORS ET AL.

In the context of this study, where compliance and testing reign, teachers formed pockets of resistance to these practices in the form of rejecting hegemonic scripts and nurturing student-centered classrooms. Given their perception of the culture of teaching and learning in their schools, the exercise of professional judgment in their classrooms became an act of resistance. One participant, Melissa, described a sense of agency despite the constraints placed on teachers, “We have our own curriculum and everything else we need to follow but again you’re in your own classroom, and you have control of your classroom.” As a former student in the district, Ricardo described how he fashioned his teaching practice in opposition to the experiences he had in his own schooling. “I tend to model most of my teaching based on the people that I couldn’t stand, just not wanting to be like them.” While teachers felt objectified by the demands of their administrators, they found spaces to break free from those constraints in their classrooms. The teachers were beginning to resist hegemonic practices by using their professional judgment and taking agency in their classrooms; yet their struggles with the dominant discourse of testing may have led them to hold dichotomized visions of teaching and learning. Samantha described having “two types of reading: reading for the test and reading for leisure.” Julie extended a notion of quality instruction to test preparation, saying, “Quality is what I want to always give to my student. Quality in assignments. Quality in teaching. Quality… even with [state-mandated] test.” District demands around accountability ultimately trumped what teachers held as more liberatory practices. Rather than holding liberatory pedagogy as a holistic way of being with students and an all-encompassing philosophy of education, for these teachers it was tied to activities that they implemented (or not) depending on competing demands. In summary, our findings revealed that teachers perceived liberatory pedagogy to center around humanizing classrooms that nurture change within and beyond classroom walls. Teachers understood that these changes would sometimes be met with resistance. They took up liberatory practice through practices that engaged student choice and emphasized student participation in learning. Even though the teachers believed in the importance of student-centered learning spaces, most of the time their descriptions fell short of breaking out of hegemonic practices that positioned students as objects of the learning process. Some of the limiting factors were the discourse of tracking and labeling that influenced teachers’ talk about students and the demands of administrators who teachers perceived as having narrow conceptions of pedagogy driven by standardized testing. While we saw evidence of the beginnings of resistance, we found the teachers continued to engage in hegemonic practices, beliefs, and

When Effective Instruction Is Not Enough   27

discourses about teaching and learning that were representative of their district and our state. DISCUSSION In many ways, our findings are aligned with extant research calling for restructuring of teacher education in order to move beyond fragmented approaches of teaching to teaching for equity (Ball & Tyson, 2011; Brown, 2004; Christensen, 2009; Nieto, 2000; Paris & Alim, 2017). Our work advances this line of inquiry through the close examination of how teachers enrolled in a master’s program talked about liberatory pedagogy and how their understanding served as a mirror for our program. Throughout this study, we realized the teachers may have been undergoing what Gutiérrez (2014) described as “learning as movement,” the notion that movement “better accounts for what takes hold as people, tools, and practices travel across the activity settings of everyday life” (p. 48) and that through this movement “individuals develop, repurpose, and reorganize repertoires” (p. 48) of practice. The teachers talked about their practices as if they were new and innovative, different from what they were doing in the past and this talk led us to believe they were in a state of becoming more liberatory in their thinking, their beliefs, and ultimately, their practice. We argue that these findings offer both a snapshot of teacher development on a trajectory of shifting praxis, and a snapshot of program development on a trajectory of dismantling hegemonic practices. Previous program work centered on “tweaking” toward sound, research-based practices. In our classes, we worked to prepare reading specialists for practices others describe as important—what the most recent research on reading instruction was and how to implement it. And, even though our students read the works of critical theorists, the findings we report here may indicate that reading and discussions alone could not overcome hegemonic beliefs and practices. Our findings provided us with just cause to critically re-examine the experiences of the cohort in our attempt to nurture literacy leaders. Because we collected data early in the cohort’s program, we were able to implement program changes to shift toward more inquiry-based and critically reflexive experiences. We became intentional in our dialogue with the teachers about the differences between “promising practices” and liberatory pedagogies, as did they with us. We rethought our reading lists with them and carefully selected colleagues who taught their “out-of-department” courses, inviting those who shared our ideologies into this space with us. We added an international field experience that would allow them to defamiliarize the “known” (Freire, 1985); the students selected the country in which they

28  M. SAILORS ET AL.

and one of our team traveled. It was our intention that this experience would allow them to grow in their conscientização (conscientization) and see a fuller perception of the social, political, and economic contradictions in their lives (Freire & Freire, 1994). And, we became more intentional and explicit about our intentions and purposes during our time with them; hopeful that these shifts might help them break from hegemonic practices and grow as people and professionals. As a result of our work with the cohort, we are in the process of reframing our entire reading specialist program. For example, we are developing a clearer sense of self-awareness of our ideologies and how our ideologies inform our practice. We are working (programmatically) to develop “political and ideological clarity” (Bartolomé & Balderrama, 2001, p. 54), allowing us to identify institutional structures in the countering of dominant ideologies of cultural deficiency (DeNicolo & García, 2014). We are redesigning our curriculum so that it not only aligns with the standards of our state and the International Literacy Association, but so that it also maps onto notions of critically and socially just practices. For example, we have renamed and redesigned one course (historically called, Diagnosis and Practicum in Reading); it is now called Re-Mediating Literacy Instruction. The content of the course has changed substantially—now we take a critical approach to the social construct of “reading disabilities,” troubling the very nature of not only labels, but literacy instruction offered to students who “struggle with learning to read.” In short, we are rethinking not only the content of our courses, but the holistic experiences students have in the MAEd program. While our study has limitations, it captured coconstructed meaning from a specific group of teachers as they were opening their minds and practices to new ways of thinking about teaching and learning. Although we believe we are not alone in our findings, our study is not generalizable. Further research is needed to follow up with teachers and to see how they have continued on their trajectory toward more liberatory practices, how they continue to negotiate and, we hope, challenge limiting and objectifying practices in their districts. In the meantime, their understandings were helpful in pushing us to reflect critically on the trajectory of our own program and are perhaps informative for other literacy educators struggling to make change in oppressive educational contexts. Finally, our next line of self-study involves mapping the changes in the ways our students talk about liberatory pedagogy onto the changes we are making in our program (or not). For example, we envision an upcoming self-study that would have us mapping the text environment of the classrooms of our students onto our own classroom text environments at the university. Through a careful mapping, we might get a clearer picture of the ways in which our activity system maps onto theirs and visa versa.

When Effective Instruction Is Not Enough   29

REFERENCES Ball, A. F., & Tyson, C. A. (2011). Studying diversity in teacher education. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Bartolomé, L. I. (1994). Beyond the methods fetish: Toward a humanizing pedagogy. Harvard Educational Review, 64(2), 173–195. Bartolomé, L. I., & Balderrama, M. V. (2001). The need for educators with political and ideological clarity: Providing our children with “The Best.” In M. de la Luz Reyes & J. J. Halcón (Eds.), The best for our children: Critical perspectives on literacy for Latino students (pp. 48–64). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Baumert, A., Rothmund, T., Thomas, N., Gollwitzer, M., & Schmitt, M. (2013). Justice as a moral motive. In K. Heinrichs, F. Oser, & T. Lovat (Eds.), Handbook of moral motivation (pp. 159–179). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense. Brown, K. M. (2004). Leadership for social justice and equity: Weaving a transformative framework and pedagogy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(1), 77–108. Christensen, L. (2009). Teaching for joy and justice: Re-imagining the language arts classroom. Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking Schools. DeNicolo, C. P., & García, G. E. (2014). Examining policies and practices: Two districts’ responses to federal reforms and their use of language arts assessments with emergent bilinguals (K–3). In P. J. Dunsto, L. B. Gambrell, K. Headley, S. K. Fullerton, & P. M. Stecker (Eds.), 63rd yearbook of the literacy research association (pp. 229–242). Altamonte Springs, FL: Literacy Research Association. Freire, P. (1985). The politics of education: Culture power and liberation. South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey. Freire, P. (2000). Cultural action toward freedom 2000 Edition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Review. Freire, P., & Macedo, D. (1987). Literacy: Reading the word and the world. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey. Freire, P., & Freire, A. M. A. (1994). Pedagogy of hope: Reliving pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum. Fullan, M. (1993). Why teacher must become change agents. Educational Leadership, 50, 1–13. Gastager, A., Patry, J., & Wiedemair, A. (2012). Teachers’ perspectives about participation at school. In D. Alt & R. Reingold (Eds.). Changes in teachers’ moral role: From passive observers to moral and democratic leaders (pp. 45–61). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense. Goodwin, A. L., Smith, L., Souto-Manning, M., Cheruvu, R., Tan, M. Y., Reed, R., & Taveras, L. (2014). What should teacher educators know and be able to do? Perspectives from practicing teacher educators. Journal of Teacher Education, 65, 284–302. Gutiérrez, K. (2014). Syncretic approaches to literacy learning: Leveraging horizontal knowledge and expertise. In P. J. Dunsto, L. B. Gambrell, K. Headley, S. K. Fullerton, & P. M. Stecker (Eds.), 63rd yearbook of the literacy research association (pp. 48–60). Altamonte Springs, FL: Literacy Research Association.

30  M. SAILORS ET AL. Hamilton, M. L., & Pinnegar, S. (2000). On the threshold of a new century: Trustworthiness, integrity, and self-study in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(3), 234–240. doi:10.1177/0022487100051003012 Hargreaves, A., & Bascia, N. (Eds.). (2000). The sharp edge of change: teaching, leading, and the realities of reform. London, England: Falmer Press. Jackson, A. Y., & Mazzei, L.A. (2012). Thinking with theory in qualitative research: Viewing data across multiple perspectives. New York, NY: Routledge. Jackson, A.Y., & Mazzei, L.A. (2013). Plugging one text into another: Thinking with theory in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 19, 261–271. LaBoskey, V. K. (2009). “Name it and claim it”: The methodology of self-study as social justice teacher education. In L. Fitzgerald, M. Heston & D. Tidwell (Eds.), Self-Study of teaching and teacher education practices. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense. Loughran, J. (2007). Researching teacher education practices: Responding to the challenges, demands, and expectations of self-study. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(1), 12–20. Lunenberg, M., Zwart, R., & Korthagen, F. (2010). Developing a pedagogy for teaching self-study research. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 1280–1289. McWhinney, W., & Markos, L. (2003). Transformative education: Across the threshold. Journal of Transformative Education, 1(1), 16–37. Nieto, S. (2000). Placing equity front and center: Some thoughts on transforming teacher education for the new century. Journal of Teacher Education, 51, 180–187. Paris, D., & Alim, H. S. (2017). Culturally sustaining pedagogies: Teaching and learning for justice in a changing world. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Pinnegar, S., & Hamilton, M. L. (2009). Data collection methods in S-STTEP research. In S. Pinnegar & M. L. Hamilton (Eds.), Self-study of practice as a genre of qualitative research: Theory, methodology, and practice (pp. 103–135). New York, NY: Springer. Poppleton, P., & Williamson, J., (Eds.). (2004). New realities of secondary teachers’ work lives. Oxford, England: Symposium Books. Sailors, M., & Price, L. (2015). Support for Improvement of Practices through Intensive Coaching (SIPIC): A model of coaching for improving reading instruction and reading achievement. Teaching and Teacher Education, 45, 115–127. Swanepoel, C. (2008). The perceptions of teachers and school principals of each other’s disposition towards teacher involvement in school reform. South African Journal of Education, 28, 39–51. Zeichner, K. (2010). Rethinking the connections between campus courses and field experiences in college-and university-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1-2), 89–99.

CHAPTER 3

“I’M JUST PLAYING DEVIL’S ADVOCATE” Preservice Teachers’ Identity Construction Through Dialogic Talk Eileen M. Shanahan

“I was taught in one of my classes that that was like not a book to teach,” Allison quietly argued as she made the case for choosing to read I am Malala: The Girl Who Stood up for Education and Changed the World (Lamb & Yousafzai, 2013) with her students rather than The Freedom Writer’s Diary (Gruwell, 1999), as the student teacher the previous year had. It was one month before their student teaching was set to begin, and nine preservice teachers (PST) and I, their university supervisor, discussed what they hoped to accomplish during student teaching. The PSTs had spent the previous six months engaged in university courses with a strong commitment to culturally relevant pedagogy (Ladson-Billings, 1995) and urban field placements, yet they seemed to have taken up ideas differently, as evident in their responses to Allison. When one PST offered that The Freedom Writer’s Diary reinforces the idea of a white savior, Colleen, another PST in the group, claimed that she did not “even know if some of [her] kids would realize that or see that tie.” Allison recognized Colleen’s opinion, but did

Transformative Pedagogies for Teacher Education: Moving Towards Critical Praxis in an Era of Change, pp. 31–49 Copyright © 2018 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

31

32  E. M. SHANAHAN

not back down either, “If I hadn’t taken that [university] class, I woulda been like ‘I’m teaching this book. I love it!’ But I think it really does make you think.” Misty, another PST, offered that it could be taught using a book and movie comparison to align it with the standards and make it meaningful to students. Still, Allison continued to argue against teaching The Freedom Writer’s Diary because the idea that education could be interpreted as oppressive “was just like such a big part of [her] class.” The PSTs continued their debate, relying on narratives from their courses, mentor teachers, and even parents, to support their evolving ideas about textual and pedagogical decision-making. Most PSTs in the group eventually concluded that they do not think they should teach texts like The Freedom Writer’s Diary without engaging their students in discussions around seemingly tough and uncomfortable topics like systematic oppression and discrimination. But how did the PSTs arrive at this and other varying pedagogical decisions that they are inevitably faced with during their student teaching? Through dialogic conversations with each other and their teacher educators across spaces, PSTs work to construct their own teaching identities and ideas about what it means to be a “good” teacher. Rather than conceptualizing PST learning from the deficit assumption that teacher educators and teacher education settings inherently have a wealth of knowledge to impart on inexperienced PSTs, this work shows how dialogic practices can foster PSTs’ sense of agency as they establish their own evolving teacher identities (Bieler, 2010, 2013). Rooted in conversation, group discussions with the university supervisor and other PSTs in which they explore issues in their own student teaching and help each other problem-solve, provide one such space where PST learning is constructed. Learning occurs in these spaces “not because the speakers take turns, but because [discourse] is continually structured by tension, even conflict, between the conversants, between self and other, as one voice “refracts” another” (Nystrand, 1997, p. 8). In dialogic interactions, the PSTs and supervisor make room for others so that voices and contributions are balanced and used to negotiate meaning (Nystrand, 1997). The spaces from which PSTs are learning to teach, their social positioning, and the degree of agency that they have in these spaces impact their teacher identities (Hall, Johnson, Juzwik, Wortham, & Mosley, 2010). Preservice teachers are often placed in the middle of the university-school divide and faced with navigating the differing expectations, goals, and practices across these complex, and sometimes conflicting spaces (FeimanNemser & Buchmann, 1985). The spaces from which PSTs learn, the cultural ideologies within them, and engagement in cultural practices with people in these spaces can impact their agency in making pedagogical decisions (Grossman, Valencia, Evans, Thompson, Martin, & Place, 2000; Johnson, Smagorinsky, Thompson, & Fry, 2003) and their teacher

“I’m Just Playing Devil’s Advocate”   33

identities (Smagorinsky, Cook, Moore, Jackson, & Fry, 2004). Space helps to maintain cultural systems as “it influences identities and subjectivities, and provides a ground for accepted and contested positions” (Keating, 2015, p. 255). As PSTs are inundated with varying messages across spaces, they have to socially construct and challenge cultural ideologies that are a part of different spaces regarding what is assumed about knowledge and power for students and the schools in which they teach (Bloome, Carter, Christian, Otto, & Shuart-Faris, 2005). The university classroom and student teaching spaces present PSTs with grids of space that can constrain them. However, such grids also contain potential “cracks” that offer PSTs tactics and opportunities for agency (de Certau, 1984). Through dialogic talk and engagement in cultural practices, PSTs’ agency might be fostered or thwarted, as will their teaching and social identities. Creating a teacher identity is developed in conjunction with the social identities that PSTs also construct as they interact with each other and “as a consequence of the evolving social structures of social institutions” (Bloome et al., 2005, p. 101). These identities, shaped by and reflected in PSTs’ language, tensions, and experiences, are the focus of this chapter. As PSTs engage in dialogic talk around the impact of their instructional choices, it reveals how learning is socially constructed through language and how the telling case (Mitchell, 1984) highlighted in this chapter can shift how the field has conceptualized PST learning. I will first provide some context for the target event, at both the microlevel—specific to the group dynamic and the targeted conversation, and the macrolevel—by considering this event within the larger frame of English preservice teacher education. Next, I will explain the procedures and theoretical basis for my transcription and discourse analytic process and highlight the cultural themes evident in the event from my analysis. Finally, I will consider the implications of the findings of my analysis in terms of how they might inform research and practice in English teacher education. CONTEXT The targeted event about The Freedom Writer’s Diary comes from a larger study, in which I followed the experiences of nine PSTs across one school year, including one semester of field experiences 2–3 days a week and one subsequent semester of student teaching in the same classroom. I was their university supervisor and all of the PSTs were in the Middle Childhood Education program at a large Midwestern university and teaching in urban middle schools for their field placements. The group was a mixture of PSTs working towards a bachelor’s degree in education or a master’s; however, none had any prior teaching experience and all were working to get their

34  E. M. SHANAHAN

teaching certification through successful completion of student teaching. There were three BSEd PSTs and six MEd PSTs, all of whom were White females in their early 20s, except one who was in her 40s and one PST who was a male. We had 16 one-hour group mentoring sessions across the school year in which we discussed issues that they were experiencing in the field. There was not a structured format of these audio-recorded group sessions; the conversations mostly came out of issues that the PSTs brought up to discuss. Sometimes I brought materials, like articles and transcripts of classroom discourse, or raised topics that I wanted the PSTs to explore based on my observations, but this did not happen every time nor did it ever take the whole time. I often encouraged the PSTs to tell stories about their experiences to share successes and to use their peers and me to help them problem-solve. From coding my own conversational moves as their university supervisor throughout the year, I noted that I mostly questioned, shared personal teaching narratives, and used directives to guide my mentoring practices with the PSTs. From my observations of the group dynamics, most seemed fairly open to exposing vulnerabilities of their teaching, expressing their opinions, and helping each other problem-solve and felt that our group provided a safe space for doing so. I argue that most PSTs were fairly open because of the types of narratives that they shared and the ways in which they shared them, to be discussed in further detail in the findings. As previously mentioned, during the targeted conversation, the PSTs shared narratives, recalled university course concepts, and challenged each other regarding their textual and pedagogical decisions and ultimately, their role as teachers of students in urban classrooms. They were helping their peer, Allison, decide what is important to her, while also constructing their own teaching philosophies in the process. DATA ANALYSIS Discourse analysis as a field of study, theory, and methodology is rooted in the understanding that “discourse reflects and constructs the social world through many different sign systems” (Rogers, 2011, p. 1). In this tradition, language is both the object for analysis and the means of learning (Bloome et al., 2005). The value of discourse analysis is that it provides a way to consider the social construction of learning and allows for a focus on both the “micro,” the specific interactional exchanges, and the “macro,” larger societal and cultural issues, and the relationship between them (Bloome et al., 2005). By narrowing in on key events, it enables a context-specific understanding, while also allowing the ability to make claims and draw inferences that have societal significance. Rogers (2011) maintains that this

“I’m Just Playing Devil’s Advocate”   35

provides a challenge for critical approaches to discourse analysis in that “it means finding a balance between zooming-in on the fine-grained discourse analysis and zooming-out to provide enough context to make the analyses mean something to someone else” (p. xviii). The discourse analytic methods, foci, and representation of data in this chapter arose out of themes present in the language—not from molding the data to fit one given approach to discourse analysis. My approach is grounded in the need for a tool and a theory that links issues of identity and power construction with learning. Given the nature of this research, in that interactions between PSTs and one mentor are the central mode of mediation through which learning occurs, discourse analysis provides a focus on how the culture of learning to teach is constituted by and evident in PSTs’ language. This work combines the analysis of language and social and cultural theories to understand how PSTs act and react to each other and construct identities as they negotiate differing spaces and systems of power. I conducted a preliminary round of coding (Saldaña, 2013) in which I marked conversations where PSTs seemed to be coconstructing and negotiating understanding regarding expectations, goals, and values across spaces. I noted places where PSTs (1) referenced varying sources for their evolving beliefs (e.g., “In that class we learned that ...”), (2) provided rationales for the applicability or inapplicability of particular ideologies and pedagogies (e.g., “That wouldn’t work for my students because ...”), and (3) expressed tensions as they considered the opinions of others and navigated their own learning process (e.g., “I don’t know what to do about...”). While this initial coding helped me to recognize this particular interaction as significant, I engaged in other tasks to understand how it helped to reveal the complexities of PSTs’ experiences in learning to teach. By focusing on specific exchanges between PSTs to better understand how issues of identity, agency, and power, are evident in their interactions, it helps to depict their experiences across spaces as meaningful. This necessitated a focus on the linguistic form and function of PSTs’ talk, as well as the contextualization cues that they used. In selecting and defining the boundaries of this event, I noted that the beginning and end were signaled by changes or shifts in goals, patterns of interaction, and discussion of tools and resources. The linguistic features and cultural ideologies present highlight how its context-specific particularities have meaning and implications at a larger level as well (Mitchell, 1984). The warrant for a telling case is that the internal structure of the case requires “repairs” that make visible the underlying cultural models and ideologies in which the case is embedded. There is evidence within this transcript that there are various repairs being made by the PSTs, which index underlying cultural ideologies. The

36  E. M. SHANAHAN

implications that can be drawn from examining the language in this event about the PSTs’ experiences in this study, as well as learning to teach across spaces at a more macro level, provided the rationale for its central focus of analysis in this chapter. The language that the PSTs use reflects and constitutes the culture of the group and of the process of learning to teach. This focus on the “languaculture” (Agar, 2006) and the meaning that is constructed as people act and react to each other provides the theoretical warranting for the focus on message units for analysis (Green & Wallat, 1981), which are designated by line numbers in the findings section. I noted contextualization cues (Gumperz, 1982) that the speakers used to signal conversational meaning, such as pauses, intonation, changes in volume and speed, and the use of reported speech in story-telling. Therefore, the transcription conventions that I used, modified from Jefferson (1984), highlight participants’ cues that impact the function of their talk. This focus provided a means for understanding how the PSTs assigned and constructed identities and understanding through taking up existing discourses or challenging and reconceptualizing fixed discourses (Lewis & Ketter, 2011; Moje & Lewis, 2007). These acts of participation and enactment of varying identities across spaces facilitates PSTs’ learning. Moje and Lewis (2007) argue that “as people acquire, appropriate, resist, or reconceptualize skills and knowledge within and across discourse communities, they continue to be formed as acting subjects” (p. 19). Throughout the transcription process, three linguistic features emerged in the data: (1) evidentials to frame narratives, (2) adverbial clauses that show changes in ideas before and after experiences or across differing spaces, and (3) pronominalization, or pronoun usage and switching that shows evidence of PSTs positioning themselves and others and appealing to their audience. These linguistic features provided a means for narrowing in on how PSTs’ identity and knowledge construction were apparent in their talk. This analysis is rooted in the understanding that culture is shared, public, and learned, and is constituted in and by the language that the PSTs use in interactions. An event can function as a space where people use language to either create new histories, meanings and social identities or reproduce them (Bloome et al., 2005), as evident in the varying types of evidentials, adverbial clauses, and pronouns used by the PSTs to function in different ways. By considering how, where, when, and by whom these linguistic features were used, I have interpreted these features in relation to PSTs’ narratives, figured worlds, and social identities. These discourse analytic constructs facilitate my understanding of how PSTs navigate and negotiate learning to teach English language arts to diverse students within and across spaces.

“I’m Just Playing Devil’s Advocate”   37

FINDINGS Linguistic Features Evidentials are the words and phrases that reveal speakers’ attitudes towards the subject matter, and can also reveal underlying assumptions and epistemologies (Barton, 1993; Chafe, 1986). In this study, I consider how evidentials are employed by speakers and writers in different ways to signal the reliability of knowledge, the process through which it was gained, the type of evidence underlying the knowledge, and the validity with which knowledge is encoded in language, often considered to be “hedging” (Chafe, 1986). The adverbial clauses that I identify and draw on in this analysis are phrases that the PSTs insert into their narratives and discourse, which signal contrast or evaluation. While the evaluative function of narratives can give them meaning (Labov & Waletzky, 1967), evaluation is not always embedded within narratives nor are all adverbial clauses signaling evaluation. Drawing on scholars in related fields (Lopez-Bonilla, 2011), I am interested in how the clauses within participants’ discourse shows contrast between knowledge and expectations in their figured worlds and how they indicate change and learning across spaces and experiences. Finally, PSTs’ pronoun usage and switching in their narratives and in interactions with their peers is a linguistic feature that guided my analysis. This focus channeled my analysis into how PSTs construct, perform, and position identities for others and for themselves as teachers and as members of the social group. Narratives, Figured Worlds, and Social Identity Narratives help people make sense of their world (Gee, 1985, 1999) and can therefore provide insight into identity development (Alsup, 2006). People represent their experiences through narratives and in doing so, foreground and background certain details over others. This narrativization of experience (Gee, 1985) mediates the representation of events for the storyteller, which also impacts the audience’s interpretation of the event. Narratives are also a means through which identities are communicated and constructed based on how the person positions herself as a character in the story and how the person positions herself to the other PSTs and how she is positioned by them during the storytelling event (Bamberg, 1997). The narratives in this telling event indicate the tensions in a larger, collective experience of learning to teach, which align the teller and their peers with the world (Schuman, 2005).

38  E. M. SHANAHAN

People construct their identities and make and remake themselves as a result of their association with figured worlds (Holland, Lachicotte, Skinner, & Cain, 1998). A figured world is the “socially and culturally constructed realm of interpretation in which particular characters and actors are recognized, significance is assigned to certain acts, and particular outcomes are valued over others” (p. 52). The spaces and processes within the multiple figured worlds that PSTs operate in help them to construct their “identity in practice” (p. 271). The spaces of teaching and learning to teach and their responses to these worlds, through sharing narratives in mentoring sessions and their actions in the classroom, allow PSTs to recognize the worlds that they are operating in, respond to these worlds, and reconceive these worlds. It is through these acts of improvisation that they enact agency, both individually and collectively, to reorient their actions and perspectives in response to the figured worlds around them (Holland et al., 1998). As an analytic tool, this concept can show how figured worlds depict PSTs’ experiences as meaningful and how the language that PSTs use suggests ways in which their figured worlds influence their experiences. Social identity is constructed through language in interactions with others and has meaning for people over time (Bloome et al., 2005). This cultural construct positions PSTs as active agents who are influenced by the local and global, present and historic contexts, and cultural ideologies around them, which help to define who they are (Bloome et al., 2005; Egan-Robertson, 1998). Social identities can be interpreted as “in motion, as part of a process of continuity and change within and across events, settings, and social institutions” (Bloome et al., 2005, p 158). A focus on social identity in this study is warranted by the need to understand how PSTs’ social identities in this mentoring group impact their engagement in learning. The discourse analytic constructs of narrative, figured worlds, and social identities are inextricably related in that “narratives of personal experience provide powerful insights into the figured worlds that render experience meaningful” (Lopez-Bonilla, 2011, p. 48) and how identities are communicated and constructed. Narratives of personal experience depict different figured worlds and discourses that the speakers have to arrange and compose in their own voice, which helps to create and portray their identity, or how we do self (Bahktin, 1981; Georgakopoulou, 2006; Holland et al., 1998; Lopez-Bonilla, 2011). The PSTs’ narratives, figured worlds, and social identities were constructed through their language choices made during interactions with others, as demonstrated in the following excerpts of dialogic talk where PSTs negotiate the impact of their instructional choices and their role as critical educators. The first example begins with Allison, as she makes her case to the group for reading I am Malala with her eighth grade students.

“I’m Just Playing Devil’s Advocate”   39

Example #1: Like I was taught in one of my classes

Note 1: See Appendix for the transcription conventions.

Much of the evidentials used by the PSTs throughout this interaction indicate knowledge based on beliefs. For example, “I think, I feel, I don’t know” were often used and paired with contextualization cues that are significant in indicating the tensions that they face in navigating multiple figured worlds and social positionings. In line 4, Allison, a White female MEd PST in her early 20s, offers the first example of this, as she rather hesitantly explains to the group why she does not think she should read The Freedom Writer’s Diary with her students. Her use of “I don’t know” as she lowered her voice and slows her speech captures an episode in which she resisted or was hesitant to identify with a particular social identity, in this case, the identity of a student adopting the beliefs of her Ethics instructor or that of a “progressive” educator. This tension between university ideologies conflicting with practical decision-making regarding text choices represents just one tension PSTs often face as they construct their teacher identities (Alsup, 2006). Instead, Allison began the narrative by positioning herself with her peers by drawing on their collective experience in the Ethics course together, demonstrated through her use of “right” at the end combined with a rising intonation aimed at her peers. Further, Allison initially pulled her peers into the narrative through “we were” in line 3, but then retracted this by shifting to first person pronouns in her statement of “I was taught in one of my classes” in line 4. This switch in pronoun usage highlights Allison’s tentativeness to draw her peers into her evolving, but fraught-filled figured world that is the expectations for teaching. As a part of this negotiating of good teaching practices, in this excerpt and in many after, Allison refers to what she was taught in the university setting about cultural sensitivity in regards to making curricular choices and intentional discursive decisions when interacting with students. By continually referring to her classes, and even using reported speech that she perceived hearing in them, she seems to place the university’s approach to culturally relevant teaching on a pedestal. The tendency to affirm authority figures from outside the K–12 school setting when addressing issues of race in the teaching of literature parallels other work examining the practices of in-service teachers as they

40  E. M. SHANAHAN

navigate conversations of race with their students (Thomas, 2015). Allison’s inclination to do so represents her negotiations between personal beliefs and professional expectations, contributing to her evolving teacher identity (Alsup, 2006). Allison’s use of adverbial clauses in this interaction further support the tensions that she faces in understanding the figured world of what defines good teaching. In line 3 Allison uses the word “but,” which shows the contrast between her notion of what is appropriate in teaching and others’ notions, as in the one of her Ethics instructor. Adverbial clauses with elements of evaluation, such as this one, highlight PSTs’ resistance towards explicitly positioning themselves as aligning with one set of expectations over another as they work to construct their own teaching identities. This excerpt shows how Allison uses language conflictingly and unevenly (“I really like that but”, “we were/I was,” “I don’t know,” “right”) to represent herself and her ideas about teaching. The conversation continued with Allison introducing the concept of the “white savior” to support her claim, to which another PST confirms. After Allison’s initial speaking turn in this event, Colleen, another White female PST in her early 20s, although one of the three BSEd. students, explained that students may not pick up on the racist implications in The Freedom Writer’s Diary. She received some support for this argument from another peer, Misty, who shared that her mother taught the novel in her classroom. Example #2: So nit-picky about all of these little things

“I’m Just Playing Devil’s Advocate”   41

The use of evidentials, evaluative phrases, and pronoun switching encoding PSTs’ narratives and negotiations of their social identities and figured worlds of good teaching during this targeted event was not limited to just Allison. The evidentials and contextualization cues in this excerpt highlight Colleen’s tensions in constructing a teacher identity for herself and representing this identity in front of her peers. The phrase “I think” can be interpreted as either a hedge or an assertion depending on the context of the discourse. In this one turn at talk, Colleen used “I think” nine times to assert her way through her narrative. This is particularly captured in line 52 when Colleen finishes her narrative by saying “sometimes I think it’s better to just focus on the positive” in what I claim was a “cutesy-voice.” By focusing on the positive, smiling, and talking in a certain tone, her words encode a figured world in which she believes these are traits of a “good teacher”. I also interpret this narrative as Colleen choosing to embody a particular identity in front of her peers of being a kind and thoughtful teacher. Colleen also made use of a number of adverbial clauses throughout her speech, which represent contrasting figured worlds and teacher identities. For example, in line 41, her use of “though” separates the possibility of The Freedom Writer’s Diary as perpetuating a message of the white savior introduced by Allison in line 7. Colleen’s rejection of this attempt at problematizing issues of race and text choice in the classroom further shows her understanding of teaching to be one in which teachers make curricular and instructional decisions that do not incite conflict, but instead work to maintain cultural norms. While Colleen only mildly addressed what these cultural norms might be, as evidenced in lines 44–45, as she quietly stated it to be “you know,” I understand her pedagogical decisions to be choosing literature with “positive messages” and based on ideas that are more than just “a very small aspect of ” the text. This is in contrast to being “nit-picky” about books, as she claimed “we’re”/”you’re” used to doing in college in lines 46–47. Colleen’s agentic voice is captured at the end of the narrative as she utilized an additional adverbial clause. In line 51, in a speed faster than her normal speech, Colleen initiated and established her claim with “but I do know,” showing how through engaging in dialogic talk, she created a more firmly held identity of herself as a teacher capable of making sound instructional decisions and as a contributing member of the social group. As PSTs further engaged in dialogic talk about the subject, the change and tensions inherent in teacher identity construction became more apparent. The PSTs continued to voice different ideas and concerns about whether there could be appropriate ways to teach The Freedom Writer’s Diary, such as using a book and movie comparison to meet national ELA standards. Misty,

42  E. M. SHANAHAN

a White female BSEd PST in her 40s, then pushed the group’s thinking even further when she challenges them with another question. Example #3: Would a Black woman have made a difference

Misty’s question to the group demonstrates the dialogic nature of the conversation, which was not guided by any one person or setting’s agenda and allowed for conflicts to exist as they worked to negotiate meaning together (Nystrand, 1997). While Misty’s heavy emphasis on the words “however” and “message” in her counter questioning hint at how Misty might answer her own question, even before she ultimately did, the existence of this question in the conversation is significant. While this conversation indicates the tensions that exist within the group and across teacher education settings about addressing issues of racial, sexual, and other inequalities through texts and other curricular and instructional means, the PSTs were still able to openly discuss tough topics together, just as they may (or may not) eventually do with their students. The tensions across settings and amongst participants, paired with the safe space established within this group, allowed for productive tensions to exist, that is, those where PST learning was fostered through the discussion of “socially contextualized intellectual accommodations” around text choices (Smagorinsky et al., 2004, p. 22). After this question, the conversation continued with the PSTs discussing an activity from one of their courses where they critiqued movies like the 1995 teaching classic, Dangerous Minds, which Allison claimed “you would think that that would be like such a great movie to show,” until they picked out all of the parts where it reinforced the need for a white savior in urban communities. The conversation again came to a point when Allison defends her initial stance that she should not teach The Freedom Writer’s Diary, or texts with a similar message, in her class.

“I’m Just Playing Devil’s Advocate”   43

Example #4: I’m just playing devil’s advocate

This final example illustrates an exchange where Misty continued to challenge Allison’s attempts to align herself with the goals and expectations of her teacher education program. Misty’s challenge draws on Allison’s comments made in previous portions of the transcript and in the reported speech in line 116 with “Look at all these movies that portray the white savior.” In this instance of reported speech Allison revoiced a figured world in which learning to teach is transformative and enlightening, propelled by activities and discussions that she had in some of the classes that she referenced in previous lines. By continuing to remind her peers of lessons from the courses that they all took using her instructors’ reported speech (“Look at all these movies” and “Never show this in your class”), she enacts a social identity for her peers that mirrors the role these instructors played in her journey of learning to teach – one in which they problematized social and cultural norms surrounding issues of race, gender, class, sexuality, and beyond. The figured world that Allison referenced and helped to create, one in which learning to teach is a transformative process, is juxtaposed by another figured world, which Misty captured in this excerpt. Her use of and emphasis on the word “kids” in line 120 expresses a figured world in which learning to teach through university courses is in many ways invalid or impractical for teaching “kids” today. As Misty questioned the relevance of considering students’ lives and abilities when making pedagogical decisions, this conjures the figured world that Colleen referenced in Example #2 when she refers to the “nit-picky” practices of the university. The language that these PSTs use suggests ways in which their figured worlds of learning to teach influenced their experiences, perspectives, and practices in different ways.

44  E. M. SHANAHAN

The cultural ideologies underpinning the varying figured worlds of the PSTs were made visible through repairs evident in this interaction as both Allison and Misty used evidentials, clauses, and pronouns to make appeals to each other as their audience. The evidentials used by Allison show her belief in the reliability and validity of her claim, thus impacting her social identity within the group. In line 118 in particular, Allison interrupted her own point to apologize to the group and say “I don’t know it’s just it’s just interesting I guess sorry I didn’t mean like” as she nervously laughed in front of her peers. This strong hedging in a variety of linguistic forms within just one message unit captures an episode in which Allison reverts back to resisting the social identity of one who contributes to the conversation of problematizing the roles and responsibilities of being a teacher. Repairs are seen in the clauses and pronouns that Allison and Misty use as they appeal to each other and their other peers who are present, but not verbally contributing at the time. For example, Misty’s use of “and” in line 121 to distinguish her question from her claim that she is “just playing devil’s advocate” show contrast between her perception of learning to teach, or her figured world, and the expectations of her peers about how to operate as a teacher, and as a member of this peer group. In this regard then, her social identity is at stake, made evident through the numerous repairs she made in the remainder of this interaction, as in lines 123 (“You know what I mean”) and 125 (“I’m not saying this is the right way”). Also at stake is Allison’s social identity, and not wanting to appear too opinionated, she responded with emphatic and immediate claims of “yeah that’s fine” and “oh yeah” in lines 122 and 124. Allison and Misty’s language use in the coconstruction of this narrative about teaching reflects their social identities as they actively try to avoid positioning or being positioned by each other in ways that may seem undesirable to them or their peers. DISCUSSION The figured worlds that the PSTs operate in are multivoiced, dialogic, and shaped by experiences across spaces. There were numerous figured worlds and social identities that the PSTs were constructing in this event, some of which include that of a good teacher, a progressive teacher, and learning to teach from spaces with clear goals and expectations. Many of the PSTs were operating in multiple figured worlds simultaneously as they navigated differing “realm[s] of interpretation” about teaching (Holland et al., 1998, p. 52). Their social positioning and identities impacted the construction and interpretation of these worlds. Further, the varying positions of MEd and BSEd PSTs and supervisor within the group and the power differentials inherent within them shaped how people acted and reacted to each other.

“I’m Just Playing Devil’s Advocate”   45

This event shows PSTs caught between navigating figured worlds with different expectations for and interpretations of learning how to teach, as defined by individual PSTs, their collective group, and the various spaces from which they were learning. This culture of conflicting and opposing views regarding what it means to be a good teacher in an increasingly diverse world is constituted by and reflected in their language. On the surface level, the PSTs were negotiating whether or not it is appropriate to teach The Freedom Writer’s Diary. Yet in the underlying level, they were problematizing “how language, race, education, and power operate in their world” (Bloome et al., 2005, p. 93) and what their roles and responsibilities are in engaging their students in these conversations. The dialogic nature of the group mentoring sessions allowed the PSTs to use narratives as resources to make figured worlds tangible and to construct a response to them, which either reaffirmed or challenged their existing beliefs about teaching. That is, the PSTs made meaning of their teaching practices through their experiences engaging in dialogic talk where they had to explore ideologies and issues with no “right” answer. In this way, this study hopes to challenge the divide between student teaching, which can be considered a rehearsal for the actual performance of in-service teaching, “by suggesting that when preparation programs create spaces for their agency, student teachers can engage in teaching and learning that is authentic, similar to what they engage in as professionals after the formal mentoring relationship has ended” (Bieler, 2013, p. 31). In doing so, they have to navigate their own beliefs based on experiences and relationships in a variety of contexts, which are often multifaceted and contradictory, reflecting the complexity of various contexts. In this dialogic event, the PSTs were navigating what Fecho, Graham, and Hudson-Ross (2005) call “’the wobble’, that authored space of uncertainty that lies between and among figured worlds” (p. 175). People construct their identities and make and remake themselves as a result of their association with figured worlds. It is these dialogic spaces—the multitude of classroom experiences and interactions—that mediate PSTs’ understanding of teaching and provide opportunities to reconfigure the cultural norms perpetuated in them. The culture of approaching good teaching from the perspective that it is open to interpretation and defined in different ways across settings can provide PSTs agency in that they can make pedagogical decisions based on their own beliefs and the needs of their students. However, this vast range of perspectives on good teaching, which often conflict and change, can also cause tension for PSTs. Navigating these tensions can be productive for PSTs in that they are more apt to develop complex notions of teaching that are rooted in a conceptual understanding of culture and its presence in and impact on the realities of day to day teaching (Smagorinsky et al., 2004). Through dialogue in

46  E. M. SHANAHAN

supportive spaces, PSTs and teacher educators can coconstruct and problematize conceptions of teaching across spaces that result in resolutions and an enrichment of their own learning and that of their future students. Analyzing how PSTs use language to represent and make sense of their experiences can advance research in teacher education regarding how PSTs learn to teach in diverse contexts. Through discursive analytic practices, we must examine these important constructions of understanding voiced by PSTs with and to other PSTs and teacher educators. Research is needed, which this study attempts to address, on how PSTs operate over time as their figured worlds are “substantially re-authored due to their dialogue” (Fecho et al., 2005, p. 194). Learning to teach in diverse contexts is not a linear process, but rather a recursive cycle that is complexified by varying simultaneous and sometimes competing goals and expectations across spaces (Feiman-Nemser, 2012; Gere, Buehler, Dallavis, & Haviland, 2009; Smagorinsky & Barnes, 2014). Understanding how people make and remake themselves and the worlds around them as they improvise and engage in discourse with others is worthy of attention. Critical approaches towards discourse analysis allow for a focus on issues of power, identity, and agency, all of which mediate this process of learning to teach. This research has implications for how teacher education is conceptualized and achieved. By learning to appreciate “the wobble” (Fecho et al., 2005, p. 175), or being satisfied in the uncertainty or lack of a unified vision regarding what constitutes good teaching across spaces, PSTs and teacher educators can create learning opportunities through engaging in dialogic talk. As tensions among spaces are inherent in teacher education, a collaborative and dialogic approach towards teacher learning can help to push back on the tendency to position PSTs as sponges, soaking up the knowledge of more experienced people and powerful spaces, rather than working as agentive educators to construct it themselves (Bieler, 2010; Bulfin & Mathews, 2003). We will not completely eliminate the divide or the cracks between the university and K–12 schools and differing expectations, practices, and ideas about what constitutes “good” teaching and learning. Nor do I think that should be our purpose. Instead, we can provide PSTs the tools to help them navigate the different spaces and understand how the various inconsistencies can contribute to their evolving notions and personal philosophies about what it means to be transformative educators. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This research would not have been possible without the many pre-service teachers who have invited me along on their journey of learning to teach. Thanks to “Allison” and others, for allowing me to learn with and from you.

“I’m Just Playing Devil’s Advocate”   47

REFERENCES Agar, M. (2006). Culture: Can you take it anywhere? International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(2), 1–12. Alsup, J. (2006). Teacher identity discourses: Negotiating personal and professional spaces. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bahktin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays by M.M. Bakhtin (M.E. Holquist, Ed.). Austin: University of Texas Press. Bamberg, M. (1997). Stories: Big or small: Why do we care? Narrative Inquiry, 16(1), 139–147. Barton, E. L. (1993). Evidentials, argumentation, and epistemological stance. College English, 55(7), 745–769. Bieler, D. (2010). Dialogic praxis in teacher preparation: A discourse analysis of mentoring talk. English Education, 42(4), 391–426. Bieler, D. (2013). Strengthening new teacher agency through holistic mentoring. English Journal. 102(3), 23–32. Bloome, D., Carter, S. P., Christian, B. M., Otto, S., & Shuart-Faris, N. (2005). Discourse analysis and the study of classroom language and literacy events: A microethnographic perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bulfin, S., & Mathews, K. (2003). Reframing beginning English teachers as knowledg producers: Learning to teach and transgress. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 2(3), 47–58. Chafe, W. (1986). Evidentuality in English conversation and academic writing. Evidentality: The linguistic coding of epistemology, 20, 261–272 de Certeau, M. (1984). The practice of everyday life. Berkeley: University of California Press. Egan-Robertson, A. (1998). Learning about culture, language, and power: Understanding relationships among personhood, literacy practices, and intertextuality. Journal of Literacy Research, 30(4), 449–487. Fecho, B., Graham, P., & Hudson-Ross, S. (2005). Appreciating the wobble: Teacher research, professional development, and figured worlds. English Education, 37(3), 174–199. Feiman-Nemser, S. (2012). Teachers as learners. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Feiman-Nemser, S., & Buchmann, M. (1985). The pitfalls of experiences in teacher education. Teachers College Record, 87(1), 53–65. Gee, J. P. (1985). The narrativization of experience in the oral style. Journal of Education, 167(1), 9–35. Gee, J. P. (1999). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. New York, NY: Routledge. Gere, A. R., Buehler, J., Dallavis, C., & Haviland, V. S. (2009). A visibility project: Learning to see how preservice teachers take up culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 46(3), 816–852. Georgakopoulou, A. (2006). Thinking big with small stories in narrative and identity analysis. Narrative Inquiry, 16(1), 122–130. Glenn, W. J. (2015). Understanding unfamiliar literary aesthetics: White preservice teachers examine race through story. Action in Teacher Education, 37, 23–44.

48  E. M. SHANAHAN Green, J., & Wallat, C. (1981). Mapping instructional conversations: A sociolinguistic ethnography. Ethnography and Language in Educational Settings, 5, 161–195. Grossman, P., Valencia, S. Evans, K, Thompson, C. Martin, S., Place, N. (2000). Transitions into teaching: Learning to teach writing in teacher education and beyond. Journal of Literacy Research, 32(4), 631–662. Gruwell, E. (1999). The freedom writer’s diary: How a teacher and 150 teens used writing to change themselves and the world around them. Portland, OR: Broadway Books. Gumperz, J. (1982). Discourse strategies. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Hall, L.A., Johnson, A., Juzwik, M., Wortham, S., & Mosley, M. (2010). Teacher identity in the context of literacy teaching: Three explorations of classroom positioning and interaction in secondary schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 234–243. Holland, D., Lachicotte, W., Jr., Skinner, D., & Cain, C. (1998). Identity and agency in cultural worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Jefferson G. (1984). Transcription notation. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversational analysis (pp. ix–xvi). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Johnson, T. S., Smagorinsky, P., Thompson, L., & Fry, P. G. (2003). Learning to teach the five-paragraph theme. Research in the Teaching of English, 38(2), 136–176. Keating, E. (2015). Discourse, space, and place. In D. Tannen, H.E. Hamilton, & D. Schiffrin (Eds.), The Handbook of Discourse Analysis (2nd ed., pp. 244–261). John Wiley & Sons. Labov, W., & Waletzky, J. (1967). Narrative analysis: Oral versions of personal experience. In J. Helm (Ed.), Essays on the verbal and visual arts (pp. 12–44). Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). But that’s just good teaching!: The case for culturally relevant pedagogy. Theory Into Practice, 34(3), 159–165. Lamb, C., & Yousafzai, M. (2013). I am Malala: The girl who stood up for education and was shot by the Taliban. Boston, MA: Little, Brown, and Company. Lewis, C., & Ketter, J. (2011). Learning as social interaction: Interdiscursivity in a teacher and researcher study group. In R. Rogers (Ed.), An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education (2nd ed., pp. 128–153). New York, NY: Routledge. Lopez-Bonilla, G. (2011). Narratives of exclusion and the construction of self. In R. Rogers (Ed.), An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education (2nd ed., pp. 46–67). New York, NY: Routledge. Mitchell, J. C. (1984). Typicality and the case study. In R. Ellen (Ed.), Ethnographic research: A guide to general conduct. (pp. 238–241). New York, NY: Academic Press. Moje, E. B., & Lewis, C. (2007). Examining opportunities to learn literacy: The role of critical sociocultural literacy research. In C. Lewis, P. Enciso, & E .B. Moje (Eds.), Reframing sociocultural research on literacy: Identity, agency, and power (pp. 15–48). New York, NY: Routledge. Nystrand, M. (1997). Opening dialogue: Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

“I’m Just Playing Devil’s Advocate”   49 Rogers, R. (2011). An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Saldaña, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Schuman, A. (2005). Other people’s stories: Entitlement claims and the critique of empathy. Urbana, IL: University of Chicago Press. Smagorinsky, P., Cook, L. S., Moore, C., Jackson, A. Y., & Fry, P. G. (2004). Tensions in learning to teach: Accommodation and the development of a teaching identity. Journal of Teacher Education, 55(1), 8–24. Smagorinsky, P., & Barnes, M. E. (2014). Revisiting and revising the apprenticeship of observation. Teacher Education Quarterly, 41(4), 29–52. Smith, J. (Director). (1995). Dangerous minds [Motion Picture]. United States: Hollywood Pictures. Thomas, E. E. (2015). “We always talk about race”: Navigating race talk dilemmas in the teaching of literature. Research in the Teaching of English, 50(2), 154–175.

APPENDIX Transcription Conventions

CHAPTER 4

A FRAMEWORK FOR ENACTING THE METAPEDAGOGY METHOD IN TEACHER EDUCATION What, Why, Where, When, and How? Matthew Thomas and Ann Yehle

INTRODUCTION In this chapter we present the “metapedagogy” (MP) method as a conceptual and applied approach with the potential to significantly improve the value of teacher education coursework for preservice teachers (PSTs) as well as the effectiveness of their future teaching. Although this approach is conceptualized and described in detail later in this chapter, its core essence includes turning teacher education coursework into a laboratory of critical investigation and experiential learning. It encourages PSTs to constantly analyze the course content as well as the instructional processes at play. To achieve these ends, teacher educators employing the MP method engage in metapedagogical discussions about their own teaching and facilitate

Transformative Pedagogies for Teacher Education: Moving Towards Critical Praxis in an Era of Change, pp. 51–68 Copyright © 2018 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

51

52  M. THOMA and A. YEHLE

with PSTs a multileveled analysis in regards to both the course content and instructional processes utilized. We suggest this method as a means to advance recent movements aiming to reimagine teacher education pedagogy within the current milieu (see Mcdonald, Kazemi, & Kavanagh, 2013). We situate this framework within the relatively scant body of research examining teacher education pedagogy, including the use of core-practices and explicit modeling by teacher educators (Loughran, 2014; Loughran & Berry, 2005; Lunenberg, Korthagen, & Swennan, 2007; White, 2011). As teacher educators, we reject reductionist and overly behaviorist notions of teaching practice that present teaching as neutral and uniform across sociopolitical contexts. Yet as teacher educators we also agree with critics that teacher education coursework can be at times seemingly disconnected from teaching practice; thus, perhaps it needs a turn towards a more practice-based (Ball & Forzani, 2009; Peercy & Troyan, 2017) but not a practice-only approach (Zeichner, 2012; Doherty, Dooley, & Woods, 2013). In essence, in this chapter we are seeking to advance current approaches to teacher education pedagogy and suggest the MP method as having the potential to be a transformative approach to preparing PSTs across diverse institutional contexts. Similar to the courses we teach and later describe, this chapter takes a nontraditional form as it explores the implementation of the MP method through a framework addressing five guiding questions: what, why, where, when, and how? True to the multilevel analysis of metapedagogy itself, these questions serve a twofold purpose in the chapter. First, addressing each of these questions in turn allows articulation of the potential use and implementation of the MP method in teacher education classrooms. More specifically, we begin by conceptualizing what metapedagogy actually entails. We then examine why the MP method is both appropriate and beneficial to utilize in teacher education coursework. We continue with an exploration of where courses utilizing the MP method are situated within university programs and then address when the MP method should be implemented in individual courses. The final, extended section answers perhaps the most vital question—how the MP method works in practice— and grounds the method within the classroom context. The final section (i.e., how) includes a second layer of embedded meaning for this line of inquiry. Because we desire PSTs to think critically and purposefully when they eventually design their own lessons, in our classrooms we engage in metapedagogical discussions with our PSTs where we explicitly use the same list of guiding questions outlined earlier (i.e., what, why, where, when, and how) as a means to analyze our own classroom instruction. We include a detailed ‘exemplar of process’ where this framework is employed as a means to elucidate the concomitant discussions that springboard from our facilitation of these five questions. In this chapter we

A Framework for ... Metapedagogy Method in Teacher Education   53

therefore use a two-tiered structure to explicate our conceptualization of the MP method and offer the means for its enactment with the expressed hope that other teacher educators will consider its value in assisting PSTs to begin thinking like teachers. What is the Metapedagogy Method? The MP method involves the intentional planning, implementation, and, most importantly, critical discussion of instructional processes employed in the classroom. Instructors begin by planning to utilize a specific pedagogical approach (e.g., jigsaw method, quick-write) that aligns with the content and learning objective(s) of the lesson while simultaneously enabling a rich, post-activity inductive discussion. Second, instructors carefully implement the specific instructional process while practicing standard behaviors for exemplary teaching: hooking students on inception of the lesson, providing clear instructions, ensuring students are on-task, conducting ongoing monitoring of student progress, etc. Third, and of paramount importance, instructors engage PSTs in metapedagogical discussions about the instructional process they just experienced. During these discussions, both the process itself and the instructor’s execution of the process are evaluated and critiqued. This final and vital component of the MP method enables PSTs to begin to “think like a teacher” as they consider what the instructional process entailed, why a teacher might use or adapt a similar process, where and when they might use the process in a unit or lesson, and how an instructor would actually enact the process, including how to plan, execute, and evaluate its implementation. Developing pedagogical decision-making skills among PSTs is a vital component of teacher education (Zeichner, 2005), and a metapedagogical discussion of this nature prevents PSTs from assuming a primarily passive role in their own learning process, even though passivity may be expected (Loughran & Berry, 2005), because it directly involves them in the pedagogical process as they engage with course content and critically analyze the instructional decisions made by their instructors. In short, with the MP method, coursework is explored through a wide-range of “core-practice” instructional processes followed by a robust analysis of both content and process led by the instructor.1 On a theoretical level, this method builds on previous research by Kessels and Korthagan (1996) and subsequent research on explicit modeling and teacher education pedagogy. Much of this research draws on Aristotle’s notions of techne, episteme, and phronesis. Techne is most closely associated with specific, technical skills, and might be exemplified by Doug Lemov’s (2010) immensely popular text, Teach like a Champion: 49 Tech-

54  M. THOMA and A. YEHLE

niques that Put Students on the Path to College. Episteme describes knowledge that is generally static and conceptual. It can be applied across contexts and is generally abstract in nature (Berry, 2007; Korthagen & Kessels, 1999). For this reason, PSTs may struggle when their teacher education courses primarily emphasize knowledge as episteme, particularly if they have limited prior experience working as teachers, or analyzing pedagogical practices. Knowledge as phronesis, by contrast, draws on specific lived experiences, or “practical wisdom” (Furlong, 2013, p. 9) and enables teachers to analyze the situation and select an appropriate pedagogical approach (Korthagen & Kessels, 1999). As Berry (2007) suggests, phronesis is “situation-specific, focuses on strengthening one’s awareness of the characteristics of that situation and finding a helpful course of action through it” (p. 130). In a similar way, the MP method guides PSTs in situ towards analysis of the collective pedagogical experience, first, and the decisions made by the teacher educator to facilitate that experience, second. Although research on teacher education pedagogy is arguably still in its infancy, a growing body of literate examines “explicit modeling” and related practices that situate the teacher educator as the expert and facilitator of both content and process learning. This research stems from self-studies of teaching and teacher education (Loughran, 2004), and implores teacher educators to practice what they preach as they prepare future teachers (White, 2011). As Loughran (2014) notes, “teaching teaching is about thoughtfully engaging with practice beyond the technical; it is about using the cauldron of practice to expose pedagogy (especially one’s own) to scrutiny” (p. 275). In this sense it is clear that phronesis is the goal, with the teacher educator highlighting the deeply contextual nature of pedagogy to help facilitate the process. Some literature has explicated the means through which this can be accomplished. For example, Loughran and Berry (2005) used vignettes to highlight how they collaboratively modeled pedagogical processes in their Developing Pedagogy course in order to create increased opportunities for PSTs to engage more authentically with pedagogical processes. More specifically, when one teacher educator was finished with a section of the lesson, the other would facilitate a discussion of the pedagogical process just completed. Similarly but on an individual and not utilizing coteaching, other teacher educators have chronicled their journeys towards more explicit modeling of their pedagogical thinking (Crowe & Berry, 2007; Kosnik, 2007; Loughran, 2014; White, 2011). These and other studies have been helpful in framing the MP method; yet in our review of the literature we were unable to find a framework for metapedagogy with the flexibility to transcend specific courses or pedagogical contexts, nor one with a memorable and applicable structure. Thus, herein we offer a straightforward yet nuanced framework that enables broad application and empowers teacher

A Framework for ... Metapedagogy Method in Teacher Education   55

educators to realize the transformative potential of explicit modeling and guided collective reflection. Why Use the Metapedagogy Method? Our experiences as faculty members have highlighted the unfortunate reality that many students in higher education view their roles as passive recipients of information rather than critical processors. Although this ‘banking model’ status quo may be true across many majors in higher education, it is particularly troubling for PSTs, who will influence cadres of future citizens through their own teaching. To be fair, many PSTs educated in the current educational epoch have not been exposed to the process of critically analyzing course material. Even fewer have been explicitly taught how to analyze the thoughts, words, and behaviors of their instructors. This is likely due, at least in part, to the invisibility of pedagogy. As Munby, Russell, and Martin (2001) suggest, “good teaching tends to reinforce the view that teaching is effortless because the knowledge and experience supporting it are invisible to those taught” (p. 887). Furthermore, PSTs may struggle to notice pedagogical decisions due to internalized prior knowledge and poor pedagogy through the “apprenticeship of observation they have all experienced” (Darling-Hammond & Hammerness, 2005, p. 400) and the implicit assumption that they know what teaching entails (Lortie, 1975). For these reasons, we concur with Crowe and Berry (2007), who outline a set of principles to guide PSTs on their path to thinking like teachers and ensure PSTs move beyond merely teaching as they were taught. First, they highlight the importance of providing PSTs with ongoing insights into the pedagogical thinking of experienced educators. Second, they assert that hearing the pedagogical thinking of their professors by itself is inadequate. Instead, these experiences are most beneficial when combined with their own opportunities to critique the instructional practices that take place in their college classrooms. It is imperative for PSTs to experience a variety of pedagogical approaches and, more importantly, to engage in critical analysis through scaffolded discussions led by an experienced teacher educator. Without the ability to critically analyze the many pedagogical decisions made by teachers (and teacher educators) on a minute-by-minute basis, PSTs will have an extremely limited pedagogical armamentarium upon which to draw. Further, in the absence of a guided framework to put them on a path towards understanding the complexity of teaching, they are most likely to draw upon what they (think they) experienced as a student, or upon whichever instructional technique is in vogue at the moment.

56  M. THOMA and A. YEHLE

Indeed, developing this skill of analyzing pedagogy will not occur happenstance. Thus, the use of the MP method is a means to set PSTs on a path towards critical engagement with their future coursework within teacher education and the instructional processes selected and modeled by teacher educators. Moreover, the ability to critically analyze pedagogical approaches, once cultivated, may be transferable even when the content or specific methods themselves are not. For PSTs who may not know the exact grade level(s) they will teach after graduation, particularly as teaching certifications vary across grade levels (e.g., pre-K–12, 1–8, 7–12), developing pedagogical reasoning is paramount to becoming more conscientious teachers who “think creatively about complex situations, consider multiple options, make decisions about best course of action, and understand why they do what they do” (Crowe & Berry, 2007, p. 31). Furthermore, inservice teachers often experience variability in teaching assignments when they are moved from one grade level to another, or moved to another content area within their school, or entirely change schools and cultural contexts during their tenures in the teaching profession. For these reasons PSTs must develop the transferable skill of analyzing pedagogy, writ large, because their ability to select and aptly implement an appropriate pedagogical approach is crucial and transcends narrow age levels or specific content areas. Where Should the Metapedagogy Method Be Implemented in Teacher Education Programs? As Dewey (1938) reasoned in early writings related to teacher reflective practice, acting without question and critique will invariably dim the potentiality of student success. Given the complexities associated with teacher reflection (Hatton & Smith, 1995), it is not surprising that substantial opportunities to engage in such practices are often situated later in teacher education programs. For example, research has emphasized developing “reflective pedagogical thinking” especially in third- and fourth-year education students (Sparks-Langer, Simmons, Pasch, Colton, Starko, 1990, p. 23) or during the student teaching experience (Korthagen & Vasalos, 2005). Though pedagogical reflection is necessary near the end of teacher education programs, the complex nature of this practice seems to support initial teacher education coursework (e.g., introduction to education, social foundations of education, educational psychology) as a critical entry point to initiate the practice of pedagogical analysis. These courses have immense potential to establish a firm foundation for critical analysis and reflection, as PSTs’ ongoing practice of this analytical skill will benefit them through their remaining courses (e.g., methods coursework)

A Framework for ... Metapedagogy Method in Teacher Education   57

that are content- or age-specific as well as at their field placement(s) and student teaching experiences. The MP method should also be implemented in early teacher education coursework because, as Korthagen (2010) suggests, coursework at the beginning of a program may strengthen traditional views of teaching and learning. This is particularly true if PSTs find the transmission model of education reinforced by their instructors. For example, in social foundations of education courses, the emphasis on “covering” the content may “all too often [be] the only focus of attention” (Loughran, 2006, p. 5), perhaps due in part to instructors’ knowledge that methods courses are forthcoming. This may also explain why much of the literature on teacher education pedagogy draws on vignettes and examples from methods courses or those focused specifically on pedagogy itself (e.g., Crowe & Berry, 2007; Loughran & Berry, 2005; Peercy & Troyan, 2017), and not coursework in the foundations of education. In short, we contend the MP method is perhaps most beneficial for PSTs when it is integrated across coursework in a given teacher education program and affords PSTs the opportunity to begin developing as teachers early in their learning. It is therefore incumbent upon teacher educators of all courses to utilize an approach like the MP method to cultivate analytical skills in PSTs as they examine course content and the pedagogies of their instructors. When Should the Metapedagogy Method Be Utilized in Courses? Consistent and ongoing opportunities to engage with instructors’ pedagogical thinking is only possible when PSTs feel empowered to consider both “how” a student learns in addition to “what” they learn. Asking PSTs to critically analyze pedagogical processes and approaches used by their instructors is in many ways contrary to their expectations of the social/ cultural power dynamics typically inherent in the teacher/student relationship. Therefore, teacher educators who utilize the MP method must begin in the first class meeting to guide PSTs toward developing critical analysis of pedagogical processes and approaches. The conversation might begin by explicitly describing the concept of metapedagogy and the importance of maintaining “pedagogical transparency” throughout the course. Further, teacher educators may want to emphasize that they are not engaging in metapedagogical discussions because they think they are an unparalleled teacher; rather, they aim to make their thinking explicit and transparent as a means to divulge the inner thoughts and intentions of a more experienced teacher in action. Moreover, utilizing the MP method demands that the instructor cultivate a classroom environment where open critique of pedagogical approaches

58  M. THOMA and A. YEHLE

are not only welcomed, but expected. Thus, demonstrating and modeling the critical analysis of one’s own teaching as well as the ability to receive and process critique is paramount. This might include beginning a metapedagogical discussion by noting one strength of a particular approach utilized by the teacher educator as well as one way in which the selected approach could be improved based on what transpired in the classroom, or how it could be tailored for a specific grade-level or content area. After hearing the teacher educator’s critical analysis of their own pedagogical decisions, and sensing a genuine desire to hear and learn from their students’ critical analyses, PSTs may be more eager to share their perspectives, experiences, and engage in a more active classroom discussion. Their willingness and ability to engage in constructive discussions of the teacher educator’s pedagogies as well as their own may develop further as the semester or term progresses. In short, establishing a welcoming community of critical engagement early in the semester has been absolutely crucial for the use of the MP method in our institutional context and we imagine it will be in others as well. Beyond students’ initial discomfort in analyzing their instructors’ pedagogical approaches, some critics of the MP method might argue the degree of critical engagement could be unsettling for teacher educators. Indeed, wrestling with one’s assumptions and experiences of teaching and learning is fundamental to unpacking the depth of the apprenticeship of observation (Bullock, 2009). One might also suggest this discomfort may be disproportionally felt by junior faculty members who, as a result of increasingly neoliberal higher education contexts, may understandably feel pressure to accrue exemplary marks on student evaluations. They may fear the negative effects of this degree of pedagogical vulnerability. While this is certainly a valid and unfortunate concern, particularly in light of the increasing consumerist mentality within higher education, our experiences implementing the MP method have not yielded substantial concern from our students, who have generally expressed immense excitement over this approach. In sum, given a positive learning environment and perceived desire of the teacher educator to advance pedagogical analysis among PSTs, we contend that the MP method can work effectively if implemented early in teacher education courses. How Does the MP Method Actually Work in Practice? To better concretize the MP method, this section contains an in-depth vignette of how the MP method might be implemented in practice. This exemplar is grounded in an institutional context at a state university in the Midwestern United States with a relatively large teacher education program. Enrollment in the required 2-credit course, Foundations of Public Education is typically comprised of 25–30 PSTs pursuing licensure in many

A Framework for ... Metapedagogy Method in Teacher Education   59

different content areas and age levels (e.g., K–12 music, elementary education, 7–12 chemistry). Like many social foundations courses, this course examines the historical, philosophical, and sociological foundations of the teaching profession as well as contemporary issues educators face as they work in today’s schools. It is one of the introductory courses taken by all PSTs and is structured with one 100-minute session per week. It lies alongside other social foundations courses in the teacher education program, which include variations of “multicultural education” and ‘comparative education’, but our course typically serves as the very first teacher education course completed by students. We offer this particular exemplar for several reasons. First, the diversity of content included in the example reflects the broad scope of content addressed in teacher education coursework, including social foundations of education. It is often perceived by PSTs, teacher educators, and administrators that methods courses are where PSTs “actually” learn how to teach. We posit PSTs can learn to think like teachers even in nonmethods courses. Second, the vignette highlights a degree of content and process integration we believe to be one of the key strengths of the MP method and, more foundationally, of teacher education. The connections between the course material and the pedagogical means to communicate and teach it are quite clear in the exemplar, demonstrating that teacher educators implementing the MP method are encouraged to carefully consider this reinforcement and integration. While it is certainly possible to implement the MP method without this extent of integration between content and process, our experience and this exemplar highlights the benefits of such close connections. The exemplar begins with a brief outline of the intended purpose of the instructional activity and then, most importantly, outlines how facilitation of metapedagogical discussions might be enacted in the classroom. We suggest the following exemplar as a means to illustrate the concept and potentially advance the field of teacher education by generating “instructional products” (Hiebert & Morris, 2012, p. 94), and by describing in-depth an approach that carries a level of versatility that transcends variant institutional contexts and instructional arrangements. Finally, to improve readability and foreground the work of a teacher educator employing the MP method, who in this case is Matthew, we use first person and present tense throughout the following section. THE MP METHOD EXEMPLAR: AN EFFICIENCY, PROGRESSIVISM, AND MAIL CARRIER JIGSAW LESSON This first exemplar of the MP method is derived from a lesson exploring educational influences of the early 20th century, including both the efficiency movement ushered in by Frederick Taylor and progressivism as

60  M. THOMA and A. YEHLE

related to John Dewey. This lesson is a primer and far from a comprehensive review of these movements, but I hope students complete the lesson with basic knowledge about this epoch as well as its lasting influences on the field of education. I also hope they understand how teachers approach teaching from various philosophical stances that significantly influence instructional practices. For this lesson, students (should) have completed a reading about this period of educational history. Upon arrival, students see a “Do Now” prompt on the projector, which asks them to “brainstorm and write down at least two discussion questions that relate to the reading.” To clarify the task, on the PowerPoint slide I include a sample discussion question: “What are some of the current proposals suggested in the field of education to make schools more efficient?” After I review the agenda and intended learning outcomes for the lesson, students complete a brief “check for understanding,” responding to questions I created about the readings on a piece of paper, then writing their “Do Now” discussion questions on the back. After approximately five minutes allotted time to complete the task, we explore classroom efficiency by experimenting with multiple ways to hand in their papers, carefully timing each approach to see which is fastest. In one approach, students hand their paper to a single person at the table and I walk around to collect each table’s collection of papers. In a second approach, the students pass their papers through the rows and I collect only the papers from the students at the end of the rows. This approach is inevitably faster and I highlight approaches I have implemented in previous class sessions as examples of efficiency in my own instruction. I then make a 15-minute presentation on historical developments during the first half of the twentieth century. This component of the lesson addresses key moments from U.S. history so students can place educational developments in historical context, including, for example, Dewey establishing his Lab School, the first baseball World Series, Thorndike teaching the first course in education measurement, World War I, and others. The next section outlines Frederick Taylor’s emphasis on efficiency in business and the ways in which these principles have been adapted in teaching, citing Doug Lemov’s (2010) emphasis on “every minute matters” (p. 230) as a prime example. I then release the PSTs to discuss in their six table groups (of 3–4 students each) how teachers can create and utilize various classroom arrangements and instructional approaches to minimize the amount of time spent transitioning between activities and managing logistics. While they are discussing these aspects of efficiency, I quickly read and vet the discussion questions they completed as part of the “Do Now” and wrote on the back of their checks for understanding papers. I select six discussion questions, write one apiece on six pieces of paper, and set them

A Framework for ... Metapedagogy Method in Teacher Education   61

aside for later use. I then redirect the group and we debrief their ideas together as a large group. From this emphasis on efficiency we move into a discussion of Dewey’s work and the idea that primary and secondary school students can be included in the process of coconstructing knowledge. To achieve these ends, I aim to include students in the coconstruction of knowledge as they learn about progressivism and constructivism.2 I make a brief presentation about Dewey and his core beliefs before we actually put theory into practice through a pedagogical approach I call “Mail Carrier” Jigsaw. I explain that Mail Carrier Jigsaw is similar to a Gallery Walk activity because students have the opportunity to add their comments to ongoing discussions of specific prompts. However, it is also different because students do not move around the room and write on poster-paper. Instead, each table group of three to four students is given a piece of paper with a single question at the top. The questions are different for each group and are derived and constructed from the students themselves (i.e., from the “Do Now” prompt at the beginning of class), which serves as a key example of constructivist pedagogy. Next, I instruct students to discuss their question at their table for a few minutes, with one person capturing key ideas and comments on the paper, and release the PSTs to begin. After several minutes of discussion, I gain their attention and ask the group’s recorder to hand the paper to another PST in the group, who holds the paper up in the air and serves as the “Mail Carrier.” I tell the class that only this person will rotate to another group, carrying the “mail” (i.e., paper with discussion prompt and their responses) with them. To add creativity and fun to the activity, the Mail Carrier must deliver the mail in an early 1990s-appropriate manner, which entails mimicking the iconic sound of AOL’s e-mail program by proclaiming “You’ve Got Mail!” Though few PSTs were alive when this was popular, most know the phrase and enjoy the opportunity to express themselves upon arriving to a new group. The Mail Carrier’s task in the new group is to summarize the discussion from the previous group in no more than 45 seconds and then with the new group capture novel comments on the paper as they discuss the question, which is new to everyone in the group except the Mail Carrier. Each group discusses the recently arrived mail for several minutes before I ask for a new Mail Carrier (someone who has not yet moved) to deliver the mail to the next group, again summarizing the discussion upon arrival and then adding new comments to the paper with the new group. We go through several rounds of these discussions. In Mail Carrier Jigsaw, each person only rotates one time, so the group of three to four students from the start of the activity ends up sitting with their original group, because each person has rotated to the adjacent table during one of the rounds, but not rotated again (PSTs are always surprised at the end when

62  M. THOMA and A. YEHLE

they find themselves seated at the adjacent but with the exact composition of their original group). When one is the Mail Carrier they discuss the question twice, in the previous group and when they move to a new group; however, over the span of the activity the PSTs discuss 4–5 different questions, depending on time. As a facilitator, I carefully monitor the amount of time provided to discuss each question and typically budget about 15 to 20 minutes for Mail Carrier Jigsaw and an additional 5 to 10 minutes for the metapedagogical discussion that follows. Enacting the MP Method: The What and Why Questions As outlined in the sections above, the conceptual framework used to structure this chapter also serves as the basis for the MP method. Therefore, I begin the metapedagogical discussion with my students by asking, “What was the name of the activity that we just completed?” Because they mockingly mimicked AOL’s “You’ve Got Mail!”, students easily identify Mail Carrier Jigsaw. This basic recall question enables quick entry into a deeper metapedagogical discussion, but also reinforces the pedagogical point that students are more likely to remember something if humor, music, a mnemonic, and so forth, is utilized in the process. I then ask students why they might utilize or adapt this Mail Carrier approach, and I ask them to list its pros and cons. Students list several things they appreciated: (a) the ability to get out of their seats and move to a new table; (b) the opportunity to discuss questions with an ever-changing group of students; (c) the coconstruction of knowledge through two discussions of the same question when acting as the Mail Carrier; and (d) the increased degree of accountability because the old Mail Carrier and new Mail Carrier are both responsible for summarizing a group’s discussion. They then comment on the cons, including: (a) the possibility of not discussing all of the questions (depending upon the number of groups and discussion prompts); (b) the inability of the instructor to monitor all groups simultaneously; (c) the complexity of replicating Mail Carrier Jigsaw with younger learners; and (d) the difficulty of adding new insights to questions during the last round, when the papers were full of comments from previous groups. I fill in any additional pros or cons they may have missed, drawing on my own pedagogical content knowledge from years of teaching educational foundations, and then discuss the importance of considering an activity’s purpose. I make my thinking transparent and highlight my rationale for using this approach—I want students to experience the coconstruction of knowledge through a student-centered activity that also embodies certain elements of the efficiency approach.

A Framework for ... Metapedagogy Method in Teacher Education   63

Enacting the MP Method: The Where and When Questions After answering the and why questions, I then guide our facilitated debrief to where, when, and how. “Where might you use this approach in a curriculum unit?” The PSTs suggest that it could be used at the beginning of a unit to gain insights into what students already know about a topic, or alternatively, near the end of a unit to deepen students’ engagement with a topic after mastering basic concepts. In answering the when question, PSTs often suggest that setting up Mail Carrier Jigsaw takes some time, particularly when students’ own questions serve as the basis for discussion prompts, so it might be best implemented near the end of a lesson. Furthermore, the physical movement during the activity could be beneficial near the end of a lesson, particularly for students who get a bit “squirmy.” Finally, I ask the PSTs to analyze how I described and facilitated the discussion. Initially they do not recognize that they generated the questions, so I ask them to reflect on how the questions were generated. This sharpens their pedagogical analysis skills and enables me to describe how I planned my lesson with time for me to review their questions from the “Do Now” while they were discussing elements of efficiency in their table groups. PSTs therefore gain a deeper understanding of the planning process as I make my pedagogy explicit. Enacting the MP Method: The How Question At this point we have addressed the what, why, when, and where questions, so I ask them to consider the step-by-step pedagogical process I used to enact Mail Carrier Jigsaw. Teacher Educator: When did I distribute the papers with the discussion questions? PST: After you finished describing the activity. Teacher Educator:

Right. Why?

PST: Because we would be distracted by the questions. Teacher Educator: Exactly. When did I describe the rotation system? PST: After we discussed the first question. Teacher Educator: Right. Why?

64  M. THOMA and A. YEHLE

PST: It would have been too confusing to process everything at once. Teacher Educator: Why did I ask the Mail Carrier to hold up the paper? PST: So everyone knew who was rotating, and there was less confusion. Teacher Educator: Was the time allocated for each round the same? PST: No. The amount of time decreased each time. Teacher Educator: Oh, really? Why do you think I planned that? PST: Because there was already a lot of information on the papers and there was less information to add with each rotation. Teacher Educator: Yes, and I was carefully monitoring each group’s discussion to gauge the timing We continue discussing similar questions as we collectively investigate how Mail Carrier Jigsaw was enacted in my classroom. These critical questions offered through the MP method conceptual framework provide PSTs with an insider’s perspective of how I planned and enacted my lesson, including the multiple instructional decisions I made before and in-action. Summarizing the MP Method The above vignette illustrates the means for enacting the MP method in teacher education courses. Favorable feedback from our PSTs suggests that the use of the MP method can elucidate not only the importance of course content in the minds of PSTs but also support them on the path to ‘thinking like teachers’ and new avenues for pedagogical analysis. Yet we acknowledge that the MP method demands that teacher educators spend some time discussing their pedagogical processes in addition to the course content. This is particularly true for our Foundations of Education unit, where the primary purpose of the course was not pedagogical development, as it has been for some other teacher educators who advocate for more explicit modeling of instruction (see Loughran & Berry, 2005). Yet we remain committed to the MP method due to the foundational significance for our PSTs and posit that if planned carefully, the utilization of the MP method requires fairly minimal time. As noted earlier, the exemplar originates from a 2-credit course, and we were still able to address pertinent issues within the literature, and hopefully forge deeper connections in the minds of PSTs

A Framework for ... Metapedagogy Method in Teacher Education   65

between the content we were teaching and the pedagogical processes we employed to achieve learning desired outcomes. Perhaps most importantly, we contend that the integration of content and process, where both are analyzed, may yield even deeper understandings of key issues in teacher education coursework. In conclusion, teaching is a demanding and complex endeavor (Lampert, 2001) and as Darling-Hammond (2012) avows, training teachers requires teacher educators to consider both content and pedagogical practice: While it is important to have well-chosen courses that include core knowledge for teaching, it is equally important to organize prospective teachers’ experiences so they can integrate and use their knowledge in skillful ways in the classroom. This is probably the most difficult aspect of constructing a teacher education program. Teacher educators must worry not only about what to teach but how, so that knowledge for teaching actually shapes teachers’ practice and enables them to become adaptive experts who can continue to learn. (p. 92)

In offering the above exemplar, we aim to support the overall framework of the MP method towards creating a teacher education space where PSTs simultaneously develop a keen understanding of course content as well as the ability to analyze the pedagogical approaches of their instructors. CONCLUSION This chapter outlined a conceptual framework for implementing the metapedagogy method in teacher education courses as a means to help preservice teachers begin thinking like teachers. It proposed a new, transferable, and adaptable framework for use in teacher education pedagogy that includes five guiding questions: What? Why? Where? When? How? We used this framework of questions on a structural level to articulate the metapedagogy method and its potential power in transforming teacher education pedagogy. Most importantly, the exemplar of practice highlights how the same framework and guiding questions could be employed in educational foundations coursework to cultivate critical analytical skills amongst PSTs. The MP method is transformative in several ways. First, it asks PSTs to transform the way they approach their coursework, as they personally shift from primarily passive to active roles. It may also result in transformations to the assumed relations of power within teacher education spaces, particularly as teacher educators open up the black box of their own pedagogy to critical analysis. Finally, and most importantly, the MP method can help transform the process for preparing future teachers, as they begin early

66  M. THOMA and A. YEHLE

in their course trajectories to understand the contextual and contingent nature of pedagogical practice. Through metapedagogical discussions that build on their lived experiences in teacher education spaces, the PSTs are able to cultivate knowledge as phronesis, and move beyond overly simplistic notions of “best practices” towards more nuanced understandings of pedagogy in action. In conclusion, we concur with others that as teacher educators we must resist the pedagogical status quo and the continued invisibility of teacher educator pedagogy. We therefore offer the MP method as a transformative approach to teacher education pedagogy in the hope that other teacher educators will consider its possibility for developing pedagogical reasoning among preservice teachers. ENDNOTES 1. Although we believe the ongoing debate about “standard behaviors,” “core practices,” “‘highly effective” or “high-leverage” strategies, and other related ideas has merit, an in-depth exploration of this area is beyond the scope of this chapter. Yet, as a matter of transparency we want to state openly that we implore our PSTs to practice and utilize certain teaching behaviors while at the same time considering the contextual realities of their students, classrooms, and schools. 2. While progressivism and constructivism are related, they are not the same; however, students in the program take a curriculum and pedagogy course later in the teacher education sequence so it is not as necessary to dwell extensively on their differences in this particular lesson.

REFERENCES Ball, D. L., & Forzani, F. M. (2009). The work of teaching and the challenge for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(5), 497–511. Berry, A. (2007). Reconceptualizing teacher educator knowledge as tensions: Exploring the tension between valuing and reconstructing experience. Studying Teacher Education, 3(2), 117–134. Bullock, S. M. (2009). Learning to think like a teacher educator: Making the substantive and syntactic structures of teaching explicit through self-study. Teachers and Teaching, 15(2), 291–304. Crowe, A. R., & Berry, A. (2007). Teaching prospective teachers about learning to think like a teacher: Articulating our principles of practice. In T. Russell & J. Loughran (Eds.), Enacting a pedagogy of teacher education: Values, relationships, and practices (pp. 31–44). London, England: Routledge. Darling-Hammond, L. (2012). Building a profession of teaching: Teacher educators as change agents. In M. Ben-Peretz, S. Shimoni, R. Reichenberg,

A Framework for ... Metapedagogy Method in Teacher Education   67 & S. Kleeman (Eds.), Teacher educators as members of an evolving profession (pp. 88–102). Lanham, MD: R&L Education. Darling-Hammond, L., & Hammerness, K. (2005). The design of teacher education programs. In L. Darling-Hammond and J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 390–441). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience in education. New York, NY: Collier Books. Doherty, C., Dooley, K., & Woods, A. (2013). Teaching sociology within teacher education: revisiting, realigning and re-embedding. Journal of Sociology, 49(4), 515–530. Furlong, J. (2013). Education—An anatomy of the discipline: Rescuing the university project? London, England: Routledge. Hatton, N., & Smith, D. (1995). Reflection in teacher education: Towards definition and implementation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(1), 33–49. Hiebert, J., & Morris, A. K. (2012). Teaching, rather than teachers, as a path toward improving classroom instruction. Journal of Teacher Education, 63(2), 92–102. Kessels, J., & Korthagen, F. (1996). The relationship between theory and practice: Back to the classics. Educational Researcher, 25, 17–22. Korthagen, F. (2010). Situated learning theory and the pedagogy of teacher education: Towards an integrative view of teacher behavior and teacher learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 98–106. Korthagen, F., & Kessels, J. (1999). Linking theory and practice: Changing the pedagogy of teacher education. Educational Researcher, 28(4), 4–17. Korthagen, F., & Vasalos, A. (2005). Levels in reflection: Core reflection as a means to enhance professional growth. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 11(1), 47–71. Kosnik, C. (2007). Still the same yet different: Enduring values and commitments in my work as a teacher and teacher educator. In T. Russell & J. Loughran (Eds.), Enacting a pedagogy of teacher education: Values, relationships, and practices (pp. 16–30). London, England: Routledge. Lampert, M. (2001). Teaching problems and the problems of teaching. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Lemov, D. (2010). Teach like a champion: 49 Techniques that Put Students on the Path to College. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Loughran, J. (2004). A history and context of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices. In J. J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V. K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 7–39). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic. Loughran, J. (2006). Developing a pedagogy of teacher education. New York, NY: Routledge. Loughran, J. (2014). Professionally developing as a teacher educator. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(4), 271–283. Loughran, J., & Berry, A. (2005). Modelling by teacher educators. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 193–203. Lortie, C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

68  M. THOMA and A. YEHLE Lunenberg, M., Korthagen, F., & Swennen, A. (2007). The teacher educator as role model. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 586–601. Mcdonald, M., Kazemi, E., & Kavanagh, S. S. (2013). Core practices and pedagogies of teacher education: A call for a common language and collective activity. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(5), 378–386. Munby, H., Russell, T., & Martin, A. K. (2001). Teachers’ knowledge and how it develops. Handbook of research on teaching, 4, 877–904. Peercy, M. M., & Troyan, F. J. (2017). Making transparent the challenges of developing a practice-based pedagogy of teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 61, 26–36. Sparks-Langer, G. M., Simmons, J. M., Pasch, M., Colton, A., & Starko, A. (1990). Reflective pedagogical thinking: How can we promote it and measure it? Journal of Teacher Education, 41(5), 23–32. White, E. (2011). Working towards explicit modeling: Experiences of a new teacher educator. Professional Development in Education, 37(4), 483–497. Zeicher, K. (2005). Becoming a teacher educator: A personal perspective. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 117–124. Zeichner, K. (2012). The turn once again towards practice-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(5), 376–382.

CHAPTER 5

ENACTING THEORY-ANDPRACTICE PEDAGOGIES WITHIN A TEACHER EDUCATION PROGRAM Experiences of Teacher Candidates Kevin O’Conner, Gladys Sterenberg, and David Dillon

INTRODUCTION This chapter investigates the effects of our transformative pedagogies designed to help our teacher candidates integrate theory and practice within a “realistic” approach to teacher education (Korthagen, 2001). Specifically, we are interested in how teacher candidates in their third year of a Canadian teacher preparation program experience an integrated semester designed to link theory and practice. The gap between on-campus coursework and field experiences is partly responsible for recent calls for extensive practical experience for teacher candidates (National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education, 2010). This recent call echoes earlier calls for such approaches. Clinical schools (The Carnegie Forum

Transformative Pedagogies for Teacher Education: Moving Towards Critical Praxis in an Era of Change, pp. 69–86 Copyright © 2018 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

69

70  K. O’CONNER, G. STERENBERG, and D. DILLON

on Education and the Economy, 1986), professional development schools (Holmes Group, 1986) and partner schools (Goodlad, 1988) are proposed ways of increasing reciprocal collaboration in order to connect theory and practice (Teitel, 1998). However, the emergence of practice-centered models with a focus on core practices (Ball & Forzani, 2009; Forzani, 2014; McDonald, Kazemi, & Kavanagh, 2013) challenge the role universities and colleges play in teacher preparation (Zeichner, 2012) and lead to two visions: one that prepares teachers for professional roles and teaching careers, and one that prepares teachers as technicians (Zeichner, 2013). These visions augment the tensions between theory and practice and in response some universities are strategically attempting to connect academic (e.g., university-based coursework) and school-based practices (e.g., Zeichner & Bier, 2015). A recent survey of the design of Canadian teacher education programs (Russell & Dillon, 2015) revealed that the design of the large majority of these programs could be described as “theory-into-practice.” That is, course work is largely front-end loaded in a program to provide knowledge for candidates’ subsequent application in practicum. Unfortunately, research reveals the general ineffectiveness of such an approach, since candidates rarely use that knowledge in the development of their practice. That evidence is long-standing (Zeichner & Tabatchnick, 1981) and widespread (Clift & Brady, 2005; Perry & Power, 2004; Wideen, Mayer-Smith, & Moon, 1998.). Clift and Brady (2005) note that on-campus courses can influence students’ thinking about practice, “but implementing practice based on beliefs is neither linear nor simple” (p. 15). In fact, the research they reviewed provided considerable evidence of the difficulty of moving from intention to action. Instead, teacher candidates tended to learn to teach as they had been taught or to be socialized into typical school practices (Cole, 1997; Tigchelaar & Korthagen, 2004). Such research prompted us to investigate alternate approaches to teacher education that foster “realistic” experiences (Korthagen, 2001). The following question guided the research: How does a realistic approach within an integrated semester support or dissuade teacher candidates’ ability to link coursework and field experiences in order to develop effective praxis? A REALISTIC APPROACH Korthagen (2001) proposes a realistic approach to teacher education that starts, not with theory, but rather with practical problems faced by teacher candidates. This approach is based on experiential learning and the promotion of reflection on teacher candidates’ teaching experiences through a constructivist learning process where “the student develops his or her

Enacting Theory-and-Practice Pedagogies   71

knowledge in a process of reflection on practical situations, which creates a concern and a personal need for learning” (p. 15). The role of the teacher educator is not to impart theory as guidance to teacher candidates, but rather to foster phronesis using teacher candidates’ practical experience as the base. Phronesis refers to a kind of practical wisdom that is concerned with the important specifics of particular situations as a way of not only understanding them well, but of deciding how to respond to them well. The intent of a realistic approach to teacher education is to transform experience into knowledge (Kolb, 1984) that reflects the social, political and cultural reality of the educational context (Kincheloe, 2003). Transformative pedagogies (Cranton, 2006; Mezirow, 1991, 1995, 1997, 2000) are those initiatives that contribute to double-loop learning (Argyris & Schön, 1974) where teacher candidates integrate emerging theories of education with their developing practical wisdom. Schön (1987) proposes a way forward to achieve “double-loop learning,” that is, a learning process that actually transforms, rather than reinforces, one’s professional practice. The first step is to help expose learners’ current theories-in-use for examination, in order to learn about the assumptions and values that drive their own, and others’ practice. Next is to establish a reflective practicum that is, above all, given a good deal of time, “the work of a reflective practicum takes a long time. Indeed, nothing is so indicative of progress in the acquisition of artistry as the student’s discovery of the time it takes” (p. 311). Of final importance is the quality of the coaching provided to help students with the long and challenging task of relearning from the basis of their practicum experience. “The coach’s legitimacy does not depend on his scholarly attainments or proficiency as a lecturer but on the artistry of his coaching practice” (p. 311). CRITICAL PEDAGOGY A primary dimension of our research is to investigate how critical pedagogy can prompt realistic experiences for teacher candidates. Critical pedagogy (Freire, 1970; Jardine, 2005; Kincheloe, 2005, 2008; Kincheloe & Steinberg, 1998) can help teacher candidates transform their teaching experiences into professional knowledge through a deeper understanding of the social, political and cultural reality of the educational context. We believe this can be done through critical problem-posing pedagogies based in experiential learning that incorporates social constructivism as a theory of learning and is inextricably tied to place-based education (Breunig, 2005; Freire, 1970; Greunewald, 2003). Experiential education is the process of learning by doing that begins with the learner engaging in direct experience followed by reflection

72  K. O’CONNER, G. STERENBERG, and D. DILLON

(Dewey, 1915; Tyler, 1949). In our context, it places major importance on the knowledge of teacher candidates derived from a good deal of experiential learning (Dewey, 1938). By immersing themselves in direct experience, teacher candidates make discoveries and experiment with knowledge themselves instead of exclusively hearing or reading about the experiences of others (Kolb & Lewis, 1986). Teacher candidates also reflect on their experiences, with the goal of developing new skills, new attitudes, and new theories or ways of thinking. They test and refine that knowledge in socioconstructivist interaction with each other and with associate teachers and teacher educators who accompany them in their learning (Kraft & Sakofs, 1988). This process of experiential learning is a continuous process alternating between action in experience and opportunities to reflect upon that experience to make sense of it, and then returning to action to further test out and modify emerging hypotheses, followed by further reflection upon the new experience, and so on. Dewey (1915) sees learning as a dialectic process between experience on the one hand and concepts, observations, and action on the other. Place-based education is an approach to teaching that is grounded in the context of community (Raffan, 1995; Theobald & Curtiss, 2000). It emerges from the particular attributes of a place. The content is specific to the geography, ecology, sociology, politics, and other dynamics of that place (Woodhouse & Knapp, 2000). It provides a purpose to the knowledge and reasoning taught in schools, it offers a contextual framework for much of the curriculum by giving meaning to the studies and it engages teacher candidates in the conditions of their own realities. In the context of our research, place-based education integrates teacher candidates’ professional community (practice) and targeted course work (theory). Through this integrated process, teacher candidates made connections to their schooling. Critical pedagogy supports a realistic approach to teacher education as it seeks to provide teacher candidates with opportunities to transform experience into knowledge that in turn informs their practice as they engage in double-loop learning (Argyris & Schön, 1974; Ashby, 1952; Mezirow, 1991, 1995, 1997). However, the literature on critical pedagogy suggests that the learning of new complex practice involves a good deal of unlearning and relearning and takes a good deal of time and support (Gruenewald, 2003; McLaren, 2003). Our research investigates the implementation of transformative pedagogies based on critical pedagogy (Giroux, 2015; Kincheloe & Steinberg, 1998). Within the education field, it has become increasingly important to have an informed and critical citizenship reflected through the teacher profession prepared to embrace responsible and social behaviors (Barr, 2003; Hines, Hungerford, & Tomera, 1986; O’Connor, 2016). Here, we use Glaser’s (1985) definition of citizenship:

Enacting Theory-and-Practice Pedagogies   73 Good citizenship calls for the ability to think critically about issues concerning which there may be a difference of opinion and apply democratic values to the issues. Critical thinking has three components: an attitude of carefully considering problems, knowledge of logical inquiry methods, and skill in applying those methods. (Glaser, 1985, p. 25)

The genesis’ of such citizenship rests in family, community and schooling that promotes responsible social behaviors. In the examination of the educational processes and social actions that lead to good citizenship, we posit that critical thinking is the central foundation (Freire, 1970; Gruenewald, 2003; Kincheloe, 2005). Learning to think critically is conceptualized as the acquisition of the competence to participate critically in the communities and social practices of which a person is a member. If education is to further the critical competence of students, it must provide them with the opportunity at the level of the classroom and the school to observe, imitate and practice critical agency and to reflect upon it. Learning contexts must be chosen which students can make sense of and in which they can develop a feeling of responsibility for the quality of the practice in question. (Ten Dam & Volman, 2004, p. 359)

A crucial condition to critical pedagogy is it requires a context to be relevant and therefore be sustainable (Gruenewald, 2003; Penetito, 2009). School and community issues that frame place-based and experiential learning provide the context for critical thinking, situational conditions, and for attributes such as locus of control. Place-based educational activities focus on environmental and social values, situational characteristics and psychological variables; as community action is open to a range of varying and competing interests (Barr, 2003). The conditions that give rise to responsible citizenship and social behaviors are a major focus of place-based initiatives (Louv, 2005; O’Connor & Sharp, 2013; Sobel, 2004). These place-based educational initiatives focus on the development of new teachers focusing on a critical knowledge of social, environmental and political issues and associated action strategies, locus of control, attitudes, verbal commitments and an individuals’ sense of responsibility within a larger professional education community. Through our study, in researching the impacts of a realistic approach to teacher education, we investigated how transformative pedagogies of communities of practice enacted through cohorts in both course work and practicum, weekly in-school seminars employing critical pedagogies, and communitybased field studies integrated with four integrated third year fall semester pedagogy and curriculum courses could support or dissuade teacher candidates’ ability to link coursework and field experiences in order to develop effective practice.

74  K. O’CONNER, G. STERENBERG, and D. DILLON

OUR CONTEXT This research is part of a longitudinal qualitative study that investigates the impact of transformative pedagogies by associate teachers and teacher educators throughout teacher candidates’ practica experiences in all four years of the program, and their initial year of teaching after graduation. Central to the research focus for this chapter is the investigation of how transformative pedagogies provide sustained realistic experiences within field-based, integrated education courses that contribute to a more realistic theory-and-practice approach to teacher education. In our existing 4-year bachelor of education program, teacher candidates spend increasing time in practica complemented with on-campus education lecture. One transformative pedagogy that we introduced early in the program is a biweekly school-based seminar to complement the on-campus classes. These school-based seminars are transformative as teacher candidates are invited to reflect on the discussion prompts within the context of their practice. In order to encourage teacher candidates to engage in a realistic approach, we have structured the course into 2-week blocks. Prior to the beginning of each 2-week block, teacher candidates are presented with an article to read and an open-ended prompt to respond to in an online discussion forum. The readings and discussion prompts reflect the five areas of competencies in our program: planning for learning, facilitating learning, assessment of learning, classroom environment, and professional responsibilities. In the on-campus class, small groups of critical friends discuss their responses to the prompt with respect to teachers’ roles within school systems. This is followed later in the week by an in-school seminar where a cohort of six to twelve teacher candidates are invited to reflect on the discussion prompts within the context of their practice. The seminar is scheduled at the beginning or end of the ½-day field experience of the first week of the 2-week block. At the end of the field experience ½-day, teacher candidates are asked to complete journal entries on a range of related topics, and critical friends are invited to provide a response to these. The on-campus discussion with critical friends in Week 2 provides an opportunity for teacher candidates to discuss their responses to the critical friends and to the journal entries. Teacher candidates complete journal entries focused on their own roles and responsibilities within the teaching profession following the weekly field experience. During the school-based seminars, teacher candidates are invited to reflect on theoretical readings and discussion prompts within the context of their practice. Integrated assignments also require teacher candidates to reflect on their own roles and responsibilities within the teaching profession. These assignments and seminars specifically ask teacher candidates to consider their

Enacting Theory-and-Practice Pedagogies   75

pedagogy as they link theory-and-practice through examples from their practicum placements. In our efforts to support realistic experiences for our teacher candidates, we introduced the transformative pedagogy of partnership schools by working with associate teachers, principals, and district leaders that shared our desire to foster realistic experiences to establish formal university-school partnerships. School sites were selected based on prior planning meetings with school administrators and mentor teachers and their willingness to share our vision of an integrated theory-practice, realistic approach to teacher education. We codesigned a curriculum of seminar readings consistent with a realistic approach intended to develop teacher capacity in response to practice-based problems. Associate teachers and school administrators were invited to participate and often conversations extended beyond the seminar. In this way, associate teachers, teacher candidates, and faculty supervisors were engaged in responsive critical discussions that interrogated the intersections between theory and practice. In the third year of the project, we continued to study the impact of cohort placements and weekly in-school seminars in these partner schools employing critical pedagogies. We introduced an integrated semester involving four curriculum and instruction courses, field studies, and a 5-week practicum placement for teacher candidates in their third year of the program. We created numerous partnerships in experiential educationrelated fields and teacher candidates were immersed in a 3-day field study at Tim Horton Children’s Ranch, a half-day field study at Ann and Sandy Cross Conservation Centre, and a 1-day field study at Telus Spark Science Centre. Similar to the aforementioned school sites, these field sites were selected based on prior partnership work and planning with the associated organizational educators and administrators intended to honour the mutual partnership goals of developing educational capacity in response to practice-based problems. These critical approaches to teacher education that took place in the third year of the program and were transformative are highlighted in this chapter. The context of our study supports the theoretical framework of realistic experiences and is drawn from the literature on critical pedagogy with the intent to study theory-and-practice integration. In order to address our research question crafted around this framework, we present a methodology that connects these dimensions with our investigation of transformative pedagogies. OUR STUDY Qualitative research methodologies (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000; Guba & Lincoln, 1994) were used to address the research question. The partici-

76  K. O’CONNER, G. STERENBERG, and D. DILLON

pants of this study included 53 teacher candidates involved in the third year of their program. Data sources were class assignments (reflective journal entries of field studies at a nature conservation area, a science centre, and a children’s camp, responses to discussion prompts, an integrated curriculum project, and professional growth plans), midterm individual interviews with a convenience sample of nine participants, and year-end individual interviews with a convenience sample of eleven participants. Because these students were enrolled in our mathematics and science courses, we had our research assistant conduct the interviews and the data were not shared until final marks were submitted and the semester was complete. The timing of the midterm and year-end interviews was strategic as the midterm interviews were conducted while the teacher candidates were directly immersed in the field studies work. For the purposes of this chapter, the primary data source was the final individual interviews with 11 teacher candidates. These 11 teacher candidates self-selected based on a request made to all 53 teacher candidates by our research assistant. We chose to focus on the data from the final individual interviews as it best demonstrated the teacher candidates’ emerging understanding of linking coursework and field experiences in order to develop effective practice. The year-end interviews supported reflective activities that summarized the integrated semester experience and focused on the individual teacher candidate’s emerging identity and professional development as they made theory-practice connections. The interviews were semistructured and asked teacher candidates to describe their experiences with theory and practice integration in the courses and in the practicum. Many of the interview questions asked them to reflect on their experiences from the past 3 years in the program and then compare how the Year 3 semester impacted their development as facilitators of curriculum and pedagogy. Also, in the final individual interviews, teacher candidates were asked to respond to their understanding of integrating field studies and course work after they returned from their full-time practicum (5 weeks). Data were analyzed using qualitative methods to identify common themes on the impact of transformative pedagogies on theoryand-practice integration with a focus on critical pedagogy. TRANSFORMATIVE PEDAGOGIES The teacher candidates identified four transformative pedagogies for linking theory-and-practice: Field studies where theory-and-practice links were modeled by faculty members and then facilitated with school children; on-campus courses that incorporated realistic critical discussions; cohort placements that facilitated a community of practice through participation in weekly in-school seminars; and requirements through integrated assign-

Enacting Theory-and-Practice Pedagogies   77

ments that helped them critically reflect on their learning both collectively as a cohort and individually. Field Studies. The format for the field studies was thoughtfully crafted to facilitate engaging experiences for teacher candidates. We led pond, forest, and river studies using teaching materials designed for elementary and secondary school children. Teacher candidates were invited to engage in these activities and then to reflect on their experiences. Afterwards, teacher candidates codesigned a related inquiry with school children. When we returned to campus, we engaged in critical discussions. Teacher candidates identified experiences in field studies where theory-and-practice links were modeled by faculty members and then facilitated with school children as transforming their ability to link practice and theory. In particular, a shift in experiences based on constructivist learning approaches impacted many of the teacher candidates: It was going out into the field [study that helped me connect theory and practice] because I began to realize that it doesn’t have to be [direct teaching]. (Interview 6, April 18, 2016) I loved the integration of the [field study] experience. I thought that was very valuable. It gave us a first-hand view of inquiry learning. It gave us a first-hand experience with kids and that it is okay that it is a little bit messy … I hadn’t experienced that before. (Interview 2, March 16, 2016).

It is important to note that teacher candidates have been engaged in seminar conversations about constructivist and inquiry learning since their first year. Prior to this experience, they seemed to have a preliminary understanding of how a student-directed approach could be enacted but had limited school experiences of interacting with children one half day per week per semester. In this third year of their program, the field studies allowed the teacher candidates to engage in experiential learning which fostered a better understanding of how the practical, through reflection, leads to realistic opportunities for student learning. The data is replete with rich examples of how teacher candidates planned and facilitated student-centered learning within the 5-week practicum as a direct result of their experiences. They identified this as being transformative for disrupting their prior perspectives of learning as teacher directed. I took the experience [Tim Horton Children’s Ranch] and dissected it and actually found where the theory was in the experience we had had with the kids.… I just know that inquiry is really interesting and I really liked it as a way of leading kids—well not even leading them—but guiding them to find the answers themselves, as opposed to teacher-directed learning, so that was really rich for me. (Interview 4, March 22, 2016)

78  K. O’CONNER, G. STERENBERG, and D. DILLON

Realistic discussions. On-campus courses that incorporated realistic discussions were effective in transforming teacher candidates. What the data reveal is the ability of teacher candidates to link rich examples from their practice to their developing understanding of theoretical perspectives, and to identify growth in their ability to link theory and practice. All teacher candidates had confidence in their ability to respond to their pupils’ needs, as linked to the theory they were learning and as exemplified by one who stated, “I have become that person who is focused on relationships and focused on building the meaningful moments [for my students]” (Interview 5, April 5, 2016). Teacher candidates were acknowledging the diversity of learners in their classrooms and responding in their role as educators as part of the linking of theory and practice. I feel a lot more confident in what is happening with Education now … to see the different approaches and how different characters can just blossom in different environments and take on different roles. (Interview 7, April 21, 2016). I think because [Exceptional Students course] covers so many things and, you know, so many different needs in your classroom, it is a good class to have … I think it just helps me with understanding a little bit more about the person and what they are facing, and then how I could use that information to help with differentiation. (Interview 2, March 16, 2016)

At the time of the final interviews, the teacher candidates were enrolled in on-campus courses, two of which were education courses. The following response is representative of links they were making to the previous integrated semester: [One of my instructors] always has us think back to our own practice, so I often think back to the [English Language Learners] diversity that I had in my practicum, and so that has been really beneficial … and the way she has created [the assignments] really with our current and past experiences, and the textbook, they relate everything together nicely. (Interview 1, March 15, 2016)

There is strong evidence to suggest that instructors of these courses who adopted a realistic approach to class discussions were able to facilitate robust theory-and-practice links as teacher candidates made rich references to pupils and school contexts from the previous integrated semester. The realistic discussions included critical pedagogies that the teacher candidates identified as crucial antecedents in their emerging understandings of the realistic and complex environments found in classrooms and schools today.

Enacting Theory-and-Practice Pedagogies   79

In-school seminars. Cohort placements that facilitated a community of practice (Wenger, 1998) through participation in weekly seminars contributed to transformative experiences. Similar to their identification of the impact of realistic discussions during on-campus courses, teacher candidates found the realistic discussions during in-school seminars to be transformative. In order to better integrate theory and practice and also expose teacher candidates’ assumptions and beliefs about their learning, we implemented in-school seminars. These were linked to assignments requiring teacher candidates to complete reflective journal entries. A representative comment from one teacher candidate shows the strength of this programmatic transformative pedagogy: You need, I think, to develop your own pedagogy and to also use your experiences to develop that pedagogy … I really do like the reflective journals when they are more pointed, when they have topics because I really do need that time to process and reflect on my thinking and theory, and how it actually does relate to a practical situation. (Interview 1, March 15, 2016)

One teacher candidate spoke about the process of reflection in exposing unconscious biases. I also feel like I had to throw out a lot of my ideas that I had when I started in the program…. So kind of getting out of those ideas to build the things that work better for students because they are more meaningful. (Interview 5, April 5, 2016)

The readings and topics chosen for the in-school seminars and reflections were selected to prompt critical thinking through problem posing about the social, political and cultural reality of the educational context. A common thread through the data is explicated by one teacher candidate who described how realistic discussions within her cohort helped her make theory and practice links: I feel that reflection time was huge, and that is something that has really helped making those ties between theory and practice … I found we would naturally start talking about it, but I feel if it were prompted a bit, too, it also really helped, like bringing up some of the topics that we worked through, reflected on, and gave examples. I think that is one of the biggest things, having that time to make those connections when they don’t occur to me or to one of my peers. Sometimes somebody else brought it up and it made a lot more sense because I had a very similar example that hadn’t occurred to me that also applied to that scenario, or hadn’t occurred to me that I could use, that actually occurred to a kid, or they came up with something I hadn’t thought of. (Interview 5, April 5, 2016)

80  K. O’CONNER, G. STERENBERG, and D. DILLON

The in-school seminars provided a practical context and a network of a community of learners in which teacher candidates could engage in constructivist forms of learning founded in the very place where the theoretical and practical intersect. Often, teacher candidates would share the benefits of multiple perspectives and the deconstruction of ideas as they relate to challenging issues. I think I learn a lot from the people around me too through discussion, if I have discussions about it and have an opportunity to reflect on it with other people and get their input on it. If I were to sit down with you and say “Okay, this is what I would do with it” and then you say, “Oh, I would do this, this and this,” I might not do it the way you do but it would give me ideas on how to approach things and it also helps me reflect on how other people might perceive it; how some of my students might perceive it because they think differently than I do. (Interview 7, April 21, 2016).

Integrated assignments. Requirements through integrated assignments helped teacher candidates critically reflect on their learning both collectively as a cohort and individually. Teacher candidates were engaged in creating a curriculum unit that integrated mathematics, science, language arts, and drama and one teacher candidate stated: It forced you to do that reflective piece … and I have boxes in my brain. I have a Language Arts box and I am starting to realize that I can’t just have boxes because things don’t fit into one or the other, you can have bits of everything. (Interview 6, April 18, 2016)

Others spoke about the challenge to integrate disciplines becoming easier because of attention to student learning: “At first, it seems a little silly because we are, ‘Oh we have to integrate all this stuff and this is really difficult,’ but if you look at a classroom you are integrating everything all day long” (Interview 7, April 21, 2016). The teacher candidates all spoke to their initial struggles with the integrated assignments as they were required to not only plan but facilitate them in their practicum. Many of the teacher candidates developed habits of mind similar to Schön’s (1983) reflective practitioner. Through the reflective process, the teacher candidates identified successes and areas of growth that defined their emerging professional identities as educators informed by realistic experiences. The integrated assignments disrupted contemporary educational approaches, such as what Freire (1970) referred to as the “banking model” of education, in which teachers’ deposit knowledge into the so-called “empty” depot of the student mind and hope the students, in future contexts, find ways to apply the knowledge in action. The integrated assignments allowed the teacher candidates to respond to

Enacting Theory-and-Practice Pedagogies   81

the realistic and immediate needs of their learners and how those needs supported or contradicted theoretical content. The transformative pedagogies identified by teacher candidates as supporting their theory-and-practice links were supported by our choice of implementing a realistic approach. Central to our research is the identification and potential of key features associated with deliberate pedagogical interventions intended to better integrate theory-and-practice and also expose participants’ assumptions and beliefs about their learning through more effective practices. Using terminology from Donald Schön (1983, 1987, 1995), goals for the interventions are that teacher candidate’s become consciously aware of tacit principles that drive their practice (theories-in-action), but also begin to learn to reflect-on-action (postpractice) and eventually to reflect-in-action (during practice) in order to transform their practice as teacher candidates. While we know that teacher candidates tend to be socialized into the status quo of school practice or to reproduce their own school experiences (Tigchelaar & Korthagen, 2004; Tillema, 1998), as three teacher educators, we question the traditional teacher education process of exposing students to theory (coursework) and practice (K–9 classroom) as sufficient in promoting Schön’s (1983, 1987) epistemology of experience. We suggest that Schön’s reflection-in-action is often unachievable within traditional teacher education programs as teacher candidates rarely master learning from experience during teacher education programs in a transformative way that gives them direct access to the experience, specifically an authority of experience (Munby & Russell, 1994) in developing knowledge from analysis of that experience. Are you arguing then that the focus that is so placed on the value of the practicum is misplaced? And that teacher education programs should pay less attention to this emphasis on practicum and filed experiences and focus on integrated activities as you have argued? Such authority of experience contrasts with traditional authorities of reason and position and while the goal of education can be cast in terms of establishing knowledge claims on the authority of reason, there are times when claims are seen to rest on the teacher’s authority of position…. Preservice teachers are poised to move from being subject to their own teachers’ authority of position to taking charge and, as students turned teachers, assuming authority of position over those they teach. (p. 92)

Therefore, we emphasize that teacher candidates’ practicum experiences should be catalysts for identifying and challenging prior knowledge of and beliefs about teaching and learning. Teacher educators’ professional learning strategies should acknowledge that teacher candidates can change as a result of experiences in practicum. By implementing a realistic approach,

82  K. O’CONNER, G. STERENBERG, and D. DILLON

we conclude that teacher candidates’ abilities to form theory-practice links were enhanced by their engagement in these transformative pedagogies. CONCLUSION Our transformative pedagogies of field studies, realistic discussions, inschool seminars, and integrated assignments assisted teacher candidates to respond to practice-based problems. The instructors and practicum supervisors, in collaboration with school and field study site partners, adapted curriculum and pedagogy so that they addressed the immediate and diverse learning needs of the teacher candidates and, specifically, the definite concerns of the local school/community. Our program delivery was based around the social, cultural, cognitive, economic, and political context that the school was in a relational aspect with. While not always termed critical pedagogy, the praxis of our methods mirrors the ideology espoused by many academic critical pedagogues (Giroux, 1997; Harding, 1998; Kincheloe, 2005; McLaren, 2003). Through these critical explorations, teacher candidates shared diverse epistemologies that often led to debate. We believe that this process is a central, but undervalued, feature of professional development and ultimately social life. It also provides a basis for learners to accept dissimilar forms of knowledge and to ultimately be accepting of what is different. This critical transformative process has meaning in an educational context that often struggles to define itself among conflicting representations, such as some of the contradictions between Indigenous and Western cultures. It is ultimately through the participation within the in-school cohorts that teacher candidates get a realistic understanding of the varied nuances and issues that define the complex environment of which the students are members. In the context of the emergence of alternative paths based on a view of the role of teachers as technicians (Zeichner, 2013), our study demonstrates how a realistic approach can help teacher candidates integrate public theories of education (episteme) with their developing practical wisdom (phronesis). The findings provide insight into how college and university teacher preparation programs can support transformative theory-andpractice links. This is significant in an era where narrowing the role of teachers to technicians limits the development of teacher candidates who have a deep knowledge through experience of the social, political and cultural reality of educational contexts.

Enacting Theory-and-Practice Pedagogies   83

ACKNOWLEDGMENT The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada supported this research. REFERENCES Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Ashby, W. (1952). Design for a brain. New York, NY: John Wiley. Ball, D. L., & Forzani, F. M. (2009). The work of teaching and the challenge for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(5), 497–511. Barr, S. (2003). Strategies for sustainability: Citizens and responsible environmental behavior. AREA, 35(3), 227–240. Breunig, M. (2005). Turning experiential education and critical pedagogy theory into praxis. Journal of Experiential Education, 28(2), 106–122. Carnegie forum on education and the economy, task force on teaching as a profession. (1986). A nation prepared: Teachers for the 21st century. New York, NY: Carnegie Corporation of New York. Clift, R., & Brady, P. (2005). Research on methods courses and field experiences. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education. Washington, DC: AERA and Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum. Cole, A. (1997). Impediments to reflective practice. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 3(1), 7–27. Cranton, P. (2006). Understanding and promoting transformative learning (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Dewey, J. (1915). The school and society: The child and curriculum. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. London: Collier-MacMillan Forzani, F. M. (2014). Understanding “core practices” and “practice-based” teacher education: Learning from the past. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(4), 357– 368. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum. Giroux, H. A. (1997). Pedagogy and the politics of hope theory, culture, and schooling: A critical reader. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Giroux, H. (2015). Education and the Crisis of Public Values: Challenging the Assault on Teachers, Students, and Public Education. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Goodlad, J. (1988). School-university partnerships: Rationale and concepts. In K. Sirotnik & J. Goodlad (Eds.), School-university partnerships in action: Concepts, cases, and concerns (pp. 3–31). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Gruenewald, D. (2003). The best of both worlds: A critical pedagogy of place. Educational Researcher, 32(4), 3–12.

84  K. O’CONNER, G. STERENBERG, and D. DILLON Glaser, M. E. (1985). Critical thinking: Educating for responsible citizenship in a democracy. National Forum: Phi Kappa Phi Journal, 65(1), 24–27. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105–117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Harding, S. (1998). Is science multicultural? Postcolonialism, feminism, and epistemologies. Bloomington, IN: University of Indiana Press. Hines, J.M., Hungerford, H., & Tomera, A. (1986). Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible environmental behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Education, 18(2), 1–8. Holmes Group. (1986). Tomorrow’s teachers: A report of the Holmes Group. East Lansing, MI: Author. Jardine, G. M. (2005). Foucault and education. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Kincheloe, J. (2003). Teachers as researchers: Qualitative inquiry as a path to empowerment. New York, NY: Routledge Falmer. Kincheloe, J. (2005). Critical pedagogy. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Kincheloe, J. (2008). Knowledge and critical pedagogy: An introduction. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer. Kincheloe, J., & Steinberg, S. (1998). Unauthorized methods: Strategies for critical teaching. New York, NY: Routledge. Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Kolb, D., & Lewis, L. (1986). Facilitating experiential learning: Observations and reflections. In L. Lewis (Ed.), Experiential and simulation techniques for teaching adults (pp. 99–107). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Korthagen, F. (2001). Linking practice and theory: The pedagogy of realistic teacher education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Kraft, D., & Sakofs, M. (1988). The theory of experiential education. Boulder, CO: Association of Experiential Education. Louv, R. (2005). Last Child in the Woods: Saving our children from nature-deficit disorder. Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill. McDonald, M., Kazemi, E., & Kavanagh, S. S. (2013). Core practices and pedagogies of teacher education: A call for a common language and collective activity. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(5), 378–386. McLaren, P. (2003). Life in schools: An introduction to critical pedagogy in the social foundations of education (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Mezirow, J. (1995). Transformation theory of adult learning. In M. R. Welton (Ed.), In defense of the lifeworld (pp. 39–70). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative learning: Theory to practice. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 74, 5–12. Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Munby, H., & Russell, T. (1994). The authority of experience in learning to teach: Messages from a physics methods class. Journal of Teacher Education, 45(2), 86–95.

Enacting Theory-and-Practice Pedagogies   85 National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2010). Transforming teacher education through clinical practice: A national strategy to prepare effective teachers. Washington, DC: Author. O’Connor, K. (2016). A pedagogy of place: Promoting relational knowledge in science teacher education. Teacher Learning and Professional Development, 1(1), 44–60. O’Connor, K., & Sharp, R. (2013). Planting the science seed: Engaging students in place-based civic actions. European Scientific Journal, 4, 160–167. Penetito, W. (2009). Place-based education: Catering for curriculum, culture and community. New Zealand Annual Review of Education, 18, 5–29. Perry, C., & Power, B. (2004). Finding the truths in teacher preparation field experiences. Teacher Education Quarterly, 31(2), 125-136. Raffan, J. (1995). Experiential education and teacher education. Journal of Experiential Education, 18(3), 117–119. Russell, T., & Dillon, D. (2015). The design of Canadian teacher education programs. In T. Falkenberg (Ed.), Handbook of research on initial Canadian teacher education (pp. 151–166). Ottawa, ON: Canadian Association for Teacher Education. Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York, NY: Basic Books.
 Schön, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Schön, D. (1995). The new scholarship requires a new epistemology. Change, 27(6), 26–34. Sobel, D. (2004). Place-Based Education: Connecting Classrooms and Communities. Great Barrington, MA: The Orion Society. Teitel, L. (1998). Separations, divorces, and open marriages in professional development school partnerships. Journal of Teacher Education, 49, 85–96. Ten Dam, G., & Volman, M. (2004). Critical thinking as a citizenship competence: Teaching strategies. Learning and Instruction, 14, 359–379. Theobald, P., & Curtiss, J. (2000). Communities as curricula. Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy, 15(1), 106–111. Tigchelaar, A. & Korthagen, F. (2004). Deepening the exchange of student teaching experiences: Implications for the pedagogy of teacher education of recent insights into teacher behaviour. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 665–679. Tillema, H. H. (1998). Stability and change in student teachers’ beliefs about teaching. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 4, 217–228. Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Wideen, M., Mayer-Smith, J., & Moon, B. (1998). A critical analysis of the research on learning to teach: Making the case for an ecological perspective on inquiry. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 130–178. Woodhouse, J. L., & Knapp, C. E. (2000). Place-based curriculum and instruction: Outdoor and environmental education approaches. Charleston, WV: ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools.

86  K. O’CONNER, G. STERENBERG, and D. DILLON Zeichner, K. (2012a). The turn once again toward practice-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 63(5), 376–382. Zeichner K. (2013) Two visions of teaching and teacher education for the twentyfirst century. In X. Zhu & K. Zeichner (Eds.), Preparing teachers for the 21st Century: New frontiers of educational research (pp. 3–19). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. Zeichner, K., & Bier, M. (2015. Opportunities and pitfall in the turn toward clinical experience in U.S. teacher education. In E. R. Hollins (Ed.), Rethinking field experiences in pre-service teacher preparation (pp. 20–46). New York, NY: Routledge. Zeichner, K., & Tabatchnik, B. (1981). Are the effects of university teacher education “washed out” by school experiences? Journal of Teacher Education, 32, 7–11.

CHAPTER 6

TOWARD TRANSFORMATIVE PRACTICES IN TEACHER DEVELOPMENT Lessons From Research With Youth of Color Louie F. Rodriguez and Tara Brown

INTRODUCTION I was always getting suspended, and I felt like they [school staff members] didn’t give enough time to know me or know what times did I get fidgety or how long can I sit down. I wasn’t bad; I was busy. They just, like, some of them just never took the time to find out. —Mike, age 17 That teacher, he don’t care. He will give you book work like every single day. He don’t care. And when we ask, “why are you teaching us?” he would answer in a rude way. That prevents you from telling him how to make his class more interesting. —Denise, age 16

Transformative Pedagogies for Teacher Education: Moving Towards Critical Praxis in an Era of Change, pp. 87–102 Copyright © 2018 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

87

88  L. F. RODRIGUEZ and T. BROWN

Mike and Denise are among the many students with whom we have worked over the last 15 years in our efforts to improve schooling conditions for youth of color, particularly in urban high schools. As reflected in these quotes, the young people we encounter consistently report that teachers do not understand or fail to consider their perspectives and lived experiences, which inhibits the development of nurturing and productive learning environments. This lack of connection between teachers and students, particularly in high-poverty urban schools has drawn attention to the ways teachers are prepared to work with racially/ethnically and socioeconomically minoritized youth. Like the overall teaching force, teacher candidates remain predominantly White and middle class (and female) (Ingersoll & May, 2016). Contrarily, low-income youth and youth of color, whose numbers are steadily growing, make up more than half the K–12 public school student population (National Center for Education Statistics, 2016; Southern Education Foundation, 2015). Due to widespread racial/ethnic and class segregation in the United States (Rothstein, 2014), this means that many individuals entering teacher education programs have had limited interactions with the populations they will serve. Therefore, it is crucial that programs help teacher candidates build knowledge about the lives of youth from diverse backgrounds, interrogate their own cultural beliefs, and develop critical understandings of social inequality. Unfortunately, many programs fall woefully short in this regard, and one significant reason for this, we believe, is the dearth of opportunities for teacher candidates to learn from and with minoritized youth. In many university-based teacher education programs, field experiences in K–12 schools are the only venue in which pre-service teachers engage with youth. The depth and duration of these experiences vary widely, and they often occur in suburban schools that lack cultural and socioeconomic diversity (Phillion, Chamness Miller, & Lehman, 2005; Zeichner, 2010). Moreover, field experiences, like university coursework, tend to focus on technical, logistical, and teacher-directed activities, such as lesson planning, instruction, and assessment. There is far less attention on relational and sociocultural aspects of schooling that significantly impact students’ educational outcomes (Carter, 2013; Howard & Milner, 2014). Thus, many teacher education programs fail to bridge the gap “between the skills, knowledge, and experiences that teachers bring to teacher preparation programs and what is actually required to successfully serve low-income youth and youth of color” (Brown & Rodríguez, 2017). A powerful strategy for addressing this gap is to directly involve youth of color in training preservice teachers. In this chapter, we discuss ways that teacher education programs can create opportunities for training teachers to learn from young people’s

Toward Transformative Practices in Teacher Development   89

unique knowledge of schooling processes to transform teacher development. Specifically, we describe activities we have used and aspire to use in incorporating teacher training into participatory action research (PAR) with youth. We organize these activities into three types—(1) information gathering, (2) praxis, and (3) assessment—and explain how they are aligned with the pedagogical principles that guide our PAR work (Rodriguez & Brown, 2009). While all draw on PAR’s pedagogical and epistemological orientations, many of these activities can be implemented outside of PAR. We also describe some of the challenges of involving K–12 students in university-based teacher training, and ways to create institutional conditions that support this work. Ultimately, we argue that efforts to transform pedagogies for teacher education, to prepare teachers to effectively address the academic and sociocultural needs of minoritized youth are limited without their expertise and guidance. APPLYING GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR PAR WITH YOUTH TO TEACHER DEVELOPMENT PAR is a research approach “in which people directly affected by a problem under investigation engage as co-researchers in the research process” (Rodriguez & Brown, 2009, p. 23), which includes intervention into the problem. In our research, we partner with in- and out-of-school youth to identify, investigate, and intervene into conditions that limit their chances for success inside and outside of school. This approach draws on a rich tradition of research and activism (Fals-Borda, 1979; Freire, 1970; Park, 1993) which recognizes that socially marginalized people possess invaluable knowledge about the nature of and should lead interventions into their “limit situations” (Freire, 1970, p. 104). Thus, PAR challenges the traditional, scientific orthodoxy that “objective” researchers who are removed from the social experiences and populations they study are best positioned to create “official” knowledge about those groups and social phenomena. PAR is both a methodological and pedagogical approach that supports the learning, growth, and development of the researchers, and seeks to empower, local investigators. As characterized by Freire (1970), the coinvestigators, who possess different skills and expertise, are both teachers and learners. This pedagogical orientation is aligned with funds of knowledge (Moll, Amanti, Neff, & Gonzalez, 1992) and community cultural wealth (Yosso, 2005), which affirms that, minoritized youth, families, and communities have a wealth of knowledge that must inform educational practice and research in ways that promote “social and racial justice” (Yosso, 2005, p. 82). It is from this perspective that we and other educational researchers engage in PAR as a form of capacity building through which youth can

90  L. F. RODRIGUEZ and T. BROWN

improve the conditions of their lives and influence scholarly knowledge about their schooling experiences (Cammarota & Fine, 2008; Irizarry, 2009; Torre, Fine, Stoudt, & Madeline, 2012). Three guiding principles characterize our engagement in PAR with youth: (1) situated and inquiry-based, (2) participatory, and (3) transformative and activist. Following, we describe each principle and how it informs our understanding of why it is vital to involve minoritized youth in teacher development. Situated and inquiry-based reflects our commitment to “research and learning in which the topics of inquiry, the content of learning, and the knowledge produced reflect and address the real-life problems, needs, desires, and experiences of youth” (Rodriguez & Brown, 2009, p. 24). From this perspective, activities designed to impact K–12 students’ schooling processes must be grounded in their everyday experiences and perspectives. Because “people act on their individual perceptions, and those actions have real consequences” (Fetterman, 1998, p. 5), understanding how students make sense of schooling is vital to building a comprehensive body of knowledge about their educational needs. This attention to students’ perspectives is particularly important as it pertains to youth of color whose cultural experiences are underrepresented in schools (Moll et al., 1992; Yosso, 2005). Many new teachers are not prepared to work effectively in racially/ethnically and socioeconomically diverse school contexts. Topics in which they often receive inadequate training include social inequality, poverty, racism, and White privilege, which negatively impacts their ability to understand, connect with, and support minoritized youth (Brown & Rodriguez, 2017). Learning experiences that are situated in the lived experiences and understandings of minoritized youth will enhance preservice teachers’ opportunities to learn about educational and social inequities from a variety of perspectives. Participatory pertains to “research and pedagogical processes that validate, incorporate, and build on the knowledge and skills of youth” (Rodriguez & Brown, 2009, p. 27). This includes supporting their social and intellectual growth and helping them to develop critical social analyses. Through problem-posing and dialogic activities, young people identify and share knowledge about topics of concern to them, as topics of research. Throughout the investigative and learning process, we capitalize on the competencies and interests of each youth researcher, assist them in expanding their knowledge base and repertoire of skills, and foster collaboration and mutual respect. These approaches stress the importance of young people’s active participation in determining the content and modes of inquiry and learning as a valued partner. As minoritized youth are disproportionately exposed to remedial, teacher-centered instruction

Toward Transformative Practices in Teacher Development   91

(Darling-Hammond, 2010), experiences in which they can have meaningful input into teaching and learning are vital. While they are the intended beneficiaries, K–12 students rarely actively participate in teacher development (Brown, Clark, & Bridges, 2012). Such participation has advantages for preservice teachers, teacher education programs, and minoritized youth. Through PAR, which includes both empirical research and intervention into the problem(s) under study, youth researchers participate in teacher preparation in multiple ways. They influence the body of knowledge on how teachers can help students to be successful, which is disseminated through research presentations and publications. They also lead trainings and dialogues with pre- and in-service teachers, based on their research findings. These direct interactions allow the youth to incorporate their experiences, perspectives, and needs into how the teachers who serve them are trained and provide aspiring teachers with current, first-hand knowledge about schooling processes. Further, in learning with minoritized youth, teacher candidates will better understand how to build productive relationships with students. Lastly, many university faculty are disconnected from the everyday lives of minoritized youth which limits their capacity to provide pre-service teachers with authentic and socially situated knowledge about the experiences of these youth and their families and communities. Creating spaces for youth to directly and actively contribute to the learning of aspiring teachers, and their instructors, will help teacher educators and, thus, teacher education programs to be more relevant to the increasingly diverse K–12 schools. Lastly, transformative and activist describes learning that supports “consciousness raising and active intervention aimed at justice, [social] transformation, and liberation” (Rodriguez & Brown, 2009, p. 30), particularly as related to the schooling experiences of minoritized youth. Drawing on the work of critical scholars, dialogue, and reflection we create opportunities for youth to voice their critiques of and develop their critical analyses of school and society. Together, we use the knowledge built through the research processes to develop and implement actions designed to address educational problems. One form of action we commonly use is intervention into teacher development, based on our consistent finding that lack of care from teachers is a barrier to success for students in urban schools. Emphases on consciousness raising and activism reflect our commitment to education as means for liberation (Freire, 1970; Shor, 1992) for marginalized youth. That is, transforming their knowledge and skills in ways that enable them to challenge and overcome personal and institutional circumstances that limit their potential. To support education for the liberation of minoritized youth, many preservice teachers and teacher education programs also require transformation. As Howard (2006) explains, teachers with a “transformationist”

92  L. F. RODRIGUEZ and T. BROWN

(p. 110) identity and orientation towards practice are best positioned to work effectively with youth of color. These teachers “interrogate institutional structures, policies, and procedures” (p. 111) and their own racial and/or class privilege. They also “enter the worldview of [their] students” (p. 120) to develop understanding and empathy and to create culturally relevant learning experiences, and importantly, translate their knowledge into action to support and advocate for their students. Producing such teachers requires pedagogical transformation in teacher education programs that support these skills and understandings. In sharing their knowledge and expertise, youth can make a significant contribution to this effort. TRANSFORMATIVE TEACHER DEVELOPMENT PRACTICES: INVOLVING YOUTH In our collaborative work with youth and with each other, we have created, implemented, and reflected on a variety of activities in which we coconstruct knowledge with youth that is authentic to their lived experiences and everyday contexts. Our work shows that such activities are rich laboratories of information and power upon which educators should capitalize to improve their craft. Teacher development rarely taps the expertise of youth, who are willing to share, brainstorm, and develop transformative possibilities for educational policy and practice. This void exists in both university settings where teachers are trained and K–12 schools where educators typically have narrow and shortsighted perspectives on the value of students’ voices and experiences and their role in teaching and learning. To the contrary, we have found that youth themselves hold the key to solutions to many challenges confronting schools. However, unlocking this opportunity requires pedagogies and practices that move beyond traditional methods of teacher development. With this goal in mind, we propose a series of activities aimed at transforming how teachers are trained, which draw on the expertise of minoritized youth and our PAR guiding principles. KNOWLEDGE CONSTRUCTION/INFORMATION GATHERING Through our work in both teacher and youth development, we have learned that K–12 teachers need certain knowledge to work effectively with youth of color, predicated on authentic understanding of students’ perceptions and experiences of schooling, which is often lacking among both preservice and practicing teachers. This knowledge deficit informs teachers’ dispositions and experiences in ways that limit their ability to effectively engage students and woefully undervalues and overlooks a multitude of possibilities to better

Toward Transformative Practices in Teacher Development   93

understand a significant aspect of school life: students’ lived experiences. To address these problems, we propose two activities aimed a constructing knowledge and information gathering: theme-based youth panels, and student voice forums. Theme-based youth panels are intended for pre- and in-service teachers, teacher educators, and district-level policymakers. Preservice and practicing teachers, specifically, should be encouraged and supported in collaboratively organizing thematic-based panels delivered by youth. Teachers initiate dialogues with youth to identify topics and themes that are relevant to their school and community lives, and then work with youth to organize interactive, topic-related panels for various audiences. Teacher educators should model such youth-centered practices with their students in the university classroom. They can organize mock panels in their courses where the preservice teachers act in the role of K–12 students, model for students how to initiate and facilitate dialogue and how to create a panel for a wider audience of educators. As an example, in one of our projects, high school students were asked to define a “quality” teacher. After a series of dialogues and data collection efforts in which youth explored “quality” teachers and teaching in their school environment, they conducted a panel presentation/professional development session for pre-service teachers at a local university, followed by a rich dialogue. This event provided preservice teachers with the opportunity to codefine “quality” teachers and teaching with youth—the “consumers” of teacher practice. The youth panel also provided preservice teachers with concrete examples of quality teaching—how to support and challenge students and keep the classroom “alive.” Teacher educators should encourage and support in-service and preservice to engage in similar work with the youth. Student voice forums are also powerful in garnering rich information about schooling and facilitating opportunities to coconstruct knowledge with youth. We propose these forums as a way to capture a snapshot of the school climate, guided by generative questions: Questions which may include—What’s working well in school? What needs improvement? What are some proposed solutions?—can be cocreated by a group of youth who work with pre- and/or in-service teachers to organize the forum. Through these forums, youth participants, who represent a cross-section of students at the school (e.g., by race, gender, language, dis/ability, and achievement), generate a knowledge set representative of the school climate at any given point in the school year. This experience is a valuable diagnostic tool for understanding the “state” of the school from the student perspective, and it illuminates the creativity, care, and vision that many students possess in envisioning schools’ possibilities for transformation.

94  L. F. RODRIGUEZ and T. BROWN

These two activities draw on our three guiding principles for PAR with youth in several ways. In gathering information and coconstructing knowledge with youth, teachers’ understandings of students’ social contexts and experiences are deeper and more authentic, which allows them to support students in more relevant and productive ways. Whereas in university-based classrooms approaches to learning about K–12 schools and students, information comes textbooks and second-hand accounts, our proposed activities capitalize directly on youth expertise. Further, these activities are inherently participatory, as youth actively contribute to teachers’ knowledge. While it may be for easier teachers and teacher educators to work in isolation to design learning experiences, engaging youth in the process yields far more possibilities for educational transformation. Not only are youth more likely to “buy-in” to practices they have helped to create, but they also acquire skills and experiences that are beneficial to their intellectual development. These activities that capitalize on their knowledge and expertise also capitalize on the power of the youths’ Community Cultural Wealth (Yosso, 2005). Finally, these activities provide possibilities for youth, training teachers, and teacher educators to engage in activism that can transform practice and policy in both K–12 schools and teacher education programs which, in turn, can improve schooling experiences and future opportunities for minoritized youth. CRITICAL PRAXIS We have also observed that teacher development programs often fall short in using critical praxis to engage and transform education and opportunities for teachers, youth, schools, and communities. From a Freirian perspective, critical praxis refers to how students “learn how to enact reflection and action in a permanent alliance, through the communal process of dialogue” (Darder, 2015, p. 6). In the context of PAR with youth in education, critical praxis involves opportunities for preservice and practicing teachers to reflect on students’ experiences of schooling through dialogue with the youth researchers and to address those experiences in their practice. Unfortunately, this perspective runs counter to many of the policies and practices that drive K–12 teacher development where teachers deliver and students receive. In this context, pedagogy, curriculum, and assessment are developed in isolation from K–12 students and the contexts in which they live and learn. Conversely, in our approach, youth are actively and centrally involved in teaching and learning that includes and transgresses the boundaries of the classroom. Through praxis, young people’s learning is about transforming the self and the world in which they live, and our work has consistently demonstrated that they want and

Toward Transformative Practices in Teacher Development   95

are prepared to cocreate conditions for this type of learning, which extends beyond traditional academic subjects. We discuss PAR with youth, Educational Journeys, and Dialoguing as forms of praxis with youth to transform teacher development practices. Together, we have led numerous PAR projects with youth, largely in the context of teacher development. In our projects, youth have identified challenges in their schools and communities, developed research questions, created data collection instruments, conducted data collection and analysis, and brainstormed implications for educational policy and practice. Our youth researchers have conducted presentations and workshops for university and K–12 students and faculty, school district leaders and policymakers, county offices of education, and community organizations, and presented at national research conferences. In many ways, the youth researchers became public intellectuals (Rodriguez, 2014) through praxis centered on youth’s voices, perspectives, and experiences. Two examples include youth-driven projects aimed at understanding and responding to the dropout crisis and one focused on disciplinary exclusion (Brown, 2010; Rodriguez, 2014), in which university faculty and graduate students posed a series of questions to youth which prompted a series of conversations and generated a list of reasons which became a central hub of ideas to investigate. Youth then narrowed the list down to thematic areas, developed research questions, created surveys and interview protocols, and collected and analyzed the data. The young people were supported through the research process and encouraged to identify policies and practices they would like to see in light of their findings. The youth in the dropout project presented their findings and recommendations to school staff and faculty, the district superintendent, and the school board president. As a result, changes were made regarding school policy and practice, classroom-based approaches to student engagement, the use of student voice across the school and district, and there was a growth in awareness that youth of color are capable of intellectually rigorous work, which can transform educational possibilities. The second activity using praxis involves Educational Journeys, which is pedagogical activity that draws on and benefits directly from the perspective and lived experiences of youth. Designed by Tara, Educational Journeys provide a platform for youth to identify and reflect on significant moments in their educational pathways (see Brown, 2010 for an overview and an example of implementation). These moments inform themes that characterize the collective experiences of youth which typically overlap in powerful ways and emanate from multiple, identifiable policies and practices. These policies and practices are then used as points of analysis, reflection, and comparison, to understand the local and larger national trends that shape education (e.g., standardized testing).

96  L. F. RODRIGUEZ and T. BROWN

Louie developed “Educational Journeys” into a pedagogy called the healing, building, and thriving approach. First, Educational Journeys allow for youth to heal from past educational traumas, especially among youth of color who have experienced substandard schooling experiences. Second, Educational Journeys facilitate opportunities to build from and develop a collective consciousness among students, particularly when there is significant overlap in experience. Finally, Educational Journeys create opportunities for youth to thrive given the central role that youth play in building, telling, learning, and creating new educational possibilities as a result of their own stories (Rodriguez, in press). In one of Louie’s projects, Educational Journeys served as a form of praxis that brought a classroom of mostly Latinx youth together to better understand school and community conditions that contribute to student (dis) engagement (Rodriguez, 2014). Similar conditions can be created for preservice teachers in university classrooms. Prior to engaging in this work with youth, teacher educators should give preservice teachers the opportunity develop and share their own Educational Journeys and model a process of sharing and analysis in the classroom. In supporting work with youth, teacher educators must demonstrate active listening, mutual respect, and true collaboration so that training teachers fully appreciate the potential of such endeavors. PAR with youth and Educational Journeys, as teacher development strategies, exemplify our principles in several ways. Because the goal is to raise the consciousness of students to understand themselves and to transform their worlds, these activities allow youth to set the learning agenda, to determine the modes of inquiry and learning, and to work for positive change in their immediate social world. Engaging in critical praxis as both a theory and practice, youth are both the subjects and drivers of the process. University faculty members, preservice teachers, and the youth become partners in the process where teaching and learning is mutual and knowledge is coconstructed. While information-gathering activities help to identify key issues, challenges, and possibilities as identified by youth, it is through critical praxis that youth further develop skills and knowledge and actively intervene into their schooling conditions. Similarly, university faculty who support this work with preservice teachers gain new and valuable perspectives on the on-the-ground realities facing youth which allows them to stay current in their understandings of school and community conditions. Further, the gain knowledge about how work effectively with youth which they can articulate and put into practice with their teacher education students.

Toward Transformative Practices in Teacher Development   97

ASSESSMENT Our collaborative work with youth also implicates an important aspect of any educational endeavor, particularly as related to teacher development— assessment. Our youth-centered work has inherently involved various types of assessment such as monitoring educators’ responses to workshops and presentations, and the extent to which our recommendations for policy and practice are implemented. This evaluative work has shown that youthcentered activities can have powerful effects on pre- and in-service teachers and K–12 schools (Brown et al., 2012; Rodriguez, 2015), assessment is an area we are still developing. Therefore, in this section, we will share a set of aspirational assessment activities that can contribute to transforming teacher development. A key challenge to involving youth in assessment is the traditional paradigm in which teachers evaluate students but students, especially K–12 students, have no formal means to evaluate teachers. This dynamic reinforces asymmetrical power relations where teachers hold considerable power over students who have little influence over their schooling conditions. We envision assessment as reciprocal where youth are not only evaluated, but they become evaluators. For example, “SAT Bronx” (Students from Bronx Leadership Academy 2, O’Grady, Ferrales, & Cushman, 2008) shows how youth can create tools with which to evaluate teachers’ knowledge of students’ experiences. From the perspective of youth as evaluators, we discuss school-based performance assessments, and youth competency “tests” as ways to evaluate educators’ capacities for understanding and supporting, particularly, minoritized youth. We propose that youth should play a much more active role in schoolbased performance assessments of teacher candidates. They can participate in classroom observations of teacher candidates and then engage in debrief discussions with the candidates about what they observed. The foci of observations might include the nature student/teacher relationships, instructional or classroom management strategies, or the overall classroom climate. Youth can be guided on how to provide constructive feedback, but it is important that they have latitude to use their own judgment about the quality of the learning environment. With this approach, the role of the students is transformed from the “evaluated” to the “evaluator.” Both teacher candidates and their instructors can use feedback from youth to improve and transform their classroom practices. In this activity, university faculty can draw on their expertise to help preservice teachers and youth to interpret classroom/school observations while at the same time assessing the relevance of their own analytic approaches, using the youth perspective as a critical lens. Our idea of a youth competency “test” for teachers and teacher candidates is inspired by the work of a group of Bronx youths who worked

98  L. F. RODRIGUEZ and T. BROWN

with two teachers, and a journalist to develop a “SAT” test on the experiences and perspectives of urban youths (O’Grady, Ferrales, & Cushman, 2008). The test is designed to assess the competency levels of educators and others who serve youth. It consists of items related to cultural and community-based knowledge that the youth deemed vital for survival and success, centering their funds of knowledge (Moll et al., 1992). We propose that more youth should be supported in developing such tests to examine the degree to which teachers and teacher candidates understand the minoritized youth and communities. Special attention can be placed on the experiences of youth in a specific community context (e.g., learning English or being undocumented). Faculty and other university stakeholders can help youth to develop the tests and develop competencies that are transferable to academic work and career pathways. These activities highlight our guiding principles in several ways. By capitalizing on youths’ experiences and expertise, these assessment approaches are authentic and relevant to the classroom, school, and community context. This is particularly important when there is a disconnect between teacher education programs and the schools and communities for which they are preparing teacher. These activities also recognize the participatory role of youth as experts who can make valuable contributions to evaluations of teachers’ preparedness for working effectively with diverse students. Finally, these approaches transform how teachers and teacher candidates are assessed in ways that move teacher development towards pedagogies that better support new teachers’ capacities for working effectively with minoritized youth. CHALLENGES AND POSSIBILITIES OF WORKING WITH YOUTH: TOWARDS TRANSFORMATIVE PRACTICES IN TEACHER DEVELOPMENT (2–3 PAGES) While we believe that pedagogies for teacher education greatly benefit from directly involving marginalized youth, there are significant challenges to doing this. Beyond field experience in which youth are passive objects of observation and practice, few university programs have structures in place to facilitate interactions between K–12 students and aspiring teachers. Therefore, faculty members like ourselves must enlist and train youth to assist with teacher development organize and implement activities, including logistical arrangements at K–12 schools and universities, with little institutional support. Moreover, these efforts are on top of typical faculty workloads—teaching, committee work, research, and publishing—and they are undervalued in tenure and promotion processes (Torre, 2014).

Toward Transformative Practices in Teacher Development   99

Further, many teacher education faculty have little direct interaction with, particularly, low-income youth of color, especially on an on-going basis. For faculty who conduct research with K–12 students, their relationships with students typically end once they leave the field, and it is rare to see youth inside the university. If it is not encouraged, supported, and valued by their institutions, it is unlikely that faculty incorporate youth into their coursework, even if they see value in doing so. On the other hand, there are university personnel who have on-going, everyday relationships with K–12 schools and could facilitate the inclusion of young people into teacher education programs: field supervisors. However, in our experience, particularly in research-intensive universities, field supervisors are often adjunct or clinical faculty or non-instructional staff members who have little input into the design of teacher education programs. Moreover, as with teacher candidates, many teacher educators do not have the “transformationist identity” (Howard, 2006, p. 112) required to work with minoritized youth in productive ways. That is, they do not possess the cultural knowledge and experiences and the social-political and anti-racist orientations needed to recognize the tremendous value youth can bring to their work. Thus, we recognize that not all teacher educators have the desire or ability to collaborate with youth in their teaching practice. In fact, it is our position that faculty with deficit views of low-income and “minority” youth, families, and communities should not engage in this work. However, with institutional support, those who are ideologically positioned to work effectively with minoritized youth can facilitate opportunities for other faculty to develop more transformationist perspectives. We see several ways colleges of education can create structures that promote and support the direct involvement of youth of color in teacher development. First and foremost, colleges located near high-poverty, highminority K–12 schools must partner with these schools. In our experience, they sometimes opt to work with higher-income and less diverse schools, which they view as safer, more organized, and better able to provide examples of good teaching. In the absence of institutional relationships with K–12 schools that serve large numbers of minoritized youth, it is left to individual faculty members to forge working relationships with students in these schools, which is difficult without university-based support. Further, in partnering with schools that are most in need of assistance, colleges of education increase the relevancy of their work to local K–12 school systems. One significant way that colleges of education can promote the integration of youth in teacher development is by recognizing it as a valued aspect of faculty’s teaching and service work, particularly in tenure and promotion process. They can also actively structure opportunities for faculty to participate in this work by sponsoring and financially supporting youthcentered events on campus. These could include interactive panels, brown

100  L. F. RODRIGUEZ and T. BROWN

bag presentations, and workshops in which university students and faculty learn directly from youth about their schooling experiences and what they teachers to be successful. Parents could also be enlisted to discuss their aspirations and expectations for their children and the schools they attend. Youth-centered events could be spearheaded and organized by faculty volunteers and facilitated through university/school partnerships and field supervisors, who are a valuable resource. Volunteers could engage in these events in ways that reflect their levels of comfort and expertise. For example, while some faculty members might work directly with youth or parents to organize an event, others might serve as discussion facilitators, or simply attend the event. College administrators should strongly encourage faculty participation in such youth-centered events as an important professional development opportunity. Bohnet’s (2016) research on reducing bias and increasing cultural competence within organizations shows that individuals are unlikely to change their behaviors and practices without real-life examples that counter stereotypes. As with pre-service teachers, we believe that when faculty are exposed to minoritized youth and families in the role of knowledgeable experts, rather than as problems in need of intervention, it can transform their theoretical and practical approaches to teaching and learning that ultimately benefit low-income children and youth of color. CONCLUSION As Keengwe (2010) asserts, “most teacher education faculty are ill prepared to train pre-service teachers for the diversity challenges of the twenty-first century” (Keengwe, 2010, p. 198). This indicates that the pedagogical approaches of many university-based teacher educators, and thus, the teacher education programs in which they work, do not authentically reflect the challenges, needs, and potential of racially/ethically, culturally, and socioeconomically marginalized youth, families, and communities. As colleges of education, teacher education programs and their faculty, and educational researchers endeavor to address this problem, most overlook an invaluable resource: the youth themselves. The direct and active involvement of minoritized youth in teacher training—through informational, practice-based, and evaluative activities—can move us toward transformative practices in teacher development that foster critical praxis and better prepare new teachers for success in increasingly diverse schools and classrooms. REFERENCES Bohnet, I. (2016). What works: Gender equality by design. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Toward Transformative Practices in Teacher Development   101 Brown, T. M. (2010). ARISE to the challenge: Partnering with urban youth to improve educational research and learning. Penn GSE Perspectives on Urban Education, 7(1), 4–14. Brown, T. M., Clark, S. R., & Bridges, T. L. (2012). Youth teaching teachers: Bridging racial and cultural divides between teachers and students. In S. Hughes & T. Berry (Eds.), The evolving significance of race: Living, learning, and teaching (pp. 69–82). New York, NY: Peter Lang. Brown, T. M., & Rodriguez, L. F. (2017, Summer). Collaborating with Urban youth to address gaps in teacher education. Teacher Education Quarterly, 48(3). Cammarota, J., & Fine, M. (2008). Youth participatory action research: A pedagogy for transformational resistance. In J. Cammarota & M. Fine (Eds.), Revolutionizing education: Youth participatory action research in motion (pp. 1–11). New York, NY: Routledge. Carter, P. L. (2013). Student and school cultures and the opportunity gap. In P. L. Carter & K. G. Welner (Eds.), Closing the opportunity gap: What American must do to give every child an even chance (pp. 143–155). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Darder, A. (2015). Conscientizaçao: Freire and the formation of critical awareness. Revista de Estudos AntiUtilitaristas e PosColoniais [Journal of Anti-Utopian and Post-colonial Studies], 4(2), 6–32. Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The flat world and education: How America’s comitment to equity will determine our future. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Fals-Borda, O. F. (1979). Investigating reality in order to transform it: The Colombian experience. Dialectical Anthropology, 4(1), 33–55. Fetterman, D. M. (1998). Ethnography: Step by step. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Seabury. Howard, G. R. (2006). We can’t teach what we don’t know: White teachers, multiracial schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Howard, T. C., & Milner, H. R. (2014). Teacher preparation for urban schools. In H. R. Milner & K. Lamotey (Eds.), Handbook of urban education (pp. 199–216). New York, NY: Routledge. Ingersoll, R., & May, H. (2016). Minority teacher recruitment, employment, and retention: 1987 to 2013. Retrieved from https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/ minority-teacher-recruitment-brief Irizarry, J. G. (2009). Reinvigorating multicultural education through youth participatory action research. Multicultural Perspectives, 11(4), 194–199. Keengwe, J. (2010). Fostering ross cultural competence in preservice teachers through multicultural education experiences. Early Childhood Education Journal, 38(3), 197–204. Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31(2), 132–141. National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). Racial/ethnic enrollment is public schools. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cge.asp Park, P. (1993). What is participatory research?: A theoretical and methodological perspective. In P. Park, M. Brydon-Miller, B. Hall, & T. Jackson (Eds.), Voices

102  L. F. RODRIGUEZ and T. BROWN of change: Participatory research in the united states and canada (pp. 1–2). Toronto: The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. Phillion, J., Chamness Miller, P., & Lehman, J. D. (2005). Providing field experiences with diverse populations for preservice teachers: Using technology to bridge distances and cultures. Multicultural Perspectives, 7(3), 3–9. Rodriguez, L. F. (in press). Healing, building, and thriving: Educational journeys/ Caminos Educativos as a pedagogy to engage urban youth in the U.S. Rodriguez, L.F. (2015). Intentional Excellence: The Pedagogy, Power, and Politics of Excellence in Latina/o Schools and Communities. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Rodriguez, L. F. (2014). The time is now: Understanding and responding to the Black and Latino dropout crisis. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Rodriguez, L. F., & Brown, T. M. (2009, Fall). From voice to agency: Guiding principles for participatory action research with youth. New Directions for Youth Development, 19–34. Rothstein, R. (2014). The racial achievement gap, segregated schools, and segregated neighborhoods: A constitutional insult. Retrieved from http://www.epi.org/ publication/the-racial-achievement-gap-segregated-schools-and-segregatedneighborhoods-a-constitutional-insult/ Shor, I. (1992). Education is Politics: Paulo Freire’s critical pedagogy. In P. Mclaren (Ed.), Paulo Freire: A Critical Encounter (pp. 25–35). New York, NY: Routledge. Southern Education Foundation. (2015). A new majority: Low income students now a majority in the nations’ public schools. Retrieved from https:// youthtoday.org/2015/01/a-new-majority-low-income-students-now-amajority-in-the-nations-public-schools/ Students from Bronx Leadership Academy 2, O’Grady, S., Ferrales, K., & Cushman, K. (2008). SAT Bronx. Providence , RI: New Generation Press. Torre, M. E. (2014). Participatory action research. In T. Teo (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Critical Psychology (pp. 1323–1327). New York, NY: Springer. Torre, M. E., Fine, M., Stoudt, B. G., & Madeline, F. (2012). Critical participatory action research as public science. In H. Cooper, P. M. Camic, D. L. Long, A. T. Pnater, D. Rindskopt, & K. J. Sher (Eds.), APA handbook of research methods in psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 171–184). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69–91. Zeichner, K. (2010). Rethinking the connections between campus courses and field experiences in college-and university-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1–2), 89–99.

CHAPTER 7

WHAT IS THE SKILL OF TEACHING? A New Framework of Teachers’ Social Emotional Cognition Vanessa Rodriguez and Bryan Mascio

INTRODUCTION Our conceptions of learning have evolved from models that are behaviorist and mechanistic to ones that are dynamic and cognitively complex. This improved understanding has enabled us to create better classrooms and learning experiences for students. Our theory of teaching can benefit from a similar evolution—one that understands teaching as a dynamic and complex, cognitive skill inherently rooted in social interaction. Historically, learning theories have been the foundation for teaching theories, each influencing the shaping of our collective notion of teaching. Behaviorist proponents identified learning as behaviors that could be measured through observation. The focus concerned inputs and outputs rather than the mind (Pavlov, 1938; Skinner, 1976). In contrast cognitive psychologists defined learning as pattern of acquisition and reorganization

Transformative Pedagogies for Teacher Education: Moving Towards Critical Praxis in an Era of Change, pp. 103–122 Copyright © 2018 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

103

104  V. RODRIGUEZ and B. MASCIO

of mental structures through which humans process, store, and construct information (Piaget & Inhelder, 1973; Vygotsky, 1978). Neo-Piagetians further argued that traditional stage-based development could not be used to explain why or how learning occurred and did not account for the individual variability observed in growth (Demetriou, 2006). Rather, the brain (where learning occurs) is a complex, dynamic system, and therefore learning development does not follow a linear form of exponential growth but rather an emergent system or patterns of skills (Gershkoff-Stowe & Thelen, 2004). Fischer’s (1980) dynamic skill theory (DST) extended this research and described individual variability and growth in learning. This theory shows how individual skills (and subskills) have their own growth processes and rates, and yet dynamically interact with one another in important ways. For example, a young student’s understanding of division does not necessarily progress in the same way or at the same time as her understanding of fractions although an understanding of one can help support an understanding of the other. Furthermore, her reading ability and working memory are obviously different skills with entirely different growth patterns, and yet both will have profound impacts on each other as well as her development in math. This pattern of growth and interaction between skills is both dynamic and complex, and at the core of truly understanding learning. As described, learning theories have developed from simple empty vessel models of filling students’ heads with knowledge into complex cognitive models in which student learning is a dynamic and context-dependent system. A similar trajectory has begun in the understanding of teaching, but must be extended. Since we have typically taken learning theories and projected them onto teaching theories their evolution is remarkably similar. Behaviorist’s definitions of teaching focus on “what” that can be observed. Therefore teaching is an act of input and output in which the teacher changes his or her behavior to aid a naïve student in acquiring knowledge or skills (Skinner, 1961; Thornton & Raihani, 2008). In contrast researchers in cognitive psychology developed models of teaching focused on the teacher’s mind. This perspective transitions from “what teachers do?” to “how is teaching accomplished?” In a review of research on teacher thinking, Clark and Lampert (1986) concluded, “The teacher’s job is to produce intellectual and behavioral changes in people who bring their whole selves to the learning situation and are constantly changing those selves in interaction with one another” (p. 29). Thus, in the same way cognitive researchers recognized learning as context dependent, researchers concluded that teaching was also context dependent (Clandinin, 1985). Teacher-thinking models shifted the study of teaching from observable behaviors toward cognitive processes.

What Is the Skill of Teaching?   105

These models have provided a robust understanding of the individual mechanism of teaching. However, the literature on teaching has not yet created an interactive teaching framework of social-emotional cognition and dynamic systems analogous to Fischer’s dynamic skill theory for learning development (Rodriguez, 2012). An equivalent understanding of teaching, as a process of human development, can help stave off reactionary efforts that reduce teaching to a collection of tools and practices, and teacher education to simple training. FIVE AWARENESS OF TEACHING Instead of predetermining what characteristics teachers should demonstrate, a recent study (Rodriguez & Mascio, in press) used a microdevelopmental interview tool1 to discover a framework of social-emotional cognitive skills employed by expert teachers. Teachers were asked to reflect upon their teaching from instructional planning through implementation and reflection. In line with a DST model, expert teachers were chosen because they would be at the peak of skill development for teaching. Of course, not all teachers are expected to (or perhaps even need to) perform at this peak level, but understanding the highest level of skills that can be used to layout a developmental trajectory of teaching. Five overarching awareness emerged as the key individual social-emotional cognitive skills of the expert teachers: (1) awareness of learner (AoL), (2) awareness of teaching practice (AoTP), (3) awareness of context (AoC), (4) awareness of interaction (AoI), and (5) awareness of self as a teacher (AoST). Together these awareness form a teacher’s complex system of teaching skills. The expert teacher is the embodiment of this dynamic system. Within the system each awareness is an individual skill (with subskills) with its own growth processes and rates similar to other developmental skills. These awareness dynamically interface with one another to help support growth and development of both the teacher and student. While the breath of awareness offer a novel framework of individual social-emotional cognitions of teaching, within each awareness lay many well-established social-emotional cognitive constructs. In this section, we describe each awareness, its theoretical basis in the literature, and the subcategories found within the awareness. AWARENESS OF LEARNER (AOL) Expert teachers develop an AOL by building upon their general knowledge of children’s development and creating an understanding of the students

106  V. RODRIGUEZ and B. MASCIO

they interact with in their classrooms. Building this kind of awareness is a common focus of many teacher preparation programs and informs teachers as they make pedagogical decisions. The skills involved in AOL include established social-emotional-cognitive constructs such as theory of mind, empathy, and social perspective taking (Mehrabian & Epstein, 1972; Roan et al., 2009; Wellman & Lagattuta, 2004). Developmental psychologists have asserted that theory of mind—the ability understand that others have thoughts, ideas and understandings which are different than your own – enables teachers to plan, evaluate, and reorganize their teaching to meet the needs of their learner (Strauss & Ziv, 2012). Expert teachers recognize the differences between their beliefs, values, and needs along with those of their students. They also exhibit social perspective taking through their ability to perceive students’ viewpoints while understanding their cognitive and emotional reactions to the circumstances (Gehlbach, 2004). This emotional understanding is connected to a teacher’s ability to exhibit empathy for a child. Additionally, the theme of AOL extended the social-emotional constructs typically associated with teaching by including an awareness of students’ developmental abilities and their expected trajectories. Expert teachers use these concepts in their formulation of students’ identities and determine how to teach those students (Roan et al., 2009). AOL encompasses three areas: (1) feedback, (2) needs, and (3) development. Teachers at varying levels of growth will develop each of these categories to different levels at different times, helping them achieve greater understanding of their learners. Intentional and Unintentional Feedback. Experts teach based on an understanding of their learners; this understanding is shaped by their ongoing feedback loop with their students. They acquire feedback, both intentional and unintentional, from their students in order to know how to proceed in teaching them. Intentional feedback includes instances in which students actively inform the teacher of their understanding by raising their hands for example, and asking for help. Unintentional feedback includes methods such as reading students’ body language to determine students’ cognitive understandings and moods. Understanding the learner’s needs. Expert teachers focus on their learners’ needs to form a more complete picture of what students know and what they can do individually and collectively as a class community. They focus on learners’ needs specific to classroom situations and in a holistic vision of what learners need beyond the classroom. It may additionally be important to attend to what students need to be doing after they leave class. Overall the needs will range across multiple spectrums, from physical to social-emotional needs, from individual to class-wide needs, and from present to future needs.

What Is the Skill of Teaching?   107

The impact of student development on learning. Acknowledging students’ developmental trajectories and abilities is a crucial part of creating a complete understanding of learners. This includes how the teacher can personally work towards developing the students’ abilities. Commonly cited developmental areas include classroom-based skill development, as well as macrolevel child development needs. The focus on development encompasses multiple target areas including the learner’s progress, the learner’s present and future developmental trajectories, and the learner’s overall developmental abilities. AWARENESS OF TEACHING PRACTICE (AOTP) Expert teachers learn to explicitly reflect on their own teaching practices. They are able to speak of what they believe is working or not working in their teaching, and reflect on the actions, routines, decisions, and thoughts that comprise their teaching. This includes long- and short-term planning, continued learning, and strategies to create routines and curricula. AOTP is not a description of teachers’ values or their efforts to address learner needs, but rather how they understand the enactment of their teaching by describing the “how” and “why” behind their actions. AOTP aligns with a large body of research on teacher knowledge and cognition (Clark & Peterson, 1986; Elbaz, 1983). Prior studies in this area have shown how teachers construct their own knowledge and help students do the same (Clandinin, 1985). Shulman (1987) showed that successful teachers employed pedagogical content knowledge. Teachers leverage pedagogical content knowledge when they deliberately interpret the subject matter and represent it using a myriad of techniques (e.g., analogies, demonstrations) to tailor the interaction to the students’ unique characteristics (e.g., ability, background, classroom setting; Cochran, DeRuiter, & King, 1993; Hill, Ball, & Schilling, 2008). Two categories exist within AOTP: (1) tangible practices and (2) intangible practices. While these two categories may each support the other, they also may develop quite separately from one another. Novice teachers are accustomed to focusing on the former, and even highly experienced teachers who have developed the latter may struggle with becoming explicitly aware of it. Tangible practices. Teachers tend to speak more easily about the tangible practices they leverage to perform their teaching. Most common are descriptions of the content, routines and organization used to plan and implement lessons as well as to maintain the physical space in the classroom. Expert teachers learn to explain the differences in planning

108  V. RODRIGUEZ and B. MASCIO

curricula for long- versus short-term development of learning or teaching, as well as the explicit design of their classrooms. Intangible practices. Expert teachers describe teaching practices that are less observable or tangible, yet significant to their success. An important aspect of their teaching practices is the development of both classroom and teaching cultures. Of particular interest are times when teachers engage in systems-thinking approaches taking into account the effect of and on individual and classroom dynamics at both macro- and microlevels. Teachers may struggle to offer tangible outcomes or observable behaviors to explain this practice, but experts develop their ability to understand the unintentional feedback (nonverbal) they receive in relation to their teaching practices. Ultimately, expert teachers work to form an individual culture of practice through continued learning, skill building, and content development. AWARENESS OF CONTEXT (AOC) AOC refers to the teachers’ acknowledgment of the full scope of the external environment and how it affects their teaching process. This reflects factors existing outside of teachers’ ability to control, and involves a teacher’s understanding of how external factors affect their teaching and student learning (e.g., physical space, relationships outside of the direct interaction, school philosophy). Aspects of the physical space that the teacher can control, such as the organization and design of the classroom, are considered part of the AOTP. AOC has not been well described in social-emotional cognition literature on teaching. References to the impact of student, institutional, or political characteristics have been more common in the educational policy literature or are factored into quantitative analyses of performance assessment (Boyd et al., 2011; S. M. Johnson & Birkeland, 2003). Consideration of contextual factors can also be found in classroom design, curricular planning, testing development, and teacher evaluation (Braun, 2005; Donaldson & Peske, 2010). The observation that an AOC is important to expert teachers’ description of their teaching shows that more research is needed to examine how these factors affect teaching cognitions. AOC is organized into three categories: (1) external factors that affect students, (2) factors imposed by the institution, and (3) systemic factors that occur at multiple levels. Each of these can be quite distinct from the others, with some expert teachers having a strong sense of one and at the same time, little awareness of another. External factors affecting students. These factors include consideration of how issues such as family, income, weather, or current events affect

What Is the Skill of Teaching?   109

students and therefore the teachers’ practices. While knowledge of these factors overlaps with APL, there is an important distinction. AOL focuses specifically on the student’s feedback, needs and development rather than external factors impacting them. This subcategory of AOC is a recognition of the importance for teachers to expand their focus beyond the individual child and what seems directly related to what happens within the four walls of their classroom. While these factors are related to an AOL we isolate the student’s context within AOC to draw attention to its unique properties since it often gets lost in more dominant themes of student needs and development in the classroom. Institutional factors. Factors imposed by the institution emanate from many places, for example, the school’s educational philosophy, the school’s resources, and the school’s expectations. Resources include classroom materials, space, and building facilities, as well as faculty, staff, and even the characteristics of the student population. External large-scale factors at various levels. Systemic factors occurring at various levels are another key element of teachers’ AOC. This includes broad community factors such as state- and federal-level educational mandates and expectations. Expert teachers recognize systemic factors that facilitate and hinder their teaching processes. AWARENESS OF INTERACTION (AOI) AOI exemplifies direct opposition to a unidirectional theory of teaching wherein teachers fill the empty vessels of students by pouring in information (Gordon & Browne, 2013). It appears that at a basic level, an AOI entails the teachers’ realization that they form dynamic relational bonds with their students and that these bonds are essential to the learning and teaching that take place in their classrooms. In contrast to student-centered or teacher-centered models, expert teachers recognize that they are managing several independent yet interacting and newly created systems that together make up their classroom of learners. While the impact of teacher feedback (Hattie & Timperley, 2007) and the importance of teacher-child relationships have been noted (Gehlbach, Brinkworth, & Harris, 2012, Pianta, 2006), AOI has not been well studied in the teaching literature as a human interaction. This is likely in part because of the student-centered focus of education. However, an AOI has been studied in other fields such as social cognition, neuroscience and psychiatry (De Jaegher, Di Paolo, & Gallagher, 2010; Hari & Kujala, 2009; Marci & Orr, 2006). Within AOI, four categories are identified: (1) connection, (2) working together, (3) mutual effects, and (4) synergy. Individual teachers may develop these separately from one another.

110  V. RODRIGUEZ and B. MASCIO

Connection. The importance of forming connections with their students can be highlighted by teachers’ descriptions of the tight relationships they develop with their students beyond the necessary interchanges involved in communicating academic content. It is not uncommon for expert teachers to describe forming relational bonds with their students that are essential to the learning and teaching that take place in their classrooms. While this type of interaction supports learning these connections are about an authentic care and thoughtfulness between the student and teacher. Working together. Expert teachers also express how a sense of working together is critical to their teaching processes. They try to develop a feeling of collaboration with the student to construct knowledge and develop understanding with their students. This sense of working together is exemplified in descriptions of how teaching entails shared knowledge, work, and responsibility on the part of both teachers and learners. Experts work with students to achieve a common goal, whether it be learning, understanding one another, or completing a task. This type of collaboration involves making decisions together as part of the “bargain” of teaching and learning. Mutual effects. Expert teachers recognize their interactions with students as having mutual effects. Rather than describing teaching as delivering knowledge in a linear fashion, experts recognize how they are affecting the students and how the students are affecting them. This category highlights the importance of creating a feedback loop through which the student gives the teacher some type of feedback, and in response to that information, the teacher then shifts, which in turn changes the learning experience for the student (and so on). These feedback loops have reciprocal effects and are characterized by examples in which teachers describe how they change an approach, respond to, or are affected by the behaviors or feedback of students; in turn, their responses cause students to change or shift their behaviors or approaches toward learning. Synergy. One of the most powerful teaching experiences can be described as achieving synergy with students. In these instances, teachers may mention the energy of moving together “like a school of fish” or “dancing to the same tune”. These heightened interactions may lead to an experience of collective flow between students and teachers, or a synergy between students. These insights show that interactions within the classroom can create complex systems beyond the individual teacherstudent dyad and expand to other students in the classroom. Expert teachers know the interaction is going well when they experience synergy with their students. Synergy, or what is often called synchrony or social contagion in many fields, has had limited exploration in teaching but has been studied in many other fields and more recently in two-person neuroscience. Researchers have

What Is the Skill of Teaching?   111

suggested that the achievement of synergy—mentally or physically—is associated with higher levels of achievement and happiness (Dumas, Nadel, Soussignan, Martinerie, & Garnero, 2010; Yano et al., 2015; Watanabe, Ishibashi, & Yano, 2014). Further, synergy can be envisioned as a cognitive manifestation of interaction, providing a link between the non-interactive and interactive components of social-emotional cognition. AWARENESS OF SELF AS A TEACHER (AOST) AOST captures teachers’ potential views of themselves as teachers and how those views influence how they teach. Teachers’ perspectives of their “selves” has far-reaching effects, from their perspectives of students to whether they feel capable of being effective as teachers. Although a general sense of self-awareness (i.e., mindfulness) is relevant to the way individuals perceive their experiences (Jennings, 2016), expert teachers develop an AoST that is particular to their roles as teachers. The fact that expert teachers use an AOST as they systematically consider their roles in the learning interaction fits with earlier research on reflective practice. A large factor in teachers’ ability to benefit from continued professional learning involves reflecting critically on their practices (Cochran-Smith, Susan L., 1999; Schön, 1983). Alternatively, expert teachers can raise a more inclusive definition of this concept. This underscores the influence of their own (not the students’) values, identities, life goals, and self-confidence of their teaching abilities and thinking. Within AOST, three categories emerge: (1) the private self, (2) the public self, and (3) the perceived self. While all three of these have important consequences for teachers, individual teachers are likely to develop them at different rates and to different extents. It is not uncommon for the first to be underdeveloped, likely due to our society’s depiction of the “selfless teacher.” Private self. Teachers’ views of their private selves encompass their perspectives on their identities, personal histories, development, values, beliefs, and needs. Each influences them as teachers and reflects who they are internally. The private selves are revealed in instances when teachers recognize the impact of their past experiences from childhood or early teaching years, their views of the world, their purposes in life, or their values and identities. The category of private self refers to the core characteristics of the teacher self that could be considered “who you are.” Public self. Expert teachers have varying awareness of how their public selves come into play for their teaching processes. For some this awareness will be the knowledge that they are on display; some will also recognize the distinction between their real selves versus their teacher selves. However, in

112  V. RODRIGUEZ and B. MASCIO

these instances, teachers may have to contend with the issue of authenticity with their students. Perceived self. Expert teachers are aware of a difference between the self they choose to present publicly and the self that students perceive. Students will view them and make judgments about who they are. Some teachers may thus develop their teacher selves based on how students view them, while others may attempt to reconcile or align their three selves (private, public, and perceived).

Figure 7.1.  Five Awareness.

What Is the Skill of Teaching?   113

Figure 7.2.  Awareness Competencies of Expert Educators.

Figure 7.3.  Awareness of Self as a Teacher.

114  V. RODRIGUEZ and B. MASCIO

THE DYNAMIC SYSTEM OF AWARENESS While the above description of the five awareness presents them as separate teaching skills (each with multiple subskills), it is important to recognize the dynamic nature of this system of teaching skills. Too often, psychological constructs are carefully distinguished from one another and studied in isolation—we believe that it would be a mistake to study teaching in this way. It is essential to understand how each awareness engages with one another if we wish to truly reveal the complexity of teaching. In order to illustrate this dynamic system, we utilize an example from our recent study (Rodriguez & Mascio, under review). Within the quotations, we identify the awareness exhibited by italicizing the acronym in brackets. This demonstrates how nearly all of the awareness existed in tight connection as expert teachers reflect on their teaching processes. Sophie (pseudonym) is a middle school English language arts teacher in an urban school. Her description of an interaction with a student is a clear embodiment of the connection between her various levels of awareness. She shared: I have to feel confident in who I am [AOST] and my ability to interact, to connect with my students [AOI]. I have to feel confident in my planning [AOST], both that I am well planned, but also that the curriculum is, is appropriate on a variety of levels [AOTP]. To be the leader of the group, I have to feel confident that I can achieve what I’m trying to achieve [AOST] in the time [teaching process and time management] that I have and that every student is, is going to be making progress through this activity even if what they’re making progress on is really different [from one another]. [AOL]. Today I noticed that we were having a discussion of novel and [AOI] of literature and one of the students was, just seemed like he, I don’t know why he was, he was kind of tuned out [AOL]. I tried several things to get to pull him into the discussion [AOTP] and he was resistant but like kind of like laughing. So he wasn’t being defiant, exactly [AOTP], he was just kind of saying he didn’t know and kind of laughing and it was a little nervous. So then I asked at the end and it was another student that I think he looks up to for some reason [AOTP], who can be resistant to stuff, to reading in general who had like an, a breakthrough today and was doing great in the discussion. I hadn’t seen that before [AOTP]. So, so I kind of, I complimented that student and then, um, and then I followed the other student back to his seat for a minute, the meeting for discussion, and I told him that he too could be involved [AOTP]. My tone was really kind of light [AOTP]. I just wanted to his response to my acknowledging what had happened [AOI]. He looked, so I first said, “You seemed like you weren’t taking it that seriously, like I was kind of funny to

What Is the Skill of Teaching?   115 you.” And then I said, “But you can also, if you work at it and pay attention, you can also participate, and, and have a lot to say.” So what I was doing was testing to see [AOTP] if he was insecure and that was why he was not... And his response, is, just by the look on his face [AOL] was that I had, I had named the problem for him [AOTP]. So the first part about, “you didn’t, you seem like you didn’t take very seriously,” that part did not register on his face [AOTP]. From that you know it was like, yeah, yeah, yeah. And then when I said, “No, you can do this,” something registered on his face, which is that he didn’t know if he could do it [AOTP]. So now that moment is stored in my mind as information about that kid [AOTP]. So now I’m gonna take an approach with him where I’m trying to help him to be more confident [AOL]. Try to figure out how ... I don’t know that I have the answer just yet, but the issue is not that he ... I don’t know, thinks the conversation is lame [AOTP], but, you know.

Taken as a whole, this comment exemplifies Sophie’s teaching process and how it played out as an interaction between student and teacher, based on her self-awareness and her focus on student needs. She described aspects of her AOTP by explaining the purpose of the lesson for the day. Sophie seamlessly tied in her own self-awareness as exhibited by her confidence in herself to her AoI. She also identified her interaction with students as an ability to connect, suggesting that she was engaging in complex social-emotional cognition rather than referring purely to a behavioral interaction. She also shared an AOI, which was going well with the class as a whole but had broken down with one student. Her AOL enabled her to recognize that this student had struggled previously, and she used that knowledge to support the process of uncovering the particular issue that had caused this student to disengage. With an AOST she also used her personality, displaying a light tone and joking nature to probe into the student’s struggle. Sophie said she would store her knowledge of the student’s issue in her memory so that she could approach him differently and support him in engaging positively in the next class discussion. Sophie admitted that she did not yet have the solution to motivate this student to engage naturally in the class conversation; however, she at least knew that he felt the conversation was worth his effort. She knew that he did not feel he was able to contribute positively to the conversation and she could now create a plan for how to address that issue. This example clearly shows how Sophie was able to weave in and out of multiple micro- and macrolevel awarenesses while teaching students in her class. The example provides a robust picture of her highly developed individual social-emotional cognitive capabilities.

116  V. RODRIGUEZ and B. MASCIO

Figure 7.4.  Interplay of Awareness in Sophie’s Interview.

Use of The Five Awareness This framework of the five awareness is more than another tool to be added to the collection of categories and jargon related to teachers and teaching skills. At its foundation is dynamic skill theory, a revolutionary theory of human development that recognizes individual variability in growth throughout one’s life is both context-dependent and relies upon the interplay between their unique skills and subskills. As such, it is important to note that the five awareness are not a checklist of behaviors to be achieved; individuals have the potential to continuously progress in their development of each awareness, within each awareness, and in connecting the awareness. We propose that the five awareness be used to understand and support teachers and teaching in the same complex way that we currently understand and support students and learning. This

What Is the Skill of Teaching?   117

can transform teacher preparation and learning during the stages of: (1) recruitment and admission to teacher preparation programs, (2) updating the content and curriculum within teacher preparation programs, (3) assessing the progression of teacher candidates and determining eligibility for credentialing, and (4) supporting continued learning pathways for in-service teachers. Recruitment and Admission Assessing applicants in each of the five awareness can have multiple uses during recruitment and admission to teacher preparation programs. First, it provides a baseline for each individual that can be used in a variety of ways during their program. Second, it makes explicit and transparent to those entering teacher preparation, what skills and aptitudes are central to the profession—rather than expecting to simply learn how to do things as a teacher, applicants will understand that they must also learn how to think as a teacher. Lastly, teacher preparation programs can decide to incorporate the five awareness assessment into their selection criteria, allowing them to determine which candidates are an appropriate fit for their program and have the potential to become great teachers. For this last use, it is particularly important to emphasize that (a) the assessment would not resemble a simple standardized test, and (b) the assessment would be detecting applicants’ potential—they would not be expected to exhibit expert levels within the awareness, and may at the onset show a minimal level of development in some of the awareness. Teacher Preparation Curriculum The five awareness can also be used as teacher preparation programs review and update the content of their offerings. Presumably, many programs will easily identify courses that currently support their students’ development in AOL and AOTP—although incorporating dynamic skill theory into those curricula may be valuable. Less prevalent are courses that develop AOC and AOI, requiring modification of existing courses or creation of new courses. In order to support preservice teachers’ development of AOST, many programs may need to make a fundamental shift in how they talk about the teacher’s role in the classroom. In contrast to the current discussion of “the selfless teacher” who only thinks of the students when making decisions, AOST requires teachers to recognize themselves as a legitimate part of a human interaction with students – teaching and learning, after all, must be relationship-centered. Asking teachers to examine

118  V. RODRIGUEZ and B. MASCIO

the role of self can utilize many of the techniques of reflective practice that are currently focused on AOTP. Additionally, we encourage teacher preparation programs to include coursework on teacher development—analogous to existing courses on learner’s development. This course would utilize the five awareness framework, explicitly teaching each awareness, but also emphasizing how they dynamically support, merge and build off one another. It would not only provide pre-service teachers with theory, but also how they can utilize these awareness in practice, and leverage each to support the others. For example, rather than family outreach being viewing as an extra (and idealistic) activity, it can be framed as a key to understanding the family and neighborhood in which a student spends most of their waking hours (AOC), which allows the teacher to better understand the student’s needs in the classroom (AOL) and thus enables them to identify preferred methods of instruction and intervention (AOTP). Getting to know the family also makes them reflect on their own sociocultural background (AOST) and recognize how that makes them hesitant to use certain teaching techniques that may otherwise be helpful (AOTP). Reflecting on all of this also allows them to see new aspects of the student’s development (AOL) and understand how school policies may stymie their progress (AOC). Making pre-service teachers aware of the interweaving of the five awareness allows them to bridge theory and practice to understand their own development as prospective teachers. Instead of envisioning teaching as a set of individual skills to be mastered and measured, learning the framework of five dynamically interrelated awareness allows preservice teachers to create the foundation for an understanding of teaching as part of a complex system. This curricular design aligns teaching and learning theory, with classroom practice and desired student outcomes, thus reducing the gap between theory, practice and research.

PROGRESSION AND CREDENTIALING If applicants to teacher preparation programs are assessed in each of the five awareness, then similar assessments can be used to monitor their progression during the program. Teacher education students may use these assessments to determine which elective classes will best support their development. They may choose to fill a gap in a particular awareness they are weaker in, or to advance their learning in an awareness they believe is most central to their professional ambitions. Successful development is based on each student’s awareness profile on entering the program and how he or she develops over time throughout. Skinner

What Is the Skill of Teaching?   119

Likewise, the awareness assessments can be incorporated into institutions’ determination of candidates’ eligibility for certification. Each institution and program may set a threshold or milestones—possibly at different levels for each awareness—that a teacher candidate must meet in order to be recommended for their teaching certification. It is inappropriate to expect a beginning teacher to have developed each of their awareness to the same level as an expert teacher, but these standards would represent a minimum competency expected of first-year teachers. By utilizing the same framework—grounded in human development—throughout the entire process, teacher education programs and their students will be able to map individual’s variability and progression to prepare them to meet the credentialing standards.

IN-SERVICE TEACHER LEARNING This framework can also serve as a tool to support teachers as they complete their preparation and enter the profession. Teachers can continue to assess their development in each of the five areas of awareness, and use it to guide their continued learning. Recognizing that each teacher will have their own jagged profile—with different levels of development within each awareness—school administrators may abandon the one-sizefits-all professional development workshops, replacing it with personalized goals and activities for each teacher. Professional learning activities can be identified or created that support individual awareness at varying levels of development—for example, nurturing an emerging AOC, advancing a midlevel AOI, or helping to integrate already advanced AOST and AOTP. This will allow teachers to participate in those activities best suited to their individual needs. Additionally, this approach opens up possibilities outside of those traditionally offered as professional development for teachers, such as allowing a teacher struggling with AOST to sign up for a course at a nearby business school where they specialize in leadership development. Teachers have the potential to continuously develop their awareness over all capacities, and if empowered to do so, both schools and students will reap the rewards. In conclusion, we present five awareness of expert teachers, awareness of learner (AOL), awareness of teaching practice (AOTP), awareness of context (AOC), awareness of interaction (AOI), and awareness of self as a teacher (AOST). While each awareness is important in its own right and has a history of support in the theoretical literature, they interweave with each other in important ways. Ultimately, focusing on growth and integration of each awareness can transform teacher preparation, credentialing, evaluation and professional learning.

120  V. RODRIGUEZ and B. MASCIO

ENDNOTE 1. The Self in Relation to Teaching (SiR2T) was adapted from Fischer & Kennedy’s (1997) Self in Relation interview, which was designed to provide low and high support conditions and maximize participants’ cognition while engaging in the task

REFERENCES Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Ing, M., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2011). The influence of school administrators on teacher retention decisions. American Educational Research Journal, 48(2), 303–333. doi:10.3102/0002831210380788 Braun, H. I. (2005). Using student progress to evaluate teachers: A primer on value-added models. Retrieved from http://isbe.net/PEAC/pdf/primer.pdf Clandinin, J. (1985). Personal practical knowledge: A study of classroom images. Curriculum Inquiry, 15(4), 361–386. Clark, C. M., & Lampert, M. (1986). The study of teacher thinking: Implications for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 37(5), 27–31. doi:10.1177/002248718603700506 Clark, C. M., & Peterson, P. L. (1986). Teachers’ thought processes. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching: A project of the American Educational Research Association (3rd ed., pp. 255–314). New York, NY/London, UK: Macmillan/Collier Macmillan. Cochran-Smith, M. L., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher learning in communities. Review of Research in Education, 24(1), 249–305. doi:10.3102/0091732X024001249 Cochran, K. F., DeRuiter, J. A., & King, R. A. (1993). Pedagogical content knowledge: An integrative model for teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 44(4), 263–271. De Jaegher, H., Di Paolo, E., & Gallagher, S. (2010). Can social interaction constitute social cognition? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(10), 441-447. doi:10.1016/j. tics.2010.06.009 Demetriou, A. (2006). Neo-Piagetian theories of cognitive development. In W. Sneider & F. Wilkening (Eds.), Theories, models, and methods of cognitive development (Volume of the Encyclopedia of Psychology, pp. 191–263). Gotingen: Hogrefe-Verlag. Retrieved from http://eclass.uoa.gr/modules/document/file. php/PSYCH139/Neo-Piagetia_theories_2006.pdf Donaldson, M. L., & Peske, H. G. (2010). Supporting effective teaching through teacher evaluation: A study of teacher evaluation in five charter schools. Retrieved from https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2010/03/pdf/ teacher_evaluation.pdf Dumas, G., Nadel, J., Soussignan, R., Martinerie, J., & Garnero, L. (2010). Interbrain synchronization during social interaction. PLoS One, 5(8), e12166. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0012166 Elbaz, F. (1983). Teacher thinking: A study of practical knowledge. New York, NY: Nichols Publishing.

What Is the Skill of Teaching?   121 Fischer, K. W. (1980). A theory of cognitive development: The control and construction of hierarchies of skills. Psychological Review, 87(6), 477–531. Fischer, K. W., & Kennedy, B. (1997). Tools for analyzing the many shapes of development: The case of self-in-relationships in Korea. In E. Amsel, & K. A. Renninger (Eds.), Change and development: Issues of theory, method, and application: The Jean Piaget symposium series (pp. 117–152). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Gehlbach, H. (2004). A new perspective on perspective taking: A multidimensional approach to conceptualizing an aptitude. Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 207–236. Gehlbach, H., Brinkworth, M. E., & Harris, A. D. (2012). Changes in teacher student relationships. British Journal of Educational Psychology 82(4), 690–704. Gershkoff-Stowe, L., & Thelen, E. (2004). U-shaped changes in behavior: A dynamic systems perspective. Journal of Cognition and Development, 5(1), 11–36. Gordon, A., & Browne, K. (2013). Developmental and learning theories beginnings & beyond: Foundations in early childhood education (9th ed.). Belmont, CA: Cengage Advantage Books. Hari, R., & Kujala, M. V. (2009). Brain basis of human social interaction: from concepts to brain imaging. Physiological Review, 89(2), 453–479. doi:10.1152/ physrev.00041.2007 Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. doi:10.3102/003465430298487 Hill, H. C., Ball, D. L., & Schilling, S. G. (2008). Unpacking peadagogical content knowledge: Conceptualizing and measuring teachers’ topic-specific knowledge of students. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39(4), 372–400. Jennings, P. A. (2016). CARE for Teachers: A mindfulness-based approach to promoting teachers’ well-being and improving performance. In K. SchonertReichl & R. Roeser (Eds). The handbook of mindfulness in education: Emerging theory, research, and programs. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. Johnson, S. M., & Birkeland, S. E. (2003). Pursuing a “sense of success”: New teachers explain their career decisions. American Educational Research Journal, 40(3), 581–617. Marci, C. D., & Orr, S. P. (2006). The effect of emotional distance on psychophysiologic concordance and perceived empathy between patient and interviewer. Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, 31(2), 115–128. doi:10.1007/s10484-0069008-4 Mehrabian, A., & Epstein, N. (1972). A measure of emotional empathy. Journal of Personality, 40(4), 525–543. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1972.tb00078.x Pavlov, I. (1938). Pavlov and his school: The theory of conditioned reflexes. Journal of the American Medical Association, 111(1), 90–91 doi:10.1001/ jama.1938.02790270092040 Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1973). Memory and intelligence. London, England: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Pianta, R. C. (2006). Teacher-child relationships and early literacy. In D. Dickinson & S. Newman (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (2nd ed., pp. 149–162). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

122  V. RODRIGUEZ and B. MASCIO Roan, L., Beret, S., Foss, P., Yager, M., Gehlbach, H., & Metcalf, K. A. (2009). Social perspective taking (Technical Report 1259). Arlington, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. Retrieved from fhttp://www. dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA509341 Rodriguez, V. (2012). The teaching brain and the end of the empty vessel. Mind, Brain, and Education, 6(4), 177–185. Rodriguez, V., & Mascio, B. (in press). Five awarenesses of teaching: A framework of social-emotional cognition from interviews with expert teachers. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York, NY: Basic Books. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–23. Retrieved from http://www .metapress.com/content/J463W79R56455411 Skinner, B. F. (1976).About behaviorism. New York, NY: Random House. Skinner, B. F. (1961). Why we need teaching machines. Harvard Educational Review, 31, 377–398. Strauss, S., & Ziv, M. (2012). Teaching is a natural cognitive ability for humans. Mind, Brain, and Education, 6(4), 186–196. doi:10.1111/j.1751-228X.2012.01156.x Thornton, A., & Raihani, N. J. (2008). The evolution of teaching. Animal Behaviour, 75(6), 1823–1836. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2007.12.014 Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Watanabe, J-i., Ishibashi, N., & Yano, K, (2014) Exploring relationship between face-to-face interaction and team performance using wearable sensor badges. PLoS ONE 9(12), e114681. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0114681 Wellman, H. M., & Lagattuta, K. H. (2004). Theory of mind for learning and teaching: The nature and role of explanation. Cognitive Development, 19(4), 479–497. Yano, K., Akitomi, T., Ara, K., Watanabe, J., Tsuji, S., Sato, N., Hayakawa, M., & Moriwaki, N. (2015). Profiting from IoT: The key is very-large-scale happiness integration. 2015 Symposium on VLSI Circuits (VLSI Circuits) (pp. C24-C27). Kyoto, Japan: IEEE. doi:10.1109/VLSIC.2015.7231287

CHAPTER 8

TEACHING CASES AS PEDAGOGICAL TOOLS FOR TRANSFORMATIVE PRACTICE AnnMarie Gunn, Susan Bennett, James Welsh, and Barbara Peterson

INTRODUCTION Patterns of increasing diversity in U.S. classrooms and evidence from the growing research base on multicultural education underscore the need for educators at all levels to review their educational philosophies regarding cultural difference and take action to improve their cultural competence (Gunn, Peterson, & Welsh, 2015). Culture comprises all elements that people associate with themselves including ethnicity, race, language, gender, sexual orientation, and religion (Banks, 2006). Simplistic “melting pot” rhetoric implies a cultural homogeny that does not exist and obscures complex societal structures that perpetuate inequities based on culture. This reductive language dissociates the culture and values of our students from the classroom environment and denies them the educational preparation they deserve. Waves of research have brought to the forefront of the educational community the importance of preparing teachers to embrace a culturally

Transformative Pedagogies for Teacher Education: Moving Towards Critical Praxis in an Era of Change, pp. 123–140 Copyright © 2018 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

123

124  A. GUNN ET AL.

responsive pedagogy (Au, 1993, 2011; Kidd, Sanchez, & Thorp, 2005; Ladson-Billings, 1995a, 1995b; Moll, Amanti, Neff, & Gonzalez, 2005; Phuntsog, 2001). Although teacher education has been criticized for lacking a connection between theory and practical classroom application (Darling-Hammond, Hammerness, Grossman, & Shulman, 2005), teaching case-based instruction offers realistically complex, field-based scenarios of educational practice that connect to a culturally-sound theoretical framework. Based on the research study discussed below and our personal experiences, teaching cases can be used to situate both diversity and content area issues at the center of classroom discussion. The purpose of this chapter is to build upon a research study (Gunn et al., 2015) by describing how teacher educators develop or modify teaching cases to connect theory to practice within specific content areas while bringing diversity and cultural issues found in K–12 classrooms to the forefront. First, we provide a brief background on the use of teaching cases and analyze the dynamics of teaching case-based instruction within a transformative learning theoretical framework. Next, we discuss a study that explored the impact of using teaching cases modified to feature diversity issues and discipline-specific content within an undergraduate teaching methods course. Finally, we offer teacher educators a new, four-phase model for evaluating and implementing teaching cases within their coursework as a tool for transformative praxis. TEACHING CASES Teacher education programs adopted the use of teaching cases to prepare future teachers approximately 20 years ago (Merseth, 1994). Today, casebased instruction has been used in the preparation of PST in a wide range of disciplines, such as early childhood education (Florez, 2011), urban education (Bales & Safford, 2011), early childhood physical education (Hemphill, Richards, Gaudreault, & Templin, 2015), educational psychology (Gonzalez-DeHass & Willems, 2014), and literacy education (Gunn, 2011; Kaste, 2004). In addition, recent studies have embraced the use of teaching cases as a transformative tool for preparing teachers as change agents for social justice (Bales & Safford, 2011; Brown & Kraehe, 2010; Whittaker & van Garderen, 2009). Shulman (1992) stated that teaching cases allow for preservice teachers (PST) to “think like a teacher” (p. 4). Teaching cases provide PST with vignettes that portray different classroom experiences to analyze practice

Teaching Cases as Pedagogical Tools   125

and the problems that teachers face within complex educational contexts. Teaching cases are used to build a bridge between theory and practice under the guidance of an expert (Shulman, 1992) by allowing mentors/experts and novices to engage in meaningful discussion about these realistic scenarios in a manner that promotes critical thinking and analysis (O’Flaherty & McGarr, 2014). Teaching cases can foster an environment in which students can begin to question the facts upon which they base many of their opinions and understand the multiple perspectives of children, families, and communities they will encounter in their future teaching (LadsonBillings, 1995b). Teaching cases are constructed to foster a lively, academically charged discussion. The discussion surrounding the case allows developing professionals to deconstruct the multiple layers and diverse perspectives that the case encompasses, as well as construct new meanings from the case (Gunn et al., 2015; Shulman, 1992). Recent research also illuminates the effective use of technology platforms for case-based pedagogy, including online video case-based discussion (Koc, Peker, & Osmanoglu; 2009) and computer-mediated discussions (Bruning et al., 2008). RATIONALE FOR TEACHING CASES IN PRESERVICE TEACHER EDUCATION Teaching cases may be adapted to many instructional purposes. The use of teaching cases demands greater engagement and intellectual stimulation from the professor and students, promotes scholarly discussion, and facilitates connections between principle and practice. Teaching cases do not present an overarching general situation; they are very specific scenarios. This specificity makes them excellent tools for preparing teachers for the cultural diversity they will face in the classroom (Kleinfeld, 1998). Beyond exploring issues of cultural diversity, teaching cases can also provide opportunities for reflection on pedagogical practices that consider the individual diversity of children and families. Kleinfeld (1998) states, “A case does not make the claim that all Yup’ik, Hispanic, or African-American students act in such a way, only that some did on some occasion” (p. 45). Cases can also include counter-examples in order to promote the deconstruction of stereotypes. Moreover, teaching cases can be tools for transformative learning when PST and in-service teachers critically examine the landscape of cultural and individual differences of contemporary U.S. classrooms, and consider their own responses to the social and institutional inequities they will face as educators.

126  A. GUNN ET AL.

THEORETICAL FRAME Transformative learning is often associated with social justice, teaching for change, and critical multicultural education (Dyce & Owusu-Anasah, 2016). Teaching case-based methods that incorporates social interactions and in-depth conversations creates a space for critical reflection necessary in teacher preparation, not only for developing teaching and learning pedagogy, but for fostering culturally responsive pedagogy through transformations. Multicultural and culturally responsive theorists contend individuals must become conscious of inequities and injustices within society in order to move toward transformation, and a culturally responsive teacher needs to have critical consciousness or sociocultural consciousness, in which they have awareness and understandings of the social injustices (Banks & Banks, 1997; Dooley, 2008; Ladson-Billings, 1995a; Villegas & Lucas, 2002). Mezirow (1990) defines transformative learning, as “the process of learning through critical self-reflection, which results in the reformulation of a meaning perspective to allow a more inclusive, discriminating, and integrative understanding of one’s experience. Learning includes acting on these insights” (p. xvi). Transformative learning and culturally responsive theorists also suggest that in order for transformation to manifest, individuals must challenge their biases, examine their assumptions, and reflect on the ways they interact with the world (Baily, Stribling, & McGowan, 2014; Banks & Banks, 1997; Dooley, 2008; Mezirow, 1990). This transformation only occurs through a three-step process; an individual must (a) know oneself, (b) know others, and (c) redefine oneself and others. Therefore, the individual essentially thinks about self, society, and others (Dooley, 2008; Howard, 2006; Pattnaik, 2006; Schmidt, 1999; Taylor & Jarecke, 2011). Change occurs as individuals’ perceptions and frames of reference become altered as they develop self-awareness and new perspectives (Banks & Banks, 1997; Dooley, 2008; Taylor & Jarecke, 2011). Core elements to foster transformative learning and to teach for change, in which an individual challenges their values and beliefs, are experience, critical reflection, and discussion or conversation (Taylor, 2011). Critical reflection is not just rational; it involves a dynamic interplay of cognition, sociocultural awareness, emotion, and affect that leads to transformation through both personal and social growth. In advancing transformation, individuals bring their own background experiences but also encounter new experiences within the context of social interactions, dialogue, and intense activities intentionally designed to challenge assumptions and beliefs. The social interactions and dialogue within the group are essential to validate, authenticate, and make sense of individuals’ experiences on personal and professional levels, as well as to build relationships and trust

Teaching Cases as Pedagogical Tools   127

within the group. Transformative change occurs when participants develop empathy through engagement of emotion within this dialogic and dynamic social process. For transformative learning, critical self-reflection, and culturally responsive teaching to actualize, teacher education must offer opportunities to change pedagogy and transform, while providing a comfortable and safe environment to engage in authentic dialogue (Dyce & Owusu-Anasah, 2016). Teacher educators may use innovative strategies intentionally designed to support and facilitate transformative learning such as field experiences, reading response journals, multicultural literature, autobiographies, films, and as proposed in this chapter, teaching cases (Bennett, Gunn, & Leung, 2016; Gunn, Bennett, Evans, Peterson, & Welsh, 2013; Gunn, Bennett, & Leung, 2014; Gunn, Bennett, & Morton, 2013; Gunn et al., 2015). The purpose of these strategies is to (a) engage PST/in-service teachers through deeper, more meaningful experiences that increase awareness of self, differentness, and others; (c) develop culturally responsive pedagogy that meets the diverse needs of children and families; and (c) foster a social justice orientation towards education (Baily et al., 2014). Central to the dynamics of these strategies are the processes of critical reflection and dialogue through which PST/in-service teachers challenge and deconstruct their biases and assumptions causing dissonance, both cognitively and emotionally. Mezirow (2000) and others suggest this dissonance or disruption of prior understandings is crucial for transformation (Baily et al., 2014; Bennett, 2012; McFalls & Cobb-Roberts, 2001). Transformation learning theory, along with culturally responsive pedagogy and multicultural education, involve a multiplex of ideas and relationships. Teaching casebased instruction aligns with the conditions proposed in Mezirow’s theory of transformation and creates dialogic spaces in which students can analyze inherent complexities in classroom practice and begin seeing themselves as change agents for social justice in education (Dyce & Owusu-Anasah, 2016). RESEARCH STUDY The researchers and instructor chose to use teaching cases as a methodology and pedagogy to explore diversity issues in a content area course in literacy teaching methods. This study took place in an elementary education teacher preparation program in southeastern United States. There were 21 participants in this mixed-methods study that included n = 20 PST and n = 1 professor of the course. The professor self-identified as a Caucasian from a middle-class background. For the previous 6 years, the professor taught a variety of literacy courses in teacher education. The 20 PST enrolled in this first literacy course, and for most PST this was the

128  A. GUNN ET AL.

first education course after acceptance into the program. The participants included 17 females and 3 males, two of the PSTs identified as Hispanic, while the rest identified as Caucasian. The participants mirror the teaching population of Caucasian, middle-class women. The research question that guided this study was: How do teaching cases that feature diversity and disciplinary content issues influence PSTs’ perceptions and insights related to culturally responsive teaching practices? (See Gunn, 2011). SUMMARY OF METHODS AND FINDINGS The lead author began this mixed-methods study by searching for teaching cases that featured both literacy and cultural diversity issues that were suitable for use within a literacy methods course. Because the majority of identified teaching cases featured either literacy or cultural diversity, the lead author modified or created teaching cases to match the purposes of the project with the assistance of an expert in the field of multicultural education; an associate professor at a research university working in field culturally responsive teaching. The lead author then assembled a panel of experts (literacy studies and teacher preparation faculty with K–12 teaching experience, as well as the multicultural expert mentioned above. The panelists rated each teaching case using an early version of the Diversity and Content Teaching Case Rubric (Table 8.2). The panel discussed each case and selected six teaching cases that clearly and concisely conveyed at least one content area (literacy) issue and at least one issue related to cultural diversity. Five of the selected teaching cases aligned with specific literacy topics covered during 5 weeks of the course. The sixth teaching case was selected to elicit pre- and postparticipation comparison data from students. At the beginning and end of the semester, participants were asked to identify content and cultural issues within the sixth teaching case. The researchers collected qualitative and quantitative data because the study was mixed-methods during a semester long literacy methods course. PST pre- and postwritten responses to this sixth teaching case served as one source of the qualitative data. Additional data included: (a) five interviews with the course professor; (b) a professor’s journal; (c) nonparticipant observation notes; and (d) a researcher reflective journal. The lead researcher conducted semistructured interviews to foster an authentic dialogue with the course professor after she taught and discussed each teaching case with the PST in attempt to learn about her ideas, thoughts, questions and concerns about the use of cases (Creswell, 2007). The interviews were recorded, transcribed, and then checked for validity with the professor (Kvale & Brinkman, 2009). The course professor maintained a journal, reflected

Teaching Cases as Pedagogical Tools   129

each week on the utilization of teaching cases and sent the reflections to the researchers to analyze. AnnMarie, lead researcher, observed while taking notes as a nonparticipant and kept a researcher’s reflective journal after the observations and interviews to triangulate and “dig deeper” (Patton, 2002). She also administered the Cultural Diversity Awareness Inventory (CDAI; Henry, 1991) to the PST at the beginning and completion of this course, and these pre-and postscores from the CDAI, which consists of 28 opinion statements of cultural awareness using Likert 5-point, constituted the quantitative data. Following grounded theory systematic methods for analyzing the qualitative data (Strauss & Corbin, 1988), initial steps in this analysis included open, axial, and selective coding of the qualitative data. During open coding, we first read through all of the responses and examined words, phrases, and sentences to label and bracket themes that emerged. Throughout this process, we systematically connected and related codes to similar codes while modifying, extending and deleting as necessary when comparing the data, representative of axial coding. We then used selective coding to frame categories and create conceptual ideas for categories that did not fit into other categories. Based on these coded themes, we then identified evidence of shifts in the PSTs’ perceptions and insights over time in relation to literacy and diversity issues. Examples of some of the emergent themes accompanied by supportive data are included in Table 8.1. Table 8.1.  Illustrative Examples of Emergent Themes Based on Qualitative Analysis Emergent Theme

Example

Culturally Responsive Pedagogy

“I found it was strange the teacher would make a judgment about ESL students on the first day of school” (Observer Notes, 2011).

Achievement

“It made me think about when you are told you have to do something a certain way when you know it doesn’t work” (Interview with Professor, 2011).

Dispositions

“The guidelines should be different. We are behind Anna [the teacher in the case] that she should go down to the county office and complain” (Observer Notes, 2011).

“I was surprised at how they didn’t get at the low expectations theme —I had to prompt a bit after someone mentioned stereotyping” (Professor Journal, 2011).

Each participant completed the CDAI (Henry, 1991) at the beginning and at the end of the semester. Composite scores were calculated for each survey response and each participant’s paired responses were compared

130  A. GUNN ET AL.

using a dependent means t-test. Based on this analysis, participants demonstrated statistically significant gains in cultural awareness during the semester. Mean CDAI posttest scores were significantly higher (Mn = 91.36, SD = 7.04) than pretest scores (Mn = 88.00, SD = 7.18; t (18) = 3.36; p < .05). The computed effect size of 0.47 represents a medium effect (Cohen, 1988). Notwithstanding limitations related to independence and relatively small sample size, these data provide evidence for increased awareness of cultural diversity among the participants. Qualitative data analysis revealed that case-based instruction and teaching cases that featured diversity and literacy issues appeared to positively impact PSTs’ perceptions and insights related to culturally responsive teaching practices, a finding that is consistent with the evidence provided by the quantitative data. The space created in the classroom discourse surrounding the case-based methods incorporated social interactions, critical reflection and in-depth conversations fostered culturally responsive pedagogy through transformations. IMPORTANCE OF CONTEXTUALIZED CASES Teacher educators must find ways to best prepare teachers for a global society. The findings of this research offer evidence that teaching cases provide a comfortable place for preservice teachers to transform and develop culturally responsive pedagogy (Dyce & Owusu-Anasah, 2016). For transformation to occur, individuals must examine their biases and assumptions, while reflecting on the ways they engage in the world (Baily, Stribling, & McGowan, 2014; Banks & Banks, 1997; Dooley, 2008; Mezirow, 1990). Teaching cases can facilitate an individual learning to know the self, know others, and redefine the self and others. Through innovative strategies, such as teaching cases, teacher educators can engage PST/in-service teachers in meaningful experiences that increase awareness of self, differentness, and others (Bennett, Gunn, & Leung, 2016; Gunn, Bennett, Evans, Peterson & Welsh, 2013; Gunn, Bennett, & Leung, 2014; Gunn, Bennett, & Morton, 2013; Gunn, Peterson, & Welsh, 2015). PST/in-service teachers learn to meets the diverse needs of children and families and begin to foster a social justice orientation towards education (Baily et al., 2014). Therefore, it is essential for teacher educators to continue to research and use teaching cases. The teaching cases in this study were either written or modified to incorporate diversity features and specific course content (literacy). The

Teaching Cases as Pedagogical Tools   131

professor of this course indicated that teaching cases were successful in her classroom because the content in each teaching case was closely aligned with instructional goals and objectives for that particular week’s content focus. The use of teaching cases allowed PSTs to have deliberate opportunities to deconstruct the multiple diversity and literacy content issues presented in the teaching case and then use that knowledge, with the professor’s guidance, to enhance their knowledge of content-based instruction (Bales & Safford, 2011). The professor also noted that close alignment promoted students’ motivation and engagement in deeper, critical discussions of the weekly content as they connected theory to classroom practice (Gunn et al., 2015). We found the dynamics of case-based instruction encouraged PSTs to engage on sociocultural, cognitive, and emotional/affective levels, as they grappled with both content and diversity issues contextualized within realistic scenarios they might actually face in the teaching profession. These dynamic and complex experiences were consistent with Mezirow’s (2000) theoretical framework for transformative learning. Four-Phase Model for Implementing Teaching Cases We met and discussed the procedure for modifying and writing teaching cases utilized in the original study (Gunn, 2011). Next, we collaboratively adjusted and enhanced how we designed and/or modified the teaching cases. An example of a teaching case written for the original study can be found in Appendix A. Below, we offer a four-phase model for evaluating and integrating teaching cases that feature diversity issues into content area courses as a pedagogical tool for developing transformative praxis. Selecting and modifying an existing, well-written teaching case provides a good foundation for case-based instruction. Teacher educators can create a teaching case from personal experience as well. Well-written teaching cases that include both content and diversity features can foster an environment for PST/in-service teachers to question self, others, and society, while developing foundational understandings for diversity and contentbased pedagogy. Teaching case-based instruction facilitates transformation by providing an intentional activity for students to critically reflect, while engaging in dialogue (Dyce & Owusu-Anasah, 2016; Mezirow, 2000). In the next section of this chapter, we describe a four-phase implementation model and a rubric (Table 8.2) designed to evaluate teaching cases as tools for transformative learning in teacher education classrooms, and in our own research.

132  A. GUNN ET AL.

Phase 1: Select and Modify Teaching Cases First, consider existing sources of teaching cases and your own personal experiences to generate a list of possible cases for inclusion in your course. After selecting a teaching case, apply the Diversity and Content Teaching Case Rubric (Table 8.2) and rate the teaching case based on the presence of multiple layers, authenticity of dilemma, effective use of content-specific language, and alignment of the case to course objectives. As noted on the rubric in Table 8.2, ratings for each dimension are: excellent, acceptable, and unacceptable. Apply the rubric yourself, and consider asking an expert in the field of the subject the teaching case is focused on to review one or more aspects of the teaching case, or incorporate both approaches. In our teaching if at least three indicators are “excellent,” the case is ready for use. If fewer than three indicators are “excellent” or if any indicators are “unacceptable,” modify the teaching case or reject it. Continue the process of review and modification until the case meets the rubric criteria.

Table 8.2.  Rubric for Evaluation of Teaching Cases Featuring Content and Diversity Issues Dimension

Excellent

Acceptable

Unacceptable

Multiple Layers

The case is multidimensional, including several content area and diversity issues that can be considered from case.

At least one content area and one diversity issue can be considered from the case.

The case includes only one content or diversity issue or no issues can be identified.

Authenticity of Dilemma

Authentic problems that occur in an authentic context are presented.

An authentic problem is presented.

The dilemma is vague

Language

Case is clearly written and contains appropriate content-specific terminology.

Case contains some appropriate content terminology.

Case is poorly written and uses too much/too little content-specific terminology.

Alignment to course objectives

Case is aligned to more than one content area course objective.

Case is aligned to one content area course objective.

Case does not match course objectives.

Diversity Issues

Case features more than one diversity issue.

Case features one diversity issue.

Case does not feature diversity issues.

or unrealistic.

Teaching Cases as Pedagogical Tools   133

Phase 2: Embed Teaching Cases Into the Curriculum A carefully selected and modified teaching case will need little further work to embed it within the curriculum. However, it is important to create an organic space for teaching case discussion within the course. To accomplish this, a teaching case should be carefully matched to the subject or subjects of a particular class meeting or session. Furthermore, a teaching case should be situated within the class time period in a manner that allows enough time for a full exploration of the details of the case and allows the group to reach some closure regarding the case. During this phase, it is also important to identify a list of objectives for a particular teaching case that the instructor can use to focus the class discussion. Phase 3: Prepare and Implement Teaching Cases In this phase, the course instructor lays the groundwork for the teaching case discussion. The teaching case reading is assigned before the designated class. As preparation for the case-based discussion, the instructor may ask students to list three issues in the teaching case and write them down before class. From our experience, if students engage in extensive reflection based on the case prior to class, they are more inclined to come to class with issues processed, conclusions drawn, and ready to engage in dialogue.. The instructor can cultivate a rich classroom discussion in which students can benefit from each other’s perspectives by keeping the pre-class work focused on critical reading and identification of issues, not on coming to resolution. Students can then recognize there are many ways to handle different situations. Noordhoff and Kleinfeld (1993) research on teaching cases provides a framework for instructional delivery that teacher educators might find useful. In this study it is suggested that the professor: 1. Leads the class in a review of the teaching case. 2. Discusses with the class the range of diversity and content area issues presented in the case. 3. Considers with the students pedagogical strategies to handle these issues and their consequences. The instructor should engage the class in a review of the case. Students may work in small groups to share the issues they identified within the teaching case. Through whole-class discussion, the students and professor critically explore the issues that are present, share insights relative to content area and/or diversity issues, as well as personal perspectives and

134  A. GUNN ET AL.

connections to the teaching case. Kleinfeld (1998) argues that , “[teacher educators] must conduct the class like an orchestra to make sure different viewpoints are heard, and must control the emotional temperature of the discussion so that students become engaged but not so enraged that they become closed to other views” (p. 145). The instructor should remain open to issues identified by individual students based on personal experience that were not identified by the instructor during Phases 1 and 2. Culminating discussions should be designed to balance these emotional experiences (Ellis, 1995). While it is important to address the tensions that arise by holding culminating discussions, it is also important to realize many of the tensions spring from realities of the teaching profession for which there is immediate resolution. The instructor should guide students and engage in discussions to support the notion that there are no right answers, and that people have different perspectives informed by their experiences. The instructor should attempt to move students forward to an understanding of a multiplicity of views and experiences. Concluding a teaching case discussion by affirming that all viewpoints are valid and refer students to current literature on the topic. It is vital that the instructor considers their personal biases in order to effectively facilitate discussions of teaching cases on sensitive issues. The instructor should also monitor lesson objectives during teaching case activities to ensure discussion covers all the specific content of the teaching case. Phase 4: Evaluate and Reflect As the classroom discussion closes, it is imperative that the instructor reflects upon the week’s content objectives, as well as the diversity issues presented in the case, to make sure they were discussed fully. Some researchers (Dana & Floyd, 1993; Kleinfeld, 1991; Lee, Summers, & Garza, 2009) engaged their students in written reflection after each casebased session to see if their students were able to identify multicultural issues. During Sudzina’s (1993) study, students enrolled in a psychology course were required to select a case, analyze it, lead a discussion on it, and provide a written analysis of the case. In Kleinfeld (1998) students respond to a teaching case by posing two to three questions, and write a short paper on the case to conceptualize what they learned from the discussion. As a broader assessment, the instructor may review individual students’ learning gains and the growth of the class as a whole over the course of the semester. Students may revisit their earliest case reflections to see how their opinions have changed or grown. Following the teaching procedures in Gunn’s (2011) study, students may compose responses to a pre- and postteaching case. Another option to explore growth in diversity awareness

Teaching Cases as Pedagogical Tools   135

would be to administer the CDAI (Henry, 1991) at the beginning and end of the semester. Finally, the instructor should assess his or her role as facilitator in the teaching case discussion with attention to the content and diversity objectives for the lesson, as well as the successes and challenges of the culminating discussion. As with any new technique, instructors will find their ability to effectively integrate teaching cases improve with experience and reflection. CONCLUSION Teacher education has a responsibility to prepare educators to teach within an increasingly diverse and global society. PST and in-service teachers need experiences that advance their awareness of the complexities, challenges, and differences within the student populations and schools they will teach. Teaching cases that feature diversity and discipline specific content can be used to develop this awareness, and create a bridge between educational theory and classroom practice. Discussion of well-designed teaching cases offers participants transformative learning experiences through which they can critically analyze and reflect on the diversity and specific disciplinary content represented (Gunn et al., 2015). Moreover, when teaching cases are contextualized and written to be aligned with the course content, they can serve as powerful tools to motivate learning, foster critical inquiry about culturally responsive teaching practices, and promote social justice orientations towards education (Gunn, 2011). We hope this chapter and the proposed four-phase model will serve as a guide for teacher educators who seek to situate a teaching-case-based approach within a framework of transformative learning and praxis. TEACHING RESOURCES In addition to articles cited in the reference section, the following resources contain teaching cases or information about case-based instruction. ARTICLES Barnes, L. B., Christensen, C. R., & Hansen, A. J. (1994). Teaching and the case study: Text, cases, and readings (3rd ed.). Watertown, MA: Harvard Business Review Press. Dunn, S. (2010). Case stories for elementary methods: Meeting the INTASC standards. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

136  A. GUNN ET AL. Golich, V. L., Boyer, M., Franko, B., & Lamy, S. (2000). The ABC’s of case teaching [Pew Case Studies in International Affairs]. Institute for the Study of Diplomacy. Washington, DC: International Reading Association. Retrieved from http://researchswinger.org/others/case-method-teaching.pdf Lerner, L. D., & Richey, R. L. (2005). The case study method: A step-by-step approach for analyzing cases and evaluating students. College Teaching Methods & Styles Journal, 1(2), 27–34. Richards, J., & Gipe, J. (2000). Elementary literacy lessons: Cases and commentaries from the field. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Silverman, R., Welty, W., & Lyon, S. (1996). Case studies for teacher problem solving. New York, NY: The McGraw-Hill. WestEd. (1997). A program that supports the development and use of cases in education. San Francisco, CA: WestEd. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/pubs/ triedandtrue/teach.html

WEBSITES Christensen Center for Teaching and Learning. Case method in practice. Harvard Business School. http://www.hbs.edu/teaching/case-method/Pages/default. aspx National Center for Case Study Teaching in Science. http://sciencecases.lib.buffalo. edu/cs/ Pedagogy in Action: The Science Education Resource Center [SERC] Portal for Educators. http://serc.carleton.edu/sp/library/cases/index.html

REFERENCES Au, K. H. (1993). Literacy instruction in multicultural settings. Forth Worth, TX: Javanovich College. Au, K. H. (2011). Literacy achievement and diversity: Keys to success for students, teachers and schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Baily, S., Stribling, S. M., & McGowan, C. L. (2014). Experiencing the “growing edge”: Transformative teacher education to foster social justice perspectives. Journal of Transformative Education, 12(3), 248–265. Bales, B. L., & Safford, F. (2011). A new era in the preparation of teachers for urban-based schools: Linking multiculturalism, disciplinary-based content, and pedagogy. Urban Education, 46(5), 953–974. Banks, J. A. (2006). Race, culture, and education: The selected works of James A. Banks. London, England: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. Banks, J., & Banks, C. (1997). Teaching strategies for ethnic studies (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Bennett, S. V. (2012). Effective facets of a field experience that contributed to eight preservice teachers’ developing understandings about culturally responsive teaching. Urban Education. 48(3), 380–419.

Teaching Cases as Pedagogical Tools   137 Bennett, S. V., Gunn, A. A., & Leung, C. (2016). Promoting social justice pedagogy while teaching comprehension strategies with multicultural literature. Journal of Literacy Practice & Research, 42(1), 26–33. Brown, K. D. & Kraehe, A. (2010). When you’ve only got one class, one chance: Acquiring sociocultural knowledge using eclectic case pedagogy. Teaching Education, 21(3), 313–328. Bruning, R., Siwatu, K. O., Liu, X., PytlikZillig, L. M., Horn, C., Sic, S., & Carlson, D. (2008). Introducing teaching cases with face-to-face and computermediated discussion: Two multi-classroom quasi-experiments. Contemporary educational psychology, 33(2), 299–326. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Five qualitative approaches to inquiry. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage. Dana, N. F., & Floyd, D. M. (1993, February). Preparing preservice teachers for multicultural classrooms: A report on the case study approach. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association of Teacher Educators, Los Angeles, CA. Darling-Hammond, L., Hammerness, K., Grossman, P., Rust, F., & Shulman, L. (2005). The design of teacher education programs. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 390–441). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Dooley, C. M. (2008). Multicultural literacy teacher education: Seeking microtransformations. Literacy Research and Instruction, 47(2), 55–75. Dyce, C. M., & Owusu-Anasah, A. (2016). Yes, we are still talking about diversity: Diversity education as a catalyst for transformative, culturally relevant, and reflective preservice teacher practices. Journal of Transformative Education, 14(4), 327–354. Ellis, C. (1995). The other side of the fence: Seeing Black and White in a small, southern town. Qualitative Inquiry, 1(2), 147–167. Florez, I. R. (2011). Case-based instruction in early childhood teacher preparation: Does it work? Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 32(2), 118–134. Gonzalez-DeHass, A. R., & Willems, P. P. (2014). Case-study instruction in educational psychology: implications for teacher preparation. In M. Li & Y. Zhao (Eds.), Exploring learning & teaching in higher education: New frontiers of educational research (pp. 99–122). New York, NY: Springer. Gunn, A. A. (2011). Developing a culturally responsive literacy pedagogy: Preservice teachers, teaching cases, and postcard narratives (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Proquest http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb (AAT3432801) Gunn, A., Bennett, S. V., Evans, L., Peterson, B., & Welsh, J. (March, 2013). Autobiographies in preservice teacher education: A snapshot tool for building culturally responsive pedagogy. International Journal of Multicultural Education, 15(1), 1–20. Gunn, A. A., Bennett, S. V., & Leung, C. (2014). Preservice teachers’ “revelations and connections”: Fostering deep conversations while reading multicultural literature. Journal of Contemporary Research in Education, 3(1/2), 37–52. Gunn, A., Bennett, S. V., & Morton, M. L. (2013). Culturally responsive literacy pedagogy: Using children’s literature to discuss topics of religious diversity. Florida Reading Journal, 49(1), 17–24.

138  A. GUNN ET AL. Gunn, A. A., Peterson, B. J., & Welsh, J. L. (2015). Designing and using teaching cases across disciplines: The use of teaching cases to feature content area course content and diversity issues. Teacher Education Quarterly, 42(1), 67–81. Hemphill, M. A., Richards, K. A. R., Gaudreault, K. L., & Templin, T. J. (2015). Pre-service teacher perspectives of case-based learning in physical education teacher education. European Physical Education Review, 21(4) 432–450. Henry, G. B. (1991). Cultural diversity awareness inventory [CDAI; Likert Scale]. ETS Test Collection, Charles C. Brigham Library. Howard, G. R. (2006). We can’t teach what we don’t know: White teachers, multiracial schools (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College. Kaste, J. A. (2004). Scaffolding through cases: Diverse constructivist teaching in the literacy methods course. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(1), 31–45. Kidd, J. K., Sanchez, S. Y., & Thorp, E. L. (2005). Cracking the challenge of changing dispositions: Changing hearts and minds through stories, narratives, and direct cultural interactions. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 26(4), 347–359. Kleinfeld, J. (1991, April). Changes in problem solving abilities of students taught through case methods. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. Kleinfeld, J. (1998). The use of case studies in preparing teachers of cultural diversity. Theory Into Practice, 37(2), 140–147. Koc, Y., Peker, D., & Osmanoglu, A. (2009). Supporting teacher professional development through online video case study discussions: An assemblage of preservice and inservice teachers and the case teacher. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(8), 1158–1168. Kvale, S., & Brinkman, S. (2009). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ladson-Billings, G. (1995a). But that’s just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant pedagogy. Theory Into Practice, 34(3), 159–165. Ladson-Billings, G. (1995b). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 465–491. Lee, K., Summers, E., & Garza, R. (2009). Effects of case-based learning on preservice secondary teachers’ multicultural attitudes: A mixed methods study. Academic Leadership Journal, 7(1 ), Article 15. Retrieved from http://scholars. su.edu/alj/vol7/iss1/15 McFalls, E. L., & Cobb-Roberts, D. (2001). Reducing resistance to diversity through cognitive dissonance instruction: Implications for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(2), 164–172. Merseth, K. K. (1994). Cases and case method in teacher education. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 722–744). New York, NY: MacMillan. Mezirow, J. (Ed.) (1990). Fostering critical reflection in adulthood: A guide to transformative and emancipatory learning (pp. 1–20). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (2005). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. In

Teaching Cases as Pedagogical Tools   139 N. Gonzalez, L. C. Moll, & C. Amanti (Eds.), Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities and classrooms (pp. 71–88). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Noordhoff, K., & Kleinfeld, J. (1993). Preparing teachers for multicultural classrooms. Teaching & Teacher Education, 9(1), 27–39. O’Flaherty, J., & McGarr, O. (2014). The use of case-based learning in the development of student teachers’ levels of moral reasoning. European Journal of Teacher Education, 37(3), 312–330. Pattnaik, J. (2006). Revealing and revisiting “self ” in relation to the culturally different “other:” Multicultural teacher education and the ABC’s model. In P. R. Schmidt, & C. Finkbeiner (Eds.), ABC’s of cultural understandings and communication: National and international adaptations (pp. 111–142). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Two decades of developments in qualitative inquiry: A personal, experiential perspective. Qualitative Social Work, 1(3), 261–283. Phuntsog, N. (2001). Culturally responsive teaching: What do selected United States elementary school teachers think? Intercultural Education, 12, 51-64. Schmidt, P. R. (1999). Focus on research: Know thyself and understand others. Language Arts, 76, 332–340. Shulman, L. S. (1992). Toward a pedagogy of cases. In J. L. Shulman (Ed.), Case method in teacher education (pp. 1–32). New York, NY: Teacher College Press. Strauss, A. L. & Corbin, J. L. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Sudzina, M. R. (1993, February). Dealing with diversity in the classroom: A case study approach. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association of Teacher Educators, Los Angeles, CA. Taylor, E. W. (2011). Fostering transformative learning. In J. Mezirow & W. Edward (Eds.), Transformative Learning in Practice: Insights from Community, Workplace, and Higher Education (pp. 3–17). Hoboken, US: Jossey-Bass. Taylor, E. W., & Jarecke, J. (2011). Looking forward by looking back: Reflections on the practice of transformative learning. In J. Mezirow & W. Edward (Eds.), Transformative learning in practice: Insights from community, workplace, and higher education (pp. 275–289). Hoboken, US: Jossey-Bass. Villegas, A. M., & Lucas, T. (2002). Preparing culturally responsive teachers: Rethinking the curriculum. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 20–32. Whittaker, C., & van Garderen, D. (2009). Using a metacognitive approach with case-based instruction to enhance teacher reflection and promote effective educational practices for diverse learners. Action in Teacher Education, 31(2), 5–16.

APPENDIX A: ASSESSMENT RUNNING RECORDS (TEACHING CASE) Anna Cohen is a new teacher in Brown County. She recently graduated from college and is excited to have been hired as a second grade teacher

140  A. GUNN ET AL.

but is nervous about her first year. During the first month of school, the county requires all teachers to assess their students with a running record form and report the results to the county literacy department. Classroom teachers should use the results of the running records to group students into appropriate reading groups based on level. Anna completed her running records and had a concern about one student’s assessment, Juan Ramirez. Juan is Mexican American, born in the United States. He is a student in the ESOL program who has been in this school since kindergarten and is considered to be a bright boy. When Juan read with his teacher, he kept mispronouncing the word “chicken.” Every time he read that word he pronounced it, “shicken.” According to the Brown County Running Record Assessments Guide his mispronunciation should be counted as a miscue. Anna could tell that Juan was getting nervous as she was marking his assessment paper. She also knew that the three miscues for this specific word would score him into a lower reading group although he knows the meaning of the word. Anna does not know how to handle this situation so she asks the reading coach for guidance. Louise Waites, the reading coach replied to her question by stating, “Anna, you need to mark them as miscues and put him in the lower group. This is stated in the county running record guidelines.” Anna believes that this is an unjust requirement. Written by AnnMarie Gunn & Linda Evans (Gunn et al., 2015)

CHAPTER 9

[UN]CONSCIOUSLY [DIS]SERVING ENGLISH LEARNERS A Reflection of Bilingual Teacher Educators on the Border Jeanette Haynes Writer, Lida J. Uribe-Florez, and Blanca Arujo

We are teacher educators along the Mexico/U.S. border. Jeanette is a Tsalagi woman who has some knowledge of her tribal language, but who does not have fluency. Lida and Blanca are Latinas who are fluent in Spanish. Lida and Blanca work with elementary teacher candidates in an on-site bilingual block in a local partner school, while Jeanette teaches the undergraduate and graduate multicultural education course, which is required for admission to the teacher education program. In the elementary teacher education program, the teacher candidates participate in the on-site blocks for one year where they are immersed in the classroom four mornings a week. Teacher candidates work with cooperating teachers—the licensed classroom teachers—during the mornings and participate in methods courses after practicum hours. As educators, we know that we must develop students’ linguistic repertoires, including English acquisition, through linguistic and written Transformative Pedagogies for Teacher Education: Moving Towards Critical Praxis in an Era of Change, pp. 141–156 Copyright © 2018 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

141

142  J. H. WRITER, L. J. URIBE-FLOREZ, and B. ARUJO

practice (Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2007). It is important that teachers value, and ideally model, the speaking of more than one language for their students. In the Mexico/U.S. border area, it is essential for schools and teachers to embrace Spanish language maintenance and development to honor students’ and communities’ heritage language to develop a bilingual populace. We personally understand these linguistic imperatives, but sometimes understanding does not connect to practice. As teacher educators, we intellectually understand that we must constantly reflect on our practices inside and outside the classroom. However, we have also realized that at times our unconscious practice has not matched our proclamation of consciousness toward linguistic honoring and equity. Our chapter explores Lida and Blanca’s linguistic and educational stories regarding the hegemony of English Only and their internalized oppression regarding their heritage Spanish language. These two native Spanish speaking teacher educators were valuing and speaking only English while working with elementary teacher candidates on-site in the bilingual school until two critical questions were asked by Jeanette. This piece then highlights Lida and Blanca’s process of conscientização (Freire, 1970) to transform their pedagogy to model critical praxis for our teacher candidates. This is done to move toward change and critical praxis to maintain, develop and honor Spanish language use. CHANGING DEMOGRAPHICS AND THE PREPAREDNESS OF TEACHER EDUCATORS Conversations within education in general, and teacher education specifically, of the last few decades have emphasized the changing demographics of students within U.S. schools. There are approximately 10 million Hispanic students in the United States, and the number of Latino students in our schools continues to increase. However, the teaching force has not changed significantly. Of all teachers, 82% are White non-Hispanic, and Latino teachers account for less than 8% of teachers. It is estimated that in 2014–2015, 9.4% of the student population was composed of English language learners (ELLs), with the highest number living in California. Of these students, 71% of the distribution of ELL students spoke Spanish, which was a significantly large portion of the many languages spoken by ELL students (National Center for Education Statistics, 2017). A lack of bilingual teachers prepared to work in public schools exists nation-wide. Thirty-nine states reported that Bilingual and/ or ESL/TESOL teachers were needed (NEA Quality School Programs and Resources Department, 2011). Because of this dire need, it is crucial that “general education” teachers be adequately prepared to work with ELLs.

[Un]Consciously [Dis]Serving English Learners   143

General education teachers are responsible for providing effective and comprehensive instruction to ELLs, yet appropriate in-service professional development continues to lag behind the needs of educators. Most general education teachers have at least one ELL in their classroom, but only a mere 29.5% have professional development on how to work with ELLs. Just 20 states require all general education teachers to complete coursework on working with ELLs (NEA Quality School Programs and Resources Department, 2011). This reality makes it a necessity that teacher educators incorporate strategies and assignments into teacher candidates’ coursework that directly addresses working with ELLs in the general education classroom. Gort, Glenn, and Settlage (2010) argue that teacher educators often do not possess the appropriate content, pedagogical and affective knowledge to adequately prepare teacher candidates to teach linguistically diverse students. Similarly, Levine and Howard (2014) express the need for teacher educators to obtain knowledge, pedagogical strategies, and dispositions to prepare teacher candidates to meet the educational demands of bilingual students. Preparing the teacher education faculty who prepares tomorrow’s teachers in the area of content knowledge is a professional imperative. However, we contend that another area of importance for teacher educators is personal and professional reflection to uncover unconscious beliefs and biases or oppressive practices that inhibit us from engaging in culturally responsive and affirming practices with teacher candidates regarding ELLs. In our case here, we uncover and expose the hegemony of English Only, which occurred through unconscious internalized oppression of Lida and Blanca’s Spanish heritage language. ENGLISH ONLY HEGEMONY AND INTERNALIZED OPPRESSION Lida and Blanca, as fluent, Spanish speaking teacher educators, were valuing and speaking only English while working with teacher candidates in the on-site block in the bilingual elementary school. They practiced, both unconsciously and symbolically, “English Only.” “English only” refers to an ideology that devalues any language knowledge and use other than English, the language of colonial invasion and imposition of the North American continent. English Only policies were advanced historically in the forced assimilation of Native American children in settler controlled schools (see Adams, 1995; Prucha, 2000) and with other populations who did not speak English. Contemporary English only emerged in the late 1990s, when wealthy Silicon Valley entrepreneur Ron Unz (2000) initiated the “English for the Children” campaign to end bilin-

144  J. H. WRITER, L. J. URIBE-FLOREZ, and B. ARUJO

gual education in public schools (One Nation/One California, 1997). He proclaimed that “our public schools and educational institutions must be restored as the engines of assimilation they once were” (para. 14). English only legislation expanded across the nation with the George W. Bush administration and his No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. At present, English only is couched within the anti-immigrant fervor and the rabid “Americanism” that has educationally, psychologically, and physically threatened speakers of languages other than English, including those who are speakers of Native American languages—languages indigenous to what is now the United States. English Only has had a devastating effect on education for linguistically diverse students in our public schools. As Macedo (2006, p. 126) tells us, The present overdose of mono-linguism and Anglo-centrism that dominates the current educational debate not only contributes to the type of mind-tied America, but also prevents the development of educators and leaders who can rethink what it means to prepare students to enter the ever-changing, multilingual, and multicultural world of the twenty-first century.

To understand what established and reinforced Lida and Blanca’s unconscious practice of English-only, it is necessary for us to examine and understand the concept of internalized oppression. Williams (2012) defines internalized oppression as “the conscious or unconscious states, processes, and actions that directly or indirectly influence or cause subordinant groups to support, collude with, perpetuate, or otherwise help to maintain the systems of oppression that target them” (pp. 36–37). THE AWAKENING MOMENT We had been colleagues and friends for approximately 3 years within a department that was grounded in critical pedagogy. Because of this philosophical and theoretical positioning, we were accustomed to talking with each other about the successes and struggles in our work with students. Along with a doctoral student, we began writing an article in which we examined our pedagogy in working with P–12 and teacher education students. One day, while working on the article, the four of us were sharing effective and ineffective pedagogical strategies that we have used in our classrooms. As part of their work with teacher candidates in the elementary on-site blocks, Lida and Blanca proudly disclosed how they utilized small group work, integration of content, critical pedagogy, and interactive activities with hands-on tools. Lida and Blanca viewed the strategies that they were implementing and asking the teacher candidates to use as

[Un]Consciously [Dis]Serving English Learners   145

being supportive of ELLs’ learning. Jeanette then asked two important questions. She asked if Lida and Blanca taught in Spanish. They answered, “No.” She next inquired how Lida and Blanca were supporting the use and value of the Spanish language in their teaching of and interactions with the teacher candidates when they, as Spanish speakers, were not themselves using their Spanish language fluency in their teaching. Lida and Blanca looked at each other in stunned surprise. In that moment the unconscious became starkly conscious as Lida and Blanca realized the insidious and colonial nature of English only (Macedo, 2006) and their participation in the hegemonic practice of English only. We decided that upon finishing our writing process of the fore-mentioned article, we would begin work revolving around Jeanette’s questions and Lida and Blanca’s responses. In the months that followed and after serious reflection, sparking the process of conscientização (Freire, 1970), Lida and Blanca realized that even though English was their second language, the strategies they had been using in their courses were not taking ELL students or teacher candidates into consideration. As well, while Lida and Blanca encouraged the teacher candidates to have content standards included in their lessons, they failed to emphasize or even require language objectives. These language objectives were unconsciously English. Teacher candidates were not required to reflect on what kind of language development strategies could have been incorporated into each lesson to support ELLs’ familiarity with words important to making content comprehensible (Lessow-Hurley, 2013). Teacher candidates did not modify vocabulary for ELLs in the classroom. Language practices in Spanish were also excluded and only a small part of ELLs’ bilingual repertoire was validated. This, in turn, created a hierarchy in which English was dominant over Spanish (Garcia, 2014). By having all instruction conducted in English, neither the teacher candidates nor the elementary students were given the opportunity to engage in their heritage language practices. Ultimately, the message presented was: English is a more valuable language than Spanish. Although the teacher candidates and elementary students were able to speak in both languages during oral communication, the written text and other resources, such as videos, were provided solely in the dominant language of English. The stark reality was that Lida and Blanca, both Spanish speakers and ELLs, were not focusing on and valuing Spanish language use and were, thus, participating in a cycle of English privilege and hegemony. Lida and Blanca came to the bitter conclusion that while they were adamantly against English-only ideologically, they were in fact participating in English-only practices with their teacher candidates. In what follows, Lida and Blanca reflect on and share their stories of acquiring the English language and grasping the English Only ideology.

146  J. H. WRITER, L. J. URIBE-FLOREZ, and B. ARUJO

This is done to help the reader understand the formation of their internalized oppression and hegemonic practices. Lida’s Story I am originally from Bucaramanga, Colombia and my home language is Spanish. I took English classes from 4th grade to 11th grade (the end of high school). However, my English classes did not include enough speaking and listening. Even though I have always loved music, I refused to listen to music with English lyrics. I didn’t want to try to understand the music’s message it if it was not in my language. After high school, I attended a public university to become a secondary mathematics teacher. One of the courses I took was “Academic English.” The course objective was to prepare teacher candidates to read and research scholarly work related to our area of study. I enjoyed the course and learned however, no speaking or listening was required, nor was it needed to pass the course. After completing the undergraduate program, I continued on to Puerto Rico for my master’s degree. Puerto Rico’s official language is Spanish, so I expected the mathematics master’s program to be taught in my language. However, all the textbooks were in English and one of my professors during my first semester was from Poland and did not speak Spanish. I had to start reading English texts in a deeper way to understand and apply the concepts, as well as to be able to understand my professor. When discussing the textbooks and content with my Spanish speaking peers, we used many English words but found it difficult to find the exact way to present those ideas in our own language. I remember trying to find textbooks in Spanish but not liking them because the translation was not good; many of the ideas translated differently than the “original” text. I believe my internalized oppression against Spanish began when I started feeling that English was a more appropriate language for my academic life. I internalized the notion that English was “better,” and better for my academic preparation. Following the completion of my master’s degree I continued my education in the United States. Before starting my doctoral work, I had to “learn” how to communicate in English to pass the TOEFL, which was required by the university in order to gain admittance to a doctoral program. The university’s English language institute supported English only in the idea that students will learn a language if they are forced to only communicate in that language. In my view, the institute’s practice was the best and fastest

[Un]Consciously [Dis]Serving English Learners   147

way for me to learn English and reach my goals regarding learning the new language. I forced myself to communicate in English, studied hard, and passed the test after six months in the institute. I continued in the institute for the whole year to be more prepared and able to communicate in the English language at the doctoral level. I applied to and was accepted into the doctoral program. All my courses were taught in English and most of my classmates had English as their first language. Because of this I had the need to communicate and connect with Spanish speakers, so I reached out to and participated in the Latin American and Iberian Graduate Students Association (LAIGSA). I was so fortunate to have another Latina in the group of mathematics education doctoral students; she helped me to understand the program and professors. When interacting with my LAIGSA peers, we communicated in our own language, Spanish, although sometimes we used English words because they concisely captured ideas that might have required sentences to explain in Spanish. Most of the LAIGSA activities that we participated in were recreational events or supporting each other. Meetings were also held with my mathematics education doctoral peers; those were conducted only in English because of the academic content. For me, the academic discussions implied only English. While working on my dissertation, I was lucky to have Spanish-speaking friends going through the same process. We met to work together on writing our dissertations. Most of the time we used English to discuss ideas related to our projects, and Spanish to socialize. After obtaining my position as an assistant professor, I was informed that some courses would be taught in Spanish. I was really excited at having the chance to teach in my heritage language. However, due to changes in the teacher education program, that did not become a viable option. All instruction was conducted in English. I was in a situation and a place where I and others spoke Spanish on a daily basis, but English was the language used in classes or meetings, and any job-related situations. Again, the academic context implied English language use, or English only, so I adhered to what I believed to be the language of academics. The push of English only in academic environments was so internalized that I did not question it. I felt that I had to force myself to communicate in English to present myself as a professional and to be accepted as a valuable and capable colleague. There were moments that I was deeply hurt and disappointed in myself because I was having difficulties communicating my ideas in English and knowing that colleagues were dismissing my opinions because of that. I was forced to learn and change my interactions, even against my cultural values, to make sure people listened and valued my professional opinion. There were and are tensions between my professional self and my personal self.

148  J. H. WRITER, L. J. URIBE-FLOREZ, and B. ARUJO

Blanca’s Story I grew up in a Mexican community of farmworkers who worked in the pecan orchards in southern New Mexico. The majority of people living there were recent immigrants from Mexico or first generation Chicanos. All of the children of the farmworkers went to the same school in a nearby town, and for most of us, Spanish was our first language. The schools reflected a “working class” curriculum that held low expectations of us, and did not value the language that our parents spoke and taught to us (Anyon, 1980). As I think back on my school experience, I realize that I was enrolled in an English Only “sink or swim” program that often left me without a thorough understanding of the subject matter. My first language was Spanish, and my teachers did not speak or care to communicate in my mother’s language. With my mother, I attended parent teacher conferences so that I could translate for her what was said by the teachers. At the time I did not realize what an asset being bilingual was. I do not remember many of my teachers. Sadly, I never really got to know them, nor they, me. I passed high school by using strategies such as rote memorization that helped me pass my classes but left me with little or no academic knowledge to be successful in college. I was not concerned because, after having joined the Navy Junior Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC) in high school, I was convinced that the only option for me was to join the Navy. I recall that I was never contacted by career counselors but was constantly bombarded by information from armed forces recruiters. I joined the Navy and soon recognized my lack of English academic skills in this English only context. Although many would agree that boot camp is not easy, it seemed even harder to me as I realized that I did not know English well enough to understand everything that was said. What I had learned and spoken in high school was social English, not academic English (Cummins, 1989). In order to understand English, I spent time with a sailor from El Salvador who knew both languages well. I always spoke Spanish to her. Every time we were caught speaking Spanish by the officers, we were required to do at least 50 push-ups as punishment for speaking our heritage language. Needless to say, we did many push-ups! Due to my lack of academic English skills, I was not able to pass the military exams that determined which Navy job I qualified for; consequently, I was a “non-rated” sailor. To be non-rated meant that I was not guaranteed a specific school, so I was relegated to menial jobs that nobody else wanted to do, such as cleaning bathrooms, cooking, and washing airplanes. Looking back, I realize that many of us who were “nonrated” were people of color, females, or English learners. Blacks, Latinos, Filipinos, and women were overrepresented in non-rated jobs. Thanks to the help of a good friend and mentor, I studied for the airplane mechanic test and passed after 2 years. I worked as an airplane

[Un]Consciously [Dis]Serving English Learners   149

mechanic, but moving up to a higher rank was extremely difficult for me. English listening, speaking and writing, as well as math and test-taking skills, became my personal obstacles and I struggled. I knew how to do my job well and was a hard worker, but when it came to passing the written tests needed to move up in rank, I never scored high enough. The Navy, as do many schools, emphasizes only one type of test—a standardized test. Many students cannot pass. If I had been able to take a “hands-on” test to demonstrate my knowledge and ability, such as changing a generator, an engine, or a tire on an airplane, I no doubt would have passed the first time because I had experience doing these things. I did not have the choice of leaving the Navy early because of the 5-year contract I had signed, but I am sure that if I had had that choice, I would have exercised it. After completing my time in the military, I went to college and became a bilingual teacher. I loved my job. It made me realize how important it is for students to have access to an education in a language that they can understand while at the same time learning English and academic content. Becoming a professor was not easy. My first institution was on the Mexico/ U.S. border, where many of the students were Latino or Mexican Nationals. Because of this student demographic, several courses are taught in Spanish and I was able to teach a course in Spanish one semester. Although I grew up with Spanish as my first language, teaching a course using academic Spanish was somewhat difficult. I learned that I was neither proficient in Spanish nor in English. I enjoyed this teaching opportunity as it forced me to use academic Spanish. I also enjoyed speaking in Spanish with students and with professors who, like me, were majority Latinos. I did not have such an opportunity at my second and present institution. Everything is taught in English and the majority of students are not Spanish speakers. Regardless of my lived experiences and struggles being an English learner and user, and my experiences working with ELLs as a teacher, I have come to understand that I embraced English only ideologies. Even after transitioning to the university, not comprehending my internalized oppression contributed to English-only practices when working with teacher candidates. Making Meaning of the Stories Williams (2012, p. 43) maintains that the “internalization [of oppression] does not occur through a single interaction. For internalization to occur, the message that is internalized occurs many times in different ways across multiple interactions.” To this point, both Lida and Blanca were reinforced over time and in multiple contexts and situations that English only—English language learning and use—was preferable to the use of

150  J. H. WRITER, L. J. URIBE-FLOREZ, and B. ARUJO

their Spanish heritage language. The messaging and reinforcement built an unconscious valuing of English over Spanish. The insidious nature and hegemony of English only was apparent in their work as professors in the academy and their work with teacher candidates in the on-site program at the bilingual elementary school. To become conscious of the internalized oppression against and the subordination of their Spanish language fluency in their teacher education practice, it was necessary to peel back and understand the stories of educators such as Lida and Blanca. By Lida and Blanca reflecting on and sharing their educational and life experiences with their heritage language of Spanish and the learning of the English language as, one, a newcomer to the U.S. and, the other, someone from a Spanish-speaking community in the U.S., we begin to understand aspects which unconsciously subordinated the Spanish language. As stated by Henry (2009, ), “as educators who desire transformation, we must be mindful of the ways that injustices have been historicized and naturalized through everyday current theories, policies, and practices” (p. 167). Once they became “mindful,” they willingly entered into the process of conscientização (Freire, 1970).

CONSCIENTIZAÇÃO AND MOVEMENT TOWARD TRANSFORMATIVE PRAXIS Conscientização, also referred to as conscientization or critical consciousness, is a process that develops and evolves. Dialogue is the means of achieving conscientização. Conscientização is attained through the dialogical process and through critical reflection. According to Freire (1998), Conscientization is a requirement of our human condition. It is one of the roads we have to follow if we are to deepen our awareness of our world or facts, of events, of the demands of human consciousness to develop our capacity for epistemological curiosity. (p. 55)

Armitage (2013) notes that conscientização is where individuals gain the capacity to transform their lives as they become aware of their ability to challenge taken for granted practices. It is a process that enables them to become liberated and take control of their own destinies (p. 4). An individual must change beliefs, attitudes and views in order to attain conscientização. Darder (2014, ) says of conscientização: “This process signals that moment of consciousness when individuals in community experience a breakthrough and decide to take another path, despite their uncertain future” (p. 7).

[Un]Consciously [Dis]Serving English Learners   151

Reflection is vital to facilitate action, and action constitutes critical reflection. Freire (1985) states, “The act of knowing involves a dialectical movement that goes from action to reflection and from reflection upon action to a new action” (p. 50). Reflective practice requires one to question oneself, one’s practices, and one’s own internalized oppression. Through this, we become aware and conscious of our own reality as we question assumptions, co-construct knowledge and understandings, and began to transform our world. From this point, we can engage in praxis, which is “reflection and action upon the world in order to transform it” (Freire, 1970, p. 51). LIDA’S TRANSFORMATIVE ACTIONS Following the conversation with Jeanette and Blanca, I was really surprised and I started reflecting on how I was privileging English over Spanish and participating in English-only practice. The two simple questions, “Are you teaching in Spanish?” and “How are you supporting the use and value of the Spanish language in your teaching?” prompted my realization of the linguistic internalized oppression that I carried. I thought the “Mathematics and Social Studies Day,” developed by Blanca and I, supported students’ heritage language and exemplified what we wanted our teacher candidates to model in their classrooms. But that was not true with the action I exhibited of assigning English a higher rank in the academic environment. At that moment—a moment of “conscientização”—I was able to critically reflect on my thinking and began the process of transforming my pedagogy regarding language support and use. After what had been unconscious became conscious, I began searching for strategies to support and value Spanish in my courses. If I, an English language learner myself, neglected to think about ways in which ELLs could be supported in a mathematics classroom, I assume that native English speaking teacher candidates would not be able to understand the experiences that their ELL students go through as they struggle to learn content in a second language. Providing content and pedagogical practices that enable teacher candidates to understand the experiences of ELLs has become a priority in my classroom. It has become a vital practice in my transformative action. As an example of the changes I made, I started leading activities and discussions in Spanish, but also accommodated non-Spanish speaking students to participate in their English language and discuss their experience. These activities have been highly accepted by the teacher candidates. They have demonstrated interest in experiencing what their own Spanish speaking students face in their classrooms at the on-site elementary school.

152  J. H. WRITER, L. J. URIBE-FLOREZ, and B. ARUJO

The teacher candidates have also commented on how the activities have helped them to learn more Spanish words and acquire strategies to present mathematics content in their own classrooms. I must confess that with these transformative changes in my teaching, I feel more proud of being bilingual and now feel free to use my language in the academic environment. The two questions posed by Jeanette, and the dialogic process that followed, freed me. My transformative praxis has, in turn, helped me to free students. They can also be proud of being bilingual.

BLANCA’S TRANSFORMATIVE ACTIONS After our meeting in which the questions were asked and through the ensuing dialogue, I went home thinking about my internalized oppression and how it had manifested in my lack of thought to language issues in my course. The two simple, yet complicated, questions “Are you teaching in Spanish?” and “How are you supporting the use and value of the Spanish language in your teaching?” made me realize how I had unconsciously subordinated the Spanish language—my language—to English. I reflected on my actions and knew that I needed to transform. This reflection brought about many changes in all the courses I now teach. I started by looking at all my syllabi to see how I had failed to address language issues. I now make sure that every course includes assignments that focus on ELLs and language objectives. An example of this is a social studies lesson that teacher candidates must teach in their practicum classroom. Teacher candidates are now required to be very specific about what they will include as language objectives in their lesson plan and how they will implement the lesson. Many teacher candidates explain that they do not have ELLs in their class or that they will not be working with ELLs in the future. I now see this as a good opportunity to talk about language and why it is important to incorporate language objectives and strategies in the class, regardless if it is a bilingual classroom or not. I also talk about language to my undergraduate and graduate students to address how to work with and be supportive of families that do not speak English. I work hard to deconstruct my previous unconscious ideas that addressing ELLs is the job of the professor who teaches bilingual courses. Similar to multicultural education, if all professors work together to infuse and incorporate bilingual strategies and issues in all courses, teacher candidates will be well prepared to teach all students whether they teach in a bilingual classroom or not. I am now the Director of Elementary Education in my college. One of the biggest changes that I have made to our teacher education program is the inclusion of the bilingual/TESOL endorsement for all teacher can-

[Un]Consciously [Dis]Serving English Learners   153

didates. This means that all teacher candidates are required to take the courses that prepare them to support ELLs. The courses are embedded in the elementary licensure program and advances teacher candidates’ understanding of second language acquisition, assists them in acquiring strategies to use with ELLs, and deepens their knowledge of the history of bilingual education. Even with these transformative actions, I am still interrogating, challenging and changing my assumptions and my internalized oppression. In doing so, I continue to transform my personal and professional life.

MEANING-MAKING OF THE STORIES OF TRANSFORMATION Freire’s (1970, p. 45) statement that “The oppressed, instead of striving for liberation, tend themselves to become oppressors” holds true in the unconscious actions of Lida and Blanca. In silencing their own Spanish speaking voices in the context of preparing teacher candidates for work in a community and school serving Spanish speaking students, Lida and Blanca were both the oppressed and the oppressors. That is, until the two questions were asked by Jeanette. Conscientization is first of all the effort to enlighten [women and] men about the obstacles preventing them from a clear perception of reality. In this role, conscientization effects the ejection of cultural myths that confuse the people’s awareness and make them ambiguous beings. (Freire, 1985, p. 89)

Freire (1970) argues that “Human beings are because they are in a situation. And they will be more the more they not only critically reflect upon their existence but critically act upon it” (p. 109). When Jeanette asked Lida and Blanca about their Spanish language use in the on-site teacher education program, they became conscious as actors in that particular situation. With critical reflection, they “became more”—for their teacher candidates and themselves—as they began using their Spanish language knowledge, skills and abilities to engage the teacher candidates, as well as the teachers and students at the elementary school where the bilingual blocks were incorporated. Changes were made to their syllabi, assignments, activities, and interactions with teacher candidates. As shared by Blanca above, significant changes were even made to the elementary teacher education program. Through conscientização Lida and Blanca put a stop to actions that perpetuated the idea of Spanish language fluency and use as “disability,” and instead, now position language knowledge and skills as “ability.”

154  J. H. WRITER, L. J. URIBE-FLOREZ, and B. ARUJO

The critical question asked by Jeanette began a reflection process that challenged all three of us, as teacher educators, to think about, deconstruct and problematize what it means to educate our teacher candidates for our linguistically diverse schools and classroom contexts. Through reflection and the dialogic process we came to recognize how Lida and Blanca unconsciously participated in the colonial practice of English only due to the internalized oppression against their heritage language. From this, all three of us understand the need to reflect constantly on our actions to identify and transform any oppressive behaviors or ideologies that may be present. Freire (1970) contends that, In order for the oppressed to be able to wage the struggle for their liberation, they must perceive the reality of oppression not as a closed work from which there is no exit, but as a limiting situation which they can transform. (p. 34)

The scarcity of prepared bilingual teachers available to bilingual students in the United States (NEA Quality School Programs and Resources Department, 2011) is alarming. Through the dialogic process of our work here, the three of us concluded that we were exacerbating the problem by not addressing language issues in our courses. We were instead embracing and practicing English Only. Because not all states require coursework related to ELLs (NEA Quality School Programs and Resources Department, 2011), it is imperative that all teacher educators incorporate language support and teaching strategies and assignments in the course work for all teacher candidates. This is the work we do now. CONCLUSION The process of conscientização led us to self-realization, liberatory transformation, and a conscious and purposeful sense of agency. We firmly agree with Shields, Bishop, and Mazawi (2005) in their statement that “The productive power of agency negates external and alien forms of authority and regulation and liberates the pedagogical encounter from discursive constraints that curtail action and thought” (p. 128). As teacher educators we cannot provide our students with an anti-oppressive teacher education (Kumashiro, 2009) if we ourselves are internalizing an oppression or not providing the appropriate content, pedagogical and affective knowledge to prepare our teacher candidates to teach linguistically diverse students (Gort, Glenn, & Settlage, 2010). We must be agents of change for our teacher candidates and the students in our on-site classrooms, but in order to do this, we must be agents of change for ourselves. In Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Freire (1970) posits that every human being,

[Un]Consciously [Dis]Serving English Learners   155 is capable of looking critically at the world in a dialogical encounter with others. Provided with the proper tools for such an encounter, the individual can gradually perceive personal and social reality as well as the contradictions in it, become conscious of his or her own perception of that reality, and deal critically with it. (p. 32)

We have shared our stories of how we have attempted to bridge theory to our practice as we have engaged in conscientização to reflect on our former unconscious suppression of heritage language fluency and use. Understanding how we came to accept, support and practice English only, as well as how we came to consciousness of our internalized oppression, is important in our work as teacher educators. We know that to have transformative praxis we must continue to question ourselves and commit to continuous critical reflection of ideologies and practices. We have to develop an awareness and courage to change our internalized oppressions. The process of conscientização facilitated our casting off of shackles of internalized oppression and participation in the hegemony of English Only so we could transform our practice to prepare teacher candidates to value the language of our local community, but also diverse languages of students and communities everywhere. We wish to no longer execute an unconscious disservice to ELLs and those who possess knowledge, skills and abilities in connection to their heritage languages. We commit, instead, to consciously serving them. REFERENCES Adams, D. W. (1995). Education for extinction: American Indians and the boarding school experience, 1875–1928. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. Anyon, J. (1980). Social class and the hidden curriculum of work. Journal of Education, 162, 67–92. Armitage, A. (2013). Conscientization, dialogue and collaborative problem based learning. Journal of Problem Based Learning in Higher education, 1(1), 1–18. Cummins, J. (1989). Empowering minority students. Sacramento: California Association for Bilingual Education. Darder, A. (2014). Conscientizacao, Freire and the formation of critical awareness. Realis, 4(2), 6-32. Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (2007). Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons. Freire, P. (1970) Pedagogy of the oppressed (M. B. Ramos, Trans.). London, England: Penguin. Freire, P. (1985). The politics of education: Culture, power and liberation. New York, NY: Bergin & Garvey Publishers. Freire, P. (1998). Pedagogy of freedom: Ethics, democracy, and civic courage. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

156  J. H. WRITER, L. J. URIBE-FLOREZ, and B. ARUJO García, O. (2014). Becoming bilingual and biliterate: Sociolinguistic and sociopolitical considerations. In C. Addison Stone, E. R. Silliman, B. J. Ehren, & G. P. Wallach (Eds.), Handbook of language and literacy: Development and disorders (pp.145–160). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Gort, M., Glenn, W. J., & Settlage, J. (2010). Toward culturally and linguistically responsive teacher education: The impact of a faculty learning community on two teacher educators. In T. Lucas (Ed.), Preparing teachers for linguistically diverse classrooms: A resource for teacher educators (pp. 178–194). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis. Henry, A. (2009). Race, ethnicity, and language: Seeking social justice in education. In W. Ayers, T. Quinn, & D. Stovall (Eds.), Handbook of Social justice in education (pp. 167–170). New York, NY: Routledge. Kumashiro, K. K. (2009). (Rev. Ed.). Against common sense: Teaching and learning toward social justice. New York, NY: Routledge. Lessow-Hurley, J. (2013). The foundations of dual language instruction (6th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson. Levine, T. H., & Howard, E. R. (2014). Teacher educator capacity to prepare preservice teachers for work with emergent bilinguals. In T. H. Levine, E. R. Howard, & D. M. Moss (Eds.), Preparing classroom teachers to succeed with second language learners: Lessons from a faculty learning community (pp. 17–36). New York, NY: Routledge. Macedo, D. (2006). Literacies of power: What Americans are not allowed to know. (Expanded ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. National Center for Education Statistics (2017). English Language Learners in Public Schools. US Department of Education. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/ programs/coe/indicator_cgf.asp NEA Quality School Programs and Resources Department. (2011). Professional development for general education teachers of English language learners. Retrieved from http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/PB32_ELL11.pdf One Nation/One California. (1997). English for the children [California Proposition 227]. Retrieved from http://www.onenation.org/index.html Prucha, F. P. (Ed.). (2000). Documents of United States Indian Policy. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. Shields, C. M., Bishop, R., & Mazawi, A. E. (2005). De-pathologizing practices. In C. M. Shields, R. Bishop & A. E. Mazawi, Pathologizing practices: The impact of deficit thinking on education (pp. 119–144). New York, NY: Peter Lang. Unz, R. (April/May, 2000). The right way for Republicans to handle ethnicity in politics. American Enterprise. Retrieved from http://www.onenation. org/0004/0400.html Williams, T. K. (2012). Understanding internalized oppression: A theoretical conceptualization of internalized subordination. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts –Amherst Paper 627). Retrieved from: http://scholarworkds. umass.edu/cgiviewcontent.cgi?article=1628&context=open_access_ dissertations

CHAPTER 10

DISRUPTIVE PEDAGOGY A Critical Approach to Diversity in Teacher Education Ann E. Lopez

INTRODUCTION Preparing teacher candidates to understand diversity and difference from a critical perspective is crucial to achieving justice in education. Given current demographic trends teacher education pedagogies that foreground equity, diversity and social justice are important in current contexts. Schools and classrooms in Canada, and in particular the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) are more ethnically, racially, and linguistically diverse that ever before. By 2031 between 29% and 32% of the Canadian population could be members of a “visible minority” and between 25% and 28% could be foreign-born (Statistics Canada, 2011). The trend is the same in the United Sates. According to the Pew Research Center (2016) Americans are more racially and ethnically diverse. By 2055 the U.S. will not have a single racial or ethnic majority. Today 14% of the U.S. population is foreign born compared with 5% in 1965. With this new demographic reality it is important for teacher candidates who are preparing to become future teachers learn

Transformative Pedagogies for Teacher Education: Moving Towards Critical Praxis in an Era of Change, pp. 157–174 Copyright © 2018 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

157

158  A. E. LOPEZ

how to engage with diversity critically, in ways that do not perpetuate the continued marginalization of some students. Diversity in this chapter refers to the different ways that people identity themselves (ability, gender, race, class, language and all other forms of difference). Educators play an important role in shaping the demographic fabric of society. Through education we build understanding among different peoples, learn to accept and include diverse knowledge and experiences, and seek out meaningful dialogue to deal with challenges. If we are to proactively act on the benefits that diversity brings to society, and effectively deal with challenges that emerge, then teacher education programs must be at the forefront. New teachers must be prepared to enter diverse classrooms with the skills, competencies, knowledge and disposition to see diversity of their students as an asset. They must be nurtured to become critical advocates for social justice (Zeichner, Payne, & Brayko, 2015). As DarlingHammond (2011) suggests that dealing with diversity is one of the most important challenges facing educators in the twenty-first century. Meeting the needs of diverse students can only be achieved through a progressively based pedagogy, framed in an inclusive, culturally responsive curriculum that foregrounds diversity, critical thought, and explicitly advocates for a clear vision of commitment and action to social justice (Singer, 2011). This chapter explores the preparedness of teacher candidates to teach in diverse classrooms, and diverse students upon completion of their teacher education program. The perspectives of teacher candidates are important in examining how teacher education programs can effectively deal with increasing student diversity. Disruptive pedagogy is posited as an approach to engage teacher candidates to deal with diversity from a critical perspective, which challenges taken-for-granted norms in schools. My interest in diversity, equity and social justice arises from my experiences as a secondary classroom teacher, an associate teacher, school administrator, and teacher educator in Southern Ontario, Canada. Over the years I have witnessed teacher candidates and in-service teachers struggle to engage with students who are different from them, and sometimes consciously and unconsciously engage in pedagogy and classroom actions that oppress some students. As a Black educator, scholar, and immigrant in Canada born and raised in Jamaica, I have a deep interest in how teacher candidates are educated to engage with diverse students, and in particular racialized students. Research show that racialized students are not achieving to their full potential in the Ontario education system (see Dei, James, Karunmanchery, James-Wilson, & Zine 2000; James & Turner, 2017). I believe that teacher candidates must develop competencies and the mindset to engage in pedagogies that challenge Eurocentric norms and practices. They must become comfortable naming all forms of oppression and exclusion, and see working towards building cross-cultural understanding based on mutual

Disruptive Pedagogy  159

respect, the inclusion and all forms of knowledge in their teaching as one of their primary goals. Historically education in Ontario has not worked for minoritized students (Dei, Mazzuca, McIssac, & Zine, 1997), and much have not changed. Recent research on the plight of Black students in the Ontario school system by James and Turner (2017) confirms this. Disruptive pedagogy (Lee, 2014) provides a theoretical framework to prepare teacher candidates to deal with diversity through critical lens. Central to disruptive pedagogy is the notion that attention must be paid to the implicit curriculum and that pedagogy must be inherently antiracist and socially just. Teacher candidates must be prepared to examine and interrogate the assumptions they bring into classrooms, stereotypes and biases that they might hold regarding diverse students. Watt (2016) argues that the self must be taken into account, as teacher candidates must become aware of othering processes that impede the education of some students in the relational contexts of schooling. Darling- Hammond (2011) suggests: It is impossible to prepare tomorrow’s teachers to succeeds with all of the students they will meet without exploring how both students’ and teachers’ learning experiences are influenced by their home languages, cultures, and contexts; the realities of race and class privilege in the United States [and Canada]; the ongoing manifestations of institutional racism within the educational system; and the many factors that shape students’ opportunities to learn within individual classrooms.... Teachers bring very different perspectives to this process of learning to teach, shaped by their own experiences as students. (p. ix)

If teacher candidates are to develop the mindset that sees diversity as an asset, and engage in pedagogical approaches that include experiences and knowledge of diverse students; then teacher education programs must be purposeful in supporting them to reshape their perspectives through praxis grounded in critical approaches. Examining teacher candidates’ feelings about their preparedness to teach in diverse classrooms, brings to the fore the complexities inherent in teacher education, and explores ways that these complexities and challenges can be addressed. It is important for those involved in teacher education program and policy development to search for new approaches to support new teachers in the early stages of their teaching career. According to Karsenti and Collins (2013) novice teachers with less than seven years of experience are quitting the profession. While their study offers a variety of reasons for new teachers leaving the profession, the research also points to sociodemographic factors, among others such as classroom management, unsatisfactory working conditions, low salaries and difficult students. They suggest, “teacher attrition is an international problem that affects Northern and Southern countries alike” (p. 143).

160  A. E. LOPEZ

CONTEXT The research that informs this chapter was conducted with teacher candidates in a large Bachelor of Education program in Southern Ontario, Canada. In Ontario, teachers are certified by the Ontario College of Teachers (OCT), while faculties of education offer teacher education programs. Faculties of education determine their own content for programs they offer. As such, pedagogies and approaches for preparing teachers to work in Ontario’s increasingly diverse classrooms vary among faculties of education. For example, in 2015 the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto phased out the Bachelor of Education program and now offers teacher education program only at the graduate level. The research employed a qualitative approach (Creswell, 2013). Data were collected using open-ended questionnaires administered in two Social Foundations of Teaching courses towards the end of the program. Both classes consisted of teacher candidates seeking to be certified to teach in elementary and secondary education in Ontario. Thirty-two teacher candidates (28 females and 4 males) participated in the research. Of the 32 respondents, two self identified as Asian, 1 as Black and 2 as South Asian, and 27 as White. This is in keeping with the overall demographic composition of teacher candidates in teacher education programs, and teaching staffs in schools in Ontario (See Ryan, Pollock, and Antonelli, 2009). The following question guided the research: How prepared do teacher candidates feel to teach in diverse classrooms at the end of their teacher education program? Commitment to diversity, equity and social justice was explicit in the teacher education program where the study was conducted. In addition to the Social Foundations of teaching course that all teacher candidates in the program were required to take, instructors were encouraged to embed issues of equity across the curriculum. Nonetheless, teacher candidates and some instructors saw the Social Foundations course as the place where issues of equity and diversity were discussed and examined in detail. While these issues were discussed in these courses, the findings of the research reveal course focused approach to diversity, equity and social justice is just not enough. A whole program approach is needed. Social justice, equity and diversity must become essential components in all teacher education courses program wide. Embedding equity and social justice in teacher education programs must also include accountability for teacher educators, without which it becomes merely window dressing, or what I call “laminated equity,” feel good equity polices without critical action (Lopez, 2013, 2016). As Ladson-Billings (2011) asserts we must improve teacher education in order to improve the experiences of diverse students.

Disruptive Pedagogy  161

DISRUPTIVE PEDAGOGY New approaches must be sought in teacher education to address issues of diversity if change is to occur in the lives of diverse students. Students who are traditionally underserved in schools—students from communities of colour, linguistically and racially diverse students, students from low socioeconomic communities must see themselves in the curriculum, and the entire teaching and learning process. Teacher education must be an integral part of changes in education. Changing and challenging the status quo, and the ways in which things have traditionally been done in education is disruptive (Lee, 2014). Lee argues further that teachers must examine their pedagogies for the historical, contextual and institutional assumptions that are made; and examine micropractices of interpersonal dialogue for ways that structural change can occur. Disruption is a way of unsettling the existing status quo. Like other forms of equity pedagogies such as culturally responsive pedagogy (Gay, 2000; Ladson-Billings, 1995); antiracist education (Dei, 1996; Lee, 1998); critical multicultural education (Banks, 1995, 1997; Grant & Sleeter, 2009), disruptive pedagogy is grounded in praxis and problemposing teaching methods (Freire, 1970). When teacher candidates engage in disruptive pedagogy they center the needs of students and examine their role as educators in the teaching and learning process. If teachers are to be faithful to the original meaning of education then teaching must always be disruptive no matter the subject matter or context, and in particular white hegemony must be disrupted (Lee, 2014). Lopez (2011) for example examined practices of teachers who purposefully disrupted the way that English was taught through the use of performance poetry in a secondary school in Southern Ontario Canada. Educators must be able to name structures and practices that oppress, such as racism. Without naming oppressive structures such racism, changes in education will not last, but merely become band-aid efforts. Teacher candidates must be encouraged to think and act critically, and question racist discourses about difference that are present in schools and society. The teacher candidate pool in Ontario continues to be White and middle class despite the increasing diversity of the student population (Ryan, Pollock, & Antonelli, 2009). This has implications for teacher education as research show that White students are reluctant to engage with issues of race and racism based on their own racial identity development (see Tatum, 1994 ). Evans-Winters and Twyman Hoff (2011) suggest that White students resist learning about and deconstructing systems of oppression, embracing counterhegemonic pedagogical approaches and subject matter because of their discomfort and that “it is inevitable that teacher education programs with a democratic and social justice perspective in mind acknowl-

162  A. E. LOPEZ

edge the veneers of white supremacy” (p. 463). It is important to disrupt White teacher candidates’ resistance to understanding critical race issues, as failure to do so hinders their professional growth and development and the children they will serve (Evans-Winters & Twyman Hoff, 2011). The message underlying White student resistance to seeing diversity and difference as an integral part of their learning and program is that they do not have to engage in conversations of race, class, gender difference, and equity because not doing so does not materially affect their power, knowledge and position in educational institutions (Evans-Winters & Hoff, 2011). If the marginalization that some students experience in classroom in Ontario is to change, it is imperative that teacher education programs fully embed courses and practices that challenge the resistance of teacher candidates to discussing issues that create discomfort for them. Teacher education programs cannot become complacent in leaving White student resistance unchallenged (Evans-Winters & Twyman-Hoff, 2011). Disruptive pedagogy engages teacher candidates in the kind of critical teacher education that foregrounds the naming and teaching of race, racism and other forms of oppression and exclusion based on identity; and posits pedagogical approaches that teacher candidates can employ on their journey of becoming teachers. The following principles are essential to a disruptive pedagogy: • Race must be taught as an integral part of the teachers’ class subject and the curriculum. • Variety of sources and texts must be included in the curricula that represent the voices and experiences of students who have traditionally been excluded. • Attention must be paid to the implicit curriculum, which includes the implicit values, behaviors, norms, and attitudes that hinder the achievement of diverse students. The attitudes that new teachers bring into the teaching profession are oftentimes conveyed in implicit ways. • All aspects of teaching must embody antiracist and social justice pedagogy. • The needs of students must be at the forefront in creating safe learning communities in schools and classrooms. • Students must be supported to learn through praxis and problemposing teaching methods. • The curricula must be constantly questioned and become of a site of disruption.

Disruptive Pedagogy  163

Understanding the needs of students is central to engaging in disruptive pedagogy. A disruptive pedagogical framework creates space to engage teacher candidates in transformative approaches and practices to address diversity in schools. Disruptive pedagogy encourages teacher candidates to reflect on biases they bring to the teaching profession, and what they need to unlearn and learn to be effective teachers in diverse classrooms (Cochran-Smith, 2003). They must come to see diversity not in tokenistic ways, but engage in teaching that challenges existing inequities, values the experiences, knowledge and histories of those who have been traditionally marginalized. Banks et al. (2001) suggest that teacher preparation programs should ensure that teacher candidates have the relevant experiences that support them to: • Uncover and identify their personal attitudes towards racial, ethnic, language and cultural groups; • Acquire knowledge about histories and cultures of the diverse racial, ethnic, cultural and language groups within the nation and within their schools; • Become acquainted with the diverse perspectives that exist within different ethnic and cultural communities; and • Understand the ways in which institutionalized knowledge within schools, universities and popular culture can perpetuate stereotypes about racial and ethnic groups. It is important for teacher candidates to have an informed set of knowledge and skills that many practitioners fail to possess in their attempt to engage diverse students in the teaching and learning process (Howard, 2012). Teacher candidates must learn how to engage in “problem-posing” methodology where classrooms become spaces in which students interrogate social conditions and issues significant to their lives through dialogue (Freire, 1970). “Knowledge emerges only through invention and re-invention, through the restless, impatient, continuing, hopeful inquiry human beings pursue in the world, with the world and with each other” (Freire, 1970, p. 72). ENGAGING WITH DIVERSITY FROM A CRITICAL PERSPECTIVE In the discourse of Western nations diversity has become somewhat of a buzzword to represent difference and “others.” Uncritical approaches to diversity reduce it to a marketing tool to attract diverse consumers with no commitment to change; leaving oppressive practices and power intact. We

164  A. E. LOPEZ

see workshops on diversity being offered to anyone interested in learning how to ‘manage’ diversity and work with diverse populations, with very little being said and done about systems that exclude diverse bodies and experiences from certain spaces. The understanding of diversity that is needed to empower teacher candidates to engage in disruptive pedagogy must be one that challenges the status quo and works against hegemonic forces that define difference as a problem (Hollins, 2008). Education and teaching must be seen as a political act that unsettles taken-for-granted practices (Giroux, 1992). Teacher educators must support teacher candidates to develop critical consciousness that critiques relations of power, questions ones’ assumptions and reflect on the competence of multiple identities (Nieto, Bode, Kang, & Raible, 2008). Critical educators theorize schooling as part of the struggle for democracy and social justice that not only highlights the issues to be challenged, but engage in productive dialogue and action (Freire, 1998; Kincheloe, 2008). Within this framework teacher candidates are called on to be agents of change. Educators who develop critical consciousness have the ability and the commitment to theorize and politicize their experiences (Nieto & McDonough, 2011). Teacher educators must come to see their role as important in preparing teacher candidates to gain new understandings about race, ethnicity, and culture that pushes back against hegemonic miseducation; support teacher candidates to gain cultural knowledge, and connect this knowledge to classroom practices, that challenge and reject deficit views (Grant & Gibson, 2011). One of the challenges of teacher education in both Canada and the United States is how teacher educators theorize, engage with and understand diversity themselves. It would be wrong to assume that all teacher educators have an interest in pursuing a critical approach to diversity, or have the pedagogical skills to do so. Teacher educators themselves must develop critical approaches that question the purposes of education and who education serves and enact an alternative vision in their classrooms, so that teacher candidates can see and experience criticality in action (Cochran-Smith & Fries, 2008). In other words, teacher educators must model for teacher candidates how to translate theory into practice. Faculties of education must examine who is hired as teacher educators, and provide ongoing professional development both for new teacher educators and those already on the job. The Ontario Equity and Inclusive Strategy (OEIS) (2009, 2016) recognizes that “while Canadians embrace multiculturalism, human rights and diversity as fundamental values, there is ongoing discrimination in society that requires attention … Ontario is Canada’s most diverse province and must find solutions to these concerns” (p. 1). It is important for teacher educators and teacher candidates to recognize that there is ongoing discrimination in education, and work towards

Disruptive Pedagogy  165

eliminating it, so that it the OEIS becomes more than an aspirational goal. Ladson-Billings (2011) urges scholars, among other things to “experiment with models of teacher education to determine which forms are more effective for preparing prospective teachers for teaching in diverse settings” (p. 395). Teacher candidates in the study expressed the desire to have a more cogent and robust understanding of diversity, and suggested that this would be beneficial to their professional development as new teachers. Many indicated the need for more resources and strategies to support diverse learners in Ontario classrooms. As Villegas and Davis (2008) suggest, teaching marginalized student populations require different dispositions, beliefs, training, and practices that are not often embedded in teacher education. The majority of teacher candidates in the study said that while they talked about issues of diversity in the Social Foundations classes and discussed different scenarios, they still needed to learn more about how to teach in diverse students. Many saw the practicum as a good way to gain this knowledge which points to the importance of connecting theory to practice. Sarah a female teacher candidate in the secondary program felt more prepared but needed more resources and further professional development: I feel more prepared than before.... We had interesting discussions about diverse communities and diversity in the classroom. We wrote critical reflections and examined many resources that helped to expand my knowledge and understanding of diversity. I really need to learn more. I think the best way to further develop my ability to address diversity in Ontario schools would be to continue learning through practicum and practical experiences.

It is not surprising that teacher candidates suggested that they felt more comfortable while out on practicum. As a teacher educator, both in the schools and at the university, one of the sentiments I would often hear from teacher candidates is that they learn more while on practicum, when they are engaging and connecting directly with students. Theories that are taught in teacher education programs must have relevance so that teacher candidates can make the connections to practice. Dewey (1961), reminds us that the ideals of democratic education must translate into experiential learning, and pragmatic actions combined with reflective thinking. When teacher candidates are able to connect research to experiences in the classroom, engage in critical thinking, their learning is transformed in ways that is beneficial to all. Active learning takes place when teacher candidates, through dialogue and critical thinking, understand inequalities and injustices in education and are encouraged to take practical actions to end all forms of oppression (Rodriguez, Sharma, & Phillion, 2016).

166  A. E. LOPEZ

Teacher candidates recognized the need to engage in critical thinking and seek out deeper meaning and understanding of diversity. John, a teacher candidate in the secondary program said that he was happy that he was not “going into situations blind”: I definitely feel more prepared to address the diversity present in Ontario schools ... being in practicum showed me that there are many factors that I have to learn and that I will be faced with. I realize I will just have to learn as I go along.... I am happy I am not going into these situations blind.... I really enjoy the resources that were shared in class.

It is important for teacher candidates to develop a critical understanding of diversity and equity so that injustices are not perpetuated through the curriculum and unexamined practices. Kim who was training to be an elementary school teacher suggested that she would like to learn more about strategies to deal with diversity and more workshops would be helpful. While workshops on equity are useful, there must be a disruptive pedagogical approach where critical questions are asked. Janice harnessed the sentiments of teacher candidates who feel dissonance between classes at the university and their practicum experiences. Janice also felt that she had more to learn about diversity: Although I definitely feel more prepared than before coming to this class, I still feel like I have more to learn in order to feel totally comfortable addressing the diversity in Ontario Schools.... There is so much diversity in Ontario and I would like to be able to address and use this diversity in a positive ways. Personally, I would like more workshops and discussions to learn about different and more specific strategies that would address this.

Teacher candidates’ desire to have more strategies is not surprising based on my own experiences as a teacher educator where oftentimes teacher candidates were more interested in a list of “diversity how to,” than engaging in dialogue abut systemic injustices in society. This must be challenged so that teacher candidates do not come to believe that dealing with diversity is simply a matter of using the right strategies from their “bag of classroom teaching tricks.” As critical teacher educators we must ensure that teacher candidates understand the roots of oppression and exclusion and connect this to practice. Manpreet a teacher candidate in the secondary program highlights the importance of teachers understanding the community in which they teach. This is in keeping with González, Moll, and Amanti (2005) who argue that it is important for educators and schools to connect with, and respect the knowledge that students bring to the classroom and that communities must

Disruptive Pedagogy  167

be brought into the teaching and learning process. Grace whose practicum was in an inner city school, said she felt overwhelmed: Diversity and equity is such a big topic. I feel that the more practice that I have, the better I will become. I went to an inner city school for my practicum and seeing all the social issues were overwhelming. I was able to see all the differences and talk with my associate teacher, but in terms of making a difference and reaching out to all students was hard. Learning more about situations with students and communities will be helpful for example how to deal with students who come from homes where there is substance abuse or parents who are absent because they are in jail...maybe more strategies for dealing with students with hard family life would be good.

It is important that teacher candidates come to see the importance of the family in the teaching and learning process. One of the most powerful but neglected supports for children’s learning and development is family involvement both in and out of school. Resources for and commitments to promoting meaningful family involvement must be strong and consistent, as family involvement is one of the strongest predictors of children’s school success (Weiss, Bouffard, Bridglall, & Gordon, 2009). Dealing with issues of language and special needs students emerged as an area that caused discomfort for some teacher candidates. In many schools in Ontario, particularly the Greater Toronto Area, many different languages are spoken. Pauline an elementary teacher candidate felt that she was not prepared in this area at all to work with English language learners (ELL) and wanted to learn how to “communicate better with ELL students. No. I do not feel prepared. I need resources to help me better understand how to teach ELL students and connect inside and outside the classroom. I want to learn more language to communicate better with these students.

Jennifer was training to teach English in secondary schools also expressed similar feelings and inadequacy working with ELLs. Jennifer felt extremely prepared, but felt additional pressure as a future teacher of English: Yes, I feel extremely prepared because of all the readings ... they have furthered my knowledge. The one thing that I would love is to get more information on ESL students in our classrooms. As an English teacher I want to know how to support ESL students to experience success.

Mwende who was also preparing to teach in secondary education felt “comfortable dealing with some issues,” but felt that she “would have benefited more from discussing barriers that many students with special needs face.”

168  A. E. LOPEZ I feel much more comfortable dealing with some issues. It is important to work with our students and colleagues regarding these important social justice and equity topics. I feel I would have benefited more from discussing barriers that many students with special needs face ... there is a tremendous amount of controversy around inclusion of students with special needs.

The need for teacher candidates to be prepared to address the needs of students who are differently abled in general and specialized classrooms is well established (Gallagher & Bennett, 2015). Some teacher candidates developed a more critical view of their practicum and critiqued the support that some associate teachers offered students. Almina who was preparing to teach in elementary education noted that in the Grade 3 class where she was placed “ a number of students needed support but were not provided assistance by the teacher.” This type of feedback from teacher candidates is not new as some experiences teachers themselves struggle on ways to engage diverse learners. Almina noted: The class has been helpful and eye opening for me to social justice and diversity issues...I feel much better prepared to for what I will see in schools. I think having ELL classes and resources for teacher candidates in the primary division would be incredibly beneficial. I worked in a Grade 3 classroom and a number of the students needed support but were not provided with the assistance from the teacher.

Responding to language diversity is one of the major issues in schools in Ontario. Cummins (2000) argues, that the unprecedented movement of peoples around the world has created challenges for monolingual and monocultural school systems particularly in urban areas. This shift in demographic realities creates enormous challenges for educators and policymakers. Cummins suggests language learning and teaching must highlight the ways in which power relations in the wider society affect patterns of teacher-student interaction in the classroom, and teachers must be trained in instruction and pedagogy that will inevitably challenge patterns of coercive power relations in both school and society. The need for ongoing learning also emerged as an area of further development for teacher candidates. The importance of life-long learning was foregrounded in the Initial Teacher Education program where the research was conducted. This is crucial as no teacher education program can fully equip teacher candidates to deal with all of the complexities of diversity. A mindset of critical reflection must be developed and modeled. Mandeep suggested that she felt more prepared, but that there are many factors that she will have to learn as she goes along and was “happy that she was not going into situations blind.” Developing mindset as lifelong learners

Disruptive Pedagogy  169

is important to sustain new teachers as they start their careers. Mandeep expressed this desire: I definitely feel more prepared to address diversity present in Ontario schools ... being in practicum showed me that there are many factors that I have to learn and that I will be faced with. I realize I will just have to learn as I go along.... I am happy I am not going into these situations blind.... I really enjoy resources and practical ideas on how to deal with diversity and equity effectively in my classroom ... I got lots in this class but this is something that I would definitely like more of.

Only a few teacher candidates raised challenges dealing with issues of race and racism. This was not surprising as many of the teacher candidates in the program were White. We know from research that White students often feel discomfort, discussing issues of race. One teacher candidate, Jimmy thought that the “time spent talking about race invaluable” but wanted to learn more “theories that deal with special needs students.” It would have been useful to follow-up with this teacher candidate to find out in what ways were the conversations about race invaluable, and what else he needed to learn about dealing with issues of race. I like the fact that discussions of diversity included religion ... poverty ... I need to learn more about how to deal with students with special needs ... time spent talking about race was invaluable ... I would like to learn more about theories that deal with special needs students

I have found in my experience as a teacher educator that race was one of the more difficult issues to discuss. Teacher candidates were oftentimes reluctant to speak about race. The fact that I am a Black woman might have also created further anxieties for my students who were predominantly White. As a Black teacher educator I have at times been accused in anonymous course evaluations of focusing too much on race and racism in my teaching. This is in keeping with research on the experiences of Black faculty. While Canada has an official policy of multiculturalism, research show there continues to be reluctance tackling and discussing issues or race and racism in Canadian society. It is important that teacher candidates are urged to engage in conversations about race. As Egbo (2011) points out teachers’ ideological stance in meritocracy and the belief that the individual is the sole determinant of his or her own school success contributes to their reluctance or refusal to engage the issue of race and racism; as well as an uncritical acceptance of the status quo. King (1991) argues that this tendency among teachers and teacher candidates, especially those who have had little or no experience with people who are different from themselves, as dysconscious racism—a form of racism that tacitly accepts

170  A. E. LOPEZ

the norms and privileges of the dominant group based on “an impaired [emphasis in the original] consciousness or distorted way of thinking about race as compared to, for example, critical consciousness” (p. 135). Egbo (2011) suggests that teacher candidates who are able to engage the issue of race will likely continue to do so when they become in-service teachers; as such they must be encouraged to understand the importance of engaging difference in ways that disrupt the culture of silence that perpetuates stereotyping, lowered expectations and unfair treatment of minoritized students. CONCLUSION Continued attention must be paid to diversity in critical ways in teacher education programs. Teacher candidates must be encouraged to engage in disruptive and other forms of pedagogy that names race, and other forms of oppression and exclusion based on identity. Dominant knowledge and ways of knowing must be disrupted and alternative pedagogies offered to support the learning needs of diverse students. Teacher candidates must come to see themselves as agents of change and develop the desire to embark on an educational journey that is transformative. This can be done with committed support of teacher educators who commit to a critical approach, and support this commitment through actions, such as use of alternative texts, inclusion of alternative epistemologies, challenge biases and stereotypical views about diverse student and people of color in their classrooms when they appear, engage in authentic assessment and evaluation that diversity and social justice into account, model disruptive pedagogical practices so that teacher candidates can see and feel what these approaches look like, and be willing to share their own vulnerabilities of learning and unlearning as they themselves wrestle with these challenging and complex issues. Critical education is a journey that all educators will be on for some time to come. Canada’s population is more diverse than ever before, and this diversity is being acknowledged in teacher education programs. Nieto and McDonough (2011) suggest that teacher candidates should not be expected to work through experiences that unsettle their assumptions by themselves; they must be provided with support through frameworks that help them to examine issues such as racism and other forms of difference. Teaching marginalized student populations require different dispositions, beliefs, training and practices that are not often embedded in teacher education (Villegas & Davis, 2008), but must become embedded. While there are courses on diversity, equity and multicultural education, this is not enough. A whole program approach to teaching is needed that foregrounds race

Disruptive Pedagogy  171

as an integral aspect of the educational experience of students, includes an antiracist and justice pedagogy, supports the learning through praxis among others what Lee (2014) describes as disruptive pedagogy. Based on the perspectives of teacher candidates in the research that informs this chapter this kind of pedagogy is needed in teacher education programs. “Given the cultural and demographic mismatch between White, middle-class teachers and students of color from a variety of socioeconomic background, emphasis on student diversity is logical “ (Grant & Gibson, 2011, p. 25). The role of teacher educators in this process must also be examined. Teacher educators cannot shape the beliefs and dispositions of teacher candidates if they themselves do not understand diversity through critical lens. Teacher candidates must be encouraged to ask critical questions about inequities in society and education, and the structures that continue to support and perpetuate them. By doing so teacher candidates will begin their journey as transformative educators, engaging in transformative pedagogies, and seeing themselves as important actors in creating change in the lives of students. ENDNOTE 1. The Canadian Employment Equity Act defines visible minorities as “persons other than Aboriginal persons, who are non-Caucasian in race or non-white in colour.” This is a contested term, as some believe that it furthers the marginalization of racialized Canadians.

REFERENCES Banks, J. A. (1995). Multicultural education: Historical development, dimensions, and practice. In J. A. Banks & C. A. M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp. 3–24). New York, NY: Macmillan. Banks, J. A. (1997). Multicultural education: Characteristics and goals. In J. A. Banks & C. A. M. Banks, (Eds.), Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives (3rd ed., pp. 3–31). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon Banks, J. A., Cookson, P., Gay, G., Hawley, W., Irvine, J. J., Nieto, S., & Stephan, W. (2001). Diversity within unity. Seattle, WA: Centre for Multicultural Education. Cochran-Smith, M. (2003). Learning and unlearning: The education of teacher educators. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 5–28. Cochran-Smith, M., & Fries, K. (2008). Research on teacher education: Changing times: Changing paradigms. In M. Cochran-Smith, S. Feiman-Nemser, J. McIntyre, & K. Demers (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education: Enduring questions in changing contexts (3rd ed., pp. 1050–1093). New York, NY: Routledge.

172  A. E. LOPEZ Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power and pedagogy: bilingual children in the crossfire (Bilingual education & bilingualism). Toronto: ON: Multilingual Matters. Darling-Hammond, L. (2011. Foreword. In A. Ball & C. Tyson (Eds.), Studying diversity in teacher education (pp. ix–x). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Dei, G. J. S. (1996). Anti-racism education: Theory and practice. Black Point, Nova Scotia: Fernwood. Dei, G., Mazzuca, J., McIsaac, E., & Zine, J. (1997). Reconstructing ‘Dropout’: A Critical Ethnography of the Dynamics of Black Students’ Disengagement from School. University of Toronto Press. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/ stable/10.3138/9781442679078 Dei, G. J. S., James, I. M., Karunmanchery, L. L., James-Wilson, S., & Zine, J. (2000). Removing the margins: The challenges and possibilities of inclusive schooling. Toronto, Canada: Canadian Scholars Press. Dewey, J. (1961). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. London, England: Macmillan. Egbo, B. (2011). What should preservice teachers know about race and diversity? exploring a critical knowledge-base for teaching in 21st century Canadian classrooms. Journal of Contemporary Issues in Education, 6(2), 23–37. Evans-Winters, V., & Twyman Hoff, P. (2011). The aesthetics of white racism in preservice teacher education: A critical race theory perspective. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 14(4), 461–479. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum. Freire, P. (1998). Teachers as cultural workers: Letter to those who dare to teach. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Gallagher, T. L., & Bennett, S. (2015). A Canadian perspective on the inclusion of students with intellectual disabilities in high schools. In R. Craven, A. Morin, P. Parker, & D. Tracey (Eds.), International advances in education: Global initiatives for equity and social justice. Inclusive education for students with intellectual disabilities (pp. 25–44). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, practice, & research. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Giroux, H. A. (1992). Border crossing: Cultural workers and the politics of education. New York, NY: Routledge. González, N., Moll, L., & Amanti, C. (Eds.). (2005). Funds of knowledge: theorizing practices in households, communities and classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Grant, C., & Gibson, M. (2011). Diversity and teacher education: A historical perspective. In A. Ball & C. Tyson (Eds.), Studying diversity in teacher education (pp. 19–64). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Grant, C., & Sleeter, C. E. (2009). Turning on learning: Five approaches for multicultural teaching plans for race, class, gender, and disability (5th ed.). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons. Hollins, E. (2008). Culture in school learning: Discovering the deep meaning. New York, NY: Routledge.

Disruptive Pedagogy  173 Howard, T. (2012). Culturally responsive pedagogy. In J. A. Banks (Ed.), Encyclopedia of diversity in education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. James, C. E., & Turner, T. (2017). Towards race equity in education: The schooling of Black students in the greater Toronto area. Toronto, ON: York University. Karsenti, T., & Collins, S. (2013). Why are all new teachers leaving the profession: Results of a Canda-Wide Survey. Education, 3(3), 141–149. doi:10.5923/j. edu.20130303.01 Kincheloe, J. L. (2008). Critical pedagogy primer (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Peter Lang. King, J. E. (1991). Dysconscious racism: Ideology, identity, and the miseducation of teachers. The Journal of Negro Education, 60(2), 133–146. Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). But that’s just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant pedagogy. Theory into Practice, 34(3), 159–165. Ladson-Billings, G. (2011). Asking the right questions: A research agenda for studying teacher education. In A. Ball & C. Tyson (Eds.), Studying diversity in teacher education (pp. 38–396). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Lee, B. (2014). Teaching disruptively: Pedagogical strategies to teach cultural diversity and race. In E. Fernandez (Ed.), Teaching for culturally diverse and racially just world (pp. 147–166). Eugene, OR: Cascade Books. Lee, E. (1998). Anti-racist education: Pulling together to close the gaps. In E. Lee, D. Menkart, & M. Okazawa-Rey (Eds.), Beyond heroes and holidays: A practical guide to K-12 anti-racist, multicultural education and staff development (pp. 402– 406). Washington, DC: Network of Educators on the Americas. Lopez, A. E. (2011). Culturally relevant pedagogy and critical Literacy in diverse English Classrooms: Case study of a secondary English teacher’s activism and agency. English Teaching Practice and Critique, 10(4) 75–93. Lopez, A. E. (2013). Collaborative mentorship: A mentoring approach to support and sustain teachers for equity and diversity. Mentoring and Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 1–19. doi:10.1080/13611267.2013.827836 Lopez, A. E. (2016). Culturally responsive and socially just leadership: From theory to action. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan. Nieto, S., Bode, P., Kang, E., & Raible, J. (2008). Identity, community, and diversity: Retheorizing multicultural curriculum for the postmodern era. In F. M. Connelly (Ed.), The Sage handbook of curriculum and instruction (pp. 176–197.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Nieto, S., & McDonough, K. (2011). “Placing equity front and center” Revisited. In A. Ball & C. Tyson (Eds.), Studying diversity in teacher education (pp. 363–384). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Ontario’s Equity and Inclusive Education Strategy, Quick Facts. (2009). Retrieved from www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/policyfunding/equity_quick_facts_en.pdf Ontario’s Equity and Inclusive Education Strategy, Quick Facts. (2016). Retrieved from www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/policyfunding/equity_quick_facts_en.pdf Pew Research Center. (2016). 10 demographic trends that are shaping the U.S. and the world. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/03/31/10demographic-trends-that-are-shaping-the-u-s-and-the-world/ Ryan, J., Pollock, K., & Antonelli, F. (2009). Teacher diversity in Canada: Leaky pipelines, bottlenecks, and glass ceilings. Canadian Journal of Education, 32(3), 591–617.

174  A. E. LOPEZ Rodriguez, E., Sharma, S., & Phillion, J. (2016). Community schooling in Honduras: A simulated dialogue with Freire, Dewey, and Pinar. In J. Rahatzad, H. Dockrill, S. Sharma, & J. Phillion (Eds.), Internationalizing teaching and teacher education for equity: Engaging alternative knowledges across ideological borders (pp. 91–106). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Singer, J. (2011). Preparing the equity teacher. In R. P. Solomon, J. Singer, A. Campbell, & J. P. Portelli (Eds.), Brave new teachers: Doing social justice work in neo-liberal times (pp. 31–68). Toronto, ON: Canadian Scholars Press. Statistics Canada, (2011) Retrieved from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/91551-x/91-551- x2010001-eng.pdf Tatum, B. D. (1994). “Teaching White students about racism: The search for White allies and the restoration of hope.” Teachers College Record, 95(4), 462–476. Villegas, A. M., & Davis, D. (2008). Preparing teachers of color to confront racial/ ethnic disparities in educational outcomes. In M. Cochran-Smith, S. FeimanNemser, & J. McIntyre (Eds.), Handbook of research in teacher education: Enduring issues in changing contexts (pp. 583–605). Mahwah, NJ: Earlbaum. Watt, D. (2016). Toward the internationalization of teacher education for social justice: Interrogating our relation to difference in between here and there. In J. Rahatzad, H. Dockrill, S. Sharma, & J. Phillion (Eds.), Internationalizing teaching and teacher education for equity: Engaging alternative knowledges across ideological borders (pp. 1 –20). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Weiss, H. B., Bouffard, S. M., Bridglall, B. L., & Gordon, E. W. (2009). Reframing Family involvement in education: Supporting families to support educational equity. A Research Initiative of the Campaign for Educational Equity Teachers College, Columbia University. Zeichner, K., Payne, K. A., & Brayko, K. (2015). Democratizing teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 66(2), 122.

CHAPTER 11

“I DON’T HAVE THE RESOURCES TO LEARN, OR … THE TIME TO DO THAT” Teacher Educators’ Perspectives and Practices of Preparing Preservice Teachers for English Language Learners Guofang Li, Yue Bian, and Jose Manuel Martinez

INTRODUCTION English language learners’ enrollment in K–12 American schools has increased to 9.3 % (an estimated 4.5 million) of the overall student population (National Center for Education Statistics, 2016). Many of these students experience more learning difficulties than their native-Englishspeaking peers. For example, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reading scores for fourth and eighth graders have been lower for English language learners (ELLs) than for their non-ELL peers since 2002 (The Nation’s Report Card, 2015a, 2015b). Moreover, ELLs continue to have disproportionately high dropout rates (Menken, 2010;

Transformative Pedagogies for Teacher Education: Moving Towards Critical Praxis in an Era of Change, pp. 175–194 Copyright © 2018 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

175

176  G. LI, Y. BIAN, and J. M. MARTINEZ

Sheng, Sheng, & Anderson, 2011), low graduation rates (Menken, 2010), low college enrolment and completion rates (Kohler & Lazarín, 2007), and overrepresentation in special education placement (Sullivan, 2011). One factor that contributes to the ELLs’ situation is teachers’ underpreparedness to address ELLS’ learning needs. The majority of the country’s in-service teachers have reported lacking training about ELLs (de Jong, Coady, & Harper, 2013; Durgunoğlu & Hughes, 2010; Li & Bian, 2016; Reeves, 2006; Téllez & Waxman, 2015). Additionally, more than 76% of the country’s teacher preparation programs have been identified as failing in readying their preservice teachers to teach ELLs (Maxwell, 2014). According to Durgunoğlu and Hughes (2010), teacher education courses fail to sensitize preservice teachers to the cultural and linguistic differences they can expect in their future classrooms, and to provide them with tools to address these differences. Therefore, in this era of tests, standards, and accountability, teachers’ lack of preparation prevents them from providing support and targeted instruction for ELLs (Colombo, McMakin, Jacobs, & Shestok, 2013). Acknowledgement of teachers’ underpreparedness has generated discussions about what teachers need to know to effectively teach ELLs. Scholars such as de Jong et al. (2013), Lucas and Villegas (2013), and Téllez and Waxman (2006) agree that teachers need to have the following five areas of knowledge and competencies: (1) knowledge of self: their own beliefs and attitudes and the possible impact on ELL learning and how to become a reflective teacher; (2) knowledge of language development, including first and second language acquisition, bi/multilingualism, the distinction between basic interpersonal communicative skills (BICS) and cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP), the role of students’ first language to promote learning in English; (3) linguistic and cultural knowledge of ELLs: students’ first languages and literacy levels, languages spoken in the home, literacy practices in the first language and in English, and their proficiency levels in oral and written English; (4) knowledge of instructional strategies for ELLs: a repertoire of strategies to locate and build on students’ backgrounds and for scaffolding instruction for ELLs, ability to use multiple forms of assessments, conduct content-based lessons, and adjust instruction based on student experiences; and (5) knowledge of sociopolitical contexts and policies for ELLs so they can become better advocates for ELLs (for more examples, see Cloud, Genesee, & Hamayan, 2009; Echevarria, Richards-Tutor, Canges, & Francis, 2011; Faltis, Arias, & Ramirez-Marin, 2010; Genesee, Lindholm-Leary, Saunders, & Christian, 2005; Li & Bian, 2016; Li & Protacio, 2010). Despite the emphasis on what teachers should know, there is a dearth of research on how to best teach this content. There is little diversity among teacher education instructors (faculty and graduate student instructors),

“I Don’t Have the Resources to Learn ...”   177

and they also lack training in these competencies (Roy-Campbell, 2013). Roy-Campbell (2013) surveyed literacy faculty in teacher education in the United States through the Literacy Research Association (a U.S. based literacy research network) and found that 61% of respondents had been exposed to issues pertaining to ELL students only at conferences or as part of professional development workshops. Only 12% completed degrees in TESOL or bilingual education certification programs, and 18% had coursework related to ELLs. Since teacher educators play a critical role in preparing future teachers, understanding teacher educators’ perceptions about what preservice teachers need becomes important. To this end, this chapter aims to examine teacher preparation course instructors’ perspectives and practices in addressing ELL-related issues in a large Midwest university in the United States. PRACTICES AND BARRIERS TO ELL INTEGRATION IN TEACHER EDUCATION Although sufficient attention has been drawn to the underpreparedness of the American teaching force and the persistent achievement crisis, research has offered little guidance to help preservice programs support their teacher educators and teacher candidates in meeting the academic, cultural, and linguistic needs of ELLs. In addition to the aforementioned teacher education faculty and instructors’ diverse backgrounds in ELL-related knowledge, several other factors such as lack of policy requirements, the prevailing “just good teaching” beliefs (de Jong & Harper, 2005, p. 102), and limited time within content programs are cited as barriers to the ELL integration effort. POLICY BARRIERS State policies and standards on teacher certification play an important role in shaping the ways in which American teacher education programs prepare teachers to teach diverse learners in public schools (Akiba, Cockrell, Simmons, Han, & Agarwal, 2010). A review of teacher certification requirement policies revealed that currently there is no explicit policy requirement for training teachers to teach ELLs; rather, they are lumped under the concept of multicultural teacher education that focuses on diversity issues. First, information about what teachers should know about teaching ELLs is absent from the national and state standards for teacher preparation. In their review of diversity standards in three national accreditation organizations (i.e., NCATE, TEAC, INTASC) and those in 50 states

178  G. LI, Y. BIAN, and J. M. MARTINEZ

and Washington DC, Akiba et al. (2010) find the majority of standards take a human relations approach that aims to foster preservice teachers’ understanding and respect for cultural differences and multicultural perspectives (i.e., gaining accurate information on matters of race, gender, individual differences, and ethnic and cultural perspectives); and the majority of the states take a deficit perspective of diversity that focuses on concepts such as accommodation of different cultures and backgrounds. These approaches neglect the need to address language and linguistic diversity that teachers will face in teaching ELLs. Similarly, in a review of the two major teacher education organizations in the U.S., the Association of Teacher Educators and the American Association for Colleges of Teacher Education, Tellez and Waxman (2006) found that the standards set by the two organizations have devoted “great attention to preparing teachers for culturally diverse students while paying little attention to teachers who will face language diversity” (p. 9). Therefore, it is not surprising that most states do not have specific requirements related to teaching ELLs. According to Ballantyne, Sanderman, and Levy (2008), only five states require a specific designated course in teaching ELLs, 17 states make a general reference to the special needs of ELLs, and 15 states have no requirement regarding the needs of ELLs. Accordingly, without explicit requirements at the policy level, state exams for teachers do not specifically assess knowledge or skills relevant to teaching ELLs. In their comprehensive review of the content guides and preparation materials of state exams across five mega-states (California, Florida, New York, Texas, and Massachusetts), Samson and Collin (2012) reveal that there are further inconsistencies across states in the required teacher knowledge and skills regarding ELLs. Only California and Texas specifically mention content that is relevant to ELLs in their teacher requirements. BELIEFS BARRIERS The lack of attention to ELLs’ needs in teacher preparation policies and standards is a reflection of the prevailing “just good teaching” assumption according to which policy makers and teacher education administrators treat diversity requirements as ELL requirements. Claiming that if teachers are prepared for diversity issues, they are prepared to teach ELLs is a common belief among teacher educators (Lucas & Villegas, 2011). Consequently, most teacher education programs focus on helping preservice teachers learn about cultural and ethnic differences without a specific focus on linguistic differences and how to address them (Howard, Levine, & Moss, 2014; Lucas & Villegas, 2011; Tellez & Waxman, 2006).

“I Don’t Have the Resources to Learn ...”   179

As Lucas and Villegas (2011) posit, “just good teaching” within a cultural diversity framework treats “linguistic and cultural diversity as one largely undifferentiated set of factors” or as “one of many aspects of culture” (p. 56). The assumption is that teaching ELLs is “a matter of pedagogical adaptations that can easily be incorporated into a mainstream teacher’s existing repertoire of instructional strategies for a diverse classroom” (de Jong & Harper, 2005, p. 118). According to de Jong and Harper (2008), this perspective “renders invisible those educational needs that set ELLs apart from U.S.-born, fluent English-speaking students,” and “leads to classroom practices that, although not necessarily harmful, are not always effective in meeting the needs of ELLs” (p. 129). Therefore, scholars argue that preservice teachers need “specific language-related preparation” to teach ELLs effectively, and teacher education programs need to “bring the notion of language from the periphery into the center of discussion of teaching” (Lucas & Villegas, 2011, p. 56). PROGRAM BARRIERS At the programmatic level, there is a lack of a clear framework to guide teacher education programs to systematically incorporate ELL-related knowledge and competencies. Adding a course in teaching ELLs is a solution, but very few states and institutions require separate courses that are specifically devoted to ELL issues (Ballantyne, Sanderman & Levy, 2008). In a study on coursework offered by 43 American teacher education programs, Franco and Hendrick (2013) found that only 10% of the 43 institutions have designated courses in teaching ELLs. Since most states do not require teacher candidates to enroll in additional hours in ELL instruction, it is often teacher candidates’ own choice whether or not to obtain a minor endorsement. Another approach is that of faculty members volunteering to redesign their courses to integrate more ELL issues. To date, however, the majority of faculty initiatives have been devoted to diversity awareness, including adding more multicultural education content (Abbate-Vaughn, 2008; Almarza, 2005; Carpenter-LaGattuta, 2002), providing service learning or community-based learning to promote cultural awareness (Bollin, 2007; Bortolin, 2013; Hutchinson, 2011; Tinkler & Tinkler, 2013), and intentional placement in culturally and linguistically diverse schools (Bleicher, 2011; Waxman, Téllez, & Walberg, 2006; Wiggins, Follo, & Eberly, 2007). In addition to these efforts, some teacher education programs have adopted some process strategies, such as fostering collaboration across institutional boundaries, and providing professional development for faculty (Lucas & Grinberg, 2008, p. 619). Approaches used include having

180  G. LI, Y. BIAN, and J. M. MARTINEZ

faculty with ELL expertise working directly with other faculty members to infuse ELL instruction in their classes (Meskill, 2005), implementing faculty institutes that involve learning about various ELL issues (Brisk, 2008; Costa, McPhail, Smith, & Brisk, 2005), and faculty forming a learning community to explore ways to incorporate ELL content in their courses (Gabriel & Wagner, 2014). Across these initiatives, teacher educators’ awareness and expertise about ELL issues have been identified as a challenge (de Jong & Harper, 2008; Levine & Howard, 2014; Li & Martinez, 2014; Roy-Campbell, 2013). There is a vast diversity in faculty expertise in ELLs; therefore, faculty’s ability to integrate ELL-related content and competence in their courses vary. Though faculty members are experts of their disciplinary areas, they often do not have training in addressing ELL issues. This lack of training often leads to insufficient attention to addressing the needs of ELL learners in their courses (Costa et al., 2005; Meskill, 2005; Nutta, Mokhtari, & Strebel, 2012; Roy-Campbell, 2013). Finding time for ELL-related content in the already crowded teacher education curriculum is also a challenge. Tellez and Mosqueda (2015) note that it is often quite impractical for the professional teacher educator, who has but a year or two, perhaps three, to prepare teachers for their first year, or for the professional development coordinator who must squeeze teacher learning regarding ELLs into already crowded calendars. Kaufman, Truxaw, Marcus, Billions, and Wagner (2014) documented the challenges of five teacher educators in finding time in their courses to infuse ELL content. All of the instructors felt compelled to address state certification requirements and the Common Core State Standards to ensure that preservice teachers were prepared for them. They struggled to create space for content-specific material from what they were already teaching in order to replace it with content related to language and culture. In addition, after they decided to commit to infusing ELL-related content, they struggled with deciding what lessons to include, how much time to spend on each topic, which resources to use, what readings to assign, choosing activities in which to engage, determining the most pedagogically effective time during a semester to introduce the topics, and how to sequence the activities. As Moss, Zack, and Payne (2014) note, “Yet this notion of ‘time’, or precisely the lack thereof is really en echo of a more systemic issue of a need to both establish and adhere to priorities” (p. 228). How do faculty of various backgrounds deal with these challenges and gauge the increasing demands of preparing future teachers for teaching ELLs in their courses, and what are their perceptions of preservice teachers’ needs? Scholars have devoted much attention to the knowledge base that preservice teachers need to have (Li, 2013; de Jong et al., 2013), and various faculty development projects to include issues of ELL in teacher

“I Don’t Have the Resources to Learn ...”   181

preparation (Brisk, 2008; Costa et al., 2005; Meskill, 2005; Levine, Howard, & Moss, 2014; Walker & Stone, 2011), but few have addressed teacher educators’ practices and perspectives about preparing teachers for ELL-related skills. In this study, we aimed to fill this gap by exploring teacher education course instructors’ (both faculty and graduate students) perspectives about preservice teachers’ needs in order to teach ELLs, their own beliefs and practices of incorporating ELL-related content in their courses, and the challenges they faced in such undertaking. Three questions guided the study: • What are teacher educators’ perceptions of preservice teachers’ needs for their preparation to teach ELLs? • What are their practices of integrating ELL-related content in their courses? • What are the challenges?

METHODS Context and Participants The teacher education program examined in this study was situated in a large state university in the Midwest and offered both elementary and secondary teaching majors. It was a 5-year program including a 1-year internship during the 5th year. In total, the program offered 34 courses across the 5 years. In Years 1 and 2, the program offered 3 foundational courses: issues that were foundational to teaching diverse learners, working to understand concepts such as equity and equality, the hidden curriculum, and cultural capital. In Years 2 and 3, the program engaged preservice teachers in studies of disciplinary literacy, classroom management, student motivation, and lesson planning (e.g., learners and learning in context). In Years 3 and 4, courses involved integrating subject matter knowledge, curriculum, and pedagogy, and in Year 5, the internship year, preservice teachers engaged in the work of practicing like a teacher, putting it all together in actual supervised and mentored practice. Among the 57 instructors, 46% were graduate students, 38% were faculty, and 16% were adjunct and others. The majority of the instructors were White, and so were the preservice teachers. Similar to many typical teacher education programs, it offered a TESOL minor endorsement in which preservice teachers could choose to enroll. The state requires 6 semester hours in reading instruction for elementary teachers, and 3 semester hours in reading and literacy

182  G. LI, Y. BIAN, and J. M. MARTINEZ

instruction for secondary teachers but there was no specific requirement for addressing the needs of ELLs. This study was conducted using mixed methods of qualitative and quantitative nature that included surveys and interviews. Mixed methods were used to both triangulate and complement data from different sources (Hammersley, 2008; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998). Surveys were used to understand all instructors’ background knowledge and training in teaching ELLs and their general practices in incorporating the needs of ELLs in their courses, while in-depth interviews provided insights about different instructors’ beliefs and practices that were specific to their courses and content areas. Twenty-three course instructors (12 faculty members and 11 graduate students) who were teaching or had taught courses in the past 3 years in the program were randomly selected for interviews for the study. Among the participants, 18 were Caucasian, 3 were Latina/o, and 2 were African American. Six of the participants were male and 17 were female. Among the faculty, 7 were assistant professors and 5 were associate professors. The instructors represented a wide range of content area courses, including literacy (6), social studies (3), science (3), arts (3), mathematics (2), English (2), world languages (2), and foundational courses on issues about social justice, equity and diversity (2). Data Collection and Analysis The 23 course instructors were interviewed for half an hour to one hour, using a semistructured interview protocol. Each interview was audiorecorded and transcribed in full. Data analysis was concurrent with data collection. During data collection and audio transcribing, the research team met weekly to debrief the progress and preliminary findings; and these discussions served as initial analyses. After all interviews were transcribed, we analyzed the transcripts more systematically following Saldana’s (2016) first cycle and second cycle of coding. For the first cycle, we applied both deductive codes generated from the literature review regarding teacher educators’ experiences, and inductive codes that emerged to summarize segments of data (Miles, Huberman, & Saldana, 2013). In the second cycle, we grouped those summaries into a smaller number of categories and themes by relating them to the research questions. Finally, we searched for connecting threads and patterns among the excerpts within those categories and between the various categories (Seidman, 2006). To ensure inter-rater reliability, the authors first coded the transcripts independently, and then compared and modified the themes to reach an agreement. We then used the modified themes to code all the transcripts again.

“I Don’t Have the Resources to Learn ...”   183

Findings Data analysis suggests that course instructors regarded preservice teachers’ preparation to work with ELLs as important and that they included specific practices to support preservice teachers to learn to teach ELLs. Nevertheless, course instructors also perceived they faced individual and programmatic challenges that prevented them from better supporting preservice teachers (PSTs). This section synthesizes these perceptions, addressing the first two research questions separately, and integrating the challenges associated with each of them. TEACHER EDUCATORS’ PERCEPTIONS OF PRESERVICE TEACHERS’ NEEDS FOR THEIR PREPARATION TO TEACH ELLS These teacher educators claimed that there was an urgent need to infuse ELL-related content throughout the teacher education program in different levels of teacher preparation courses because they believed that PSTs could not retain what they learned in a single stand-alone teaching ELLs course. Instructors perceived that the majority of PSTs, except for those pursuing a TESOL endorsement or who had personal interactions with ELLs, knew little about ELLs, and their knowledge was very general and theoretical. As one faculty instructor teaching secondary English language arts (ELA) methods course stated, “The TESOL minors, may ... have some strategies … but the majority of the students [PSTs], don’t. They feel like they don’t know anything and they are very grateful to learn something.” According to course instructors, PSTs frequently expressed the desire to learn more about teaching ELLs. Topics of interest included learning about teaching reading comprehension of disciplinary texts, designing activities, differentiating instruction, tapping into ELL’s culture, designing assessments, and communicating with ELLs and their families. Instructors also noted that PSTs needed opportunities to engage with culturally and linguistically diverse learners since the PSTs in the program were predominantly white middle-class females coming from a very homogeneous background. Additionally, they recognized that PSTs had little access to ELLs in coursework and/or field placement in the program, which partially contributed to PSTs’ lack of preparedness to teach ELLs. One female faculty instructor teaching secondary science methods course commented: [PSTs’ knowledge of teaching ELLs is] very little, very little … part of it is whether they had the experience with those [ELL] students. So if, for ex-

184  G. LI, Y. BIAN, and J. M. MARTINEZ ample, they do a service learning project at the refugee development center in [town], then they would have some experience interacting with both students and adults, who are recent immigrants, and so they would have some experience with that, but it’s not consistent.

Instructors perceived that these lack of opportunities to learn about ELLs had led to PSTs’ developing misconceptions, which included deficit views of ELLs, low expectations towards ELLs, and underestimation of the support that ELLs would need from teachers. For example, some PSTs in their classes believed that ELLs struggled with everything at school due to their language, and could not handle the same level of content as their nativespeaking peers. PSTs’ concept of “differentiated instruction” for ELLs was giving ELLs less or lower content and focusing mostly on language, rather than on content learning. To prepare PSTs for ELLs, instructors identified three categories of knowledge and skills that PSTs needed to have, including (1) dispositions and orientations of teaching ELLs, (2) knowledge about ELLs, and (3) knowledge about teaching ELLs. Regarding dispositions and orientations, instructors believed that PSTs should learn to value equity and make sure every student had equal opportunities to learn both language and content. Regarding knowledge about ELLs, instructors suggested that PSTs learn how to build relationships with ELLs to understand them as individuals, how to get the information about ELLs’ cultural, schooling and family backgrounds, and how to communicate with ELLs and their families. Regarding knowledge about teaching ELLs, instructors noted that PSTs should know how to plan lessons, design activities and select teaching materials to better accommodate ELLs. When giving instruction, PSTs need to learn how to activate ELLs’ prior knowledge and use ELLs’ first languages as an asset. When explaining concepts and communicating ideas, PTSs need to learn to use multiple representations rather than relying on language only. Finally, PSTs should also learn ways to make tests and assessments accessible to ELLs. There was, however, vast disparity in how much ELL-related content was covered across the teacher preparation program. Within the whole program, there was only one education foundational course that prepared PSTs with knowledge about diverse students. Among the other courses, while some instructors had expertise about teaching ELLs, and included ELL-related content in their courses, others preferred not to touch upon this issue due to their limited expertise. Whether or not PSTs could learn ELL-related content was to some extent a matter of chance. Further, instructors noticed that except for PSTs who chose TESOL minors, the majority of the PSTs did not have opportunities to reinforce what they had learned in the foundational course or in the subsequent methods courses

“I Don’t Have the Resources to Learn ...”   185

because they had to wait two to three years until their senior and internship years to interact with ELLs. By that time, they had already forgotten the course content, and they did not seem to bring into practice what they had studied during their teacher preparation. One female faculty instructor teaching secondary ELA methods course shared that: The problem is we [course instructors] can have them [PSTs] plan and know what to do with ELLs, but if they don’t get to apply that with real students, I don’t think they will retain it. Because they are learning so much while they are here. I think they are gonna [going to] retain what they use. That’s why I think the opportunity to work with ELLs is so important.

Finally, in some courses, ELL-related issues were covered under the issues of diversity or special education. Therefore, ELL students were not treated as a unique population that need specific supports. One faculty instructor in secondary art noted that “everyone [every teacher preparation course instructor] teaches equity to the best of their ability, whether it’s social studies or math or the arts, but maybe not going all the way down to the urban child, the ELL child, the special needs child.” As a result, PSTs tended to simplify the support ELLs may need, and overlooked the particular linguistic barriers ELLs faced. Therefore instructors argued preservice teachers needed to have explicit, systematic attention to supporting ELLs within the program. As a female graduate student instructor teaching elementary literacy methods course put it: It’s [ELL-related issue] just kinda been ignored, brushed under the rug, we don’t have time for that, so I don’t think that is something that … everyone sees as important. But I think it’s important and it needs to be addressed ... I do think these [ELL-related] issues should be addressed within specific courses and I don’t think ethically it’s right for us to send students out and say pick up a student to work with and they are ELL. .. I think that is not ethically right and I think we are doing that.

INSTRUCTORS’ PRACTICES TO INTEGRATE ELL-RELATED CONTENT IN THEIR COURSES The instructors acknowledged that preservice teachers varied in their experiences learning about ELLs and their perceptions of ELLs’ needs. As noted earlier, the small number of TESOL minors often had some volunteering experiences with ELLs while the majority others did not. Consequently, 13 of the 23 instructors mentioned that they adjusted content in their courses in relation to preservice teachers’ knowledge about teaching ELLs,

186  G. LI, Y. BIAN, and J. M. MARTINEZ

though it must be noted that the majority of these adjustments focused on understanding diversity and differences. Several instructors tackled preservice teachers’ knowledge of the self as an English speaking mainstream teacher through assigning readings (13 instructors) and videos (11 instructors) about ELLs and their learning contexts. In both cases (readings and videos), instructors encouraged preservice teachers to share their reactions to the materials and to contrast them with personal experiences as K–12 students to notice issues of diversity, equity, and language privilege and oppression. In some instances (four instructors), interviewees used materials as case studies of a particular area of knowledge, focusing preservice teachers’ observations on issues of students’ privilege and oppression on the basis of language, and teachers’ enactment of strategies. Instructors perceived that knowledge of the self would help PSTs to become more sensitive to ELL students and families’ needs. As one faculty instructor teaching elementary social studies methods course put it, “for me it’s more a mindset. They [PSTs] need to value kids’ experiences, backgrounds, diversity, culture, and language…. So, they want strategies, and I want to help with strategies, but I also want them to just develop that kind of mindset.” The instructors believed this mindset was critical to PSTs’ transitioning from understanding ELLs’ needs to learning about strategies to address the needs in the senior year. A male graduate student instructor teaching secondary social science methods course explained: If we think about it from the diversity standpoint, the [sophomore year] classes have already predisposed them to … being nice to the kids, and kind of understand where they are at their present level… by the time they come to me in the senior year, then they already know… “oh, I have to work towards the special needs of an English Language Learner.”

When working with seniors and student teachers with field placements, 12 of the 23 instructors mentioned that they contextualized their demonstrations of teaching strategies based on preservice teachers’ field placements. The strategies included modifying lesson plans, teaching academic vocabulary, helping ELLs understand disciplinary texts, having content knowledge learning objectives drive language instruction, providing adjusted and flexible assessment, and recording and analyzing student data. At this point, the ELL content in the university courses was driven by the needs of ELLs in those classrooms. As a female graduate student instructor teaching elementary literacy methods course shared: What we did in class was driven a lot by who [the student teachers] were working with in their placements…. Some of them did have a more diverse population of students in their classrooms, so their needs were very different,

“I Don’t Have the Resources to Learn ...”   187 so I think what they learned in the course was driven a lot by their practical experiences ... I did that [modifying the syllabus] in response to my students.

Nevertheless, 10 out of 23 course instructors reported that most PSTs were not guaranteed opportunities to teach ELLs in their field experiences, except for those with a TESOL-minor. As one graduate student instructor in literacy mentioned, “so I did have a few students who were more knowledgeable … and ironically one of them was not placed in a situation where she had interaction with ELLs in her placement. So she had the training, but she didn’t have the experience to practice her training.” Due to PSTs’ limited opportunities to teach ELLs, instructors found that ELL-related issues were unevenly brought up in class discussions across sections and from year to year. In spite of these practices, many instructors highlighted their varying levels of interest, expertise, and knowledge about ELLs. As one faculty instructor in elementary science who admitted that he did not know much about ELLs “other than really basic stuff,” described his observation, “There is some flexibility and different people do different things, even though we tend to share a common syllabus. What happens day to day is not the same, and various instructors have varied expertise.” Another graduate student instructor teaching elementary literacy who had limited background in ELL concurred: I know that there are people who are doing a better job of this than I am, but I don’t have the resources to learn, or I don’t have the time to do that in addition to my teaching, which is very time-consuming.

In addition to the issue of instructors’ expertise, many instructors also emphasized other challenges posed by the lack of time in teacher preparation courses to include issues of ELLs. Seven instructors expressed that their courses’ syllabi were already heavily laden, making it difficult to find time to incorporate ELL-related content. Instructors felt that time to cover ELL-related issues competed with time to include other content, such as technology and teaching students with special needs. Instructors then resorted to minimizing the ELL-related content they included. One female faculty instructor teaching elementary social studies methods course explained: We have 5 strands of things that we have to pay attention to in the subject matter [science].... If we add something in, we have to take something out. We cannot add, without subtracting something. So, the key is what do we take out if we’re gonna add something in. I’m just telling you that it’s probably unrealistic to think you can add in English Language Learners’ aspects to every single aspect of this course…. You may have to pick and choose.

188  G. LI, Y. BIAN, and J. M. MARTINEZ

DISCUSSION This study explored a group of American teacher education course instructors’ perspectives about the preparation of preservice teachers to teach ELLs by considering their views on what preservice teachers needed to learn to teach ELLs, their practices of incorporating ELL-related content in their courses, and the challenges instructors faced. Findings suggest that teacher education instructors regarded ELL issues as important and so did their preservice teachers. Specifically, instructors emphasized that preservice teachers, most of who from the dominant language backgrounds with limited prior experiences with ELLs, needed to develop knowledge about their own perceptions of ELLs, knowledge about ELLs, and knowledge about how to teach ELLs. The instructors’ perceptions of preservice teachers needs are aligned with the literature on the knowledge base necessary to teach ELLs. Additionally, instructors believed that there was a need to provide more knowledge application opportunities to address preservice teachers’ lack of retention of what they learn about teaching ELLs during their teacher preparation program. The instructors’ clear identification of what PSTs needed to teach ELLs indicated that the instructors did not share the common beliefs of “just good teaching.” Their perspectives resonated with many scholars that to effectively teach ELLs, PSTs needed ELL-specific dispositions and instructional strategies; and attention solely to cultural diversity was not enough for their preparation (de Jong & Harper, 2005; Lucas & Villegas, 2011). Nevertheless, due to their own limited preparation in ELL education and their limited time and resources to update their own training in this area, the teacher educators’ practices of incorporating ELL-related knowledge into their own courses were limited. These limitations were related to both time and rigor and in their ability to go beyond focusing on issues of diversity and differences, a common assumption of “just good teaching” that conflates cultural diversity with linguistic diversity (Lucas & Villegas, 2011). Findings also suggest that the instructors, despite their own limited training in ELL education themselves, tried a variety of in-class activities to address their perceived PSTs’ needs by engaging PSTs in reading, viewing, and discussing ELLs’ differences and diversity issues and connecting ELLs strategies to field experiences. However, the teacher educators’ practices of incorporating ELL-related activities in their courses were largely driven by their own awareness of the importance of ELL issues as well as PSTs’ needs to teach ELLs in their field placements in the senior or internship year. These were not systematic redesigns of their courses (not to mention, the program) based on their identifications of PSTs’ needs. In this sense, the teacher educators were just at the awareness stage, reacting to the changing demographics in the K–12 school contexts; they had not developed

“I Don’t Have the Resources to Learn ...”   189

competence or agency to go beyond simple addition of course content related to ELLs, treating it as a separate knowledge category, rather than an integral pedagogical practice. Despite these efforts, the instructors reported several challenges, including their varying levels of expertise about ELLs, lack of time and space in the teacher education courses to address issues of ELLs, and limited opportunities for PSTs to apply ELL-related knowledge in their field placements. The teacher educators reported little to no programmatic support in their professional learning about ELL education and were left on their own to choose whether or not to address it. While the teacher educators in general were given autonomy in their role of instructors, lack of collaborative support from the teacher program afforded the instructors little time or resources to make changes (Levine, Howard, & Gort, 2014; Lucas & Grinberg, 2008). It must be noted, however, although the teacher educators noted several program barriers, none of them linked their observations directly to policy issues, either state or federal policies on teacher education. IMPLICATIONS The findings from this study have important implications for improving teacher education for preparing PSTs for teaching ELLs. First and foremost, the findings add to previous research, showing that current efforts to prepare PSTs for ELLs are “fragmented and incoherent” (DarlingHammond, Hammerness, Grossman, Rust, & Shulman, 2005, p. 391). The varying expertise of teacher educators and the consistent marginalization of content for ELLs in teacher education due to by time, space, and resource limitations reflected a persistent piecemeal approach to preparing future teachers of ELLs. Our study speaks to an urgent need to change this status quo by calling for institutionalized plans and efforts to incorporate ELL-related content throughout the curriculum. Such institutionalized plan will ensure that PSTs will not learn just a set of unrelated facts but understand how individual knowledge and skills relate to one another and fit together to form a coherent big picture (Darling-Hammond et al., 2005). Institutionalized programmatic planning can help develop a shared vision of what counts as good teaching for ELLs, and a corresponding framework to guide the infusion of ELL-related content to minimize unnecessary redundancies across courses. Progress toward this direction will entail collaboration and shared expertise among course instructors. Specific practices to implement these collaborations can include: allowing ELL faculty and other faculty to team teach (Meskill, 2005), forming professional learning communities (Levine, Howard, & Moss, 2014), or implementing a faculty learning institute (Brisk,

190  G. LI, Y. BIAN, and J. M. MARTINEZ

2008; Costa et al., 2005). These practices need to be supported with faculty incentives to devote time and energy to such efforts. This support could take the form of making these efforts part of the course evaluations as well as counting them in annual reviews and in tenure and promotion processes. Additionally, there is the need to respond to the double challenges of preservice teachers’ lack of retention of the ELL-related knowledge coupled with course instructors’ lack of time in their course to incorporate ELL-related content. A response to these challenges might be to plan for provision of theory-to-practice application opportunities early on in the program and institutionalized effort of curricular planning that builds on PSTs’ developing knowledge base to decide which topics they need to revisit as they progress through the program. Furthermore, more incentives for collaboration and resources sharing among instructors might also address the issue of time and space shortage for ELL content across the courses. In conclusion, this study adds to our understanding of the preparation of future teachers to teach ELLs by considering the important role that course instructors play in shaping the experiences of preservice teachers around issues of teaching ELLs. Findings related to course instructors’ needs, practices and challenges can serve as a springboard to explore cooperative and rigorous ways to prepare future teachers to teach ELLs. Understanding and listening course instructors’ perspectives furthers our understanding of the need to involve teacher education programs, teacher educators, and teachers in the enhancement of ELLs’ schooling experiences. REFERENCES Abbate-Vaughn, J. (2008). Highly qualified teachers for our schools: Developing knowledge, skills, and dispositions to teach culturally and linguistically diverse students. In M. E. Brisk (Eds.), Language, culture, and community in teacher education (pp. 175–202). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group. Almarza, D. J. (2005). Connecting multicultural education theories with practice: A case study of an intervention course using the realistic approach in teacher education. Bilingual Research Journal, 29(3), 527–539. doi:10.1080/1523588 2.2005.10162850 Akiba, M., Cockrell, K. S., Simmons, J. C., Han, S., & Agarwal, G. (2010). Preparing teachers for diversity: Examination of teacher certification and program accreditation standards in the 50 states and Washington, DC. Equity & Excellence in Education, 43(4), 446–462. Ballantyne, K., Sanderman, A., & Levy, J. (2008). Educating english learners: Building teacher capacity. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition

“I Don’t Have the Resources to Learn ...”   191 Bleicher, E. (2011). Parsing the language of racism and relief: Effects of a shortterm urban field placement on teacher candidates’ perceptions of culturally diverse classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(8), 1170–1178. Bollin, G. (2007). Preparing teachers for Hispanic immigrant children: A service learning approach. Journal of Latinos and Education, 6(2), 177–189. Bortolin, K. (2013). Community-based Learning in Teacher Education: Toward a Situated Understanding of ESL Learners (Doctoral dissertation), University of Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. Brisk, M. E. (2008). Program and faculty transformation: enhancing teacher preparation. In M. E. Brisk (Eds.), Language, Culture, and Community in Teacher Education (pp. 249–266). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group. Carpenter-LaGattuta, A. (2002). Challenges in multicultural teacher education. Multicultural Education, 9(4), 27. Cloud, N., Genesee, F., & Hamayan, E. (2009). Literacy instruction for English language learners: A teacher’s guide to research-based practices. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Colombo, M., McMakin, D., Jacobs, C., & Shestok, C. (2013). Hopefulness for Teachers of ELLs in the Era of NCLB. Multicultural Perspectives, 15(2), 81–87. Costa, J., McPhail, G., Smith, J., & Brisk, M. E. (2005). Faculty first: The challenge of infusing the teacher education curriculum with scholarship on English language learners. Journal of Teacher Education, 56(2), 104–118. Darling-Hammond, L., Hammerness, K., Grossman, P., Rust, F., & Shulman, L. (2004). The design of teacher education programs. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 390–441). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. de Jong, E. J., & Harper, C. A. (2005). Preparing mainstream teachers for English Language learners: Is being a good teacher good enough? Teacher Education Quarterly, 32, 101–124. de Jong, E. J., & Harper, C. A. (2008). ESL is good teaching “plus.” In M. E. Brisk (Eds.), Language, culture, and community in teacher education (pp. 127–148). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group. de Jong, E. J., Harper, C. A., & Coady, M. R. (2013). Enhanced knowledge and skills for elementary mainstream teachers of English language learners. Theory into Practice, 52(2), 89–97. doi:10.1080/00405841.2013.770326 Durgunoğlu, A. Y., & Hughes, T. (2010). How prepared are the US preservice teachers to teach english language learners? International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 22(1), 32–41. Echevarria, J., Richards-Tutor, C., Canges, R., & Francis, D. (2011). Using the SIOP model to promote the acquisition of language and science concepts with English learners. Bilingual Research Journal, 34(3), 334–351. Faltis, C., Arias, M. B., & Ramírez-Marín, F. (2010). Identifying relevant competencies for secondary teachers of English learners. Bilingual Research Journal, 33(3), 307–328. Franco, M. S., & Hendricks, M. S. (2012). Evaluating teacher preparation programs: What not to do. New Educational Foundations. Retrieved from http:// www.newfoundations.com/GENERAL/IntroEvalTPrep.htm

192  G. LI, Y. BIAN, and J. M. MARTINEZ Gabriel, R. & Wagner, M. (2014). From professional learning to professional action and back again. In T. H. Levine, E. R., Howard, & D. M. Moss (Eds.), Preparing classroom teachers to succeed with second language learners: Lessons from a faculty learning community (pp. 174–189). New York, NY: Routledge. Genesee, F., Lindholm-Leary, K., Saunders, W., & Christian, D. (2005). English language learners in US schools: An overview of research findings. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 10(4), 363–385. Hammersley, M. (2008). Troubles with triangulation. In M. M. Bergman (Ed.), Advances in mixed methods research (pp. 22–36). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Howard, E. R., Levine, T. H., & Moss, D. M. (2014). The urgency of preparing teachers for second language learners. In T. H. Levine, E. R., Howard, & D. M. Moss (Eds.), Preparing classroom teachers to succeed with second language learners: Lessons from a faculty learning community (pp. 3–16). New York, NY: Routledge. Hutchinson, M. C. (2011). Impacting pre-service teachers’ sociocultural awareness, content knowledge and understanding of teaching ELLs through servicelearning. The Journal of Research in Service Learning and Teacher Education, 1(2), 31–55. Kaufman, D., Truxaw, M. P., Marcus, A. S., Billings, S. B., & Wagner, M. (2014). Solving problems of space, time, and knowledge: How to fit learning about linguistic and cultural diversity into teacher education courses. In T. H. Levine, E. R., Howard, & D. M. Moss (Eds.), Preparing classroom teachers to succeed with second language learners: Lessons from a faculty learning community (pp. 85–104). New York, NY: Routledge. Kohler, A., & Lazarín, M. (2007). Hispanic education in the United States: Statistical 87 Brief. National Council of La Raza (NCLR). Retrieved March 8, 2015, from research.policyarchive.org/20256.pdf Levin, T. H., & Howard, E. R. (2014). Teacher educator capacity to prepare preservice teachers for work with emergent bilinguals. In T. H. Levine, E. R., Howard, & D. M. Moss (Eds.), Preparing classroom teachers to succeed with second language learners: Lessons from a faculty learning community (pp. 17–36). New York, NY: Routledge. Levin, T. H., Howard, E. R., & Gort, M. (2014). Recruiting and organizing learning among busy faculty members. In T. H. Levine, E. R., Howard, & D. M. Moss (Eds.), Preparing classroom teachers to succeed with second language learners: Lessons from a faculty learning community (pp. 37–59). New York, NY: Routledge. Levine, T. H., Howard, E. R., & Moss, D. (2014). Preparing classroom teachers to succeed with second language learners: Lessons from a faculty learning community. New York, NY: Routledge. Li, G. (2013). Promoting teachers of culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) students as change agents: A cultural approach to professional learning. Theory Into Practice, 52(2), 136-143. Li, G., & Bian, Y. (2016, April). Preparing pre-service teachers to teach English language learners (ELLs): A research synthesis. Paper presented at the annual conference of AERA Annual Conference, Washington D.C. Li, G., & Martinez, J. (2014, Dec.). What pre-service teachers need to know about ELLs: A research review. In G. Li (Chair), Preparing pre-service teachers to teach

“I Don’t Have the Resources to Learn ...”   193 English language learners: Issues and perspectives. Symposium presented at the annual conference of the Literacy Research Association Conference, Marco Island, FL. Li, G., & Protacio, S. (2010). Best practices in professional development for teachers of ELLs. In G. Li & P. Edwards (Eds.), Best practices in ELL instruction (pp. 353–380). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Lucas, T., & Grinberg, J. (2008). Responding to the linguistic reality of mainstream classrooms: Preparing all teachers to teach English language learners. In M. Cochran-Smith, S. Feiman-Nemser, & J. McIntyre (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education: Enduring questions in changing contexts (3rd ed., pp. 606–636). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Lucas, T., & Villegas, A. M. (2011). A framework for preparing linguistically responsive teachers. In T. Lucas (Ed.), Teacher preparation for linguistically diverse classrooms: A resource for teacher educators (pp. 55–72). New York, NY: Routledge. Lucas, T., & Villegas, A. M. (2013). Preparing linguistically responsive teachers: Laying the foundation in preservice teacher education. Theory into Practice, 52(2), 98–109. doi:10.1080/00405841.2013.770327 Maxwell, L. A. (2014, June 4). New York state sets focus on EnglishLearners. Education Week. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/ articles/2014/06/04/33ellny.h33.html Menken, K. (2010). NCLB and English language learners: Challenges and consequences. Theory into Practice, 49(2), 121–128. Meskill, C. (2005). Infusing English language learner issues throughout professional educator curricula: The training all teachers project. The Teachers College Record, 107(4), 739–756. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook.Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Moss, D. M., Zack, J., & Payne, S. L. (2014). Pathways to success: Models of teacher preparation for cultural and linguistic diversity. In T. H. Levine, E. R., Howard, & D. M. Moss (Eds.), Preparing classroom teachers to succeed with second language learners: Lessons from a faculty learning community (pp. 219–230). New York, NY: Routledge. National Center for Education Statistics. (2016, May). English language learners in public schools. Retrieved Oct. 28, 2016, from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/ coe/indicator_cgf.asp Nutta, W. J., Mokhtari, K., & Strebel, C. (2012). Preparing every teacher to reach English learners. Boston, MA: Harvard Education Press. Reeves, J. R. (2006). Secondary teacher attitudes toward including English language learners in mainstream classrooms. The Journal of Educational Research, 99(3), 131–142. Roy-Campbell, Z. M. (2013). Who educates teacher educators about English language learners? Reading Horizons, 52(3), 255. Saldana, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Samson, J. F., & Collins, B. A. (2012). Preparing all teachers to meet the needs of English language learners: Applying research to policy and practice

194  G. LI, Y. BIAN, and J. M. MARTINEZ for teacher effectiveness. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED535608.pdf Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Sheng, Z., Sheng, Y., & Anderson, C. Z. (2011) Dropping out of school among ELL students: Implications to schools and teacher education. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues, and Ideas, 84, 98–103 Sullivan, A. L. (2011). Disproportionality in special education identification and placement of English language learners. Exceptional Children, 77(3), 317–334. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches (Vol. 46). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Téllez, K., & Mosqueda, E. (2015). Developing teachers’ knowledge and skills at the intersection of English language learners and language assessment. Review of Research in Education, 39(1), 87–121. Téllez, K., & Waxman, H. C. (2006). Preparing quality educators for English Language Learners: An overview of the critical issues. In K. Téllez & H. C. Waxman (Eds.), Preparing quality educators for English language learners: Research, policies and practices (pp. 1–22). Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates. The Nation’s Report Card. (2015a). Trend in fourth-grade NAEP reading average scores, by selected student groups. Retrieved from https://www. nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_2015/#reading/groups?grade=4 The Nation’s Report Card. (2015b). Trend in eighth-grade NAEP reading average scores, by selected student groups. Retrieved from https://www. nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_2015/#reading/groups?grade=8 Tinkler, A., &Tinkler, B. (2013). Teaching across the community: Using servicelearning field experiences to develop culturally and linguistically responsive teachers. In V. M. Jagla, J. A. Erickson, & A. S. Tinkler (Eds.), Transforming teacher education through service-learning (pp. 99–117). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Walker, C. L., & Stone, K. (2011). Preparing teachers to reach English language learners: Pre-service and in-service initiatives. In T. Lucas (Eds.), Teacher preparation for linguistically diverse classrooms: A resource for teacher educators (pp. 127–143). New York, NY: Routledge. Waxman, H. C., Téllez, K., & Walberg, H. J. (2006). Future directions for improving teacher quality for English language learners. In K. Téllez & H. C. Waxman (Eds.), Preparing quality educators for English language learners: Research, policies and practices (pp. 189–195). Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates. Wiggins, R. A., Follo, E. J., & Eberly, M. B. (2007). The impact of a field immersion program on pre-service teachers’ attitudes toward teaching in culturally diverse classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(5), 653–663.

ABOUT THE EDITORS/ AUTHORS THE EDITORS Ann E. Lopez is a faculty member in the Department of Leadership, Higher and Adult Education, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, where she teaches courses on educational administration, educational policy, leadership and change; social and policy contexts of schooling; student success, student engagement and diversity. Ann was recently appointed Provostial Advisor on Access Programs at the University of Toronto. Dr. Lopez also held the position of Academic Director of Initial Teacher Education, with responsibility for the Bachelor of Education secondary and elementary teacher education program. In that role Ann worked collaboratively with other educators to diversity the teacher candidate pool to be more reflective of the diversity of students in Ontario schools. Prior to becoming a Faculty Member at OISE/UT Ann worked as a secondary classroom teacher and school administrator in the Peel District School Board, Canada. Dr. Lopez’s research and teaching focus on culturally responsive teaching and leadership, critical multicultural education, diversity and Equity in teacher Education. Dr. Lopez’s most recent publications include Culturally responsive and socially just leadership: From theory to action; Critical perspectives in Diversity and Social Justice Education; and Navigating cultural borders in diverse contexts: building capacity through culturally responsive leadership and critical praxis. Dr. Lopez has presented her research



195

196  ABOUT the EDITORS/AUTHORS

at conferences in Canada, the Caribbean, Ghana, Kenya, Tunisia and the United States. Dr. Lopez is the 2015 recipient of the Multicultural Educator of the Year Award, from the National Association for Multicultural Education (NAME). Dr. Lopez is currently the President-Elect of NAME. Elsie L. Olan is faculty member in the School of Teaching, Learning and Leadership at the University of Central Florida, teaches courses focused on writing pedagogy, literacy, adolescent literature, diversity and methods of teaching language arts in secondary schools. A former secondary school teacher, Elsie’s teaching, research and service focus on the role of language and writing, literacy, literature and diversity in learning and teaching in language arts and cross-disciplinary education and in teaching and teacher education: teacher’ narratives, inquiry and reflective practices in (national and international) teaching environments and professional development settings. Elsie L. is the secondary Language Arts (BA/MEd/MAT) track coordinator. Elsie L. completed undergraduate studies at the University of Puerto Rico and obtained her PhD in Curriculum Instruction-Language, Culture and Society from the Pennsylvania State University. Her most recent publications include Conversations, Connections, and Culturally Responsive Teaching: Young Adult Literature in the English Methods Class and The relationship between language, culture and society: Teachers of English as a foreign language (EFL) positioning in society. Elsie has presented her work and research at conferences in Mexico, Spain, United Kingdom, and United States. THE AUTHORS Blanca Araujo is an Associate Professor and the Director of Elementary Education in the College of Education at New Mexico State University. Her interests are in Social Studies Education, Teacher Education, Bilingual Education, and Transfronterizo Studies all within a critical and social justice perspective. She is currently working on a research study along the U.S./Mexico Border with Transfronterizo Mexican children examining the tools they use to navigate in U.S. schools. She received her PhD in Critical Pedagogy at NMSU. Susan V. Bennett is professor in Literacy Education at the College of Education at the University of South Florida St. Petersburg, and prior to this position, was a literacy professor at the University of Mississippi. She taught elementary school on the Navajo Reservation in New Mexico and in urban schools in Ohio and Florida. Susan integrates diversity and multicultural education into her undergraduate and graduate courses. Her research interests include culturally responsive pedagogy, creative

About the Authors   197

arts, multicultural literature, and literacy. She has presented her research nationally and internationally. Recently, Susan began to teach creative arts with literacy to incarcerated youth. Yue Bian is a doctoral candidate in the Curriculum, Instruction, and Teacher Education program at the Michigan State University. She was originally from China and worked as a high school teaching English as a foreign language (TEFL) teacher before she came to U.S. She got her master degree from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, with a focus on educational leadership and policy. Her research focus is preservice teacher learning, particularly how teacher education programs can design their curriculum, pedagogy, and field experience to better prepare ESL and mainstream teacher candidates to work with culturally and linguistically diverse students. Her recent work examines how elementary intern teachers learn to draw on resources in their placement schools to develop a beginning repertoire of working with recent immigrant children. Tara M. Brown is an assistant professor of education at the University of Maryland, College Park and a former classroom teacher in secondary alternative education. Her research focuses on the experiences of low-income adolescents and young adults of color served by urban schools, particularly as related to disciplinary exclusion and high school noncompletion. She specializes in qualitative, community-based, participatory, and action research methodologies. Dennis Davis teaches in the Department of Teacher Education and Learning Sciences at NC State University. He received his PhD from Peabody College at Vanderbilt University. From 2010–2016, he was a faculty member at The University of Texas at San Antonio where he received the UT System Regents’ Outstanding Teaching Award and taught undergraduate and graduate courses in literacy, learning theories, and research methods. He is a former elementary classroom teacher and currently serves as coeditor of Journal of Literacy Research. Dennis’ research focuses on upper elementary and middle grades literacy instruction with an emphasis on reading comprehension. In his teaching, research, and other professional responsibilities, he is committed to helping teachers disrupt traditional practices and teach in ways that transform educational outcomes for children in communities that have been historically marginalized in school. David Dillon is a teacher educator at McGill University in Montreal, Canada, who is interested in issues of literacy and empowerment in both school and community settings through the development of constructivist and critical pedagogy. In recent years, he has been applying and studying

198  ABOUT the EDITORS/AUTHORS

those same principles in his work with teacher education students in order to not only better integrate theory and practice, but also to empower them through the development of their professional competence. He has explored this approach to teacher education through a heavy emphasis on school-based experiences and integrated pedagogy, with a special interest in the use of professional teaching portfolios in the development of teacher candidates. Such a focus has provided the basis for his research for a number of years. That is, how do candidates learn to teach during practicum and how can that learning be enhanced? AnnMarie Alberton Gunn is an Associate Professor, Reading and Literacy Studies, College of Education, USFSP. She won the 2013 Dr. Carlos J. Vallejo Memorial Award for Emerging Scholarship, given annually by the American Educational Research Association to one scholar nationally who demonstrates a commitment to underserved communities and to producing scholarship that advances multicultural and multiethnic education Dr. Gunn’s line of inquiry includes literacy studies, multicultural children’s literature, culturally responsive pedagogy, and teacher education. Guofang Li is a Professor and Tier 1 Canada Research Chair in Transnational/Global Perspectives of Language and Literacy Education of Children and Youth in the Department of Language and Literacy Education, University of British Columbia, Canada. Li is a leading researcher in immigrant children’s language and literacy education internationally. Her program of research aims to improve the life success of immigrant and minority students by addressing the cultural, linguistic, instructional, and structural barriers in their literacy learning and academic achievement both in school and at home. Her recent research interests span longitudinal studies of immigrant children’s bicultural and bi-literacy development through school, children and youth’s new literacies practices in and out of school, technology-enhanced language teaching in primary and secondary schools, pre- and in-service TESOL teacher education, and current language and educational policy and practice in globalized contexts. Li has published 12 books and over 100 journal articles and book chapters in English and Chinese, and presented over 100 papers worldwide. Her work and contribution has been recognized by numerous national and international awards including the 2016 Mid-Career Award from the Second Language Research Special Interest Group (SIG), American Educational Research Association (AERA), the 2016 Carol Weinstein Outstanding Research Award, Classroom Management SIG, AERA, the 2013 and 2006 Ed Fry Book Award of the Literary Research Association (LRA), the 2011 Publication Award from ACPSS, the 2010 AERA Early Career Award, and the 2008 Social Context of Education Division Early Career Award of AERA.

About the Authors   199

José Manuel Martínez is a doctoral candidate in the Curriculum, Instruction and Teacher education program at Michigan State University. He was born and raised in Colombia, where he worked as a teacher and as an academic coordinator for 7 years before moving to the U.S. to pursue his doctorate. José studies productive ways in which teachers enact ideologies that regard bilingualism as a resource. Specifically, José’s research establishes conversations between scholarship in bilingual education and scholarship in mathematics education, focusing on the relationship between second language and mathematics teaching and learning at the elementary level in full language immersion classrooms. He has presented his work at international, national and local conferences, and has published in both research and practitioner-oriented journals. Miriam Martinez is a professor of literacy education at the University of Texas at San Antonio where she teaches literacy and children’s literature courses. Her research and publications have focused on the nature of children’s literary meaning-making, children’s responses to literature, and their understanding of various literary genres and formats of children’s literature. She also conducts textual analyses of picture books. Logan Manning is a school leader of an alternative high school in Oakland, California. Logan comes to school leadership with a transformative lens informed by her experiences as a classroom teacher, instructional coach, researcher, and teacher educator. She has authored publications on critical pedagogies and was the 2015 National Council of Teachers of English Promising Researcher in English Education. She is passionate about working with educators to nurture alternatives to traditional schooling where youth can heal from prior educational injustices and develop as leaders and change-makers. Bryan Mascio is a doctoral candidate at Harvard University Graduate School of Education in the area of Human Development and Education. His primary research focuses on the social-emotional-cognitive skills of teaching, and the development of those skills. He works with schools to support those skills and their application to teachers’ and students’ learning and growth. Other areas of interest include student and teacher social emotional learning, and the intersection of teacher professionalism and school improvement. Bryan has also completed studies adult and occupational education, special education, and educational leadership and Administration. His research interest is informed by his experiences years as a teacher, teaching in middle and high schools primarily with students who had been unsuccessful in traditional school settings.

200  ABOUT the EDITORS/AUTHORS

Kevin O’Connor is an Associate Professor in the Department of Education, at Mount Royal University, Calgary, Canada. He taught in K–12 schools for 15 years and as an educational administrator was responsible for integrated experiential science programs in the Yukon Territory, Canada. Kevin was a Visiting Professor at McGill University and the University of Ottawa and acted as a Senior Policy Advisor on Aboriginal Education for Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada INAC. His current research and publications are based on the synthesis of multisensory pedagogy and interdisciplinary curriculum through the integration of experiential and place-based learning, science field studies and Aboriginal education and how these effective inclusive pedagogical practices can support teacher education through a balance of theory and practice. Dr. O’Connor is the National Chair of the Canadian Association of Teacher Education CATESelf-Study in Teacher Education Practices SSTEP group, serves as an editor and reviewer for numerous education research journals worldwide and sits as an Advisory Board member on the Canadian Research Institute for Social Policy CRISP, NASA-GLOBE International Science Education Group, European Scientific Institute ESI and The Paulo and Nita Freire International Center for Critical Pedagogy. Barbara J. Peterson is a doctoral candidate and instructor in Reading and Literacy Studies at the University of South Florida. Her research interests include culturally responsive approaches to language and literacy instruction within early childhood and teacher education contexts. Louie F. Rodríguez is an associate professor in the Graduate School of Education at the University of California Riverside. He uses Participatory Action Research (PAR) and ethnographic methods to understand the student experience for the purposes of transforming educational policy, pedagogy, and practice. He has engaged in multiple projects in partnership with schools and districts to improve educational opportunities for students, particularly students in urban schools and communities. He is the author of three books including Intentional Excellence: The Pedagogy, Power, and Politics of Excellence in Latina/o Schools and Communities (2015), The Time is Now: Understanding and Responding to the Black and Latina/o Dropout Crisis in the U.S. (2014), and Small Schools and Urban Youth (2008). He earned his master’s and doctorate in education from Harvard. Vanessa Rodriguez is Assistant Professor in the Center for Early Childhood Health and Development within the Department of Population at NYU School of Medicine. Vanessa taught middle-school humanities in the New York City public schools for more than 10 years before completing her doctorate in Human Development at Harvard. She is a teacher

About the Authors   201

and researcher focused on expanding our understanding of the cognitive development of teachers using a dynamic skills framework. Her work is focused on identifying the social emotional cognitive skills underlying teaching and creating new frameworks and tools for measuring the development of teacher’s social emotional competencies. Dr. Rodriguez uses mixed methods including cognitive interviews, surveys and psychophysiologic approaches to explore how teachers understand their own development and how it evolves through their career. In addition to her academic publications, Rodriguez wrote the “The Teaching Brain” which shared her teaching experiences and vision for the future of teaching. Misty Sailors is a professor of literacy education. Her research and publications have focused on (a) reading comprehension, (b) teacher education, and (c) school-wide literacy reform. She has worked with teachers in countries such as the US, Cambodia, Bangladesh, Mozambique, Malawi, and South Africa. She serves as the editor of the Journal of Literacy Research and serves on the Literacy Research Panel for the International Literacy Association. Teresa Mobley-Sellers, MA Ed, is a doctoral student in the Department of Interdisciplinary Learning and Teaching (ILT) at the University of Texas at San Antonio (UTSA). For 12 years she taught at a Hispanic serving institution of higher education. Recently, she returned to the elementary setting where she is employed as a master teacher. Her work as a master teacher involves supporting in-service teachers through professional development and literacy coaching. Eileen M. Shanahan previously taught eighth grade language arts in Charlotte, NC where she also served as a middle school curriculum coordinator. She recently earned her PhD at Ohio State University and is currently an Assistant Professor of Literacy at Eastern Kentucky University. Her research and teaching interests include argumentative writing instruction, understanding how discourse shapes teacher learning, and the teaching of English from a social justice perspective. Gladys Sterenberg is a Professor in the Department of Education at Mount Royal University. Her program of research is focused on relational ethics and can be described as encompassing three interrelated research interests: mathematics education, Indigenous ways of knowing, and overlapping communities of practice within teacher education. Her current research projects investigate how program features contribute to integrated theory-and-practice experiences for teacher education through strong school and community partnerships and how in-service and pre-service

202  ABOUT the EDITORS/AUTHORS

teachers experience the cocreation of pedagogical tools that integrate Indigenous knowledges, arts, and mathematics. Rebecca Stortz is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Interdisciplinary Learning and Teaching at The University of Texas at San Antonio. She is currently working on her dissertation which examines the ways in which secondary English language arts teachers navigate the social network systems within the educational field. Other research interests include exploring how children and young adult literature can be used to cultivate promising pedagogical practices for preservice teachers. She is also an editorial assistant for the Journal of Literacy Research. Matthew A.M. Thomas is a Lecturer in comparative education and sociology of education at the University of Sydney, where he coordinates and teaches both undergraduate and post-graduate courses. He holds a PhD from the University of Minnesota and an MA from Columbia University, Teachers College. Matthew has worked as a teacher in the United States, where he was certified in music (grades K–12) and social studies (grades 7–12), and as an educational researcher and consultant in Australia, Mali, Nigeria, Indonesia, Tanzania, and Zambia. His consulting experience includes work on educational projects funded by UNESCO, USAID, Open Society Foundations, Care International, and other organizations. Matthew’s research examines educational policies, pedagogical practices, and the changing roles of teacher and higher education. His current projects investigate the professional identities of teachers and teacher educators as well as the pedagogies employed in teacher education institutions. Lida J. Uribe-Flórez is an associate professor at Boise State University. Previously, she was an associate professor of mathematics education and research methodologies at New Mexico State University. She earned a master’s degree in applied mathematics at University of Puerto Rico (2001) and a PhD degree in mathematics education at Virginia Tech (2009). Her research interest includes technology integration in STEM classrooms, teacher education (including teacher candidates and in-service teachers) as well as mentoring in Online Education. Her work has been presented and published in several national and international venues. James Welsh is the Director of the Florida Center for Instructional Technology. James teaches classroom technology integration to undergraduate and graduate students at the University of South Florida and professional development courses to educators through USF’s iTeach Professional Learning. James is the project leader for the Technology Integration Matrix Evaluation tools and has worked on many statewide projects at FCIT

About the Authors   203

over the past 11 years. He cofounded the Tampa Theatre Film Camp, a digital filmmaking summer camp, now in its 11th year and USF’s Cybersecurity summer camps for teachers and students. His research interests include evaluation of educational technology, critical media literacy, student creation of multimedia texts, and the role of genre in student composition.  Jeanette Haynes Writer is Tsalagi and a citizen of Cherokee Nation; her home is in northeastern Oklahoma. She is Professor of Curriculum and Instruction at New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico. She served in the administrative role of department head for four years. Jeanette teaches the multicultural education course, as well as courses focused on social justice education, curriculum and pedagogy. She developed and taught the university’s first Native American/Indigenous education course and the “Native American Women” course. Her research interests and scholarly publications include tribal critical race theory, critical race theory, critical multicultural education, teacher education and Indigenous education. She has published in journals such as, Action in Teacher Education; Anthropology & Education Quarterly; International Journal of Education & the Arts; International Journal of Multicultural Education; Journal of Praxis in Multicultural Education; and Kappa Delta Pi Record. Ann K. Yehle is an assistant professor at the University of Wisconsin La Crosse. Yehle leads classes in educational foundations, middle level pedagogy, and educational leadership. Yehle holds a PhD, MS, and BS from the University of Wisconsin Madison and various professional licenses both as a teacher and administrator. Yehle has served the field of education as a teacher and principal in urban settings serving students at the middle and high school level. Yehle has also worked as a teacher in psychiatric settings serving students aged 4–21 years. Yehle’s research focuses on the use of course embedded research with middle level teacher candidates and the importance of empowering young adolescents via student voice in both school and community settings and in both academic and extracurricular activities.