Understanding a Pedagogy of Teacher Education [1 ed.] 9781032429724, 9781032429717

Citation preview

UNDERSTANDING A PEDAGOGY OF TEACHER EDUCATION

Providing readers with insights and examples of how teacher educators learn and teach a pedagogy of teacher education (PTE), Butler and Bullock organize a wholistic and practical resource for the next generation of teacher educators. Expanding on the highly referenced scholarship of John Loughran and Tom Russell, Understanding a Pedagogy of Teacher Education explores the learning of PTE through individual and collaborative endeavors, and large-­scale institutional and cross-­national initiatives. Contributors highlight their experiences teaching PTE in formal learning spaces, in international workshop settings, and on the program-­wide scale in order to uncover how they came to understand PTE and enact it effectively. Each chapter connects broad strokes concepts of PTE to well-­defined teacher education fields, such as social justice, literacy, early childhood education, and communities of practice. Blending well-­established theory with contemporary examples, this book is a great tool for teacher education faculty, doctoral students, and those interested in improving their PTE or supporting others in their PTE learning. Brandon M. Butler is an Associate Professor of Social Studies Education and Teacher Education at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia, USA. Shawn Michael Bullock is a Professor of the History of Science, Technology and Education at the University of Cambridge, UK.

UNDERSTANDING A PEDAGOGY OF TEACHER EDUCATION Contexts for Teaching and Learning About Your Educational Practice

Edited by Brandon M. Butler and Shawn Michael Bullock

First published 2024 by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158 and by Routledge 4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2024 selection and editorial matter, Brandon M. Butler and Shawn Michael Bullock; individual chapters, the contributors The right of Brandon M. Butler and Shawn Michael Bullock to be identified as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN: 978-1-032-42972-4 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-032-42971-7 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-003-36512-9 (ebk) DOI: 10.4324/9781003365129 Typeset in Galliard by SPi Technologies India Pvt Ltd (Straive)

For John Loughran, whose scholarship on pedagogy of teacher education has influenced our professional journeys —Brandon and Shawn Todd Dinkelman, whose invitation to explore the work of John Loughran awakened my interest in understanding my pedagogy of teacher education —Brandon Tom Russell, whose endless generosity provided me with the opportunity and the encouragement to develop my pedagogy of education using ideas he and John were exploring —Shawn

CONTENTS

Contributors x 1 Understanding a Pedagogy of Teacher Education Brandon M. Butler and Shawn Michael Bullock 2 Constructing a Personal Pedagogy of Teacher Education Tom Russell 3 New Positions, New Pedagogies: Learning and Becoming in a Novice Teacher Educator Community of Practice Olivia Williams, Colleen Gannon, South Holden, and Jennifer Burris 4 Learning a New Pedagogy of Teacher Education through Critical Friendship: Examining Mindfulness as Content and as Pedagogy Megan Madigan Peercy and Shawn Michael Bullock 5 Preparing All Teacher Educators? Considerations for the Specialized Work of Teacher Education in a Pedagogy of Teacher Education Course Alexander Cuenca, Chelsea Brinda, Ryan Cowden, and Mariah Pol

1 11

30

48

64

viii  Contents

6 Unpacking Practice: Teaching, While Learning, a Pedagogy of Teacher Education Brandon M. Butler 7 Aligning Pedagogies of Teacher Education with the Teaching of Social Justice Dylan Scanlon, Elaine Murtagh, Antonio Calderón, Ann MacPhail, and Claire Walsh

81

96

8 Navigating Crisis While Learning a Justice-Oriented Pedagogy of Teacher Education Elizabeth Ann Tetu

113

9 Exploring the Complexity of Embedding Social Justice into a Pedagogy of Literacy Teacher Education Pooja Dharamshi, Lydia Menna, and Clare Kosnik

128

10 The Persistent Relational Disconnect of Teacher Education: Reimagining Teacher Education Pedagogy as Feminists Monica Taylor and Emily J. Klein 11 A Sociocultural Perspective to Learning a Clinical Pedagogy in and of Teacher Education Megan E. Lynch and Rebecca West Burns 12 A Collaborative Faculty Approach to a Practice-Based Pedagogy of Teacher Education Carla Finkelstein, Lijun Jin, Maria Perpetua Liwanag, Pamela S. Lottero-Perdue, Vicki McQuitty, Shannon Monacelli, Stephanie M. Moody, and Laurie Mullen 13 A Pedagogy of Teacher Educator Development: Lessons Learned and Future Considerations Eline Vanassche, Paulien Meijer, Helma OolbekkinkMarchand, and Ruben Vanderlinde

146

164

181

197

Contents  ix

14 Signaling New Directions: Lessons for Understanding a Pedagogy of Teacher Education Shawn Michael Bullock and Brandon M. Butler

214

Index 219

CONTRIBUTORS

Chelsea Brinda is a doctoral student in the Department of Curriculum and

Instruction at Indiana University. Her research focuses on teacher evaluation, teacher self-­efficacy, and quantitative methods. Prior to entering academia, she was a middle-­and high-­school choir teacher in Northwest Indiana. Shawn Michael Bullock’s research has focused on teacher education and

professional development with a particular focus on self-­study methodology and its theoretical underpinnings. Much of his work employs ideas developed within the history and philosophy of science and he has contributed to literature in many different fields, including science education, technology and education, the history of science, and language education. More recently, he has developed a line of research exploring the impact of a lifetime of martial arts practice on his pedagogy of teacher education. He co-­edited the second volume of the International Handbook of Self-­Study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices. Most recently, he was a Professor of Education at the University of Cambridge, UK. Rebecca West Burns is the Dean of the College of Education at Kutztown

University of Pennsylvania. She studies clinically based teacher education with specific foci on supervision, school-­university partnerships, and teacher leadership. Jennifer Burris leads innovative recruitment and retention initiatives at the

University of Central Oklahoma. She has her doctorate from the University

Contributors  xi

of Maryland, in minority and urban education in the teaching, learning, policy, and leadership program. Her areas of expertise include anti-­racist education, teacher education, social justice leadership, and grow-­your-­own teacher programs. She is a former high school math teacher, has an undergraduate degree in Elementary Education and Teaching from the University of Central Oklahoma, and a master’s degree in Educational Leadership and Administration from Southern Nazarene University. Brandon M. Butler is an Associate Professor of Social Studies and Teacher

Education at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, VA, USA. He teaches courses on elementary social studies methods, teacher education, practitioner inquiry, and qualitative research. His research focuses on teacher educator learning spaces, pedagogy of teacher education, and the teaching and learning of self-­study research methods. His research can be found in such journals as Studying Teacher Education, Teaching and Teacher Education, and Action and Teacher Education. Recent books include Learning through Collaboration in Self-­Study: Critical Friendship, Collaborative Self-­Study, and Self-­Study Communities of Practice; Pathways to Teacher Education: Profiles in Emerging Teacher Educator Development, and Professional Learning Journeys of Teacher Educators. He is currently Co-­Editor of the self-­study journal, Studying Teacher Education. Antonio Calderón is an Associate Professor in Physical Education Teacher

Education at the University of Limerick, where he is Course Director of the Professional Master of Physical Education. His main research area revolves around pedagogies of initial teacher education, with a critical focus on the use of digital technologies and programmatic approaches. Ryan Cowden is an Associate Instructor and doctoral student in the Depart-

ment of Curriculum and Instruction at Indiana University. His research interests include social studies teacher education, teacher leadership, and philosophy of education. Prior to entering academia, Cowden was a social studies teacher in Southern California. Alexander Cuenca is an Associate Professor in the Department of Curricu-

lum and Instruction and coordinator of the Middle/Secondary Social Studies Education program at Indiana University. His research focuses on social studies teacher education, the pedagogy of teacher education, and teacher education policy. Recently edited books include Teaching for Citizenship in Urban Schools and Rethinking Social Studies for the Twenty-­First Century. His research has been published in journals such as the Journal of Teacher Education, Theory and Research in Social Education, Studying Teacher

xii  Contributors

Education, and Teaching and Teacher Education. Prior to entering academia, Dr. Cuenca was a middle school social studies teacher in Miami, Florida. Pooja Dharamshi is an Associate Professor in the Faculty of Education at

Simon Fraser University. Her research and teaching focus on teacher education as a site for social justice and equity-­seeking pedagogies. Carla Finkelstein is an associate professor in the Department of Instructional

Leadership and Professional Development at Towson University. For over twenty years she served as a high school teacher, elementary teacher, literacy coach, and professional developer, primarily in Baltimore City public schools. She holds a B.A. from Yale College, M.Ed. from Harvard University, and Ph.D. in Teacher Education and Professional Development from the University of Maryland. In addition to teaching courses in educational leadership, she serves as a facilitator of the College of Education’s Faculty Fellows initiative, working collaboratively with teacher education colleagues on self-­study of our pedagogy. Colleen Gannon is currently a high school Academic Dean. She has a Ph.D.

in Teacher Education and Professional Development from the University of Maryland. Her research focuses on the development and ongoing support of teacher educators and K-­12 teachers specifically preparing them to be relational and culturally responsive practitioners. South Holden is pursuing his doctorate at the University of Maryland in

language, literacy, and social inquiry in the teaching and learning, policy and leadership program. His research focuses on the development of graduate student teacher educators - understanding their experiences, challenges, and supports. His other research interests include social justice teacher education, communities of practice, reflection, and culturally responsive literacy instruction. He is a former elementary school teacher, has an undergraduate degree from the University of Virginia, and a master of teaching in elementary education from the University of Virginia Lijun Jin is a Professor in the Elementary Education Department at Towson

University, Maryland. Her areas of research include early literacy development, reading motivation, multicultural education, and high-­leverage practices in teacher education. She has also devoted herself to increasing K-­12 classroom teachers’ knowledge of modern China through multiple Fulbright-­Hays Group Projects Abroad that have resulted in the implementations of new curriculum and instructional strategies in classrooms across the United States.

Contributors  xiii

Emily J. Klein is a Professor at Montclair State University in the Department

of Teaching and Learning and the Undergraduate Program Coordinator. She teaches in the Teacher Education and Teacher Development doctoral program and the Gender, Sexuality, and Women’s Studies program. She is Academic Co-­Editor of The Educational Forum, and co-­PI on the WIPRO Science Education grant, supporting teacher leadership in New Jersey. The author of several articles and books on professional learning, teacher leadership, and urban teacher residencies, Dr. Klein’s third book, Our Bodies Tell the Story: Using Feminist Research and Friendship to Reimagine Education and Our Lives came out in 2023. Clare Kosnik is a Professor at the Ontario Institute of Education/University

of Toronto. Her research and teaching focuses on teacher education, in particular literacy teacher educators. Maria Perpetua Liwanag is an Associate Professor in the Department of

Elementary Education at Towson University. Her research and writing interests include pedagogies for literacy learning, literacy assessments, eye movement miscue analysis (EMMA), and children’s and young adult literature. Pamela S. Lottero-­Perdue is a Professor of Science and Engineering Educa-

tion in the Department of Physics, Astronomy & Geosciences at Towson University. She has the privilege of teaching future educators methods and content courses that focus on science and engineering. Her research includes investigating how children plan, fail, and productively persist, and how simulated classroom environments can be used to help those who teach science and engineering practice facilitating challenging discussions. Megan E. Lynch is a Postdoctoral Research Associate in the College of Edu-

cation and Human Services at the University of North Florida. She is a Co­PI and Research Lead on the Teacher Quality Partnership Grant, Project PREP: Partnering to Renew the Educator Pipeline. Her research draws on sociocultural and critical theories to understand and shape the development of socially just pedagogies with teacher candidates and teachers in school-­ university partnerships. Ann MacPhail is an Associate Vice President Doctoral College at the Uni-

versity of Limerick. Ann is a teacher educator and associated teaching and research areas of interest and expertise include (physical education) teacher education, teacher educators’ professional needs, instructional alignment, assessment and teaching for social justice. Ann is a Council member of the International Forum for Teacher Educators (InFo-­TED).

xiv  Contributors

Vicki McQuitty is a Professor in the Elementary Education program at Tow-

son University. She began her career as a fifth-­grade teacher, working in both public and private schools. She completed an M.S. in Learning Disabilities and a Ph.D. in Teaching & Curriculum at Syracuse University. She currently teaches Literacy Methods courses and graduate courses that focus on writing instruction. She is also the director of Maryland Writing Project. Her research interests include how elementary teachers learn to teach writing and effective practices for implementing modeling and writing conferences in elementary classrooms. Paulien Meijer is a Full Professor of teacher learning and development at

Radboud University Nijmegen, the Netherlands. She is currently the scientific director at the Radboud Teachers Academy and together with her research team, she publishes on the broad area of teacher education and teacher learning, with specific attention to the cultivation of creativity in education. She supervises Ph.D. students and teaches a variety of courses in the teacher education program. She is a member of the International Forum for Teacher Educator Development (InFo-­ TED) and vice-­ chair of the Dutch national committee responsible for all university-­based teacher education in the Netherlands. Lydia Menna is an Associate Professor in the Language and Literacy and the

Aboriginal and Relational Pedagogies and Curriculum Making program areas in the Faculty of Education at the University of Alberta. Shannon Monacelli is a faculty lecturer in the Master of Arts in Teaching

Program at Towson University. In this role, she supervises field placements for student teachers and teaches a variety of preservice education courses. In addition, she is cofounder and facilitator of Tiger LINC, a collaborative program to support mental health and resiliency for preservice teachers, while scaffolding their skills to provide similar support for their K-­12 students. For many years, she worked as an elementary school teacher in Baltimore County Public Schools. Stephanie M. Moody is an Assistant Professor of Early Childhood Education

at Towson University in Towson, MD. She obtained her Ph.D. in Literacy and ESL Instruction from Texas A&M University. Stephanie formerly spent 10 years as an elementary ESL educator in a large urban district in Texas. Her research interests include preservice teacher preparation, writing instruction, children’s literature, and translanguaging. Her work has been published in multiple journals including The Reading Teacher, The New Educator, and Literacy Research and Instruction.

Contributors  xv

Laurie Mullen is Professor and Dean of the College of Education at Towson

University. Her research interests are in the areas of teacher education, curriculum, and university-­school partnerships. She has led the following initiatives as Dean: a new strategic plan including a first-­ever strategic plan for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion; a 25% increase of underrepresented students in education; an inaugural undergraduate research initiative; and advancement of practice-­based pedagogies with faculty. She has served on the boards of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education and is currently President of the Teacher Education Council of State Colleges and Universities. Elaine Murtagh is an Associate Vice President of Doctoral College at the

University of Limerick. Ann is a teacher educator and associated teaching and research areas of interest and expertise include (physical education) teacher education, teacher educators’ professional needs, instructional alignment, assessment, and teaching for social justice. Ann is a Council member of the International Forum for Teacher Educators (InFo-­TED). Helma Oolbekkink-­Marchand is a Professor at HAN University of Applied

Sciences. She is involved in policy, teaching, and research in teacher education. Her research interest is in teacher (educators) professional development, teachers’ professional agency and teachers’ (collaborative) practitioner research. She is a member of the International Forum for Teacher Educators Development (InFo-­TED) and the chair of the Dutch Teacher Educators Association (Velon). Megan Madigan Peercy is a Professor and Special Assistant to the Provost at

the University of Maryland in College Park, MD, USA. Her research examines pedagogies of teacher education and the preparation and development of teachers throughout their careers, as they work with multilingual learners. She is deeply invested in understanding the ways in which practice and theory can be in dialogue. Her research has been funded by the Spencer Foundation, the Institute of Education Sciences, and the Maryland State Department of Education. Examples of her recent work appear in Teaching and Teacher Education, TESOL Quarterly, and TESOL Journal. Mariah Pol is an Associate Instructor and doctoral student studying Cur-

riculum and Instruction at Indiana University. Her research interests include social studies, teacher education, and global education. She has worked as a curriculum writer for a variety of organizations. Prior to entering academia, she was an award-­winning social studies educator in Northwest Indiana. She was the recipient of 11 domestic and international

xvi  Contributors

teaching fellowships, the 2019 Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History Indiana History Teacher of the Year, and the 2020 Caleb Mills Indiana History Teacher of the Year award through the Indiana Historical Society. Tom Russell is Professor Emeritus, Faculty of Education, Queen’s Univer-

sity, where his teaching focused on physics methods, curriculum innovation, action research, and practicum supervision. His research focused on reflection-­in-­action, learning from experience, and self-­study of teacher education practices. He is a founding editor of the journal Studying Teacher Education, has co-­edited 11 books on teacher education and learning to teach, and has published a range of articles and book chapters. In 2012, he received the Canadian Association for Teacher Education Award for Outstanding Contributions to Research in Teacher Education in Canada. Dylan Scanlon is a Lecturer in Health and Physical Education at the School

of Education, Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia. Dylan’s research interests include (physical education) curriculum and assessment, physical education teacher education, policy, social justice, and figurational sociology. Monica Taylor is the Director of Gender, Sexuality and Women’s Studies, a

professor in the Department of Educational Foundations, and doctoral faculty in the Teacher Education and Teacher Development program at Montclair State University. She writes about feminist pedagogy, self-­ study, LGBTQ+ inclusive practices, teaching for social justice, and teacher leadership. Her newest book is Our Bodies Tell the Story: Using Feminist Research and Friendship to Reimagine Education and Our Lives. She is the co-­editor of The Educational Forum, and the co–PI of the WIPRO Science Education grant that supports teacher leaders in New Jersey. Elizabeth Ann Tetu is a Ph.D. candidate in Education at the University of

Colorado Boulder studying novice teacher learning and practice. Her research explores how pre-­service and early-­career teachers navigate complex contexts and relationships in order to enact their visions of social justice teaching. She also engages in critical self-­study of her own teacher education practice. Prior to doctoral education, Lizz was an elementary special education teacher and school leader. Eline Vanassche is Tenure Track Professor at KU Leuven Kulak in Belgium.

She is a former Marie Skłodowska-­Curie fellow at the University of East London and assistant professor at Maastricht University. Her research interests include mentoring, teacher educator professionalism, and the policy, practice and research in/of teacher education. She is an active member of

Contributors  xvii

the Global Teacher Education Council (GTEC) and the International Forum for Teacher Educator Development (InFo-­TED). She teaches courses on qualitative methods, educational policy, educational sociology, and the pedagogy of teaching Ruben Vanderlinde is an Associate Professor at the Department of Educa-

tional Studies at Ghent University in Belgium, where he coordinates the research group ‘Teacher Education & Professional Development’. His research interests are in the field of educational innovation, teacher training and professionalization, and the integration of ICT in education. He publishes widely on these topics, both in ISI-­ listed journals and more practitioner-­oriented journals. He teaches “Educational Innovation,” “Pedagogy of Teaching,” and “Teaching Methodology,” At Ghent University, he is also the chair of the Teacher Education Program Committee. Claire Walsh is a PhD researcher in the Department of Physical Education

and Sport Sciences (PESS) at the University of Limerick (UL) in Ireland. Claire’s doctoral work is in the area of wellbeing, physical education, and curriculum change. Claire has experience working as a physical education teacher at the post-­primary level, as a teacher educator at the third level, and as a professional development provider in supporting teachers with curriculum reform in Ireland. Olivia Williams is a postdoctoral researcher and adjunct professor at the

University of Maryland, and an adjunct professor for the Goucher Prison Education Partnership. She is a former high school English teacher and has a Ph.D. in Teaching and Learning, Policy and Leadership with a specialization in literacy education from the University of Maryland. Olivia’s research interests include secondary critical literacy pedagogy and teacher education, and liberatory approaches to teaching literacy in the upper grades. She is also particularly interested in equitable education access for individuals who are incarcerated.

1 UNDERSTANDING A PEDAGOGY OF TEACHER EDUCATION Brandon M. Butler and Shawn Michael Bullock

John Loughran’s (2006) book, Developing a Pedagogy of Teacher Education: Understanding Teaching and Learning about Teaching, is a seminal piece of scholarship in the field of teacher education. It is widely cited, and it won the AERA, Division K Excellence in Research in Teaching and Teacher Education award the year after release. It would take longer than we have to review the book in its entirety, but we do want to take a moment to review a few of the impressions it made on us. First, the book opens with the challenge of defining we mean when we use the term pedagogy as it relates to teacher education. Loughran challenges us to avoid the tendency to use pedagogy as a synonym for teaching strategy; as little more than a fancy word. Indeed, the message that appears early on is that a pedagogy of teacher education is fundamentally relational. It recognizes that teaching and learning cannot be considered as separate entities. Although one might speak of a pedagogy of teacher education more generally, we would argue that self-­study of teaching and teacher education practices (S-­STTEP) are where Loughran’s ideas have not only been the most fully developed, but also the most thoroughly challenged by the community. It is all well and good, for example, to state that pedagogy is fundamentally relational; it is another to articulate precisely what that means for a particular teacher educator in a particular context. Many self-­study researchers have explored this point before and after the publication of Loughran (2006) (see Bullock, 2017; Forgasz & McDonough, 2017; Kitchen, 2005). Garbett et al. (2020) recently underscored how the biennial self-­study “Castle” conference places a particular emphasis on both the relational aspects of self-­study methodology and being a self-­study researcher – with all the attendant identities. DOI: 10.4324/9781003365129-1

2  Brandon M. Butler and Shawn Michael Bullock

Loughran (2004) provided an important overview of the history of the development of self-­study methodology; one important takeaway is that the methodology and community grew out of a desire for teacher educators to more explicitly “practice what they preach.” There is an old joke about the mixed messages that can be sent tacitly by teacher educators in preservice teacher education programs: How well might teacher candidates respond to a lecture about the importance of co-­operative learning? Similarly, Loughran reminded us that self-­study arose in part due to education professors who wanted to hold themselves to account, to avoid becoming those who assigned teacher candidates tasks aimed at fostering “reflective practice” without taking the same sorts of risks themselves. We would be remiss if we did not recognize just how much of a risk it was, in the early 1990s and well beyond, for academics to base their careers on undertaking what Hamilton and Pinnegar (2009) might refer to as an ontological commitment to “becoming,” by engaging in self-­study. In particular, we acknowledge all of the early self-­study researchers on whose work we are grounded. We encourage readers, particularly those who might be newer to the field of teacher education and who come to this book in search of answers for understanding a pedagogy of teacher education, to read the proceedings of early Castle Conferences and scholarship published before the 2004 first edition of the handbook, so that they might have a sense of what some of the earlier insights and tensions were, as well as how the field of teacher education has developed over time. We argue that the idea of a “pedagogy of teacher education” was particularly well-­developed within the self-­study community early on, with the advent of the American Educational Research Association’s Self-­Study of Teacher Education Practices Special Interest Group in 1994, in particular. Members of the community were all focused on improving their practice as teacher educators and thinking about the implications of how they taught future teachers – and in a memorable framing, their “obligations to unseen children”; those students who would be taught by their teacher candidates (Arizona Group, 1996). Different researchers, both within and outside the self-­study community, have of course had different ways of analyzing how they thought about their pedagogies of teacher education, and may or may not have used that particular term. The purpose of this book is to respond to the tradition developed within the scholarship of John Loughran, Fred Korthagen, and Tom Russell in particular (see Korthagen et al., 2001; Loughran, 1999; Loughran & Russell, 1997), although any academic community relies on the interconnections and tacit and explicit contributions from its members. We frame this book as a response to Loughran’s (2006) book, and its follow-­up, Enacting a pedagogy of teacher education, edited by Tom Russell and John Loughran.

Understanding a Pedagogy of Teacher Education  3

Loughran’s work on pedagogy of teacher education has influenced the research and practice of teacher educators across the globe. We, Brandon and Shawn, cannot overstate the influence of Loughran’s scholarship on our professional journeys. Brandon was first introduced to Developing a pedagogy of teacher education in 2008 when, as a doctoral student, his program advisor invited a group of doctoral students to engage in a reading of the recently published book. The experience of reading the book and discussing its implications for teacher education practice solidified Brandon’s emerging interest in researching the enactment of teacher education. As a faculty member a few short years later, Brandon would teach a doctoral seminar built around a pedagogy of teacher education and generate a research trajectory that led him to this book (e.g., Butler et al., 2014; Diacopoulos et al., 2022; Gregory et al., 2017). Similarly, Shawn had the good fortune to be introduced to the book in his second year of doctoral studies, shortly after its publication, with Tom as his supervisor. Shawn was invited to contribute a chapter that he now recognizes helped him to find a center within his doctoral work. Up until that point, he had felt torn between the broader field of science education and what he felt was the more pressing issue of the role of practical experience in learning to teach science. In Bullock (2007), motivated in large part by challenges in Loughran (2006), Shawn reconciled pieces of his identity as a physics teacher together with his doctoral research into how teachers learn to teach physics. Most importantly, he found a way to express a new voice as a novice teacher educator, given that he had teaching responsibilities in the local preservice program alongside his role as a doctoral student. Under the supervision of Tom Russell and the timely opportunity to explore Loughran’s ideas as a doctoral student, Shawn began a journey that has been focused on developing his pedagogy of teacher education across multiple institutions across Canada and in the UK. With each change of academic position, Shawn relied on the perennial challenge to think about his pedagogy of teacher education within the wildly variable contexts of one of Canada’s newest universities (Ontario Tech University), a highly rated comprehensive Canadian institution (Simon Fraser University), and an ancient university embroiled in system-­wide arguments about the role of universities in teacher preparation (University of Cambridge). Our teaching and scholarship are thus intrinsically grounded in the work of John Loughran. For us, it is an honor to continue the exploration of a pedagogy of teacher education, following in his footsteps of developing a pedagogy of teacher education (Loughran, 2006) and enacting a pedagogy of teacher education (Russell & Loughran, 2007). In this book, we seek to respond to a tacit question that was posed in early work: How do teacher educators learn to develop a pedagogy of teacher education? If we wish to

4  Brandon M. Butler and Shawn Michael Bullock

avoid a scattershot approach to learning how to be a teacher educator, then there must exist space in the professional journey of teacher educators to learn the pedagogies that make them successful teacher educators. This book provides readers with examples and insights into how teacher educators – from novice to the most experienced – learn a pedagogy of teacher education and the ways in which they teach a pedagogy of teacher education to other teacher educators. In this book, we consider how teacher educators create understanding of a pedagogy of teacher education so they might effectively prepare the next generation of teachers and teacher educators for the complex practice that is teaching and teacher education. What Is a Pedagogy of Teacher Education?

In the interest of framing some of the discussions that follow in subsequent chapters, we believe it is important to offer some definition of what we mean by a pedagogy of teacher education. Loughran (2006) is worth quoting at some length: Developing a pedagogy of teacher education signifies that the relationship between teaching and learning in the programs and practices of learning and teaching about teaching might be purposefully examined, described, articulated, and portrayed in ways that enhance our understanding of this complex interplay. (p. 3) It is true that there is considerable scholarship that pulls at the threads of how teacher educators teach. But, once again, we see that the kernel of Loughran’s (2006) unique contribution is one of relationships and, crucially, about acknowledging that teaching is complex and a discipline in its own right. As Russell and Loughran (2007) would later argue, one of the additional challenges that teacher education faces is that, paradoxically, the discipline of teaching seems “simple” when enacted well. Here, then, we see that developing a pedagogy of teacher education requires an understanding of teaching as a discipline and an understanding of how to develop teacher education. To unpack this slightly further, we might rely on some well-­known work from Murray and Male (2005). They framed the idea of teaching and teacher education as first and second-­ order practices, respectively. Put another way, teacher education (second order) requires knowledge of teaching (first order), because the goal of teacher educators is to prepare teacher candidates to engage in first-­order practice. Teacher candidates are to be teachers of students in school; they are not being formed as teachers of future teachers.

Understanding a Pedagogy of Teacher Education  5

Yet we know that teachers end up being teacher educators, often by default or with the assumption that being a successful teacher will automatically make one a successful teacher educator. Since the beginning of self-­ study, considerable scholarship has explored this transition of “becoming a teacher educator” and it has become increasingly common for doctoral students in teacher education to explore their transitions to teacher educator, often as an early topic in self-­study (Williams et al., 2012). We believe this book addresses a tacit issue with this transition; namely, that developing a pedagogy of teacher education requires first an understanding of what a pedagogy of teacher education is. It is not, as many have noted, a collection of “tips-­and-­tricks” or a set of stories of success from the teacher educator’s collection of experiences in the classroom. Development of an understanding of a pedagogy of teacher education invokes another layer of complexity, which is why we argue that it is the third order of Murray and Male’s (2005) schema. Thus first-­order teaching is teaching in schools, second-­order teaching is the teaching of teachers (teacher education), and third-­order teaching is the teaching of future teacher educators (teacher educator education). These orders are deeply integrated and non-­hierarchical, although they do involve increasing layers of abstraction. In the chapters that follow, we invite the reader to think about how they might have developed understandings about their pedagogies of teacher education and how we might help future teacher educators engage with self-­study and other forms of “intimate scholarship” (Hamilton & Pinnegar, 2014) as effective professional development tools. Who teaches the teacher educators? We argue that this is a role for our community and, in the chapters that follow, we see many fine examples of how understandings of a pedagogy of teacher education are developed. Overview of the Book

In this book, we charged contributors with exploring their development and enactment of a pedagogy of teacher education, so they might uncover how they developed understanding of a pedagogy of teacher education. What personal and professional experiences supported this learning? What theoretical and philosophical orientations elucidated their learning? And, how did they come to enact these new understandings in their teacher education practices? Loughran (2007) argues that “a pedagogy of teacher education requires a deep understanding of practice through researching practice” (p. 1, emphasis added). But, if we – as teacher educators – are to support the learning of the next generation of teacher educators, we must understand fully how we teach that pedagogy of teacher education to future teacher educators, and how they (as students of teacher education) learn a pedagogy of teacher education.

6  Brandon M. Butler and Shawn Michael Bullock

The chapters in this volume provide readers with insight into how teacher educators, novice and experienced, develop understanding of a pedagogy of teacher education. Additionally, the contributions offer understanding of the ways in which pedagogy of teacher education has been applied to unique contexts, disciplines, and fields of study. We begin, in Chapter 2, with Tom Russell and his career-­spanning story of how he constructed a personal pedagogy of teacher education. He highlights significant moments in his professional journey and is forthcoming with events and lessons learned that sometimes conflicted with what were standard teacher education practices of the time. Tom’s story is one of perseverance in the search of understanding how one teaches teachers and develops a pedagogy of teacher education. Next, in Chapter 3, we turn to Olivia Williams, Colleen Gannon, South Holden, and Jennifer Burris, who challenged assumptions of how future teacher educators learn the work of teacher education, by collectively organizing and leading a doctoral student community of practice. The goal of their community was to develop understanding of a pedagogy of teacher education, so they might challenge long-­held narratives of the transition of teachers into teacher education. Rather than rely on their institution for mentoring and support, they created a community of peers that examined shared problems of practice, engaged in peer observation to support pedagogical development, and challenged assumptions of teaching and teacher education through a critical reading and application of pertinent scholarship related to pedagogy of teacher education. Chapter 4 follows Megan Peercy and Shawn Bullock as they used their critical friendship to develop mindfulness as a pedagogy of teacher education. They explore the vulnerability and openness required to enact critical friendship, and how that vulnerability assisted them in their ability to be mindful of their professional learning. For them, mindfulness promoted intentionality, which carried over into their work with teachers and future teacher educators, and in their work as teacher education administrators; and they consider the tensions between developing a pedagogy of teacher education with the enactment of those same principles. In the next two chapters, contributors explore their learning of pedagogy of teacher education in formalized course offerings. Such formal learning experiences are unfortunately uncommon (Butler et al., 2023), but these contributions highlight the necessity in formal learning spaces if teacher educators are to understand, develop, and enact a pedagogy of teacher education. Chapter 5, by Alexander Cuenca, Chelsea Brinda, Ryan Cowden, and Mariah Pol, provides insight into a pedagogy of teacher education course from the perspective of future teacher educators. Understanding a pedagogy of teacher education is contextualized through the doctoral students’ professional biographies and responsibilities (i.e., teaching

Understanding a Pedagogy of Teacher Education  7

assignments) in their doctoral program. One’s relationship with teacher education is a common theme in this chapter, relationships that determine how future teacher educators interpret and enact their understanding of a pedagogy of teacher education. Brandon Butler follows in Chapter 6 with a consideration of lessons he learned teaching a doctoral course on pedagogy of teacher education. He unpacks his learning and application of pedagogy of teacher education, highlighting his evolving understanding and pedagogical shifts as he sought to support doctoral students in their learning of a pedagogy of teacher education. His contributions exemplify the necessity of teacher educators purposefully modeling pedagogies of teacher education for future teacher educators, highlighting the uncertainty, unexpected and problematic moments, and sudden alterations to pedagogy and expectations that occur when one is teaching – and learning – a pedagogy of teacher education. Where the previous five chapters considered individual and collaborative efforts to develop understanding of a pedagogy of teacher education and how to support that understanding in others, the following four chapters expand the idea of pedagogy of teacher education by connecting it to specific critical and disciplinary stances. In Chapter 7, Dylan Scanlon, Elaine Murtagh, Antonio Calderón, Ann MacPhail, and Claire Walsh created a learning community in one teacher education program, whose longevity the authors attribute to their continued desire to understand and develop their pedagogies of teacher education. Specifically, they were interested in understanding pedagogy of teacher education through the lens of social justice, seeing it as an ever-­evolving process through which teacher educators recognize and challenge their privileges. Next, Elizabeth Tetu offers readers a justice-­oriented pedagogy of teacher education in Chapter 8. She chronicles her experiences as a doctoral student attempting to understand a pedagogy of teacher education while navigating crises in her professional development and trying to understand what it meant to be a justice-­oriented teacher educator in ways that humanize what it means to be a teacher and teacher educator. In Chapter 9, Pooja Dharamshi, Lydia Menna, and Clare Kosnik explore how literacy teacher educators embed social justice in their pedagogical practice and recommend a social justice-­ oriented pedagogy of literacy teacher education. Their disciplinary-­focused conception of pedagogy of teacher education suggests new understandings of a pedagogy of teacher education that is community-­ centered, reflective of core literacy practices, and values diversity. In Chapter 10, Monica Taylor and Emily Klein use their personal and professional relationships to frame a feminist pedagogy of teacher education. They argue that tensions emerging in a pedagogy of teacher education are the result of the neoliberal agenda of universities centered on patriarchal notions that

8  Brandon M. Butler and Shawn Michael Bullock

favor individualistic and hierarchical ways of knowing. They offer a vision for how a feminist pedagogy of teacher education invites a re-­imagining of how we prepare teacher educators. In the remaining chapters, contributors shift focus to offering readers new practice-­based forms of a pedagogy of teacher education. Megan Lynch and Rebecca Burns, in Chapter 11, share with readers their experiences as teacher educators in search of a clinical pedagogy of teacher education. As an integral component of teacher education, clinical practice is often an unconsidered area of pedagogy of teacher education. In this chapter, the authors provide insight into the decision-­making, identities, and stances at the core of a clinical pedagogy of teacher education. Next, in Chapter 12, Carla Finkelstein, Lijun Jin, Maria Liwanag, Pamela Lottero-­Perdue, Vicki McQuitty, Shannon Monacelli, Stephanie Moody, and Laurie Mullen share an institutional story of how one college sought to enact a practice-­based pedagogy of teacher education. Their narratives uncover the complexity that exists when a faculty seeks to implement a college-­wide shift in how teacher educators understand, develop, and enact a pedagogy of teacher education. Chapter 13, by Eline Vanassche, Paulien Meijer, Helma Oolbekkink-­ Marchand, and Ruben Vanderlinde, offers readers a model for a pedagogy of teacher educator development. The authors deliver new understandings of how experienced teacher educators can be supported in their development of a pedagogy of teacher education. Using a summer institute for teacher educators as backdrop, they highlight a grounded pedagogy of supporting the professional development of teacher educators and offer a range of insights for how to develop teacher educators’ pedagogical practices. Finally, in Chapter 14, we – Shawn Bullock and Brandon Butler – analyze the contributions to this book in light of some broader theoretical frameworks and draw out some lessons for future work. Conclusions

We conclude the introduction to this book in the same way Loughran (2007) concluded his introduction to Enacting a pedagogy of teacher education, by asking “As a teacher educator, how do you develop and enact your pedagogy of teacher education?” (p. 14). Our volume encourages you to take an additional step as well: We ask you to think about how you develop an understanding of how to develop and enact your pedagogy of teacher education. In the forthcoming chapters, we hope that you, the reader, are motivated to what we consider a truism of learning to teach teachers: If learning how to be a teacher educator does not occur through happenstance, then there must exist space in the professional journey of teacher

Understanding a Pedagogy of Teacher Education  9

educators to develop understanding of the pedagogies that make them successful teacher educators. Developing understanding of a pedagogy of teacher education is a continuous process, occurring across the career span, in an array of contexts, and meeting a range of purposes. Our hope is that you find value in the contributions found in this text, whether you are a doctoral student setting out on your journey to understand your pedagogy of teacher education, a faculty member looking to improve your pedagogy of teacher education, or are a college-­level administrator looking to support faculty understanding of a pedagogy of teacher education. References Arizona Group. (1996). Navigating through a maze of contraindications: a conversation on self-­study and teacher education reform. In J. Richards & T. Russell (Eds.), Empowering our future in teacher education. Proceedings of the First International Conference of the Self-­Study of Teacher Education Practices (pp. 94–99). Queen’s University. Bullock, S. M. (2007). Finding my way from teacher to teacher educator: Valuing innovative pedagogy and inquiry into practice. In T. Russell & J. Loughran (Eds.), Enacting a pedagogy of teacher education: Values, relationships and practice (pp. 77–94). Routledge. Bullock, S. M. (2017). Understanding candidates? Learning relationships with their cooperating teachers: A call to reframe my pedagogy. Studying Teacher Education, 13(2), 179–192. Butler, B. M., Burns, E., Frierman, C., Hawthorne, K., Innes, A., & Parrott, J. A. (2014). The impact of a pedagogy of teacher education seminar on educator and future teacher educator identities. Studying Teacher Education, 10(3), 255–274. Butler, B. M., Cuenca, A., & Ritter, J. K. (Eds.). (2023). Pathways to teacher education: Profiles in emerging teacher educator development. Information Age Publishing. Diacopoulos, M. M., Gregory, K., Branyon, A., & Butler, B. M. (2022). Learning and living self-­ study: Guidelines for the self-­ study journey. Studying Teacher Education, 18(2), 175–196. Forgasz, R., & McDonough, S. (2017). “Struck by the way our bodies conveyed so much:” A collaborative self-­study of our developing understanding of embodied pedagogies. Studying Teacher Education, 13(1), 52–67. Garbett, D., Fitzgerald, L., & Thomas, L. (2020). Tracing self-­ study research through biennial Castle Conferences at Herstmonceux. In J. Kitchen, A. Berry, S. Bullock, A. Crowe, M. Taylor, H. Guðjónsdottír, & L. Thomas. (Eds.), 2nd International Handbook of Self-­Study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices (pp. 15–56). Springer. Gregory, K., Diacopoulos, M. M., Branyon, A., & Butler, B. M. (2017). From skepticism to scholarship: Learning and living self-­study research in a doctoral seminar. Studying Teacher Education, 13(3), 257–274. Hamilton, M. L., & Pinnegar, S. (2009). Self-­study of practice as a genre of qualitative research. Springer

10  Brandon M. Butler and Shawn Michael Bullock

Hamilton, M. L., & Pinnegar, S. (2014). Intimate scholarship in research: An example from self-­study of teaching and teacher education methodology. LEARNing Landscapes, 8(1), 153–171. Kitchen, J. (2005). Conveying respect and empathy: Becoming a relational teacher educator. Studying Teacher Education, 1(2), 195–207. Korthagen, F. A. J., Kessels, J., Koster, B., Langerwarf, B., & Wubbels, T. (Eds.). (2001). Linking practice and theory: The pedagogy of realistic teacher education. Lawrence Earlbaum Associates. Loughran, J. (Ed.). (1999). Researching teaching: Methodologies and practices for understanding pedagogy. Falmer Press. Loughran, J. (2006). Developing a pedagogy of teacher education: Understanding teaching and learning about teaching. Routledge. Loughran, J. (2007). Enacting a pedagogy of teacher education. In T. Russell & J. Loughran (Eds.), Enacting a pedagogy of teacher education: Values, relationships and practices. Routledge. Loughran, J., & Russell, T. (Eds.). (1997). Teaching about teaching: Purpose, passion and pedagogy in teacher education. Falmer Press. Loughran, J. 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). Springer. Murray, J., & Male, T. (2005). Becoming a teacher educator: Evidence from the field. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(2), 125–142. Russell, T., & Loughran, J. (Eds.). (2007). Enacting a pedagogy of teacher education: Values, relationships and practices. Routledge. Williams, J., Ritter, J., & Bullock, S. M. (2012). Understanding the complexity of becoming a teacher educator: Experience, belonging, and practice within a professional learning community. Studying Teacher Education, 8(3), 245–260.

2 CONSTRUCTING A PERSONAL PEDAGOGY OF TEACHER EDUCATION Tom Russell

This chapter explores one teacher educator’s efforts to develop and refine a personal pedagogy of teacher education over a period of 40 years. It takes as background a sense that teacher education programs have traditionally assumed that no unique preparation is required to teach others how to teach. Knowledge of subjects and research interests seems to be far more important than knowledge and skills of pedagogy. While some teacher educators are attracted to the view that a pedagogy of teacher education is essential, teacher education programs are embedded with assumptions that have been stable for decades. Vick (2006) concluded that “this analysis shows how long standing and deeply entrenched are many of the problems that contemporary reviews, debates, strategies and policy formulations seek to address” (p. 194). An earlier analysis by Wideen et al. (1998) reached similar conclusions: Future work must systematically challenge myths that underpin most current programs of teacher education and focus on the structures and the ethos that must be created to assist beginning teachers to examine their beliefs and to understand how to support new practices that are consistent with their changed beliefs. (p. 169) Significant changes have appeared since 2000. Pedagogy of Teacher Education is a relatively new term in the discourse of teacher education; perhaps the term was encouraged by the development in the 1990s of research methods under the term Self-­ Study of Teacher Education Practices DOI: 10.4324/9781003365129-2

12  Tom Russell

(S-­STEP). Loughran (2006) used it in the title of a book that was soon followed by Russell and Loughran’s (2007) collection of illustrations. A double issue of Professional Development in Education in 2010 attracted a variety of writers and perspectives, and Korthagen (2016) provided a summary of progress and identified an extensive literature in the International Handbook of Teacher Education. Loughran (2007) described the significance of the term in these words: Enacting a pedagogy of teacher education requires much more than simply delivering whatever it might be that is variously described as the curriculum of teacher education. Doing teaching with students of teaching requires deep and well-­conceptualized understandings of pedagogy that are developed, articulated, critiqued and refined in the crucible of practice itself. (p. 14) While times are changing, there is a long road ahead. By revisiting significant events and my reframing of assumptions from my earliest teaching experiences, through master’s and doctoral programs and work with experienced teachers, to 42 years as a teacher educator at one university, this chapter explores how I taught myself a unique pedagogy of teacher education and came to realize both the importance of that pedagogy and the importance of leadership and the professional development context in a teacher education program. Influenced both by student feedback and ongoing research, data collected throughout the period illustrate the impact of making significant changes in pedagogy. Central in the analysis is the importance of modeling innovative teaching practices and making metacognitive moves to explore with students their underlying assumptions. Loughran (2006) put the importance of such analysis in these words: “If teacher education itself is to be more highly valued, then articulating a pedagogy of teacher education is crucial for it is at the heart of challenging teaching as telling and fundamental to enhancing teaching for understanding” (p. 10). An earlier account of my development in my first 20 years as a teacher educator appears in Russell (1998), while Russell (2018) analyzed that development from a reflective practice perspective. Changes in personal practices are typically associated with changes in thinking. Following Schön’s (1983) account of reflection-­in-­action, the analysis explores developments in terms of stimulating events and the subsequent reframing that generated changes in practice. Throughout the chapter, the terms student and teacher candidate are used interchangeably. The chapter concludes with data from students in my final year of teaching, indicating their responses to unique features of the pedagogy of teacher

Constructing a Personal Pedagogy of Teacher Education  13

education that I constructed by carefully analyzing my teaching, guided by both emerging literature and several critical friends. One of those unique features is best introduced at the outset: From the first day I asked students to replace the term theory with book knowledge and the term practice with craft knowledge. This change sought to address the eternal tension between theory and practice by recognizing that what we learn from experience is a unique type of knowledge that must be analyzed rigorously. The Importance of a Pedagogy of Teacher Education

Pedagogy of teacher education is a term that deserves teacher educators’ careful attention. Loughran (2013) described the importance in two sentences that deserve careful consideration: Teaching about teaching must make the pedagogical reasoning that underpins quality practice clear, explicit, and meaningful for learners of teaching. That means then that the learning of teaching revolves around teacher educators’ ability to create pedagogical experiences and conditions that illustrate the importance of moving beyond technicist views of teaching, thus making the tacit dimensions of knowledge of practice explicit and meaningful in learning about teaching. (¶1) Experiences as a classroom teacher are far from adequate as an essential qualification for being a teacher educator; the same can be said for completing a Ph.D. in education. Teaching others how to teach is a unique professional challenge because in every moment the teacher educator is both teaching and modeling teaching. Korthagen et al. (2006) presented seven principles for change in teacher education, including the following: Principle 7. Learning about teaching is enhanced when the teaching and learning approaches advocated in the program are modeled by the teacher educators in their own practice. So long as teacher educators advocate innovative practices that they do not model, illustrate, and read as text in their own teacher education classrooms, teacher education reform will continue to elude us. Student teachers report their disappointment when they experience a class in which a lecture is used to present alternatives to the lecture method. Learning about ways in which experienced teachers and teacher educators take risks and develop new teaching approaches is one way for new teachers to understand when and how it is possible and essential to take professional risks. (p. 1036, italics in original)

14  Tom Russell

Personal experience has suggested that perhaps 50% of what teacher candidates take from any teacher education course may be attributed to how they were taught. A lecture about the importance of not lecturing cannot teach anyone to avoid lecturing. At the same time, modeling is not enough; it must be accompanied by metacognitive strategies that explore and unpack what is being modeled and why. Loughran et al. (2013) drew this conclusion about the importance of a pedagogy of teacher education: Change is a long-­term process, and at the heart of such change is the development of a pedagogy of teacher education driven by and constructed as a result of teacher educators accepting more responsibility for the nature of the total teacher education program experience. (p. 609) Simply stated, we as teacher educators must pay greater attention to the role of teacher candidates’ personal experiences (both past and present) of teaching as they construct new perspectives that will enable them to plan and enact new practices in classrooms. Lessons from My Own Apprenticeship of Observation

As Lortie (1975) argued, everyone who attends school has an incomplete apprenticeship of teaching simply by observing so much teaching. The purpose of schooling is to develop knowledge and understanding; developing images of teaching is an inevitable but unintended and unexamined consequence. Every student learns how teachers teach with no access to how teachers think about their practices and I was certainly no exception. University teaching at the undergraduate level was generally uninspiring. After two years of volunteer teaching experience (without training), an eight-­month Master of Arts in Teaching program was engaging because I could speak from personal experience as theory and research were introduced. In the following year, as a secondary school physics teacher, I did take risks in my teaching. During my residence as a Ph.D. student, the graduate department was completely disconnected from the teacher education program, with the unfortunate result that theory and research were structurally disconnected from access to practice; there were no discussions of how classes were or could be taught. In short, how we teach was never a focal point; thus I was relatively typical and ordinary in my thoughts and practices as I moved into teacher education. Insights from Three Years of Secondary School Teaching

With no clear sense of what I would do after completing a first degree at the age of 21, I signed up to be a volunteer teacher and taught for two years at

Constructing a Personal Pedagogy of Teacher Education  15

a boys’ secondary school in northern Nigeria. My formal preparation consisted of two science lessons to a summer school class. Guided by my apprenticeship of observation, I taught myself how to teach. One important message was conveyed by an incident involving a North American student who attended one of my classes for a term. The student shared his experience of being asked by one of the Nigerian students, “Do you want to be a lawyer like Mr. Russell?” When he replied that Mr. Russell was not a lawyer, he learned that the intended word was not lawyer but liar. This demonstrated powerfully that my students’ prior beliefs about natural phenomena were causing them to resist some of the explanations offered by a colonial science curriculum. (The particular issue was how to explain the appearance of a rainbow.) Experience was a far more powerful teacher than a university lecture about the importance of trying to understand how students were responding to what I was teaching. Just as prior experience shapes students’ classroom responses, so prior experience shapes a teacher educator’s pedagogy. My teacher education program included six weeks of practice teaching with an inspiring mentor teacher and qualified me for a teaching certificate. I accepted a position as a physics teacher with four one-­hour physics classes each day for 10 months. Holt’s (1964) How Children Fail guided my development of pedagogical risks worth taking. Insights from Activities with Experienced Teachers

I now treasure my post-­doctoral opportunity to work for three years with experienced teachers before working with teacher candidates. I quickly learned that experienced teachers can and will vote with their feet if professional development activities are not engaging and addressing their immediate challenges. My final year of this work taught an important pedagogical lesson when research funding enabled us to work with five history teachers in one school. They were shown how to record a lesson that they then transcribed. In day-­ long research meetings, they shared and analyzed their transcribed lessons to identify significant patterns in their teaching, including the following: The teacher speaks more than all the students. The teacher controls the flow and direction of the lesson. The teacher asks non-­questions. In the case of a wrong answer or lack of an answer, the teacher repeats or rephrases the question, giving clues signalling what the appropriate answer is going to be. • The teacher repeats, completes or extends students’ answers to questions if the answer is correct or is, in some other way, significant. • The teacher is the authority for knowledge. • The teacher is the centre of attention. (Ireland & Russell, 1978, pp. 266–267) • • • •

16  Tom Russell

These teachers left me with their two overwhelming conclusions: “I had no idea that I talked so much.” 1 2 “I had no idea that it would be so hard to change that fact.” The patterns that teachers identified are reminiscent of the seven broader patterns that Sarason (1996) invited his readers to accept as a “tentative act of faith” when he analyzed the problem of educational change from the perspective of culture (p. 35). Teacher educators could well ask themselves how many of these familiar patterns of teaching are present in their own teaching. When I moved to a pre-­service program, I resolved to try to find a way to modify my teaching practices to avoid some of the common patterns, but I had no sense that this would dominate my entire career in teacher education. Beginning as a Teacher Educator

My earliest years as a teacher educator were far from outstanding; my pedagogy of teacher education was a work in progress. My two secondary science methods classes, each with 30 students, provided many challenges. The five history teachers inspired me to attempt less talking and more listening in my classes. As I struggled to find a balance, I invited small groups of students to talk over pizza. I also introduced an evaluation exercise (strengths, weaknesses, suggestions – collated and shared with each class) at the midpoint of an eight-­ month course. I used the discussion of their responses as an opportunity to explain some of my reasons for teaching them as I did. Unforgettable in my second year was a frustrated student’s question: “Why didn’t you tell us that you weren’t going to tell us?” This confirmed that I had a long way to go. My workload included visiting some of my students in their four two-­ week practicum placements, giving me early access to the gap between theory and practice. Those practicum visits showed me that suggestions made in university classes had little or no influence on how student teachers were teaching in schools. Their own apprenticeships of observation and the inevitable need to please their mentor teachers seemed to ensure that familiar and traditional pedagogical patterns would prevail. My research interests were shifting from science education to the broader topic of teacher education. With few ideas for how to move forward, the question of how teacher candidates learn to move beyond traditional teaching behaviors was calling me. Three decades later, long after being introduced to Schön’s (1983) perspective on how professionals think in action, I wrote a chapter on the development of my pedagogy of reflection that includes seven principles for

Constructing a Personal Pedagogy of Teacher Education  17

fostering reflective practice in teacher education (Russell, 2014). It also includes two examples of conversations with teacher candidates to illustrate those principles. My assumptions were changing and my skills were improving; I still had much to learn. The Initial Impact of Reflection-­in-­Action

The publication of Schön’s (1983) The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action was perfectly timed for me. I devoured the book, as it spoke directly to the gap I was observing between “theory” (the context-­ free ideas in university classes) and “practice” (the actions I observed as I visited students’ placements). When Donald Schön gave three lectures at Queen’s University in 1984, the ideas came alive, compelling me to think in new ways about how professionals learn from experience. The term epistemology of practice was central: We are in need of inquiry into the epistemology of practice. What is the kind of knowing in which competent practitioners engage? How is professional knowing like and unlike the kinds of knowledge presented in academic textbooks, scientific papers, and learned journals? In what sense, if any, is there intellectual rigor in professional practice? (p. viii) The concept of reflection-­in-­action became central to my research and writing (Munby & Russell, 1989; Russell, 1987, 1993). Particularly important was the way Schön’s argument encouraged me to take risks, explore new practices, and learn more from experience. I focused on the term learning from experience, with intermittent attention to epistemology of practice. The latter term appears frequently in Munby et al. (2001), Russell and Martin (2017a, 2017b) and Martin and Russell (2020). The Influence of the Project for Enhancing Effective Learning

As I was focusing on how teachers learn from experience, an Australian project emerged in 1985 that demonstrated powerfully how groups of teachers can learn from their classroom experiences. As I learned about Project for Enhancing Effective Learning (PEEL), my pedagogy of teacher education was influenced profoundly, for PEEL suggested novel and exciting new teaching procedures. Mitchell (2008) and Mitchell and Mitchell (2008) provide vivid accounts of 20 years of leadership in PEEL, which began with four goals worthy of students’ learning not only in schools but also in initial teacher education programs:

18  Tom Russell

1 To foster effective, independent learning through training for enhanced metacognition 2 To change teacher attitudes and behaviours to ones that promote such learning 3 To investigate processes of teacher and student change as participants engage in action research 4 To identify factors that influence successful implementation of a programme that aims to improve the quality of students’ learning. (p. 7) Ultimately, PEEL produced more than 1500 detailed accounts of teachers making pedagogical changes to enhance student learning, all are available at http://peelweb.org. Asking inexperienced teachers to adopt practices after reading about them proved unproductive; personal experience of new practices was essential. My pedagogy for promoting PEEL evolved to asking students to select a teaching procedure and plan a 20-­minute lesson using content of their own choosing. Each then led the class through the lesson to experience the teaching procedure. In this way, each person gained one experience of leading a PEEL procedure and many experiences of the effects on learning. The personal experience made all the difference. The PEEL website challenges every teacher and teacher educator to engage students in more effective learning while rethinking their personal assumptions. Returning to Secondary School Teaching

My second sabbatical leave took me to the University of York for an exciting year of cross-­cultural adventure. It is one thing to be a tourist and quite another to be a resident. I learned about differences in educational practices through my two children, who attended a secondary school. I learned about teacher education in the UK through my host’s science methods class, in which five students volunteered to discuss their program experiences and their practicum placements. In the UK in 1990, there was talk that teacher educators should have “recent, relevant and successful teaching experience in schools.” Some 23 years since I had last taught in a secondary school, this perspective inspired me to contact a physics teacher at home to ask if he would let me teach one of his three classes (72 minutes daily for five months) in exchange for his teaching one of my two weekly two-­hour classes at the university. He agreed, setting the stage for my return to the secondary school classroom in September 1991.

Constructing a Personal Pedagogy of Teacher Education  19

More than 30 years later, the images of the students in that classroom are still vivid; my professional learning was both rich and challenging. I had no prior experience with the equipment available and I had no prior experience of teaching from the curriculum document and textbook. Despite interacting with teacher candidates over many years, I was in many respects a first-­ year teacher again. Driving between university and school every day was the least of my concerns. When a student suggested that my classes were not preparing him for the homework, I realized that he was right; I needed to complete the homework before, not after, each lesson. The experience ended well as our classes had similar results on tests and the final exam. One of the best decisions of my career was the decision to repeat the arrangement one year later. This time I was able to record my experiences each day when I returned to the university. I was no longer a complete novice, and daily writing proved invaluable for planning the next day’s lesson while creating a record that I could analyze and share. The second experience also had special education overtones, with two deaf students accommodated by a signer. I soon realized that had I not returned for the second experience, I would never have understood my professional learning in the first. Two conference papers (Russell, 1994a, 1994b) describe a powerful experience that further shaped my pedagogy of teacher education. At the halfway point in my teacher education career, I prepared an initial account of my pedagogy of teacher education, stressing the importance of making a “pedagogical turn” (Russell, 1997). There is no substitute for carefully analyzed experience in a teacher educator’s professional development. Self-­Study of Teacher Education Practices

S-­ STEP has profoundly influenced my pedagogy of teacher education. Formed in 1993, the S-­STEP community today is thriving. The first biennial international conference was held in 1996 at Herstmonceux Castle in England; proceedings of each conference are available at https://www. castleconference.com/conference-­history.html. There are now two International Handbooks on Self-­ Study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices (Loughran et al., 2004; Kitchen et al., 2020). The journal Studying Teacher Education began publication in 2005, and Springer publishes an S-­STEP book series that now has more than 20 volumes. The self-­study genre provides insights into the complexities and potential contradictions in teacher education practices and the methodological and ethical issues associated with being both teacher educator and researcher of one’s own practices. Self-­study is perhaps particularly responsible for my deep commitment to listening to my students in as many ways as possible.

20  Tom Russell

Cook-­Sather’s (2002) arguments for the importance of listening in the context of improving practice are clear and powerful: Authorizing student perspectives can directly improve educational practice because when teachers listen to and learn from students, they can begin to see the world from those students’ perspectives. (p. 3) Most power relationships have no place for listening and actively do not tolerate it because it is very inconvenient: to really listen means to have to respond. Listening … mean[s] being open to the possibility of revision, both of thought and action. At a minimum, it means being willing to negotiate. Old assumptions and patterns of interaction are so well established that even those trying to break out of them must continue to struggle. And understanding that is part of what it means to listen. (p. 8) The idea of teacher educators studying their own practices now seems obvious as a way to improve the modeling of how a teacher learns from experience. Naming the Authority of Experience

Between 1985 and 2000, colleague Hugh Munby and I joined research interests to study individuals’ experiences of learning to teach, as teacher candidates and early-­career teachers. An obvious focus was learning from experience, and this led to the assertion that there is an important authority that comes with experience (Munby & Russell, 1994). Our argument emerged from efforts to understand a tension in my physics methods class that seemed to separate students into two groups – one wanting to be told exactly how to teach and another eager to explore alternatives. Teachers are typically seen as having two types of authority: reason and position. Thus a teacher is an authority in authority (Peters, 1966, pp. 150– 152). Two excerpts from our argument illustrate how we found value in adding authority that comes from experience to the authority of knowledge and of position. If Schön is correct that there is a knowledge-­in-­action that cannot be fully expressed in propositions and that learning from experience has its own epistemology, then our concern is that learning from experience is never clearly contrasted with learning that can be expressed and conveyed in propositions. (Munby & Russell, 1994, p. 92)

Constructing a Personal Pedagogy of Teacher Education  21

Experience in the role of teacher is what is new and exciting for preservice teachers, but their opportunities to learn the authority of that experience are hampered in a fundamental way by their being subject to observation by cooperating [mentor] teachers and by representatives of the university. Those observers are in positions of authority with respect to student teachers, who are likely to interpret their comments as having authority of position and of someone else’s experience, not of the personal experience of the student teacher. Thus the potential of the practicum to be a forum for beginning to understand and interpret the authority of experience is restricted and undermined. (p. 93) This focus on the authority of experience and the importance of professionals learning from experience proved timely. As our analysis of the tensions in my class reinforced the importance of focusing on how one learns from experience in a teaching career, a new but short-­lived program structure demonstrated the power of experience. Radical Program Change, and a Return to Tradition

Explicit attention to learning from experience is missing from most initial teacher education programs. Would-­be teachers tend to have done well at school. They tend to have mastered the skills of learning from books and classrooms; most have mastered the skills of learning from everyday experience but not the skills of learning from professional experience. Following a successful pilot project in 1996–1997, the teacher education program at Queen’s University took a bold step. After a week’s orientation, the eight-­ month post-­degree program began on the first day of school with 14 weeks of classroom experience, interrupted near the midpoint by a two-­ week return to the university to process their experiences. The second half of the program included most of the traditional courses but with a profound difference: These teacher candidates had extensive teaching experiences. In my first class, the experience-­rich students identified 63 topics that they wanted to explore. In a week when I attended a conference, the students insisted on meeting on their own for two classes. The typical eight-­month timeline was extended with four weeks of additional practicum experience to explore the new perspectives that their courses had generated. At the end of the first year of this bold step, faculty and staff held a retreat to discuss the new structure, and a decision was taken that the change was too extreme. The structure continued for one more year because candidates had already been admitted to that design. I was shattered by the decision to abandon a structure that had created my most

22  Tom Russell

stimulating and engaging year in 20 years as a teacher educator. Unfortunately, the decision was heavily influenced by internal political turmoil. My personal view was that too many colleagues had found it too difficult to teach students with so much experience, experience that enabled them to speak in new ways about the ideas to which classes were introducing them. The personal experiences of this radical program structure consolidated my evolving assumptions about the importance of learning from experience and the substantial contribution of personal experience to teacher candidates comprehending the practical implications of theories and research reports (Russell, 1998). My subsequent teaching practices have taken every opportunity to listen to students’ experiences and to assist in the analysis of those experiences. The Finale: A Self-­Study of Three Significant Changes in Practice

At the 2018 International Self-­Study Conference, I publicly committed to a formal self-­study of the last course I would teach. I obtained ethical clearance from the university and on the first meeting with students I explained that, while they were learning, I would be studying how I was teaching them. I invited each student to be a participant in the self-­study. All 13 students signed the consent form that permitted withdrawal at any time without explanation; no one withdrew. My self-­study was designed to specifically document and analyze the effects of three new practices: 1 Use the term “book knowledge” in place of “theory” and the term “craft knowledge” in place of “practice.” 2 Devote the last 15 minutes of every two-­hour class to a discussion of what candidates had learned and how they had learned it. 3 Enact some of the nine cognitive principles recommended to teachers by Willingham (2009). For the first new practice, I am indebted to Hagger and McIntyre (2006) for the contrast between book knowledge (their term is propositional knowledge) and craft knowledge (see also Grimmett & MacKinnon, 1992). For the second, I wanted to extend my earlier practice of using the last two minutes of every class for students to respond (briefly, on a quarter-­sheet of paper) to one or both of two questions: (1) What is the most important idea you are taking from this class? and (2) What topic would you like to understand better? The time for discussion was intended to provide practice in metacognition. For the third, three of Willingham’s (2009) principles seemed particularly relevant to the process of learning to teach:

Constructing a Personal Pedagogy of Teacher Education  23

• We understand new things in the context of things we already know. (p. 210) • Cognition is fundamentally different early and late in training. • Teaching, like any complex cognitive skill, must be practiced to be improved. (p. 211) The responses from students on the first day were beyond my expectations. This was a new experience that seemed appropriate to the teacher education context and set the stage for it to be perfectly normal for them to question my pedagogy and for me to call attention to why I was teaching in particular ways. Several times during the course, I invited students’ anonymous opinions about how I was teaching them; examples of their responses follow in the indented paragraphs. Comments about Book Knowledge and Craft Knowledge The terms book knowledge and craft knowledge have helped to differentiate between the two types of knowledge that we are learning in the B.Ed. program. They are more helpful terms to understand the difference between most of what we are learning in class, versus the knowledge being learned while on practicum and also sometimes in class. They have provided a better way for me to understand the difference between theory and practice in teaching. They both represent teachers’ essential knowledge. Understanding both terms gave me some ideas on what I should aim to learn and how I can learn them. Understanding craft knowledge helped me to transform everyday experience during the practicum into intuitive and reflective learning and thus bring positive changes and stronger results on my performance.

Here I see evidence that new terms for theory and practice did have the desired effect of increasing attention to the importance of learning from experience and its relationship to what is learned from research. Introducing these terms on the first day of class was critical. Comments about End-­of-­Class Discussions I value the discussions because it allows for time to touch on the main points over again. Personally, I find I remember more from these discussions than I do for any other class because we have time to understand, think, and discuss what we have learned.

24  Tom Russell

The discussions have helped me to recognize different perspectives on learning and thus moved me to deeper levels of reflective practice. Also, the discussions allow me and others a sense of ownership in the class and learning. With that, I feel more engaged in learning. The end-­of-­class discussions are where I think most critically and deeply about my educational beliefs.

These positive comments go beyond any expectations I might have had. In a future class where students were not free to stay longer, I would have considered extending the time from 15 to 20 or 30 minutes in a 120-­minute class. It is so easy to assume that teacher candidates will make sense of class experiences on their own; these comments suggest that any such assumption should be challenged. Deliberately enacting some of Willingham’s principles faded into the background; in hindsight, I should have planned those activities in advance. Nevertheless, the first and third principles quoted above were enacted and the second was implicit in much of our time together. I should have discussed them explicitly near the end of the course. Comments about a Professor Studying His Own Teaching It has helped me look at this course as only the beginning of my development as a teacher. You continuing to study your own practice has helped me to see this course as a starting point to continuously develop my own teaching. My reaction was to be extremely impressed that he is studying his teaching the year before he retired. He is one of the only profs in this program who practices everything he preaches. As a result, I have deeply respected both him and this course from day one.

Again, these comments are flattering. Should I ask, “What took me so long?” Learning from experience is a long, slow, and deliberate process. After 25 years of participation in S-­STEP research, I finally learned the power of explicit modeling. Comments Two Years Later

This self-­study was the perfect culmination of my efforts to develop a pedagogy of teacher education. I wish I had taken these risks earlier, but I am grateful for all that I learned. Relationships seemed stronger than ever. Modeling different practices was important; analyzing them openly was even more important. Acting as a critical friend, colleague Andrea Martin attended many of the classes, became trusted by the students, and helped to keep me honest and focused. John Loughran served as critical-­friend-­at-­a­distance and the three of us prepared an initial report (Russell et al., 2020).

Constructing a Personal Pedagogy of Teacher Education  25

I would never teach another course to teacher candidates without initiating a self-­study on the first day. Two years later, I asked the group by email about the influence of my teaching on how they were teaching and received these comments: Your teaching provided the foundation for my own approach. Although I have had great teachers in the past, and assumed I understood why they were effective, it wasn’t until we discussed them in our class that this became clear to me. Giving us choice in those discussions and allowing us to continue discussing was invaluable to our creating opinions, learning and accepting others’ ideas, and thinking deeply about our prior beliefs. I can confidently say that your teaching modeled all my current practices. Throughout our class, you demonstrated clearly how to implement the most effective teaching practices. Building a sense of community was the most valuable teaching practice I took from your teaching. I have tried to replicate that feeling in my classrooms in my own way. I really appreciated the way you gently guided our classes, but really let us steer the lesson to where we felt we needed it to go. Some readers may doubt the veracity of students’ comments reported directly to a former teacher. I include them because they point to many of the issues identified in this analysis of my development of a pedagogy of teacher education. Teacher education students watch their teachers closely and carefully. Listening and responding to their comments and suggestions for 40 years made me a very different and more effective teacher educator. The Importance of Evaluating What We Learn from Experience

We all learn from experience, but what we learn is not always correct. In everyday life, our incorrect conclusions tend to eventually correct themselves, but in the professional world of teaching, incorrect conclusions drawn from experiences of teaching can, over time, have negative effects on students’ learning. My opportunity to teach for two years before attending a teacher education program sensitized me to the importance of learning from experience as preparation for more formal professional learning. My opportunity to see two groups of teacher candidates gain extensive teaching experience before their education courses left me with no doubts whatsoever. Those who enter a teacher education program tend to assume that theory always comes before experience and that someone can and will teach them how to teach. School has taught them this. Most are masters of acquiring book knowledge; most are also good at learning the craft knowledge of

26  Tom Russell

everyday experience. Then they quickly realize, after their first practicum experience, that learning the craft knowledge of a profession is new and challenging. I suggest that teacher education programs must consistently and explicitly help teacher candidates attend to and develop the skills of judging the quality of what they are learning from personal teaching experiences. Similarly, teacher educators should be able to evaluate their own craft knowledge and pedagogy of teacher education. One aspect of evaluating professional learning from experience involves finding book knowledge, such as Willingham (2009) provides, that can help interpret what is being learned. Action research and S-­STEP are also helpful. Summary and Recommendations to Teacher Educators

Teacher educators often begin to teach immediately after completing a Ph.D. program, with or without experience as a teacher in a school classroom. In a Ph.D. program, the focus is on learning about and doing research. In the earliest years as a teacher educator, the focus is inevitably on conducting and publishing research. It is easy to treat teaching as an activity to complete and move on, generating a career path that neglects one’s personal pedagogy of teacher education. To summarize, the following are the major elements of my pedagogy of teacher education, each learned slowly over many years of exploring how I teach future teachers. 1 2 3 4 5 6

Listening to those we are teaching Listening to their practicum experiences Modeling and analyzing teaching practices, including self-­study Fostering metacognition with respect to teaching and learning Developing the authority of experience Encouraging attention to the epistemology of practice: How do we verify our developing craft knowledge? 7 Identifying personal assumptions about teaching, learning, and learning to teach 8 Taking risks with new practices Bullock and Russell (2012) described the need for teacher educators to understand, develop, and critique their pedagogy of teacher education: The work of a teacher educator is more complex than naïve images of transmitting a knowledge base for teaching to beginners might suggest… Beginning teachers face challenges … far greater than traditional teacher education practices would suggest. As we work to help teacher candidates learn to direct their own development as teachers, examining and

Constructing a Personal Pedagogy of Teacher Education  27

improving our own practices has become an increasingly important part of moving beyond teacher-­centred talk toward learner-­centred experience and creating experiential meaning for the knowledge base for teaching. (p. 32) Watching teachers for many years gives all members of society an incomplete and misleading image of the professional craft knowledge of teachers. Those learning to teach begin with little sense of the complex transition required to become an outstanding teacher. As universities seem to assume that no special knowledge is required to teach, it is no surprise that the pedagogy of teacher education is underdeveloped and its importance unrecognized. Improving the quality of teacher education calls for all teacher educators to examine how they teach and to construct a personal pedagogy of teacher education. Explicit attention to the pedagogy of teacher education will improve the quality of professional learning in our teacher education programs. Acknowledgment

Critical friend Rodrigo Fuentealba Jara (Dean of Education, Universidad Autónoma, Chile) and an anonymous reviewer provided valuable suggestions. References Bullock, S. M., & Russell, T. (Eds.). (2012). Self-­study of science teacher education. Springer. Cook-­Sather, A. (2002). Authorizing students’ perspectives: Toward trust, dialogue, and change in education. Educational Researcher, 31(4), 3–14. https://www. jstor.org/stable/3594363 Grimmett, P. P., & MacKinnon, A. M. (1992). Craft knowledge and the education of teachers. In G. Grant (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 18, pp. 385–456). American Educational Research Association. Hagger, H., & McIntyre, D. (2006). Learning teaching from teachers: Realising the potential of school-­based teacher education. Open University Press. Holt, J. (1964). How children fail. Delta. Ireland, D., & Russell, T. (1978). The Ottawa Valley teaching project [Research Report]. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 10, 266–268. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/0022027780100307 Kitchen, J., Berry, A., Guðjónsdóttir, H., Bullock, S., Taylor, M., & Crowe, A. R. (Eds.). (2020). Second international handbook of self-­study of teaching and teacher education practices. Springer. Korthagen, F., Loughran, J., & Russell, T. (2006). Developing fundamental principles for teacher education programs and practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 1020–1041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.04.022

28  Tom Russell

Korthagen, F. A. J. (2016). Pedagogy of teacher education. In J. Loughran and M. L. Hamilton (Eds.), International handbook of teacher education (pp. 311–346). Springer Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. University of Chicago Press. Loughran, J. (2006). Developing a pedagogy of teacher education: Understanding teaching and learning about teaching. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/ 9780203019672 Loughran, J. (2007). Enacting a pedagogy of teacher education. In T. Russell & J. Loughran, (Eds.), Enacting a pedagogy of teacher education: Values, relationships and practices (pp. 1–15). Routledge. Loughran, J. (2013). A pedagogy of teacher education. Oxford Bibliographies. https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199756810-­0096 Loughran, J., Hamilton, M. L., LaBoskey, V. K., & Russell, T. (Eds.). (2004). International handbook of self-­study of teaching and teacher education practices. Kluwer. Loughran, J., Korthagen, F, & Russell, T. (2013). Teacher education that makes a difference: Developing foundational principles of practice. In C. J. Craig, P. C. Meijer, & J. Broeckmans (Eds.), From teacher thinking to teachers and teaching: The evolution of a research community (pp. 597–613). Emerald Group. Martin, A. K., & Russell, T. (2020). Advancing an epistemology of practice for research in self-­study of teacher education practices. In J. Kitchen, A. Berry, H. Guðjónsdóttir, S. M. Bullock, M. Taylor, & A. R. Crowe (Eds.), Second international handbook of self-­study of teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 1045– 1073). Springer. Mitchell, I. (2008). 24 years of PEEL—have the goalposts shifted? PEEL SEEDS, 100, p. 10. https://peelweb.org/peelAdmin/Monash/index.php/StartPeel/ article/2425 Mitchell, I., & Mitchell, J. (2008). The Project for Enhancing Effective Learning (PEEL): 22 years of praxis. In A. P. Samaras, A. R. Freese, C. Kosnik, & C. Beck (Eds.), Learning communities in practice (pp. 7–18). Springer. Munby, H., & Russell, T. (1989). “Educating the reflective teacher: An essay review of two books by Donald Schön,” Journal of Curriculum Studies, 21(1), 71–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022027890210106 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487194045002002 Munby, H., Russell, T., & Martin, A. K. (2001). Teachers’ knowledge and how it develops. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 877–904). American Educational Research Association. Peters, R. S. (1966). Ethics and education. Routledge. Russell, T. (1987). Research, practical knowledge, and the conduct of teacher education. Educational Theory, 37, 369–375. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741­5446.1987.00369.x Russell, T. (1993). Reflection-­in-­action and the development of professional expertise. Teacher Education Quarterly, 20(1), 51–62. Russell, T. (1994a, April). Returning from the field: Did recent relevant and successful teaching make a difference? Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans. ERIC ED 376 122.

Constructing a Personal Pedagogy of Teacher Education  29

Russell, T. (1994b, April). Teaching to better understand how a teacher learns to teach: Can the authority of personal experience be taught? Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans. ERIC ED 376 123. Russell, T. (1997). Teaching teachers: How I teach is the message. In J. Loughran & T. Russell (Eds.), Teaching about teaching: Purpose, passion and pedagogy in teacher education (pp. 32–47). Falmer. Russell, T. (1998). Why doesn’t teacher education begin with experience? Teacher Education Quarterly, 25(4), 4954. Russell, T. (2014). One teacher educator’s career-­long development of a pedagogy of reflection. In L. Orland-­Barak & C. J. Craig (Eds.), International teacher education: Promising pedagogies (Part A) (pp. 55–72). Emerald Group. Russell, T. (2018). A teacher educator’s lessons learned from reflective practice. European Journal of Teacher Education, 41(1), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 02619768.2017.1395852 Russell, T., & Loughran, J. (Eds.) (2007). Enacting a pedagogy of teacher education: Values, relationships and practices. Routledge. Russell, T., & Martin, A. K. (2017a). Reflective practice: Epistemological perspectives on learning from experience in teacher education. In R. Brandenburg, K. Glasswell, M. Jones, & J. Ryan (Eds.), Reflective theory and practice in teacher education (pp. 27–49). Springer. Russell, T., & Martin, A. K. (2017b). Teacher education needs an epistemology of practice. In J. Mena et al. (Eds.), Search and research: Teacher education for contemporary contexts (pp. 111–118). Ediciones Universidad Salamanca. Russell, T., Martin, A. K., & Loughran, J. (2020). Introducing new practices in a teacher education classroom: Lessons learned, insights gained. In C. U. Edge, A. Cameron-­Standerford, & B. Bergh (Eds.), Textiles and tapestries: Self-­study for envisioning new ways of knowing (Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Self-­ Study of Teacher Education Practices, pp. 435–445). EdTech Books. https://equitypress.org/textiles_tapestries_self_study/chapter_115 Sarason, S. B. (1996). Revisiting the culture of the school and the problem of change. Teachers College Press. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books. Vick, M. (2006). “It’s a difficult matter”: Historical perspectives on the enduring problem of the practicum in teacher preparation. Asia-­Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 34(2), 181–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598660600720579 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. https://doi.org/10.3102/ 00346543068002130 Willingham, D. T. (2009). Why don’t students like school? A cognitive scientist answers questions about how the mind works and what it means for the classroom. Jossey-­Bass.

3 NEW POSITIONS, NEW PEDAGOGIES Learning and Becoming in a Novice Teacher Educator Community of Practice Olivia Williams, Colleen Gannon, South Holden, and Jennifer Burris

Upon matriculating into colleges of education, many doctoral students – regardless of their education backgrounds and previous professional experiences – are instantaneously assigned roles as teacher educators (Dinkelman et al., 2006). This sudden transition into the role of a novice teacher educator (NTE) often proves difficult even if these doctoral students were or still are experienced K-­ 12 educators (Ritter, 2007), because teaching about teaching is a complex endeavor that requires a different pedagogical approach. Loughran (2006) claims that “pedagogy is not merely the action of teaching … it is about the relationship between teaching and learning and how they lead to growth in knowledge and understanding through meaningful practice” (p. 2). Through this lens, teacher educators cannot simply teach the content of their courses, they must also help teacher candidates see into the pedagogical reasoning and the process of reflection that teacher educators employ to refine their pedagogical approach over time so that preservice teachers (PSTs) can apply these same pedagogical reasoning processes to their work as teachers. This “opening up” of practice to teacher candidates to model educator learning, reasoning, and reflection can leave a teacher educator feeling vulnerable as their practice becomes a source of inquiry and critique (Loughran, 2006). Despite these challenges, colleges of education rarely provide doctoral students with institutional support or formal mentoring for their new roles as NTEs (Butler et al., 2014; Dinkelman et al., 2006). As a result, these NTEs “are forced to seek professional learning opportunities alone or DOI: 10.4324/9781003365129-3

New Positions, New Pedagogies  31

collectively, [and] most frequently take their professional learning into their own hands” (Patton & Parker, 2017, p. 35). As doctoral students in the College of Education at the University of Maryland, we (the authors) encountered all the challenges described above as we transitioned into roles as NTEs. Because our university provided us with limited support to navigate the complex transition from K-­12 teachers to our new roles as teacher educators, we initiated a seminar for doctoral students who were serving in these roles. The aim of the seminar was to “provide support to doctoral student [NTEs] who are working as instructors of record/teaching assistants/university supervisors by addressing problems of practice and assisting the development of their pedagogies” (Fall 2018 Seminar syllabus). We designed our seminar as a community of practice: a group “of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly” (Wenger & Wenger-­Trayner, 2015, p. 1). A community of practice approach allowed doctoral NTE participants in our seminar to learn from one another as we worked to develop the pedagogies that would best serve preservice teachers. The pedagogies we employed in our teacher education seminar focused on providing NTEs opportunities to contemplate how their values and beliefs about teaching impacted their interactions with preservice teachers, to process their experience individually and collectively as NTEs, and to develop and refine their pedagogy. Over time, we refined the structure of the seminar through both research and an iterative process of feedback and reflection from seminar participants and leaders and incorporated a range of pedagogies such as peer observations and goal setting/assertion journaling to support our own transition into roles as teacher educators. The remainder of this chapter highlights the literature we drew upon when forming and making decisions about our seminar and the pedagogies that we enacted in the seminar across six semesters. The questions guiding this chapter include: 1 What pedagogical precedents and choices guided the creation of our seminar? 2 How did the pedagogies of our seminar evolve over time? 3 What impact did the seminar have both on the seminar community as a whole and on individual participants? Our Structural Precedents

As we worked to structure and refine our doctoral teacher education seminar, we relied on both personal experience and research related to teacher education pedagogies, communities of practice, and communities of practice for teacher educators.

32  Olivia Williams et al.

Pedagogies of Teacher Education

It is only in recent decades that a primary focus has been given to the pedagogies of teacher education as separate from those of K-­12 teaching. In their review of the literature on the preparation of teacher educators, Ping et al. (2018) found four domains of teacher educators’ professional learning: pedagogies of teacher education, research and reflection, professional identity, and the “knowledge base,” which “refers to the content knowledge of what to teach, how to teach a specific subject to student teachers, and the knowledge of curriculum (e.g., the goal or organization of the modules)” (p. 99) as well as a general understanding of the field of teacher education. Goodwin and Kosnik (2013) outline five knowledge domains that overlap for both teaching and teacher education, yet present differently in the two contexts: 1 personal knowledge/autobiography and philosophy of teaching 2 contextual knowledge/understanding learners, schools, and society 3 pedagogical knowledge/content, theories, teaching methods, and curriculum development 4 sociological knowledge/diversity, cultural relevance, and social justice 5 social knowledge/cooperative, democratic group process, and conflict resolution (p. 338) Of these five domains, contextual knowledge and pedagogical knowledge are the two domains where several unique elements separate the needs of teacher educators and K-­12 teachers. As former K-­12 teachers transition to roles as teacher educators, they must gain new contextual knowledge about adult learners as well as understand the context of higher education, schools of education, and K-­12 schools. Furthermore, Loughran (2006) claims that if students of teaching are to genuinely ‘see into teaching,’ then they require access to the thoughts and actions that shape such practice; they need to be able to see and hear the pedagogical reasoning that underpins the teaching they are experiencing. (p. 5) Thus, to teach about teaching, teacher educators must not only model pedagogical strategies for the K-­12 classroom, but also articulate their beliefs about teaching and how and why they implement certain practices for certain purposes to meet the needs of specific students. This pedagogical metacognitive modeling differs from content-­ based metacognition strategies

New Positions, New Pedagogies  33

employed by K-­12 teachers in part because of the self-­awareness and reflection it requires on behalf of the NTE, which takes knowledge, practice, and time to implement. Communities of Practice

Communities of practice are commonly found in professional networks and are based on the tenets of sociocultural theory that suggest that at the most basic level, knowledge is created and refined through shared language and social interactions (Vygotsky & Cole, 1978). Communities of practice are formed by individuals who share an enterprise or domain of interest, have shared leadership and participate in joint learning surrounding that enterprise or domain, and collectively develop a shared repertoire of practices that help all community members grow as practitioners (Wenger & Wenger-­Trayner, 2015). When individuals participate in communities of practice, they experience the intersection of the social and individual through repeated interactions, and together they “negotiate meaning” and co-­create knowledge that can lead to transformation of their individual practice (Wenger, 1998, p. 5). Teacher Education Communities of Practice

When NTEs begin their roles as teacher educators, they enter into a community of practice with the shared enterprise of teaching preservice teachers, and the shared goal of preparing preservice teachers to teach. Communities of practice are one of the most common learning structures for NTEs (Ping et al., 2018) and support teacher educators by breaking their sense of isolation, improving their teaching, and contributing to their professional development as teacher educators (Hadar & Brody, 2010). Several colleges of education have designed communities of practice specifically for NTEs. These communities of practice provide NTEs with opportunities to examine “the assumptions, beliefs, and values that underlie what and how they teach” (Butler et al., 2014, p. 258), develop a knowledge of the field of teacher education (Kosnik et al., 2011), begin to build a teacher educator identity (Butler et al., 2014), learn the pedagogies of teacher education, address problems of practice (Dinkelman et al., 2012), and learn research skills (Gregory et al., 2017). While most of these communities of practice have similar goals, they have been structured in a variety of different ways. Some are facilitated by a faculty member and exist for a short period of time (e.g. Butler et al., 2014); some are offered across multiple semesters and incorporate a shared approach to leadership between faculty and students (e.g. Dinkelman et al., 2012); and others are grassroots efforts initiated and led by doctoral students (Gregory et al., 2017). Regardless of structure, however, similar pedagogies are frequently employed.

34  Olivia Williams et al.

Critical reflection serves as a foundational component for most NTE communities of practice (Butler et al., 2014; Dinkelman et al., 2012; Kosnik et al., 2011; Gregory et al., 2017). Individual reflection through journaling helps NTEs articulate their beliefs about teaching (Kosnik et al., 2011) and develop greater self-­awareness (Butler et al., 2014). Collective reflection through discussion and collaborative problem-­solving lets NTEs see their teaching through “different lenses” (Kosnik et al., 2011) as community members offer suggestions and alternate approaches to address individual NTEs’ classroom dilemmas. Another primary goal of many NTEs’ communities of practice is to provide knowledge about the field of teacher education through exposure to and discussion of seminal and current scholarship in the field. They also often provide opportunities for discussions with more experienced teacher educators (e.g. Butler et al., 2014; Gregory et al., 2017). In the community of practice highlighted in Kosnik et al. (2011), each participant was required to observe and interview veteran teacher educators. In other, faculty-­led seminars, the faculty leader served as the more experienced teacher educator who opened their practice and process of reflection for discussion and critique (e.g., Butler et al., 2014; Dinkelman et al., 2012). Other priorities for NTEs in communities of practice include learning the language of teacher education (Dinkelman et al., 2012), gaining contextual knowledge of the programmatic structure of their university’s College of Education (Dinkelman et al., 2012; Kosnik et al., 2011), and using inquiry to help them articulate and frame problems of practice and form questions and methods of data collection that appropriately address these questions. The existing knowledge based on the pedagogy and knowledge domains of teacher education as well as the previous work done in NTE communities of practice provided guidance for how we initially structured our community of practice. However, it was through experience and cycles of reflection that we were able to refine these elements of past communities of practice to benefit our group. In the following section, we describe the formation of our seminar and the pedagogies we adopted, how those pedagogies evolved over time, and the impact those pedagogies had on the community as a whole and on individual participants. Evolution of the Seminar & Its Pedagogies Inception of the Seminar

In her first four semesters as a doctoral student, Colleen served as an instructor of record working with teacher candidates. She had entered the program with the expressed interest in the clinical aspects of teacher education;

New Positions, New Pedagogies  35

however, beyond being provided initial syllabi for her courses, she received minimal preparation, support, or feedback around her instruction. Over time, this lack of support left her feeling increasingly frustrated. During the spring 2017 semester, Colleen read Todd Dinkelman’s (2003) article, “Self-­Study in Teacher Education: A Means and Ends Tool for Promoting Reflective Teaching.” In the article, Dinkelman (2003) describes self-­study as “inquiry into one’s own practice” including “inquiry conducted by individual teacher educators as well as groups working collaboratively to understand problems of practice more deeply” (p. 8). Dinkelman’s focus on collectively addressing problems of practice resonated with Colleen, and she believed her desire for greater support might be met by a space of collaborative inquiry. That day she sent an email to other doctoral students laying out an initial vision for such a space and inviting them to join her. She outlined her vision as a one credit seminar that would meet once a week for an hour/hour and a half. It would be student run, but different faculty and clinical faculty would be lined up each week to lead the conversation on a given topic. There would also be time each week for people to bring up problems that have arisen in their classrooms and to brainstorm through solutions within the group. (Colleen, email communication, 10 March 2017) This vision would establish the foundation for the teacher education seminar. After reading Colleen’s email, South offered to help, and they worked together to design the initial seminar. In fall 2017, they held several informal focus groups to gather input from other doctoral students, and recruited a third doctoral student, Kam,1 to help with planning, and a faculty member, Dr. Park, to act as a thought partner. Dr. Park would eventually serve as the facilitator for the first semester of the seminar. Colleen, South, and Kam used feedback from the focus groups, Dr. Park’s insight, and research on teacher educator communities of practice to develop a more concrete vision for the seminar. The initial structure of the seminar was inspired by a similar seminar held at the University of Georgia (Dinkelman et al., 2012). Like the University of Georgia seminar, the team hoped to create a flexible community that would, among other things, provide space for a “‘problems of practice’ period that offered the opportunity for each participant to share stories and seek advice about challenges experience in their respective instructional assignments” (Dinkelman et al., 2012, p. 174). The final version of the original syllabus for the first seminar in spring 2018 included three course

36  Olivia Williams et al.

goals: to develop research-­ based pedagogies of teacher education, to respond to problems of practice, and to engage in cycles of reflection. Initially, Colleen, South, and Kam were the leaders of the seminar alongside Dr. Park as a faculty facilitator. After the first semester, in-­seminar faculty facilitation was removed as a seminar component to promote peer leadership, and Olivia and Jennifer stepped in as co-­leaders and eventually took over the seminar after Colleen, South, and Kam left or graduated from the program. Pedagogies of Teacher Education

Over the next six semesters, the goals of our seminar remained consistent over time, but the pedagogies of teacher education we enacted to achieve them were dynamic and constantly evolving to meet the needs of the community members in those semesters. For example, in semesters where all participants were or were soon to be instructors of record but only some participants were student teacher supervisors, seminar content featured more instruction-­ inclined conversations. Similarly, at the onset of the COVID-­19 pandemic, the Spring and Fall 2020 seminars moved into an online format and focused heavily on helping participants develop virtual pedagogies of teacher education to support virtual K-­12 teaching. Across all semesters, participation in the seminar included reading and evaluating teacher education literature; reflection and goal setting; working together to discuss, critique, and develop teaching strategies; peer observations; and discussing problems of practice. The pedagogies we enacted to accomplish each of these goals and the semesters they were introduced, tweaked, and utilized are summarized in Table 3.1, and below, four key seminar pedagogies – problems of practice, observations, goal setting and reflection, and invited faculty community days – are discussed in further detail. Over time, our community of practice became increasingly self-­sustaining. Initially, NTEs entered the community and participated in a variety of faculty-­ supervisor-­ supported activities like community problem-­ solving, requesting and sharing information and artifacts, observational visits, and seeking experience (Wenger, 2009) designed to support the development of their practice. Across semesters, continued participation in these activities and in the community helped participants professionally develop into relative “experts” who were prepared to support the learning and needs of novice or “apprentice” members of the community (Wenger, 1998). At the same time, community members’ ongoing reflections and needs drove the evolution of the seminar’s pedagogies, which in turn contributed to a shared set of teacher education practices and pedagogies that participants could draw on to develop their practice.

New Positions, New Pedagogies  37 TABLE 3.1   Summary of our seminar’s pedagogies and their evolution across six

semesters

Seminar Components and Structurea by Semesterb (Our Pedagogies of Teacher Education) Spring 2018

Outsidec Seminar: • Teaching and Teacher Assistant (TA) observations Insidec seminar:

Fall 2018

• Introduction and seminar leader presentation based on assigned piece of teacher education (TE) literature • Discussion & co-­construction of knowledge based on TE literature and presentation • Lesson planning and classroom practice reflections in homogeneous small groups by role (i.e. “supervision” or “instructor of record”) • “Expert” presentations by seminar participants & invited guests (e.g. “how to use Canvas monitor student engagement and progress”) • Problems of Practice Outside Seminar: • Teaching and Teacher Assistant (TA) observations (shared observation tools and debriefs became available, and the process was formalized) Inside Seminar:

Spring 2019

• Reflective journaling • Discussion & co-­construction of knowledge based on TE literature (as the seminar evolved into a community of practice, leadership presentations were replaced with longer group discussions) • Artifact presentation/discussion (artifacts from teaching, observations, or journaling) • Problems of Practice (formalized with a protocol) Outside Seminar: • Teaching and Teacher Assistant (TA) observations • Supervision observations Inside Seminar: • Goal setting & Assertions • Reflective journaling (centered on goal setting and progress toward goals) • Discussion & co-­construction of knowledge based on TE literature • Artifact presentation/discussion • Problems of Practice (began using record of problems to return to and reflecting on prior problems) • Faculty community invite days (Continued)

38  Olivia Williams et al. TABLE 3.1 (Continued)

Seminar Components and Structurea by Semesterb (Our Pedagogies of Teacher Education) Fall 2019

Outside Seminar: • Teaching observations Inside Seminar:

Spring 2020

• Goal setting & Assertions • Reflective journaling (centered on goal setting and progress toward goals) • Discussion & co-­construction of knowledge based on TE literature • Artifact presentation/discussion • Problems of Practice (these began taking an increasingly large portion of seminar space) • Faculty community invite days Outside Seminar: • Teaching observations • Supervision observations Inside Seminar:

Fall 2020

• Goal setting & Assertions • Reflective journaling (centered on goal setting and progress toward goals) • Discussion & co-­construction of knowledge based on TE literature (this became mixed with artifact presentations/sharing) • “Expert” presentations by seminar participants (returned for the first time since spring 2018 due to the COVID-­19 pandemic) • Problems of Practice Outside Seminar: • Teaching and Teacher Assistant (TA) observations • Supervision observations Inside Seminar: • Goal setting & Assertions • Reflective journaling (centered on goal setting and progress toward goals) • Discussion & co-­construction of knowledge based on TE literature & shared artifacts • Problems of Practice • Faculty community invite days

a

b c

The “Inside Seminar” items for each semester are listed in the order in which we did them (e.g. Problems of Practice was always at the end of each seminar session). Bolded items indicate a new or refined seminar component introduced in that semester. “Outside Seminar” components are those that seminar participants engaged in outside the bounds of the bi-­weekly two-­hour seminar time, such as conducting or hosting a peer observation. “Inside Seminar” components are those that seminar participants engaged in within the bounds of the two-­hour seminar time, such as problems of practice discussions.

New Positions, New Pedagogies  39

Problems of Practice

Lave and Wenger (1991) contend that interactions between novices and experts in a community of practice are an important vehicle by which practitioners improve their practice and develop their professional identities by sharing thoughts, ideas, and areas of expertise. “Problems of practice” was an aspect of our seminar borrowed from Dinkelman et al. (2012) that was present from the first session of the first semester and directly encouraged interactions between NTEs with different areas of expertise. During problems of practice time, seminar members would take turns sharing challenges they had faced in their teaching or supervision, or aspects of their practice they wanted to discuss. In response, other members of the community of practice would offer thoughts, resources, support, and/or commiseration. Problems of Practice Evolution

Across semesters, the problems of practice time in seminar sessions were a cornerstone component of our community of practice; however, we improved the structure of this practice over time. In the initial semester, time for problems of practice was made in most but not all sessions. While the facilitators recorded the problems and suggestions that were shared in these sessions, this record was not shared with the group at large. In fall 2018, we added a more formal protocol to the problems of practice portion of seminar and began recording participants’ problems and the community’s co-­created solutions and responses in a Google document that was shared with all members. The following semester, Spring 2019, we added a reflective component to problems of practice. To incorporate this new component, we not only discussed and recorded new problems in each seminar session but also checked in on problems raised in past sessions to discuss and record if and how participants had addressed their challenges, and what the outcome(s) were and what if any additional concerns had arisen around the problem. The Impact of Problems of Practice

Across semesters and across participants’ membership in the community of practice, not only did the format of our problems of practice sessions change, but also the problems we raised and how we responded to those problems changed. Problems of practice shared in the earliest seminars were often logistical in nature, such as “I have not heard from the professor who I am assigned to TA for and the class starts next week,” or “I was told to observe but not given a protocol to do so” (Problems of Practice Notes, January

40  Olivia Williams et al.

2018). Responses to these more logistical problems were often straightforward; in these two cases, other community members suggested how to phrase an email to the silent professor, and provided the resource-­less student teacher supervisor with an observation protocol. Over time, however, the problems of practice that participants shared for discussion began to get more complex. For example, Colleen asked of a student teacher coaching situation, “How do you work within constrained curricula? The teacher is receiving feedback on being off pace, but realizes what she’s being asked to do is wrong.” Unlike the more logistical questions, there was a greater number of responses to this problem and they include both direct advice and questions for her to further consider: Morgan: How stuck is she really, or how experienced is the co-­teacher? Olivia: Can we work on backwards planning in the future and thinking way in advance? Sophie: Differentiating prescribed lessons-­are they doing it? How far in advance? Are they seeing mentors do it? Are there examples? South: If she differentiates and gets caught doing things “for the kids,” is she in trouble for that? Will: If she’s screwed either way, do what’s best for kids. Olivia: Is it our role to coach advocacy? Can we accept the blowback? Sophie: Use the program or the university as a blowback. (Fall 2018 Problems of Practice Document) Individual participants’ problems of practice also became more nuanced and complex the longer they remained in the community of practice. For example, in fall 2018 – her second semester participating in the seminar – the first problem of practice Olivia raised was “student has excessive absences due to religious observations” (Problems of Practice Document, August 29). In response to this problem, Colleen and South recommended two College staff members who might be helpful, and suggested some ways to support with missed content. By September 12, Olivia had reported that this problem was generally resolved. Two semesters of participation later, in Fall 2019, the first problem of practice that Olivia raised in the semester was “staying relevant as a teacher educator. I feel like I’m getting more and more removed from schools; is this impacting my ability to be a teacher educator?” Sharing and discussing this problem – a much more complex and theoretical one than what to do about excessive absences – not only allowed Olivia to talk through what she was grappling with as a teacher educator, but also brought this conversation about credibility and identity as a teacher educator to the entire seminar for all participants to consider. The sharing and discussion of these more complex problems and

New Positions, New Pedagogies  41

wonderings about practice and teacher educator identity supported not only the problem sharer, but also the other group members who could consider how they might address similar challenges in the future. Over time, the problems of practice portion of our seminar evolved from being a place to share known information to brainstorming and problem-­ solving through inquiry to not only brainstorming ideas but actually creating and implementing concrete solutions and evaluating their impact over time. As a result, the structure of the community evolved from a space where participants were either providers of knowledge or receivers of knowledge, to more of a think tank. As we moved toward providing not only problems of practice but also possible solutions with ongoing reflection, community members began both to respond to their and others’ problems of practice in the moment and to anticipate problems that might arise and envision their response. In a post-­participation interview after the Fall 2018 semester, Will – a community of practice member in his second semester of participation – commented on this value, saying it was really good for him to talk with folks about certain problems of practice. It exposes me to things that I haven’t heard before, but it also forces me to kind of sit down and explicitly focus on what I’m doing as a teacher educator. Observations

Self-­elected peer observations were another key component of seminar participation present from the very first semester. For observations, two members of the community of practice would pair up, exchange visits to each other’s classrooms, and then debrief the experiences and share either written or verbal feedback with each other. In the first semester of the seminar, the observation seminar component was informal and unstructured, which led to only four people choosing to participate. Observation Evolution

In later semesters, the community decided that observations were an important way that practitioners could improve their practice, so we added some structure and support to help increase the number of observations. We provided time during the seminar both prior to observations for participants to pair up and plan for observations (e.g. scheduling visits and setting and sharing observation goals), as well as after observations for partners to meet, debrief, and share practice takeaways with the whole community. Additionally, several community members shared observation tools, and a

42  Olivia Williams et al.

community member who had served as a student teaching supervisor for several years offered a full observation protocol (i.e. what should happen before, during, and after an observation) with the group to help those who had never performed teaching observations. The Impact of Observations

The impact of observations on participants in the community of practice was threefold. First, observations helped the person being observed be more intentional about where they were struggling or wanted to grow their practice. For example, Jennifer recalled that, The biggest thing that stood out to me for the observation was the question, like, what do you actually want them to look for? …[Olivia] started with like, ‘what’s your course objective? What do you want for the class? And can you spit that off in two seconds?’ And like, I can go week by week and tell you my objective for each class. But then when she said, ‘what do you actually want me to look for?’ it took me a while to really think about. And so I was glad for that reflection. (Post-­Participation Interview, Spring 2018) Second, discussing and debriefing observations as an in-­seminar pedagogical choice opened up direct space for participants to discuss their own and their observation partners’ practice in detail with each other and with the group. This intentional space led to important conversations about how participants could develop as practitioners. When reflecting on participating in observations, John noted that, After talking with people and chatting about feedback, I mean, even simple resource things about how to build off of a conversation or a student’s point of view…we were just thinking about how to create more clash [in discussions]…and I think it’s exciting to have somebody come. And there were a number of examples of where the feedback sort of nudged me forward to think about how I was going to do something. (Post-­Participation Interview, Fall 2019) As John’s reflections show, in addition to what is gained from participating in collegial observations and written feedback, discussing that feedback in seminar allowed participants to think through and strengthen their practice with the support of other teacher educators doing the same work. Finally, these conversations about teacher educator practice also extended beyond the bounds of the seminar space and led participants to engage in

New Positions, New Pedagogies  43

professional development and thinking about practice in their day-­to-­day interactions in our College of Education. For example, Sophie noted that she and Morgan, another seminar participant, …spent a lot of time interacting outside of the [seminar] because we are both [content area supervisors]. Because she is a first-­year supervisor… both she and Will came with me on observations, so that was added interaction. And whenever we leave seminar, we all walk together and continue the conversations we started. That has happened multiple times with Olivia, and she came to my class [to observe]. (Post-­Participation Interview, Fall 2018) As Sophie explained, the seminar-­induced process of conducting observations and the practice-­based conversations that arose surrounding observation visits in turn led to other opportunities for participants to discuss and develop their practice beyond the bounds of the seminar space. Invited Faculty Community Days

In fall 2018, our community became fully graduate student-­led with no in-­ community faculty oversight. Many participants were returning for a second semester of community membership and were in an interesting position of serving as “experts” for each other and the novices in the seminar while also still being relative novices themselves. In order to continue to create space for these returning community members to grow alongside even more seasoned experts (Wenger, 1998), we invited members of the larger college of education community to come in and present on areas community members had identified as areas of interest. For example, during one session, two doctoral students in education technology visited to present on best methods for virtual learning. During another session, a faculty member presented on infusing a social justice lens into instruction. In the Spring 2019 semester, we decided it would be valuable to have experts join us in our regular discussion format rather than present to us, so we added two faculty community invitational days to the semester. In preparation for these days, community members discussed and agreed upon a handful of well-­respected faculty members who demonstrated strong teacher education practices and invited these members to participate in one hour of the two-­hour seminar time. For these faculty community invitational days, community members pre-­selected and emailed out conversation themes and discussion questions, and invited faculty into the community space to dialogue with participants surrounding those themes and questions. The themes were selected by the community of practice, were created by looking

44  Olivia Williams et al.

at trends across our problems of practice from that semester, and included bigger questions like “how are we employing culturally responsive and social justice education in our coursework?” and “what standards of excellence are you using in your teaching?” (Problems of Practice Document, Fall 2019). Of note, on these invited faculty community days, faculty were invited specifically to participate in the community as dialogic members and teacher education peers, rather than being asked to join as guest speakers, lecturers, or panel participants. Impact of Invited Faculty Community Days

Inviting faculty as seasoned “expert” teacher educators into the community of practice both exposed seminar participants to new ideas surrounding our enduring problems of practice, and also helped break the isolation of being an NTE (Hadar & Brody, 2010). In her post-­participation interview in spring 2019, Jennifer commented that she was comforted that when we did bring the faculty in they also had those same questions and concerns…so it’s not just us as graduate students struggling with what happens when we encounter problematic [preservice] teachers, but the profession is also having similar questions to that. Similarly, Olivia commented that, in terms of thinking about how to focus on equity and social justice, it was comforting knowing “that we’re all trying stuff [and] at least everyone in that room is consistently conscious about social justice education…it was nice to know that everyone was struggling and nice to hear how different people are trying to tackle it” (Post-­ Participation Interview, Spring 2019). These examples demonstrate that, in addition to gaining insight into the practice of teacher education directly, invited faculty community days also provided experience affirmation and a sense of belonging in our identities as teacher educators. Goal Setting & Assertions

Finally, as the seminar evolved across semesters and became more of a mix of novices and experts (returning community members), we wanted to make sure that the format and pedagogies of the seminar were serving all members’ continued professional development. One way we did this was by adding a journaling component featuring assertions adopted directly from Loughran (2006) in Spring 2019. Loughran (2006) argued for a shared language that teacher educators could use to articulate their knowledge of teaching about teaching – suggesting that assertions are one form

New Positions, New Pedagogies  45

of sharing knowledge. Therefore, we wrote assertions – what Loughran (2006) describes as “an articulation of patterns in and of practice that help teacher educators to make connections between theory, beliefs, experience, and practice” (p. 80) – to capture the knowledge and practices of teacher education we had developed through our teaching experiences. For this new seminar component, in the opening weeks of seminar, participants drafted goals and assertions about their teaching practice. Then, we would open each seminar session with reflective journaling followed by pair-­shares, and community members would revisit their goals and assertions to assess their growth and progress, revise their goals and assertions as they grew as practitioners, and identify areas of continued development. Impact of Goal Setting and Assertions

Looking back at our assertion journaling across semesters, we can watch ourselves and other seminar participants grapple with and define what it means to be a teacher educator and observe the increasing complexity that these definitions took on over time. For example, in Spring 2018, Olivia’s assertions included “be transparent in choices and reflections and how choices and reflections lead to practice changes for my preservice teachers” and “find a balance between theoretical knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and content knowledge for myself and students” (Journal). One year later, in Fall 2019, she wrote, “the role of a teacher educator is to know content and know theory, and teach both together through the lens of classroom enactment. Theory without bridging to practice, and vice versa, are both damaging,” and “teacher educators have a duty to teach everything through a social justice lens. It is not acceptable for TEds to not think critically about culture, intersectionality, and the identities of both university and PK-­12 students because there’s ‘too much content,’ or ‘not enough time’” (Journal). Across these entries, Olivia is grappling with what it means to be a teacher educator on an increasingly deeper level, and the assertions journaling gave her a space to clarify her dispositions and beliefs about the role of being a teacher educator to herself before sharing her thinking with others in the seminar. Additionally, the goal setting and assertion journaling time in seminar helped participants be more intentionally reflective about their practice. Thea noted that the journals “did help me, I think, make connections between what I’m doing in my classroom, what we’re talking about in seminar, and what I’m talking about in [teacher education coursework]” (Post-­ Participation Interview, Fall 2019). Thea’s journal from that semester clearly shows these connections in progress. The first “assertion about teacher education” that Thea included at the top of her journal on 28 August 2019 was

46  Olivia Williams et al.

“I believe teacher educators should support their teacher candidates and meet TC’s needs to the best of their abilities.” Later, on 6 November 2019, she reflected on her progress toward that assertion in her journal: My teaching, at least I think, has become more student-­centered and less centered on my own ideas of how each class should go. Partly this is due to the experiences I had last year teaching the course, but I think it’s also because of the journaling and discussions we have in [coursework] and the GTEN seminar. I feel more of a responsibility now to co-­construct knowledge with the TCs, and to prepare them with practical tools they can use moving forward. It’s not always perfect or pretty, but we get it done. In this entry, the journaling process created space for Thea to assess the ways that her teaching practice was and was not achieving what she wanted to achieve as a teacher educator, and also reflect on the practices (journaling itself, and being in the community of practice with other teacher educators) that were supporting her development. Suggestions and Potential Implications

Creating an intentional space for NTEs to discuss and develop their identities and practices was a turning point for many of us in our transition to roles as teacher educators. The pedagogies we employed and developed over time allowed us to not only build our pedagogical skills, but also to build our confidence and develop a shared repertoire of ideas and artifacts in community with other NTEs. Over time, our work not only deepened conversations about NTEs and their development in our seminar, but also raised awareness about the importance of supporting NTEs and the impact that a community of practice of teacher educators could have with our broader department. Overall, our seminar highlights how the use of intentional pedagogies within a community of practice can lead to NTE’s development, particularly when that community is dynamic and sustained over time. Colleges of education should provide opportunities for NTEs to discuss teacher education with each other and with more experienced others in a way that is responsive to the field at large, responsive to their (NTEs) specific dilemmas of education, provides multiple opportunities to see into their own and others’ practice, and establishes opportunities for intentional critical reflection. Seminars like ours present an excellent way to provide this support and to better prepare doctoral students to be successful as NTEs in their colleges of education.

New Positions, New Pedagogies  47

Note 1 All names besides those of the authors in this chapter are pseudonyms.

References Butler, B. M., Burns, E., Frierman, C., Hawthorne, K., Innes, A., & Parrott, J. A. (2014). The impact of a pedagogy of teacher education seminar on educator and future teacher educator identities. Studying Teacher Education, 10(3) 255–274. Dinkelman, T. (2003). Self-­study in teacher education: A means and ends tool for promoting reflective teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(1), 6–18. Dinkelman, T., Cuenca, A., Butler, B., Elfer, C., Ritter, J., Powell, D., & Hawley, T. (2012). The influence of a collaborative doctoral seminar on emerging teacher educator-­researchers. Action in Teacher Education, 34(2), 172–190. Dinkelman, T., Margolis, J., & Sikkenga, K. (2006). From teacher to teacher educator: Experiences, expectations, and expatriation. Studying Teacher Education, 2(1), 5–23. Goodwin, A. L., & Kosnik, C. (2013). Quality teacher educators= quality teachers? Conceptualizing essential domains of knowledge for those who teach teachers. Teacher Development, 17(3), 334–346. Gregory, K. H., Diacopoulos, M. M., Branyon, A., & Butler, B. M. (2017). From skepticism to scholarship: Learning and living self–study research in a doctoral seminar. Studying Teacher Education, 13(3), 257–274. Hadar, L., & Brody, D. (2010). From isolation to symphonic harmony: Building a professional development community among teacher educators. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 1641–1651. Kosnik, C., Cleovoulou, Y., Fletcher, T., Harris, T., McGlynn-­Stewart, M., & Beck, C. (2011). Becoming teacher educators: An innovative approach to teacher educator preparation. Journal of Education for Teaching, 37(3), 351–363. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press. Loughran, J. (2006). Developing a pedagogy of teacher education: Understanding teaching & learning about teaching. Routledge. Patton, K., & Parker, M. (2017). Teacher education communities of practice: More than a culture of collaboration. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 351–360. Ping, C., Schellings, G., & Beijaard, D. (2018). Teacher educators’ professional learning: A literature review. Teaching and Teacher Education, 75, 93–104. Ritter, J. K. (2007). Forging a pedagogy of teacher education: The challenges of moving from classroom teacher to teacher educator. Studying Teacher Education, 3(1), 5–22. Vygotsky, L. S., & Cole, M. (1978). Mind in society: Development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge University Press. Wenger, E. (2009). A social theory of learning. In K. Illeris (Ed.), Contemporary theories of learning (pp. 217–240). Routledge. Wenger, E., & Wenger-­Trayner, B. (2015). Communities of practice: A brief introduction. Retrieved from http://wenger-­trayner.com/introduction-­to-­communities-­of-­practice

4 LEARNING A NEW PEDAGOGY OF TEACHER EDUCATION THROUGH CRITICAL FRIENDSHIP Examining Mindfulness as Content and as Pedagogy Megan Madigan Peercy and Shawn Michael Bullock When we consider the literature on the pedagogy of teacher education, there has been examination of particular teacher education practices (e.g., Grossman et al., 2009), exploration of the formation of teacher educators (e.g., Clemans et al., 2010), and elaboration on the sociohistorical and political contexts that impact teacher education practice (e.g., Bullough, 2014; Vick, 2007). We know relatively little about how teacher educators learn to develop their pedagogies of teacher education, and how they continue to grow their pedagogical abilities as teacher educators over their careers. The self-­study literature has illustrated that one way of doing so is through the presence of a critical friend (Fletcher et al., 2016; Samaras & Sell, 2013; Schuck & Russell, 2005), but has yet to illuminate how critical friendship is created and sustained (Bullock & Butler, 2022). Loughran (2006) noted that teacher educators have a responsibility to help the field of teacher education progress by collectively engaging about the “ideas, issues, concerns and conceptualizations” in our field (p. 176). While he does not specifically mention critical friends, we believe that engagement with critical friends about issues in our own teacher education practice is one means of accomplishing this important communal progress. The starting point for our chapter is that our critical friendship enabled us to develop new pedagogies of teacher education – approaches that we may not have felt confident to explore were it not for our work as critical friends. The term “critical friend” appears in a variety of forms within the educational research literature, often with a focus on institutional, school, or self-­ improvement of personal educational practice (Baskerville & Goldblatt, 2009; Costa & Kallick, 1993; Swaffield, 2004). Self-­study researchers tend DOI: 10.4324/9781003365129-4

New Pedagogy of Teacher Education through Critical Friendship  49

to emphasize how critical friendship enhances the rigor and/or the trustworthiness of their methodology, to the point where it often appears as a de facto way to demonstrate methodological competence. Moreover, the idea of critical friendship seems to imply, for many, a deeper investigation of their pedagogy. We further argue that critical friendship can be crucial to the development of pedagogies of teacher education. In short, critical friendship can not only shed light on current approaches, but also can reveal new avenues for our pedagogies of teacher education. Yet there is much that we do not yet understand about critical friendships, including a nuanced understanding of how they help teacher educators sustain their ongoing development, and how they might be different from other collaborative endeavors with colleagues. Jordan et al. (2022) have begun to illuminate these tensions, arguing that there is often some level of personal friendship embedded within critical friendship (see also Stolle & Frambaugh-­Kritzer, 2022), and that due to the profoundly personal nature of self-­study, personal friendship allows those involved to more deeply engage as critical friends. In fact, they argue that personal friendship may allow critical friendship to reach its full potential. Certainly, there is at least an intuitive appeal to this idea, given that personal friendship implies a level of trust that might be more likely to encourage challenging conversations. Building upon this argument, Bullock and Butler (2022) have noted that “the personal aspect of creating and sustaining critical friendship is one that should not be overlooked and further scholarship is needed that investigates this facet of critical friendship” (p. 315). However, in one of the most cited self-­study articles about critical friendship, Schuck and Russell (2005) argued that a personal friendship does not necessarily guarantee a productive critical friendship. We draw upon this call to investigate how critical friendship is created and sustained (in our case, concurrently with the development of a personal friendship), illuminating some of our means of building our critical friendship and exploring some of the ways this supported the development of mindfulness as a pedagogy of teacher education in our work. From our perspective, it is important for self-­study researchers who use critical friendship as a method to expand on the ways in which personal friendship has supported the development of critical friendship. We can think of instances of productive critical friendship work that was neither grounded in, nor resulted in, sustained personal friendship. Perhaps one way to think about this distinction is in terms of sustainability in addition to depth. Specifically, we argue that critical friendship provides a mechanism for thinking differently about our work as teacher educators and that the definition and development of critical friendship merits deeper exploration. In so doing, we extend perspectives developed in Butler and Bullock (2022) with particular

50  Megan Madigan Peercy and Shawn Michael Bullock

attention to how the examination of our experiences with using mindfulness practices informed the development of our critical friendship, and how our critical friendship helped to reframe our thinking about our pedagogies of teacher education. We build upon our prior discussion of critical friendship, in which we have identified that critical friends have equal status in the relationship, bring complementary strengths to the work, and are at a deeper level of relationship than collaborators might be (Bullock & Peercy, personal communications). That is, “one can collaborate with colleagues without being a critical friend” (Sharkey et al., 2022, p. 135). Thus, there is clearly something that sets the interactions and activities of critical friends apart from those of friends and of collaborators. We take seriously the charge of Stolle et al. (2019), who have argued that “we must be responsible brokers of critical friendship by explicitly explaining our purposes, definitions and uses of critical friendship within our work as self-­study researchers” (p. 28), and we consider this particularly in the context of illuminating how critical friendship can serve as a space for professional growth when developing one’s pedagogy as a teacher educator. Situating Critical Friendship in a Pedagogy of Teacher Education

In many ways, critical friendships can be difficult to build because they require a significant amount of trust, and the structure of academia does not lend itself particularly well to trusting others. In fact, we would argue that a trusting relationship in academia is so valuable that it might be tempting to avoid turning such a relationship into a critical friendship, particularly if there is a personal friendship involved, due to concerns that the friendship might be jeopardized through critical interactions about one’s pedagogy, scholarship, or other contributions. Indeed, the constant call to generate new, original ideas, protect intellectual property, and evaluate our peers can create an environment where it is more typical to be guarded and reveal limited information and a curated image, so as to maintain a façade as authoritative and knowledgeable. Critical friendship, on the other hand, requires at minimum a willingness to be deeply vulnerable, whether about one’s research, pedagogy, or both (e.g., Berry & Russell, 2016; Peercy & Sharkey, 2022). As a result, it is almost inevitable that we allow other parts of our lives to show as well (e.g., family, experiences growing up, religious background, moral commitments, beliefs and values, hobbies, socioeconomic status and background, biases, cultural and linguistic preferences and experiences, ability, privilege, health, and the passage of significant personal life events). Critical friendships are

New Pedagogy of Teacher Education through Critical Friendship  51

also a space where we need to admit when we are struggling or grappling with something, do not know what to do next, are unprepared or uninformed in particular areas, have messed up or missed something, have doubts, are overwhelmed, do not understand something, or cannot figure out how to find our way to a reasonable conclusion. Thus, they serve as an important touchstone to engage and try to move forward with our work as teacher educators, as we are continually developing as researchers and educators. However, it is also not surprising that many of our collaborative interactions with colleagues do not rise to the level of critical friendship, and instead are collaborations. As we view it, all critical friendships are collaborations, but not all collaborative relationships are critical friendships. Critical friendships require a deeper level of trust and vulnerability, and involve greater potential for critique as well as learning, than some collaborations might. As Baskerville and Goldblatt (2009) articulate, they developed a critical friendship over time that allowed them to “develop trust, unguarded learning conversations, and the ability to go very quickly beyond the surface features” (p. 216). We find Swaffield’s (2007) framing of critical friendship as an interplay between support and challenge to be useful. A mutual sense of trust and commitment is absolutely essential, particularly in the high-­stakes world of academia that tends to operate on a system of rewards and hierarchies. Cole and Knowles (2004) elaborated on some of these tensions inherent in a critical friendship in academia, writing about the ways in which the North American system of tenure adds further complexity to the issue of critical friendship, as it plays a significant role in “monitoring, mediating, and moderating the individual and collective practice of teacher educators” (p. 452). Nonetheless, the authors argued that self-­study methodology had begun to offer a useful formal challenge to the academic status quo, particularly as it became reified into components that function as currency in the academy, such as peer-­reviewed conference proceedings and journal articles, books and book series, and international handbooks. We concur with Cole and Knowles’ (2004) assertion that self-­ study scholars need to become “advocates for educational change in a broad sense with self-­study as one significant part of and mechanism for that broad agenda” (pp. 477–478), and we acknowledge that there has been significant work done by people using critical friendship as a method within self-­study to respond to Cole and Knowles’ challenge to use self-­study as a mechanism for educational change. Amongst many possible examples, we can point to work between doctoral students (Murphy et al., 2014), between untenured academics (Bullock & Ritter, 2011), between a doctoral student and supervisor (Stump et al., 2018), between academics moving into leadership

52  Megan Madigan Peercy and Shawn Michael Bullock

positions (Allison & Ramirez, 2016), and between a dean, an executive coach, and a faculty member (Loughran & Brubaker, 2015). Each of these studies might be thought of as a part of a larger subset of self-­study research that mentions the use of critical friendship, usually as something that enhances the quality of the research, and often as a touchstone for a longitudinal self-­study. However, Butler and Bullock (2022), Mena and Russell (2017), and Bullock and Peercy (2018) have argued that the ways in which critical friendship is unpacked within published research varies considerably and that such variation can be particularly confusing to newcomers. At least one way of redressing this issue is citing other uses of critical friendship in self-­study literature in particular, and unpacking the ways in which it functions in developing one’s pedagogy as a teacher educator. More recently, we have found it useful to link our warrant for using critical friendship with the perspectives offered by “intimate scholarship.” A commitment to intimate scholarship reveals something about our epistemological and ontological perspectives more generally, particularly given the ways in which the idea of “critical friendship” might be regarded with suspicion even in more broadly qualitative methodological traditions. In thinking about this chapter, we wondered if part of the reason we find critical friendship useful in our work as teacher educators is because of our shared commitment to intimate scholarship. It is personal and collaborative, as intimate scholarship “is developed in dialogue with ourselves, with the research literature, with our past experiences, and with colleagues and participants” (Pinnegar & Hamilton, 2015, p. 185). Intimate scholarship is not about generalizability, it is about communicating our understanding of the practices and experiences that animate us as teacher educators, as we continually grow and develop as scholars and practitioners. We do so in the hope that readers will consider thoughtfully how what they read might be useful for their own pedagogies of teacher education, in their own contexts (Pinnegar & Hamilton, 2015). Finally, we hope that our framing of critical friendship as intimate scholarship will help connect to some of the ways that self-­study literature has been called on to speak back to the wider currents of research in education (Zeichner, 2016). Some of this work has been done more recently by people working in New Materialist traditions. For example, Strom et al. (2018) provide a convincing argument that the currents of intimate scholarship (which were in many ways initiated by Maxine Greene in the 1980s) are a way to respond to the posthuman turn in qualitative research traditions more generally. Although we do not take forward their new materialist framing explicitly in this chapter, we invoke their work as a reminder that intimate scholarship is being used in many ways in the current research on teacher education, including, but not limited to, critical friendship.

New Pedagogy of Teacher Education through Critical Friendship  53

The Context for Our Critical Friendship

As Stolle and Frambaugh-­Kritzer (2022) have argued, it is helpful and important to know more about how a critical friendship emerged. In that spirit, we offer a brief overview of how we got to know one another and started to work together as critical friends. Though we had some limited interactions at conferences beginning in 2013, it was at the Tenth International Conference on Self-­Study of Teacher Education Practices (“Castle Conference”) in 2014 where we had the opportunity for extended conversation and interaction about the work we were each doing. Subsequently, in 2016 and 2017 we had the opportunity to engage in two in-­person conversations over several days, one on each of our university campuses. This led to rich conversations about self-­study, methodological issues, the research we were each engaged in, and the kinds of questions we had about our pedagogy at the time. For Megan, these were questions about a new doctoral course she would be teaching about the pedagogy of teacher education, and about the ways in which she was engaging in a longitudinal qualitative research project with a group of preservice and early career teachers of multilingual students. For Shawn, these included questions about what it meant to conduct self-­study research now that he had moved to the “mid-­phase” of his career, where he was becoming more willing to take greater academic risks, and that his new administrative role had taken him away from teaching future teachers, which had been a hallmark of his career both as a doctoral student and as an assistant professor. It is also an important contextual note that by 2016, when we started more intensively developing our critical friendship, we had both recently been awarded tenure at research-­intensive universities (Megan in the U.S. and Shawn in Canada). Thus, we were each professionally situated with a status that was less tenuous, and we were ready to think about how to take more risks pedagogically. By this point, Megan had been in a tenure-­line position for a decade, and Shawn for five years across two different institutions. While any of these topics could be their own chapter, here we focus in particular on our use of mindfulness as an anchor for thinking about our commitments as teacher educators, and how we were each grappling with ways to bring our personal commitments to mindfulness to bear on the use of mindfulness in our professional spaces, and in particular in our pedagogies of teacher education. We examine how we developed our critical friendship alongside our exploration of these challenging questions. We take some inspiration from Kroll et al. (2005), who articulated the use of six principles of teaching preservice teachers developed by a team of teacher educators with a longstanding commitment to social justice. Two principles in particular – teaching is inherently moral work and teaching is an act of inquiry and reflection, resonate with our approaches.

54  Megan Madigan Peercy and Shawn Michael Bullock

For this chapter, we see our grappling with how to talk about and leverage mindfulness in our teacher education work as deeply connected to Loughran’s (2006) principle of practice (that he developed for his own pedagogy of teacher education) that teaching is a relationship, and especially the notions that building trust and being honest are important principles of developing a pedagogy of teacher education. The principles of building trust and requiring honesty in developing mindfulness as one of our pedagogies of teacher education were iterative and complementary. We needed to develop our critical friendship and a deep level of trust in order to talk about places we were uncomfortable with drawing on mindfulness in our work as teacher educators, and our uncomfortable conversations also created a deeper space for our critical friendship to develop, where we could think through how to carry our commitments to mindfulness forward into our practices as teacher educators. Our primary data sources include 17 conversations (six face-­to-­face, the remainder via videoconferencing) that were recorded, transcribed, and had accompanying field notes that we took during our discussions. These conversations were wide-­ranging regarding the use of self-­study methodology, our pedagogies, research and mentoring challenges, and reflection on how our critical friendship was different than other collaborations we had experienced. Additional supporting data included artifacts from Megan’s ongoing research project with a group of preservice and early career teachers of multilingual students, such as transcripts from meetings, focus groups, and interviews; photographs from meetings; artifacts from the teachers’ classrooms; and observations of the teachers’ classroom practice. How We Developed Our Critical Friendship and Our Pedagogies of Mindfulness Developing Our Critical Friendship

As Jordan et al. (2022) noted about their critical friendship, humor was an important way into our critical friendship and served to maintain our ties, as well as check in about uncomfortable topics, and dig more deeply into those topics. We shared a lot of jokes and laughter as part of our starting to work together, much of this spontaneously arising during our conversations and punctuating our thoughts. We often wove humor around uncomfortable conversations, using it to get to additional layers of what we were discussing. Another feature of developing our critical friendship also emerged organically. One week Megan sent Shawn three popular music songs to rate, and this began a weekly trading-­off where we took turns sending music and reacting to it. This allowed us to draw upon shared histories of popular songs during our formative years (we are roughly the same age), whether we

New Pedagogy of Teacher Education through Critical Friendship  55

loved or hated them, as well as introduce each other to music we had never heard before, and experience a range of genres together on a weekly basis. This practice probably continued for close to a year and gave us a different way to connect and gain insights into each other and ourselves. It also provided a safe way of, at least tacitly, exploring many of the features of our shifting positionalities and life experiences. A third way we connected and worked on developing the trust necessary for our critical friendship was through discussion of a challenging research methodology question that we were uncertain about sharing with others because of the kinds of critique it would garner. To be direct: we both were increasingly uncomfortable with the self-­study methodology being presented as an “outsider” to mainstream educational research given the progress that had been made since the early 1990s. We noted a tendency, for example, for some self-­study scholarship to devote quite a bit of space to methodological justification—often by setting self-­study up as a direct opposition to other methodological traditions. We wondered if self-­study researchers risked setting up “straw” arguments to argue against, and particularly whether this rhetorical technique might obfuscate other questions to be pursued in the field. Being willing to discuss potentially controversial issues that were not yet deeply connected to our own pedagogies, research agendas, and personal lives gave us a place to test out how to have risky conversations that were less personal. A fourth aspect of developing and deepening our critical friendship came from wide-­ranging conversations we had about how mindfulness might look different depending upon whether it is connected to the secular, spiritual, or the sacred, and the kinds of distinctions we might make between doing mindfulness work in higher education settings (described further in the section below), and mindfulness that is connected to what some would refer to as a more personal spiritual foundation. This led to conversations about theology and religion, and we engaged in a shared book study of Krista Tippett’s1 book Becoming Wise: An Inquiry into the Mystery and Art of Living (2017). Tippett’s book offered much for us to discuss, including our own religious backgrounds and interests in theology. We both acknowledged that this was territory we would not usually cover with a colleague from our academic settings, and as Shawn described it, this was both “freeing and terrifying.” However, we had established enough prior trust to feel we could allow our conversations to take this direction. One other way we deepened our critical friendship was by sharing details about activities that brought us wholeness, and allowed us to reintegrate mind, body, and spirit when we were feeling disconnected and stressed. For Shawn, this occurred through his lifelong commitment to martial arts (e.g., Bullock, 2014, 2016, 2022). For Megan, it came through her passion for running and outdoor physical activity in general. We even spent time with

56  Megan Madigan Peercy and Shawn Michael Bullock

Shawn introducing Megan to some of the basic principles of martial arts (chi-­ sao, commonly called “sticking hands” from Wing Chun, a style of what is commonly, if inaccurately, called kung fu), and Megan sharing details and experiences (including photos) from her running, hiking, and intensive physical training experiences (at the time she was participating in triathlons). In combination with each other, these shared experiences created a multifaceted way of engaging that gave us insight into one another, offering breadth and depth to better understand one another as whole persons. These shared experiences also created a rich foundation on which to build as we examined questions about our pedagogy and our research. Arguably, these different means of learning more about each other, and finding both intersections and differences, provided a way for us to create and sustain critical friendship that was quite different than other collaborative relationships. Critical Friendship and Our Pedagogies of Teacher Education

Establishing a strong foundation of trust through some of the means we described above allowed us to be more open and vulnerable than in other collaborations. This meant that we tackled many thorny topics about our pedagogy and research together. We highlight one of these thorny topics in this section: our emerging use of mindfulness as a pedagogy of teacher education, and the tensions we experienced in our explorations. When we began working together, Shawn already had many years of experience engaging in mindfulness in his personal pursuits through his martial arts background. Megan had become more interested in mindfulness in her personal life in the previous 5–10 years, and it was starting to emerge in her longitudinal research with a group of early career teachers that mindfulness was likely going to be a foundational aspect of the self-­care they were articulating was necessary to sustain their commitment to education. However, when we talked about this, it was clear that we both felt deeply uncomfortable with engaging in something so personal, and so spiritually tied, in academic spaces: Megan: There’s nothing built into schools that supports teachers in that self-­care aspect of things. And in fact works against self-­care in a lot of ways. And our teacher ed programs don’t do that either …. It’s not something we really talk about. I mean we’re all aware of the burnout, the lack of retention, the high turnover, all of these things, but we haven’t really done anything actionable with that information. We just keep talking about it as this problem but what is anybody actually trying to do about that?… So that was my entry point into all of this with mindfulness as one dimension of self-­care….

New Pedagogy of Teacher Education through Critical Friendship  57

Shawn: I’ve done martial arts since I was five years old and a massive component of that is what might be called mindfulness and I don’t know how to be in the world otherwise. And … twice in my life I’ve backed myself away from doing martial arts and wither[ed] as a learner and or as a teacher, and it’s had disastrous psychological effects on me…. I had so rigidly separated these two parts of myself….I’ve never made mindful practice a focus of my work with anybody in university other than this past summer in the graduate class I taught, I did a little experiment where I taught them a tai chi form over the course each week. Megan: Was that uncomfortable for you? Shawn: Oh it was excruciating. Megan: Yeah. Okay. As part of the last meeting with my teacher research group, one of the things I had us do, and this was so hard for me, was that kind of mindful posture in your seat, whether or not your eyes are open or closed. And do mindful breathing and it was only for a minute and even I felt differently afterwards. I find I’m grappling with the importance of [mindfulness in teacher education], but also how difficult it is for me. It just hasn’t been part of the way I engage in public interaction with teachers, and so it’s uncomfortable. Even though I think it’s important it’s also super uncomfortable. Shawn: Precisely. [When I was teaching the tai chi forms in class my mind was] like ‘Nope, this is not where you do this. You’re confused. Look around.’… Whenever I try and do something, it feels new and then I don’t necessarily feel very safe doing it myself (11-­01-­16 meeting)…. Megan: And you can’t keep being uncomfortable with it and then do something with it programmatically….What if I wanted to do some of this in my methods course? (11-­03-­16 meeting)… Shawn: Some of the language that I would be most comfortable with in talking about this self-­care and turning to self, is not language that I would be comfortable using with teacher candidates. But now, at least I feel like I can be comfortable using it with you. Which might help get me more where I need to go with the teacher candidates (12-­20-­16 meeting)…. Although we had both committed to mindfulness as an anchor point for a new dimension of our pedagogies of teacher education, we also knew we felt uncomfortable and ill-­equipped with how to bring this into our teacher education classrooms. It was only because we had established trust with one another as critical friends that we felt comfortable enough to raise this

58  Megan Madigan Peercy and Shawn Michael Bullock

pedagogical challenge for discussion. This gave us both the emerging confidence to believe that we should more strongly support mindfulness as part of our pedagogies of teacher education, with Megan going on to write a collaborative chapter with some of the early career teachers in her research group about mindfulness as an important dimension of self-­care (Peercy et al., 2019), and incorporating more about self-­care into her methods course. Shawn recognized that the discomfort he felt around sharing an intimate part of not only his scholarship, but his way of being in the world, was a good reason to keep forging ahead even as he transitioned to a new academic role at the University of Cambridge. Despite some of the implicit “surprise” from both teacher candidates and colleagues in his new role, Shawn consistently tried to incorporate philosophies of learning and teaching – and physical actions – into his teaching of future teachers both in a “methods” course and within whole-­cohort seminars on “professional studies.” We also found our increasing willingness to raise challenging topics with one another made us more willing to do so with our students. While space limitations prohibit us from discussing some of the specific changes to our practices in detail, we strongly believe that the most important transformation of our pedagogical practices because of this study was the ability to sustain a willingness to be uncomfortable, professionally, as we sought to introduce a new approach from our personal practices. Our sustained discomfort was supported by the productive discomfort of conceptual spaces we explored as critical friends. Developing Mindfulness as a Pedagogy of Teacher Education

The development of our critical friendship was facilitated by several unintentional, or at least not consciously intentional, means, including the use of humor and jokes, the weekly sharing of music, and extended discussions about which directions to push self-­study methodology and whether the field would embrace these new ideas. In other words, we did not set out on this journey with the explicit intention of cultivating a critical friendship before engaging in our shared self-­ study interest. Rather, these “non-­ conscious intentionalities” worked alongside our more conscious shared research work. Each of these allowed us to more deeply test, and to find (through our book study and our discussion of some of the personal interests that renew us) that we felt we were in a safe enough space to delve into some more profound areas, including conversations about mindfulness in our personal lives, and questions and doubts about how we might carry that over into our professional lives. These conversations gave us both the confidence to more deeply examine mindfulness as both content and pedagogy that we felt hesitant about in our work as teacher educators, but that yielded

New Pedagogy of Teacher Education through Critical Friendship  59

new ways of supporting educators and ourselves. Without this support, we are not sure that we would have developed our pedagogies of teacher education in these ways. While we are not suggesting that our means of getting to more significant and uncomfortable (or “excruciating”) topics are the ones that anyone else might find useful, what we think is helpful to take away from this is that each grouping of critical friends needs to find ways to develop their critical friendship. Identifying the means to determine whether we feel safe enough to trust one another can lead to the examination of the more vulnerable parts of our pedagogy and research, allowing us to deepen those areas through work with a critical friend. We have found that when we created space for those more challenging conversations, it gave us the courage to push our pedagogies and our research questions in places where we were previously hesitant. Megan went on to make mindfulness and self-­care a part of her course readings and discussions with preservice teachers, which had not previously had a place in her syllabus. With an eye toward the challenges of teacher burnout and the everyday demands on teachers, this included adding materials (e.g., readings, videos, blog posts) and discussions about what makes it hard for teachers to take care of themselves, and why self-­care is important. It also included examination and practice of the use of mindfulness techniques for teachers themselves, and for use in classrooms with K-­12 students, through approaches such as guided relaxation. She was encouraged when teachers in the course resonated with these materials and had much to share about their experiences, including their perspectives on the importance of self-­care. Currently an administrator, she recently participated in a mindfulness training retreat with other campus leaders. Together, this group engaged in three days of learning techniques for enhancing mindfulness and wellness. This work is part of a larger effort on campus to identify strong wellness practices that support resilience, with the intention of spreading this to students, faculty, and staff on campus. This is also something she wants to help doctoral students consider, as novice teacher educators, regarding how they might develop their own pedagogies to support teachers through the use of mindfulness. At the beginning of our work together, which coincided with the beginning of six years of administrative work, Shawn was starting to draw from his longstanding academic and personal formation in philosophy, particularly from the philosophical underpinnings of martial arts, to respond to the theoretical questions that were emerging in his work. He made a point to explicitly introduce ideas from his experiences in “non-­formal education” in his most recent position at the University of Cambridge. One memorable example for Shawn and many teacher candidates was Shawn’s framing of the journey of learning to teach using an idea common in many martial arts

60  Megan Madigan Peercy and Shawn Michael Bullock

from Eastern Asia: The mountain and the path. The idea is that when one has a goal ahead (the mountain), one must keep one eye on the mountain and one eye looking down at the next step you take on the path ahead. Ignoring one or the other risks either losing sight of one’s goal or tripping up on details in the relentless pursuit of the goal. While honoring his commitment to traditional ways of teaching martial arts, Shawn found various ways to incorporate this idea into his teaching, to the point where teacher candidates recognized it as a theme. Academically, Shawn used his experience in historical swordplay (the precedent to what today is often thought of as “fencing”) to introduce the philosophy of swordplay as a way of thinking about methodology in the self-­study handbook (Bullock, 2020) and, most recently, Shawn used his experiences across the martial arts more generally to contribute to a curriculum volume on Ashwani Kumar’s ideas of meditative inquiry (Bullock, 2022). We cannot help but be aware of the fact that our chapter has ended with our moves into academic administrative work and a sense that the reader might have that our work on critical friendship – which explores ways to be vulnerable both in the questions posed and the personal histories shared – was slowed somewhat by our transitions to new roles. To be honest, the work has slowed for these reasons. But we would also argue that our experiences forming critical friendship with each other has further informed our sense of the everyday vulnerability of academia, which we try to be mindful of in our interactions with colleagues. To conclude, we discovered that finding ways to develop a deep and trusting critical friendship supported challenging conversations and allowed us to more deeply embed mindfulness in our pedagogies as teacher educators, an area where we had both previously been quite hesitant. In our experience, strong critical friendships offer an important means for teacher educators to develop our pedagogical commitments and offer space for us to take risks to grow in new directions. Note 1 Tippett is probably best known as the host of the radio show On Being, which examines religious, spiritual, and moral aspects of being human.

References Allison, V. A., & Ramirez, L. A. (2016). Co-­mentoring: The iterative process of learning about self and “becoming” leaders. Studying Teacher Education, 12(1), 3–19. Baskerville, D., & Goldblatt, H. (2009). Learning to be a critical friend: From professional indifference through challenge to unguarded conversations. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39(2), 205–221.

New Pedagogy of Teacher Education through Critical Friendship  61

Berry, A., & Russell, T. (2016). Self-­ study and vulnerability. Studying Teacher Education, 12(2), 115–116. Bullock, S. M. (2014). Exploring the impact of prior experiences in non-­formal education on my pedagogy of teacher education. Studying Teacher Education, 10(2), 103–116. Bullock, S. M. (2016). Mindfulness, critical friendship, and the art of giving way. In K. Ragoonaden & S. M. Bullock (Eds.), Mindfulness and critical friendship: A new perspective on professional development for educators (pp. 119–124). Lexington Books. Bullock, S. M. (2020). Navigating the pressures of self-­study methodology. In J. Kitchen, A. Berry, S. M. Bullock, A. Crowe, M. Taylor, H. Guðjónsdóttir, & L. Thomas (Eds.), 2nd International handbook of self-­study of teaching and teacher education (pp. 245–267). Springer. Bullock, S. M. (2022). Martial arts as meditative inquiry. In A. Kumar (Ed.), Engaging with meditative inquiry in teaching, learning, and research: Realizing transformative potentials in diverse contexts (pp. 45–59). Routledge. Bullock, S. M., & Butler, B. M. (2022). Reframing collaboration in self-­study. In B. M. Butler & S. M. Bullock (Eds.), Learning through collaboration in self-­study: Critical friendships, collaborative self-­study, and self-­study communities of practice (pp. 313–323). Springer. Bullock, S. M. & Peercy, M. M. (2018). Crossing borders to challenge self-­study methodology: Affordances and critiques. In A. Ovens, & D. Garbett (Eds.), Pushing boundaries and crossing borders: Self-­study as a means for researching (pp. 19–26). Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Self-­Study of Teacher Education Practices. S-­STEP. Bullock, S. M., & Ritter, J. K. (2011). Exploring the transition into academia through collaborative self-­study. Studying Teacher Education, 7(2), 171–181. Bullough, R. V. (2014). Recalling 40 years of teacher education in the USA: A personal essay. Journal of Education for Teaching, 40(5), 474–491. Butler, B. M., & Bullock, S. M. (Eds.). (2022). Learning through collaboration in self-­study: Critical friendship, collaborative self-­study, and self-­study communities of practice. Springer. Clemans, A., Berry, A., & Loughran, J. (2010). Lost and found in transition: the professional journey of teacher educators. Professional Development in Education, 36(1–2), 211–228. Cole, A. L., & Knowles, J. G. (2004). Research, practice, and academia in North America. 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. 451–482). Springer. Costa, A. L., & Kallick, B. (1993). Through the lens of a critical friend. Educational Leadership, 51(2), 49–51. Fletcher, T., Ní Chróinín, D., & O’Sullivan, M. (2016). A layered approach to critical friendship as a means to support pedagogical innovation in pre-­service teacher education. Studying Teacher Education, 12(3), 302–319. Grossman, P., Compton, C., Igra, D., Ronfeldt, M., Shahan, E., & Williamson, P. W. (2009). Teaching practice: A cross-­professional perspective. Teachers College Record, 111(9), 2055–2100.

62  Megan Madigan Peercy and Shawn Michael Bullock

Jordan, A. W., Levicky, M., Hostetler, A. L., Hawley, T. S., & Mills, G. (2022). With a little help from my friends: The intersectionality of friendship and critical friendship. In B. M. Butler & S. M. Bullock (Eds.), Learning through collaboration in self-­study: Critical friendships, collaborative self-­study, and self-­study communities of practice (pp. 67–80). Springer. Kroll, L. R., Cossey, R., Donahue, D. M., Galguera, T., LaBoskey, V. K., Richert, A. E., & Tucher, P. (2005). Teaching as principled practice: Managing complexity for social justice. Sage. Loughran, J. (2006). Developing a pedagogy of teacher education: Understanding teaching and learning about teaching. Routledge. Loughran, J., & Brubaker, N. (2015). Working with a critical friend: A self-­study of executive coaching. Studying Teacher Education, 11(3), 255–271. Mena, J., & Russell, T. (2017). Collaboration, multiple methods, trustworthiness: Issues arising from the 2014 international conference on self-­study of teacher education practices. Studying Teacher Education, 13(1), 105–122. Murphy, S., McGlynn-­Stewart, M., & Ghafouri, F. (2014). Constructing our identities through a writing support group: Bridging from doctoral students to teacher educator researchers. Studying Teacher Education, 10(3), 239–254. Peercy, M. M. & Sharkey, J. (2022). Who gets to ask “Does race belong in every course?”: Staying in the anguish as White teacher educators. In A. Martin (Ed.), Self-­studies in urban teacher education: Preparing U.S. teachers to advance equity and social justice (pp. 95–112). Springer. Peercy, M. M., Tigert, J., Feagin, K., Kidwell, T., Fredricks, D., Lawyer, M., Bitter, M., Canales, N., & Mallory, A. (2019). “I need to take care of myself”: The case for self-­care as a core practice for teaching. In C. R. Rinke & L. Mawhinney (Eds.), Opportunities and challenges in teacher recruitment and retention: Teacher voices across the pipeline (pp. 303–325). Information Age Publishing. Pinnegar, S., & Hamilton, M. L. (2015). Knowing, becoming, doing as educators: Identity, intimate scholarship, inquiry. Emerald. Samaras, A. P., & Sell, C. (2013). Please write: Using critical friend letter writing in teacher research. Teacher Education Quarterly, 40(4), 93–104. Schuck, S., & Russell, T. (2005). Self-­study, critical friendship, and the complexities of teacher education. Studying Teacher Education: A Journal of Self-­study of Teacher Education Practices, 1(2), 107–121. Sharkey, J., Peercy, M. M., Solano-­Campos, A., Schall-­Leckrone, L. (2022). Being a reflexive practitioner and scholar in TESOL: Methodological considerations. In E. R. Yuan & I. Lee (Eds.), Becoming and being a TESOL teacher educator: Research and practice (pp. 127–146). Routledge. Stolle, E., & Frambaugh-­Kritzer, C. (2022). Critical friendship as a research tool: Examining the critical friend definition continuum. In B. M. Butler & S. M. Bullock (Eds.), Learning through collaboration in self-­study: Critical friendship, collaborative self-­study, and self-­study communities of practice (pp. 25–38). Springer. Stolle, E., Frambaugh-­Kritzer, C., Freese, A., & Persson, A. (2019). Investigating critical friendship: Peeling back the layers. Studying Teacher Education, 15(1), 19–30. Strom, K. J., Mills, T., & Ovens, A. (Eds.). (2018). Decentering the researcher in intimate scholarship: Critical posthuman methodological perspectives in education. Emerald.

New Pedagogy of Teacher Education through Critical Friendship  63

Stump, M., Peercy, M. M., & Bullock, S. M. (2018). “I have to understand self-­study first before I can engage in it”: Working through tensions in learning to do self-­ study. In D. Garbett & A. Ovens (Eds.), Pushing boundaries and crossing borders: Self-­study as a means for researching pedagogy. Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on the Self-­Study of Teacher Education Practices (pp. 67–74). Swaffield, S. (2004). Critical friends: Supporting leadership, improving learning. Improving Schools, 7(3), 267–278. Swaffield, S. (2007). Light touch critical friendship. Improving Schools, 10(3), 205–219. Vick, M. (2007). “It’s a difficult matter”: Historical perspectives on the enduring problem of the practicum in teacher preparation. Asia-­Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 34(2), 181–198. Zeichner, K. (2016). Accumulating knowledge across self-­studies in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(1), 36–46.

5 PREPARING ALL TEACHER EDUCATORS? CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE SPECIALIZED WORK OF TEACHER EDUCATION IN A PEDAGOGY OF TEACHER EDUCATION COURSE Alexander Cuenca, Chelsea Brinda, Ryan Cowden, and Mariah Pol Teacher education is unnatural and intricate work. At minimum, preparing teachers means providing them with opportunities to acquire knowledge of content, learners, and instruction; guide situated learning experiences in classrooms; and reflect on those experiences. Each of these opportunities is nuanced by factors such as how teacher candidates’ beliefs intersect with learning opportunities; the social, political, and cultural context of classrooms; and the pedagogical intentions of teacher educators. As Loughran (2007) suggests, complexity is embedded in the very nature of teaching itself, thus, “when the focus is on teaching teachers, even more sophisticated understandings of practice are essential” (p. 2). Given the complex reality of teaching, preparing teachers to teach is an intricate process that features nested layers of complexity that are simultaneously interacting. Unfortunately, the professional development of teacher educators continues to be overlooked by those in higher education. Because teacher education lacks institutional status in higher education (Labaree, 2008), there is no universal agenda that helps direct the professionalization of teacher educators. Moreover, because most teacher educators are former K-­12 teachers, there is a commonsense belief that former teachers with doctoral degrees intrinsically become good teacher educators (Brouwer & Korthagen, 2005). Problematically, in the pursuit of professionalization, most teacher educators often engage in self-­directed or self-­ guided professional development (Hadar & Brody, 2010). Fortunately, in the last decade, efforts have emerged within education schools to initiate the preparation and professional development of teacher educators during doctoral study. DOI: 10.4324/9781003365129-5

Preparing All Teacher Educators?  65

In this chapter, we explore a doctoral-­level course at Indiana University dedicated to developing the pedagogy of teacher educators. The course was guided by Loughran’s (2014) argument that teaching about teaching comprises (at least): a serious focus on pedagogy, conceptualizing teaching as being problematic, making the tacit nature of practice explicit (for oneself and others—especially students of teaching), developing a shared language of teaching and learning, and the ability to articulate principles of practice. (p. 275) Although Loughran’s argument for professionalizing teacher education has important implications for the professional development of all teacher educators, it is also important to recognize that the work of teacher educators is not monolithic. Our chapter highlights the challenges of preparing prospective teacher educators for these specialized roles from the perspective of doctoral students occupying different relationships with teacher education (a field-­based seminar instructor; a foundations course instructor; and a prospective teacher educator without a teacher education assignment). We begin with a brief overview of pedagogy of the teacher education seminar offered at Indiana University. Afterward, three doctoral students share vignettes of their experience of the course from their perspective as emerging teacher educators occupying different roles in our teacher education program. We conclude with a series of questions that our chapter raises for the conception of “pedagogy” in teacher education and how that conception fails to account for the specialized work that exists in teacher education. Ultimately, we hope that this chapter stimulates conversations about what it means to develop a pedagogy of teacher education during doctoral study. Alex: Contextualizing the Pedagogy of Teacher Education Seminar

In the fall of 2021, I (Alex, a faculty member at Indiana University) taught J700, Teaching and Teacher Education, one of four courses in our doctoral minor in teacher education at Indiana University. Students in J700 read scholarship on topics such as becoming a teacher educator (e.g., Murray & Male, 2005; Williams, Ritter, & Bullock, 2012); the diverse identities of teacher educators (e.g., Kitchen, 2014; Vellanki & Prince, 2018); what it means to enact a pedagogy of teacher education (e.g., Korthagen, 2016; Loughran, 2006); the practices and routines teacher educators use in university-­based (e.g., Forzani, 2014; Loughran & Berry, 2005) and field-­ based settings (e.g., Cuenca, 2010; Oliver & Oesterreich, 2013); and ways

66  Alexander Cuenca et al.

to research teacher education (e.g., Loughran, 2007; Ritter & Quiñones, 2020). Each week, students were asked to write short reflections that considered how course readings influenced their professional development as teacher educators. Throughout the semester, students also created case studies of their pedagogical practice and analyzed assignments they created (or would create) as teacher educators. The capstone assignment for the course was either an autobiographical study or self-­study proposal focused on a problem they encountered as novice teacher educators. The design of J700 was based on my experiences as a doctoral student and my understanding of the literature on the professional development of teacher educators during doctoral study. As a doctoral student, I participated in seminars that focused on “problems of practice” for novice teacher educators and the development of a pedagogy of teacher education. These courses helped me map the terrain of teacher education research, develop new conceptual and pedagogical tools for teacher education, and provided me with a language for teacher education (Conklin, 2015; Dinkelman et al., 2012). More specifically, the seminars provided an opportunity to examine my induction into teacher education and manage the transition from teacher-­to-­teacher educator (Williams et al., 2012; Wood & Borgs, 2010). My goals for J700 were also derived from other research that has identified how seminars help doctoral students reflect on their emerging identities as teacher educators (Butler et al., 2014; Gregory et al., 2017), explore the conceptual and pedagogical tools of teacher educators (Conklin, 2020; Kosnik et al., 2011), and navigate the social and political landscape of higher education (Hollins et al., 2014). Eight doctoral students were enrolled in J700 from various academic backgrounds. Some students were serving as independent course instructors or field experience supervisors as part of their financial support package, others were apprenticing in teacher education courses with mentor faculty, and a handful were not working with pre-­service teachers. The unique tension we identify in this chapter is this range of “teacher educator” that existed in a teacher education seminar designed to promote professional development for all teacher educators. Arguably, “teacher educator” is an ambiguous concept. According to the Association of Teacher Educators, the simplest way to define a teacher educator is anyone who educates teachers. However, because the curriculum of teacher education requires teacher educators to prepare teachers with diverse theories, concepts, principles, and tools in diverse settings such as university-­based courses or field experiences (Darling-­Hammond & Bransford, 2007), pinpointing the kind of professional development activities that all kinds of teacher educators need in a doctoral seminar can be paradoxical. For example, the language and pedagogical tools that field

Preparing All Teacher Educators?  67

instructors need to assess candidate quality or support how candidates learn in school-­based settings (e.g., Cuenca, 2013) are distinct from the language and pedagogical tools that a methods course instructor or a foundations course instructor needs to support how teachers learn to teach (e.g., Peercy & Troyan, 2017). In this chapter, we take a closer look at how occupying specialized roles as teacher educators influences the learning outcomes in a pedagogy of teacher education seminar. Below, we offer vignettes of the experiences of three doctoral students who occupied a different relationship with teacher education while enrolled in J700. The first vignette is written by Ryan, a doctoral student in social studies education and former middle school social studies teacher in California, working as a teacher educator in a field-­based seminar in social studies education during J700. The second vignette is written by Chelsea, a doctoral student in teacher education and curriculum studies and former music teacher in Indiana working as a teacher educator in our teaching in a pluralistic society course, a foundations course designed to provide teacher candidates with foundational knowledge for teaching in a multicultural society. The third vignette is written by Mariah, a full-­time doctoral student in social studies education and former middle school social studies teacher in Indiana, who did not have instructional responsibilities during J700. After these vignettes, we discuss the differences and similarities across these three experiences and raise important questions about how to develop the “teacher educator” in the pedagogy of a teacher education seminar, when teacher educator can mean different things to different novice teacher educators. Ryan: The Pedagogy of Teacher Education Seminar as a Field Instructor

It sounds naïve now, but I thought becoming a teacher educator would be easier. I had seven years of experience as a social studies teacher, more than the minimum three years that is often required, and a host of other experiences leading teacher professional development and presenting at conferences. But when I taught my first undergraduate courses, I immediately ran into some difficulties. I quickly discovered that my emphasis on high-­ engagement strategies did not prompt deeper levels of reflection on the tensions of teaching. Also, my classroom experiences did not carry as much weight as I expected. I realized that I could not just stand in front of my students and tell them to teach as I had done. Teacher education was a much more complex and ambiguous process than I expected it to be. I survived my first year mainly by mimicking my fellow instructors and relying on anecdotes from my time in the classroom to establish credibility with my students. As I wrapped up my first year, I knew I needed something deeper if I was to survive in this profession.

68  Alexander Cuenca et al.

Going into my second year as a doctoral student, I was excited to take “Teaching in Teacher Education” with Alex. The syllabus promised to emphasize “the pedagogical approaches used by university-­based teacher educators,” satisfying both academic interests and practical needs. While taking this course, I was the instructor of an early field experience seminar for social studies students. I taught a weekly, two-­hour class with approximately thirty social studies education majors and also observed each of them teach a lesson in a K-­12 classroom. As I saw it, there was a one-­to-­one correlation between the content of this doctoral seminar and the course I was teaching. Everything I learned in the seminar seemed to apply directly to my work with teacher candidates. I resolved to make my early field experience course a lab where I could experiment with the emerging pedagogy of teacher education I was studying in my seminar with Alex. The doctoral seminar covered a variety of topics, but the main takeaway for me was the development of a pedagogy of teacher education grounded in the work of John Loughran. According to Loughran (2006), teacher education is “teaching about teaching” (p. 6). Teaching about teaching is complicated because it requires the teacher to operate on two different levels: the content and the nature of the teaching itself. To accomplish this work, teachers must go beyond the traditional notion of modeling, “unpacking teaching in ways that gives students access to the pedagogical reasoning, uncertainties, and dilemmas of practice that are inherent in understanding teaching as being problematic” (p.6). An important aspect of this work is making tacit knowledge explicit. Drawing on Lortie’s idea of the apprenticeship of observation, Loughran (2006) argues that teacher educators must make the underlying purpose of teaching explicit for teacher candidates, otherwise they will simply view growth in teaching as the accumulation of discrete skills and strategies. I quickly began to explore ways to teach about teaching and make tacit knowledge explicit in my weekly seminars. To accomplish this work, I turned to a tool we use in our seminar: a pedagogical toolbox form. Each week, my students were expected to fill out a pedagogical toolbox form about a strategy they observed during their field observations. The pedagogical toolbox helped students make elements of the lesson explicit by prompting them to describe the strategy, explain how it was implemented, and identify positive aspects of the lesson along with obstacles to its implementation. The form also required students to pose possible changes they might make if they were to implement this strategy in their classrooms. My idea was to use this form to make the teaching in my weekly classes explicit. In one lesson, I recreated an effective gallery walk lesson I used in my classroom and had the students participate in the lesson as students. After the lesson, students analyzed it using the pedagogical toolbox form. When

Preparing All Teacher Educators?  69

we analyzed their responses in a whole class discussion, I used their proposed modifications to identify choices I had considered and changes I had made in the lesson over time. In another lesson, I broke the class up into small groups to engage in a Socratic Seminar. Again, the students reflected on my implementation of this strategy, allowing me to disclose the planning process that went into designing that lesson. Students also used this tool to reflect on their own teaching in the class. At the beginning of the course, I broke the class up into three groups, assigning each one to read a different book on classroom management. Midway through the semester, the three groups took turns giving presentations on their books. Each presentation concluded with a performance task that generated individual student work samples. During the following week’s lesson, we did an activity where the groups assessed these collected samples according to a four-­point, then a three-­point, and then a one-­point rubric. For each rubric, I had the groups share out how the rubric enabled them to sort student work and recorded the responses on the board. By the end of the activity, the students were able to see how different rubrics resulted in sorting the same student samples in different ways. This prompted a discussion about the complexities of teaching and the decisions teachers need to make. Across these activities, I experienced week-­by-­week affirmations of what I was learning in my doctoral seminar. This created a recursive feedback loop that benefitted both settings. Insights from my doctoral seminar prompted me to try new things in my undergrad course, and the results of these experiments prompted me to see deeper insights in my readings for my doctoral seminar. As optimistic as it sounds now, this was a messy process. My first mistake was looping in one of my doctoral classmates into this process. Mariah, a first-­year doctoral student, expressed that she missed teaching and that the readings in our doctoral seminar were mostly abstract for her, whereas for me they were consistently practical. I invited her to do what I was doing – bring in a favorite lesson and teach it to my students to see what teacher education was like. Her lesson was a huge hit with my students. When she was done, I proceeded as usual, passing out the pedagogical toolbox forms and leading the class in a dissection of the lesson. However, I gave Mariah no warning that we would be doing this. This process caught her off-­guard and was quite uncomfortable for her. I only found this out later, and she still has not let me forget! I made the “no-­duh” realization that this work is highly vulnerable and requires trust, openness, and understanding from all parties involved. I should have known better because I found the dissection process quite uncomfortable myself. I wrestled throughout the semester with a tension between my desire to establish credibility as a teacher educator and my

70  Alexander Cuenca et al.

desire to engage in the vulnerable work of teaching about teaching. If I exposed my thinking to my students, would they be unimpressed? If I admitted to my students that I did not know the answers, would that lower my credibility in their eyes? Would this work establish my credibility even further and create an atmosphere of welcomed vulnerability? I could not resolve these tensions during that semester. In fact, I still wrestle with the desire for both credibility and vulnerability as I establish my identity as a teacher educator. While it is an imperfect process, I am grateful I now have a theoretical framework that guides my lesson planning, the way I frame questions, and the objectives I set for my students. Informed by the theories I gained from this course, especially the readings by Loughran and Lortie, I am better able to find peace in the discomfort of teacher education. This doctoral seminar helped me to develop a deeper, theoretical appreciation of teacher education that goes beyond the high-­ engagement strategies and anecdotes I was eager to share when I first became an instructor. Chelsea: The Pedagogy of Teacher Education Seminar as a Foundations Course Instructor

Diving deep into teacher education and what that means was a unique experience for me. Coming into my program, I had not even heard of the term “teacher educator,” so it was a big surprise when I found out that I was considered one. I am a prior music educator, so I differed from my peers because I did not take the “traditional” route to becoming a teacher despite being in a “traditional” music education program. Because of that, my experiences landed me in the role of teaching a foundations course. Required for all undergraduate students, this course was the main “diversity” course that covered a range of social issues and how teachers can address and counter systems of oppression. I was in my third semester of teaching the diversity course when I took the teacher education course. Between teaching that course and my previous classroom experience, I thought I had plenty of experiences to relate to in Alex’s course. However, as the semester went on, I still felt out of place, as if I did not belong. It was difficult for me to view myself as a “teacher educator” because I felt I lacked particular skills compared to my peers. Additionally, I felt that what I was experiencing in my assigned teaching course did not align with the kind of reflection I was expected to engage in. The entire semester, I tried to navigate these conflicts and relate my experiences as best as I could, but was often left with many questions. Through reflecting on previous course discussions, I aim to outline some key struggles and questions that repeatedly surfaced.

Preparing All Teacher Educators?  71

One of the most difficult connections to the course was coming to terms with being a “teacher educator.” My background experiences as a teacher did not quite prepare me for what I would be expected to do. I was inexperienced and yet I had this great responsibility to teach my students about pressing social issues that their students will face. I had taken a “diversity” course before, but not since 2014. I felt that I did not have a reliable image or vision of what successfully teaching this course looked like. Because of this, I experienced a bit of an identity crisis and it never fully recovered, even going into my second year of teaching. Identity-­shifting and socialization was a major topic in the teacher education course for a few weeks and in this discussion, I wrote how my position as a doctoral student prevented me from identifying as a teacher educator: I…think that tying our jobs as teacher educators to the job title of “associate instructor” or “teaching assistant” actually hinders this socialization process and believing that we are teachers. We are in this stage of being stuck in the middle as a “doctoral student who also teaches undergraduates.” I might describe myself as a “teacher” because I am literally teaching four times a week, but I cannot say for certain that I identify as one. Perhaps this is because the courses I take are not directly involved with my teaching…or because the stakes are so high…this might be a personal struggle for me, but it certainly affects my ability to identify myself as a teacher educator, a term I feel is more appropriate for a more veteran grad student or even a faculty member. As a novice teacher educator, we are a novice assumed to be an expert. This resulted in the ultimate form of impostor syndrome due to my inexperience as a teacher educator as well as my inexperience teaching a foundations course. Much of the teacher education course focused on teacher education pedagogy, which, to me, assumed that preparing teacher candidates in general comes with particular methods. But because I was teaching a foundations course, it was difficult for me to think of a particular “method” I would rely on to teach, unlike my peers who taught methods courses. My conception of the course I taught was that it should be discussion-­based to allow my students to share their opinions and ideologies in a space free from judgment. However, when I took this teacher education course, I could not help but think to myself that I must be doing something wrong because I am not engaging in the same practices and methods as my classmates. Additionally, I did not think our classroom discussions and reflections applied to me. I thought: am I doing something wrong? Am I doing my students an utter

72  Alexander Cuenca et al.

disservice? Am I supposed to share with them why I am doing what I am doing? If this is not the right way to teach these topics, what is the right way? Instead of teaching with a “method,” I taught by relying on my personal experiences because, ultimately, this is how many of my students engaged with topics of diversity and social justice: I don’t really teach with a Theory (episteme), but a theory (phronesis)… how applicable [are] strategies and procedures like modeling or unpacking my teaching moves (Loughran & Berry, 2005) in a non-­methods course… Because of that, I find it personally difficult to conceptualize these strategies and procedures in the current class I teach. At this point of the class, I was beginning to realize that my work is much different than the work of my classmates. I questioned the validity and relevance of my contributions. I wondered if experience was enough if I did not have a method or theory to back up the decisions I make in my teaching? Despite my discomfort, I still felt that my teaching choices were the right ones because they fit the context of a diversity course: I had to teach myself to understand the course material and utilize it in a way that made sense to my students. Being a teacher educator also meant that I should try to conceptualize a theory of teaching. Loughran (2007) contrasted a Theory (episteme) with a theory (phronesis). The former describes objective knowledge that can apply to many situations and problems while the latter describes practical wisdom and experiences. In the case of [my course], being a teacher educator meant teaching with a theory rather than a Theory because I simply did not know any Theories that I felt comfortable using in the classroom. Instead, I was comfortable relying on experiences to help put particular topics in context for my students. Moreover, my students could contribute their own experiences as well. I thought that teaching students to recognize oppression and the differences their students may face did not necessitate explicating a particular teaching method. As such, I did not perceive a need to help my students name, model, or practice a particular pedagogical approach, nor did I believe I needed to unpack or defend my choice to rely on classroom discussion as a means of helping students engage with the lives and perspectives of marginalized and diverse communities. Throughout the course, I was stuck between wondering if I was in the right place or if I was meant to have a different experience and perspective. I constantly questioned my choices and wondered if I had what it took to be a teacher educator. Yet despite my background, I was always met with support from peers and professors who reminded me that I was where I belonged.

Preparing All Teacher Educators?  73

Mariah: The Pedagogy of a Teacher Education Course as a Prospective Teacher Educator

In fall 2021, I was a first-­year doctoral student and prospective teacher educator. I had no clue who, what, or where I was in this new role. My first year came without teaching responsibilities because I was on a scholarship, although I was enrolled in the seminar. The course had both prospective and current teacher educators enrolled. By prospective, I am referring to an individual who has not yet taught teacher candidates. Most of my classmates were currently field experiences and foundations instructors, and I felt that our seminar resonated more with their experiences. Through my narrative, I aim to showcase the perspective of a prospective teacher educator in contrast to the dominant narrative of current teacher educators and how I made sense of teacher education in this context. I made sense of the concepts introduced in the seminar to the themes of identity, reflective practices, and collaboration, developed by Butler et al. (2014) to determine the impact of a teacher education seminar on current and prospective teacher educators. Participation in this course heightened my confidence as a growing teacher educator, awareness of the support of a collaborative community, and the importance of critical reflection. Hopefully, this will allow me to contribute meaningfully to the field in the future. One of my initial feelings at the beginning of this seminar was that I was going through an identity crisis. Before my journey as a doctoral student and prospective teacher educator, I was an accoladed social studies teacher in the state. At first, I still felt confident in my teaching abilities. After two weeks though, I was beginning to feel a large disconnect between theoretical discussions and the reality of classrooms. It was hard for me to conceptualize theory into practice, and I feared imposter syndrome. During that transition, I wrote: Being a first-­year graduate student starting last week, it has been hard to accept my new role in higher education versus my old identity as a middle school social studies teacher. I responded with a “YES!” to this quote, ‘I felt de-­skilled—it was as if all my years of teaching experience had fallen away and I was left feeling inadequate and exposed in this strange new world’ (Murray & Male, 2005, p. 130). These readings felt like the first time I ever took a psychology course and realized all my experiences and thoughts are ‘textbook.’ However, instead of spiraling into the self-­doubt of imposter syndrome, that week in class, we discussed the evolution of teacher identities and that it can take two-­to-­three years for teachers to acclimate to their new roles

74  Alexander Cuenca et al.

and responsibilities (Murray & Male, 2005). It helped me see that role confusion is normal, because my situational context had changed, affecting the way I thought about my past teaching experiences. The course gave me space to see that my emotions were normal and to trust the process. I also realized that despite a shift in my identity, I needed to be vulnerable. Ryan asked me to be a guest speaker in his field-­methods course. He asked if I could model a lesson plan that I had used in my classroom for teacher candidates. Initially, I was excited to embrace the school teacher part of my identity. I wrote earlier in the course about how people encouraged my decision to pursue teacher education: “Wow, that is perfect for you with your accolades! Future teachers will learn so much from you!” I felt this would help me get rid of the feelings Loughran (2007) describes as “tag of ex-­school teacher” (p. 13). During the activity, teacher candidates engaged with the lesson I designed which included a simulation and discussion. Afterward, they reflected on the lesson and remarked on effective strategies and areas for improvement. I wrote after that experience: “The students liked the lesson and gave great remarks on what resonated with them. However, I was also surprised though by all their comments for areas for enhancement. As an accoladed teacher, I felt knocked down a peg.”. This experience forced me to consider the craft of teacher education and that it should not be dictating prospective teachers to teach, manage, and relate in the same ways that I taught, managed, and related (Cuenca, 2010). As Loughran (2006) states, pre-­service teachers “need to be able to see and hear the pedagogical reasoning that underpins the teaching they are experiencing” (p. 5). Ultimately, to make the tacit explicit using theory, I must be vulnerable to them. Before, I never reflected on the process of having pre-­service teachers develop their own unique teaching identities. Although I always valued reflective practices, this was something I never considered. Becoming reacquainted with theoretical frameworks forced me to reflect on advice I gave to student teachers and novice educators I mentored when I was a schoolteacher. In one of the critical reactions posts I shared: Becoming reacquainted with theoretical frameworks forced me to reflect on advice I gave to student teachers and novice educators I mentored. Often, myself and their university supervisors would give advice referring to similar cases of what we would do in our classrooms but not having them find their own answers grounded in theory. Our case studies did more harm than good. I began to reflect that I must use research to inform my practice to pre-­ service teachers to form their own unique teaching identities.

Preparing All Teacher Educators?  75

The seminar helped me conceptualize the shift that occurs in pre-­service teachers’ identity. Unlike other professions, teacher candidates are already familiar with classrooms and have ideas regarding the kind of teacher they hope to become (Loughran, 2007). Teacher candidates’ evolving educational philosophies will be challenged when we have them observe classroom teachers who were trained under different theoretical and epistemological approaches to teaching. Loughran (2007) warns that teacher candidates might think that their newly developed ideas of teaching are not ideal and shift back to teaching in ways that are not engaging and simply bookwork. I began to consider how we can have pre-­service teachers strongly consider their own teaching mission using students’ inquiries (Loughran, 2007; Oliver & Oesterreich, 2013). Oliver and Oesterreich (2013) explain how they revamped their field experiences course after examining pre-­service teachers’ inquiry notes from questions that arose during field experience observations. After discussing this in our seminar I wrote: I plan to use this practice as it has teacher educators and pre-­service teachers together use inquiry practice. I also plan to have students maintain a journal and develop their own self-­studies to help pre-­ service teachers reflect and question their decisions in the classroom using theory as their evidence. Rather than give teacher candidates a laundry list of how to teach, I began to analyze how, in my teaching practice, I can help them develop their own teaching philosophies. At the beginning of the course, I viewed collaboration with my peers fearfully. In a critical post, I responded to Williams et al.’s (2012) analysis that the nature of teacher educators is “a competitive professional environment rather than a collegial one” (p. 251). I wrote: “Before these readings, I was starting to have that worry in my studies… I was feeling loneliness and isolation in this new journey.” However, in our seminar we discussed that teacher education does not have to feel this way and can be a space to grow and have professional development. Teacher education can be a space where we all learn from one another and can help with role confusion and identity development (Butler et al., 2014; Pinnegar & Hamilton, 2015). From being in this space, I realized that my classmates are growing just as much as I am. Through our conversations, I realized that teacher education is about constant reflection to improve our craft. My classmates taught me more about the structure of our undergraduate program. They confided their own classroom experiences they perceived as failures. This not only gave me a toolbox of strategies for

76  Alexander Cuenca et al.

ways to overcome future issues but allowed me to see we all are imperfect and not to be too hard on ourselves. Ultimately, I felt more confident moving into a community of teacher educators and wrote in my last critical post: “We all have different courses we teach and different responsibilities. What are ways we all can continue to come together after this course to have collective research inquiries?” I am looking forward to continued collaboration with my classmates to create meaningful improvements in our teaching and opportunities to contribute to research journals in the field of teacher education. This way we can improve the quality of teacher candidates entering the profession because their motivations start with us. All Novice Teacher Educators Are Not the Same

On the surface, it is easy to consider J700 a success. The stories from Ryan, Chelsea, and Mariah detail sophisticated reflections about the nature of teacher education, a command of the language of teacher education, and attentiveness to the identity shift between teacher and teacher educator. These outcomes clearly aligned with Alex’s desired goals for the seminar. However, a closer look at the vignettes also reveals how these outcomes were also highly dependent on the students’ relationship with teacher education at the time of the seminar. Ryan’s vignette illustrates the most classic example of the potential of the pedagogy of teacher education seminar. His vignette demonstrates a recursive developmental loop between the seminar and his social studies field experience course. Ryan’s experiences in the seminar provided him with confirmations and disconfirmations of his emerging understandings about teacher education because his context as a former social studies teacher working with social studies teacher candidates seeking discrete pedagogical knowledge worked in concert. This kind of harmony helped him identify and address professional tensions and contradictions as a teacher education pedagogue. Chelsea, on the other hand, struggled with conceptions of “who” is a teacher educator as she attempted to create recursive professional loops between the seminar and her foundations course. Her struggle with the “method” of teacher education is illuminating because unlike Ryan, for Chelsea, there were disconnects across her prior experiences as a classroom teacher and the substance of the course she was teaching, and a foundations course and the pedagogy of teacher education course. Helping teacher candidates recognize how oppression operates in schools and how to dismantle oppression in their own teaching requires different kinds of conceptual and pedagogical tools as a teacher educator that were difficult to locate in the seminar.

Preparing All Teacher Educators?  77

Finally, Mariah, as a prospective teacher educator also provides important insights into the relationship between one’s position as a teacher educator and the value of a pedagogy of teacher education seminar. Mariah’s vignette offers a window into what speculative teacher education looks like. As teacher educators, we are familiar with speculation since this work requires us to prepare candidates for future work with students. For Mariah, the value of the seminar resided in the future-­casting that course content allowed her to imagine. This kind of speculative teacher education development clearly helped reconcile her transition from teacher to prospective teacher educator. The seminar ultimately raised important questions about belonging (Chelsea), vulnerability (Ryan), and transition (Mariah) likely experienced by many novice teacher educators. However, because of the distinct relationship that each doctoral student had with teacher education, the takeaways from the course varied. Ryan, as a field experience instructor, found value from the conversations around “modeling” and “making the tacit explicit” because he was able to reflect upon and translate these ideas directly into a teacher education space designed to prepare candidates for instructional practice. It was clear to Ryan how his modeling of practice would influence the practices of his candidates. Contrastingly, the ideas of “modeling” and “making the tacit explicit” remained abstract for Chelsea because modeling instructional practices or strategies seemed unrelated to the goals of a foundations course focused on highlighting structural oppression. Mariah accepted these ideas to help her recognize how she would engage with candidates in the future. In some respects, curiosity with modeling and making the tacit explicit is what motivated Mariah to model a lesson in Ryan’s field experience course. Although Mariah noted some challenges associated with modeling, she also made sense of the value of the conversations in the pedagogy of teacher education seminar on modeling and making the tacit explicit like Ryan, useful when aligning the teacher educator practices with future pre-­service teacher practices. Conclusion: Considerations for the Teacher Education Seminar

In some respects, the lessons of this chapter are not exactly shocking. Depending on the students’ relationship with teacher education, a seminar on teacher education will be interpreted in unique and sometimes divergent ways. However, given that teacher education seminars are becoming more prevalent (e.g., Butler et al., 2014; Conklin, 2020; Feiman-­Nemser, 2013) in doctoral-­granting institutions, the framing of how teacher educators are prepared for the complex and nuanced work of teacher education is distinct. The impetus for helping novice doctoral students develop a pedagogy of teacher education is that that pedagogies learned will be useful for them as

78  Alexander Cuenca et al.

future teacher educators. From this framing however, the pedagogical development of doctoral students that is most useful exists when there is a direct relationship between the practice of the teacher educator and the future practices of pre-­service teachers. If we trace the idea of a “pedagogy of teacher education” to the foundational work of John Loughran (2006), this relationship becomes evident. According to Loughran (2006): In teaching and learning about teaching, the content, or subject matter, comprises at least the “theoretical” aspects of the “knowledge” of teaching (some might describe it as the discipline of teaching). Typically, much of this subject matter is distilled and offered through some form of curriculum … and is what Russell (1997) has described as the content turn in teacher education. However, an issue that is often easily overlooked in teaching and learning about teaching is the concurrent need to also pay careful attention to the practices employed in presenting the subject matter – the pedagogical turn (Russell, 1997). Hence, for both the teacher and the student of teaching, ongoing and conflicting roles continually complicate the competing agendas of teaching and learning about teaching. Not only must both teachers and students of teaching pay careful attention to the subject matter being taught, they must also simultaneously pay attention to the manner in which that knowledge is being taught; and both must overtly be embraced in a pedagogy of teacher education. (pp. 3–4, emphasis in original) From this framing, the pedagogical turn relies on the teacher educator paying attention to the ways that subject matter is being taught for the benefit of how a teacher candidate might appropriate the methods of teaching. Access to teacher educator thinking – making the tacit explicit – benefits the pre-­service because they can learn to recognize the kinds of thoughtfulness required in every act of teaching. Although attention to the pedagogy of teacher education is often overlooked and an important aspect of the development of novice teacher educators, in a teacher education seminar, the assumption that all teacher educators will need to develop a pedagogy that makes the tacit explicit is limited. The unspecified framing of the pedagogical insights a novice teacher educator needs by Alex in J700 is why the outcomes of the course were dependent on the relationship of doctoral students with teacher education. Ryan, as a field experience instructor, appropriated Loughran (2006) quite easily because his context was consonant. Mariah imagined herself from the perspective during the seminar as a methods or field experience instructor, and Chelsea recognized that candidates’ explicit attention to how they were being taught meant little to their understanding of the subject matter that was being communicated in a foundations course.

Preparing All Teacher Educators?  79

What we ask for those conducting, entertaining, or researching a teacher education seminar is to consider how doctoral students’ positions matter in the development of a pedagogy of teacher education. Our experience demonstrates both positive outcomes, reinforced by the research literature (Gregory et al., 2017; Dinkelman et al., 2012; Kosnik et al., 2011) and more nuanced outcomes that require more attention. When considering the pedagogy of teacher education, researchers and faculty must also consider how the relationship with teacher education influences outcomes. A closer examination will lead us closer to determining the best ways to prepare future teacher educators for the demanding and rewarding work of teacher education.

References Brouwer, N., & Korthagen, F. (2005). Can teacher education make a difference? American Educational Research Journal, 42(1), 153–224. Butler, B. M., Burns, E., Frierman, C., Hawthorne, K., Innes, A., & Parrott, J. A. (2014). The impact of a pedagogy of teacher education seminar on educator and future teacher educator identities. Studying Teacher Education, 10(3), 255–274. Conklin, H. G. (2015). Preparing novice teacher educators in the pedagogy of teacher education. Action in Teacher Education, 37(4), 317–333. Conklin, H. G. (2020). The preparation of novice teacher educators for critical, justice-­oriented teacher education: A longitudinal exploration of formal study in the pedagogy of teacher education. Teachers and Teaching, 26(7–8), 491–507. Cuenca, A. (2010). In loco paedagogus: The pedagogy of a novice university supervisor. Studying Teacher Education, 6(1), 29–43. Cuenca, A. (Ed.). (2013). Supervising student teachers: Issues, perspectives and future directions. Brill. Darling-­Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (Eds.). (2007). Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. John Wiley & Sons. Dinkelman, T., Cuenca, A., Butler, B., Elfer, C., Ritter, J., Powell, D., & Hawley, T. (2012). The influence of a collaborative doctoral seminar on emerging teacher educator-­researchers. Action in Teacher Education, 34(2), 172–190. Feiman-­Nemser, S. (2013). The role of experience in the education of teacher educators. In M. Ben-­Peretz (Ed.), Teacher educators as members of an evolving profession (pp. 189–209). Rowman & Littlefield. Forzani, F. M. (2014). Understanding “core practices” and “practice-­based” teacher education: Learning from the past. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(4), 357–368. Gregory, K. H., Diacopoulos, M. M., Branyon, A., & Butler, B. M. (2017). From skepticism to scholarship: Learning and living self-­study research in a doctoral seminar. Studying Teacher Education, 13(3), 257–274. Hadar, L., & Brody, D. (2010). From isolation to symphonic harmony: Building a professional development community among teacher educators. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(8), 1641–1651. Hollins, E. R., Luna, C., & Lopez, S. (2014). Learning to teach teachers. Teaching Education, 25(1), 99–124.

80  Alexander Cuenca et al.

Kitchen, J. (2014). Inqueeries into self-­study: Queering the gaze on teacher educator identity and practice. In M. Taylor & L. Coia (Eds.), Gender, feminism, and queer theory in the self-­study of teacher education practices (pp. 127–141). Brill. Korthagen, F. A. (2016). Pedagogy of teacher education. In J. Loughran & M. L. Hamilton (Eds.), International handbook of teacher education (pp. 311–346). Springer. Kosnik, C., Cleovoulou, Y., Fletcher, T., Harris, T., McGlynn-­Stewart, M., & Beck, C. (2011). Becoming teacher educators: An innovative approach to teacher educator preparation. Journal of Education for Teaching, 37(3), 351–363. Labaree, D. F. (2008). An uneasy relationship: The history of teacher education in the university. In M. Cochran-­Smith, S. Feiman-­Nemser, D. J. McIntyre, & K. E. Demers (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 290–306). Routledge. Loughran, J. (2006). Developing a pedagogy of teacher education: Understanding teaching and learning about teaching. Taylor & Francis. 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. 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(2), 193–203. Murray, J., & Male, T. (2005). Becoming a teacher educator: Evidence from the field. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(2), 125–142. Oliver, K. L., & Oesterreich, H. A. (2013). Student-­centered inquiry as curriculum as a model for field-­based teacher education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 45(3), 394–417. 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. Pinnegar, S. E., & Hamilton, M. L. (2015). Knowing, becoming, doing as teacher educators: Identity, intimate scholarship, inquiry. Emerald Group Publishing. Ritter, J. K., & Quiñones, S. (2020). Where do I begin? Entry points of self-­study. In J. Kitchen, A. Berry, S. M. Bullock, A. R. Crowe, M. Taylor, H. Guðjónsdóttir & L. Thomas (Eds.), International handbook of self-­study of teaching and teacher education (pp. 1–37). Springer. Russell, T. (1997). Teaching teachers: How I teach IS the message. In J. Loughran & T. Russell (Eds.), Teaching about teaching: Purpose, passion and pedagogy in teacher education (pp. 32–47). Falmer Press. Vellanki, V., & Prince, S. P. (2018). Where are the “people like me”?: A collaborative autoethnography of transnational lives and teacher education in the US. The Teacher Educator, 53(3), 313–327. Williams, J., Ritter, J., & Bullock, S. M. (2012). Understanding the complexity of becoming a teacher educator: Experience, belonging, and practice within a professional learning community. Studying Teacher Education, 8(3), 245–260. Wood, D., & Borg, T. (2010). The rocky road: The journey from classroom teacher to teacher educator. Studying Teacher Education, 6(1), 17–28.

6 UNPACKING PRACTICE Teaching, While Learning, a Pedagogy of Teacher Education Brandon M. Butler

My journey in understanding the pedagogy of teacher education (PTE) began as a doctoral student. After several years of teaching in a secondary school setting, I enrolled at the University of Georgia in 2005. However, my first few years in my doctoral program were part-­time and I was focused on investigating my discipline (social studies) from a curricular and historical perspective. It was not until I transitioned to full-­time status as a doctoral student in 2007 that I became interested in teacher education as a field of study but also as a discipline unto itself. I was suddenly supervising student teachers at local school sites and teaching undergraduate students about social studies curriculum and instructional strategies. In that first year, I felt at a loss as I was implementing what one of my fellow doctoral students, Alex, identified as “in loco paedagogus” – the act of using one’s personal teaching experience as the lens through which they educate their teacher candidates (Cuenca, 2010). Heading into my second year full-­time (2008–2009), our program coordinator – Todd Dinkelman – introduced my fellow doctoral students and I to a recently published book – John Loughran’s (2006) Developing a Pedagogy of Teacher Education: Understanding Teaching and Learning about Teaching. We engaged in a book study of John’s work across that academic year. I found the book and its ideas complex but enlightening. I reflected on moments in my practice as a developing teacher educator where I had intuitively enacted aspects of a pedagogy of teacher educator, and moments where I went against ideas and practices that went against a PTE. But, in reading that book, I suddenly had access to a language that centered the questions I had about my identities and practices as a teacher and teacher educator. DOI: 10.4324/9781003365129-6

82  Brandon M. Butler

That heavily annotated book rarely left my side as I completed my doctoral program. It grounded my teaching of future teachers, and it provided a frame of reference for my burgeoning interest in self-­study research. I suddenly understood that the very act of teaching teachers (and teacher educators) how to teach (teachers) is a complicated endeavor (e.g., Dinkelman, 2011; Labaree, 2004). And, if I was to improve my practice as a teacher educator, I had to explicate and reflect upon my practice while encouraging others to reflect on theirs (Lunenberg, 2002). After graduating, I accepted a faculty position at Old Dominion University, a research university on the east coast of the United States. Although my position was aligned with the social studies discipline, I hoped to find ways to collaborate with colleagues and doctoral students in my interest of a PTE. That first year was plagued by issues likely experienced by many new faculty: learning a new institutional culture, new classes to teach, and undergraduate and graduate students with different life experiences and expectations than those I previously taught. At the time, the institutional culture was “traditional” in nature, focused on course “lectures,” quantitative research as the dominant mode of inquiry, and educational perspectives (i.e., social justice, democratic education, multiculturalism) that were noticeably absent for a large metropolitan university with a significant minority population. In my department, our doctoral program reflected these traditional approaches to teaching and scholarship. Much of the coursework doctoral students took was from outside the department, and those on full-­time assistantships received no preparation in how to prepare future teachers. Many doctoral students assumed they could teach education courses much the same way they taught primary and secondary students – the same assumption I had about my own practice as a doctoral student. Toward the end of that first year, I believed I could somewhat mitigate this reality, and the valid concerns raised by doctoral students about their preparation, by offering an elective course on teacher education. Discussions with senior faculty resulted in a summer special topics course – Pedagogy of Teacher Education (PTE). As I designed the course, I saw a need to combine two of my interest areas – teacher education and self-­study – so students could: (1) develop a knowledge base related to teacher education; (2) explore pedagogies of teacher education; and (3) conduct educational research and learn a research method (self-­study) not explored elsewhere in their research coursework. In the remainder of this chapter, I share experiences from teaching that doctoral-­level seminar centered heavily around Loughran’s (2006) work on a PTE. In the course, students learned and lived self-­study research methods to make sense of their developing identities as scholars and teacher

Unpacking Practice  83

educators. Collaborations with two sets of students in 2012 and 2015 produced a range of scholarship focused on their learning of self-­study and a PTE. In this chapter, I turn attention to how I developed my PTE by teaching PTE. I center my learning through three pedagogies of teacher education highlighted by Loughran (2006): disturbing practice, open-­mindedness, and uncertainty of practice. This is not to say that these were the only pedagogies present in my teaching, rather they represent important moments in my teaching and enactment of the course that highlight the challenge of learning and teaching a PTE. Each PTE I touch upon in this chapter reflects specific course experiences across two iterations of the course. This chapter provides insights into my personal experiences in learning how to teach emerging teacher educators. The process of teaching teacher educators is filled with uncertainty, unexpected and problematic moments, and sudden alterations to pedagogy and expectations. What is important is that experienced teacher educators explicate these experiences for emerging teacher educators so they learn from our experiences and can effectively teach others how to teach. In the next section, I provide an overview of the PTE course. This is followed by an exploration of the three pedagogies of teacher education I came to understand, and I conclude with implications and considerations for teacher educators who prepare the next generation of teacher educators. The Pedagogy of Teacher Education Seminar

I have taught a doctoral seminar focused on a PTE twice – first in 2012, and again in 2015. Both courses were centered on doctoral students developing a PTE while learning how to conduct self-­study research (Kitchen et al., 2020; Loughran et al., 2004). I have since led a revision of the course, now titled “Research and Practice in Teacher Education,” and it is part of a two-­ year rotation of courses that doctoral students in our curriculum and instruction doctoral program – and students across the university – can take to develop their understanding of teacher education research and practice. Although this revised course is part of our doctoral program experience, I focus on the first two iterations of the course (2012 and 2015) because that time period exemplifies my learning and application of “pedagogy of teacher education” as a concept worth scholarly exploration. Unintentionally, the PTE course has provided me with a wealth of scholarship and research collaborators, and set my career on its current path as a self-­study and teacher education scholar. I have written extensively about my experiences in the course (Butler, 2014, 2019, 2023) and in collaboration with students enrolled in the course about their professional learning (Branyon et al., 2022; Butler et al., 2014; Diacopoulos et al., 2022;

84  Brandon M. Butler

Gregory et al., 2017). In the latter studies, we found that participation in a doctoral seminar framed through PTE and self-­study book knowledge and craft knowledge (Russell et al., 2020) resulted in doctoral students’ development of scholarly identities tied to self-­study research (Gregory et al., 2017) and their development of teacher educator identities (Butler et al., 2014). We were also able to make some self-­study methodological claims linked to the importance of autobiographical work in creating self-­study communities of practice (Branyon et al., 2022) and guidelines for the self-­study learning journey (Diacopoulos et al., 2022). In my individual scholarship tied to my teaching of the course, I have considered its place in my ongoing professional learning (Butler, 2019) and the curricular design and enactment of the course (Butler, 2023). But it is my first study that lays the foundation for this chapter (Butler, 2014). In that piece, I explored what I learned from teaching the first iteration of the course in 2012. Specifically, I identified a few moments in my teaching of the seminar that highlighted the challenge of teaching emerging teacher educators. I extend on those moments in this chapter, taking into consideration my experiences with the 2015 iteration of the course. I have provided overviews of the PTE seminar in all these studies, sometimes quite extensively. For instance, in Butler (2023), the focus of that chapter is on the course curriculum and student learning experiences. If you, the reader, want substantive insights into how I designed and enacted the course, I recommend you read that chapter. Having already addressed the full curriculum and learning experiences in the course in a wide array of publications, I have chosen to provide a brief overview of the course here rather than the extensive accounting that could be read elsewhere. My approach to course design and enactment was informed by Williams et al.’s (2012) consideration of how teacher educator identity develops in three contexts: “personal and professional biography; institutional contexts and the nature of community; and the on-­going development of a personal pedagogy of teacher education” (p. 256). The course was situated in an institutional context that, at the time, was more favorable toward curriculum and instruction theories and practices – not teacher education. Rather than a full length course offered in fall or spring, I had to offer the course short-­session during summer – 12 meetings in all, held twice a week for six weeks. This influenced content coverage and learning outcomes I had identified. But, I also saw students who voluntarily enrolled in this elective course as members of a community of practice – a community that would collectively investigate shared problems of practice tied into the third context – the development of a personal PTE. Before we could develop said community, we first had to explore our respective personal and professional biographies. I drew on an assignment

Unpacking Practice  85

originally designed for teacher candidates (Bullough & Gitlin, 2001). However, I saw parallels between the act of becoming a teacher and becoming a teacher educator and thought the assignment an appropriate fit for the PTE course. In this assignment, students had to: Write an “education-­related” life history, a story of how you have come to teach[er education]. Describe how you came to your current decision to become a teacher [educator or to further your professional education and development as a classroom-­based teacher]. (Bullough & Gitlin, 2001, p. 26, assignment additions embedded) In addition to the autobiography, students completed reading responses for each class meeting and were required to post weekly journal responses (Cole & Knowles, 2000). I also engaged in reflective writing through a reflection-­ on-­ action assignment, the goal of which was to “force the individual engaged in reflection to expose his or her practice for personal or public critique and/or consumption” (course syllabus). I focused my reflections on personal feelings or interpretations of events in class, teachable moments lost, questions I still had about course content, etc. Students were required to respond to at least one reflection-­ on-­ action post each week and to respond to a peer’s response. My hope with this assignment was to model the challenges associated with developing a PTE and to provide insights into the uncertain nature of teaching itself. Additionally, my desire was to model reflection and to encourage dialogue and critique, which is often difficult for doctoral students to develop with course instructors. The final assignment evolved from what were initially individual self-­ studies of the students’ practice as educators or emerging teacher educators to a collaborative self-­study of how students’ identities as educators and teacher educators developed through participation in the seminar. Initially, the assignment required individual students to conduct self-­studies around questions of interest to them. However, as I highlight in this chapter, discussions in class and in individual conferences with students uncovered student uncertainty about their ability to conduct individual self-­studies in a short-­term course. Additionally, none of the students had previously conducted research and few had taken qualitative research courses at that point. Therefore, we determined as a class that the most appropriate assignment would use the students’ own work and class discussions as data. This was perhaps the best decision I ever made in a course and, to me, exemplified the importance of understanding and (actually) enacting your PTE. Over several weeks in the 2012 course, we collectively wrote and re-­ wrote a research question that would guide the course project: How did our identities as educators and/or future teacher educators and researchers

86  Brandon M. Butler

develop through participation in the PTE seminar (Butler et al., 2014)? In the 2015 course, we identified three separate research questions reflecting different learning outcomes tied to autobiography (Branyon et al., 2022), scholarly identity (Gregory et al., 2017), and self-­study learning guidelines (Diacopoulos et al., 2022). In both classes, I modeled qualitative data analysis techniques, which students then applied, and we collaboratively uncovered the themes that guided course work and activities. Students were required to produce a portion of a findings section in a mock manuscript of their developing theme. Upon conclusion of a course, each cohort revisited the findings and submitted them for conference presentations and publication, the aforementioned research outcomes. Unpacking My Pedagogy of Teacher Education

Having provided an overview of the course, in this section, I consider several pedagogies of teacher education, and the assumptions, challenges, and changes to practice I experienced as I grappled with making sense of my pedagogy and how I modeled – what I hoped were “appropriate” – pedagogies of teacher education for my doctoral students. Although students in each course were co-­researchers in their respective studies, in this chapter I use pseudonyms for all student names. Disturbing Practice: The Autobiography Assignment Disturbing practice “…brings to the surface the reasons (or lack thereof) for acting in a particular way at a particular time and it does so in a way that does not divorce feelings from the actions associated with the confrontation or challenge”. (Loughran, 2006, pp. 56–57)

In both sections of the PTE course, perhaps the most significant moment of disturbing practice occurred during the first week of class with the first assignment: the educational autobiography (Bullough & Gitlin, 2001). The assignment asked students to examine “unexamined beliefs about schooling, teaching, learning, and the self … that requires scrutiny” in a brief, two-­page paper (p. 23). Initially, my purpose for the assignment was that I wanted students to critically examine how they came to (teacher) education. After revising the final course project, the students’ autobiographies would also serve as “base-­line” data for further interrogation of biography throughout the class. I had hopes of eliciting openness and authenticity with the assignment. As such, I shared my educational autobiography with students several weeks before the start of class. I also believed that students would exhibit

Unpacking Practice  87

increased authenticity if they knew they would not be judged for the content of their autobiographies. My secondary aim was to provide an immediate modeling of practice. In other words, I wanted students to see the importance of sharing examples with their students of appropriate classwork. After students shared their autobiographies in the second class meeting of the 2012 course, I wrote in my reflection-­on-­action post that from my perspective I thought we learned a significant amount from each other and the assignment was a success: “What I learned about each of you from the assignment was more than I could have learned from conversation throughout the semester.” I was unaware that Karen, one of the students in the class, was ambivalent about the assignment until she replied: “I think it is likely most people approached [the assignment] more honestly than I did, as I’m not sure how much of what I wrote was honest and how much was sarcasm.” I was shocked, not because she expressed ambivalence about an assignment – that happens – but because what she shared was not entirely truthful. Perhaps naively, I had expected honesty and had not thought of the possibility of a doctoral student couching her writing in a way that would inhibit community development. Upon reading Karen’s response, I was disturbed but after some reflection, I responded with an explanation of why I included the assignment: I knew why I wanted to do the assignment – biography is important to how we interpret our practice and future experiences as educators. If we don’t consider and critique our biography, it is likely we won’t really change. So, I am glad Karen shared her own personal experience with the assignment. I definitely learned something. Although I had reason to include the assignment in the course, I had not explicated that reasoning to students when I shared the assignment the week before class started. As a result, some students were honest about their biographies while others like Karen held back. The experience reinforced the notion that reality often differs from expectation and that I must acknowledge those moments of disturbing practice and learn from them, and make use of them. In the 2012 course, we shared our autobiographies in the second class meeting by engaging in an open discussion that sought to identify shared underlying themes in our educational biographies. In contrast, in the 2015 course, I provided an explicit structure for debriefing our autobiographies in the first class meeting. Using an adapted version of a critical incident protocol (National School Reform Faculty, 2007), we spent much of that first meeting dissecting our autobiographies. In my reflection-­on-­action

88  Brandon M. Butler

post, I considered how different the assignment and our discussion of it felt from the previous course, noting, The first time I used the assignment was in the first iteration of this course. As a result, I was not sure how I would use it other than seeing the importance of engaging in some autobiographical writing because of how central biography is to self-­study. I also shared with this class my experiences with Karen and her lack of honesty with the assignment, noting how that experience informed my thinking about the assignment’s purpose and my use of it as an educational tool. I wrote, What I took away from that experience was that I needed to be more deliberate about my expectations for the assignment. I began using it in my methods and foundations courses, and being-­up front with students that there was no right or wrong answer, and they were welcome to share as much as they felt they could share as long as they were honest with themselves. I highlighted some of my successes and struggles with my use of the assignment. And I was honest with this group of doctoral students about the intent of the assignment, stating, I never intended for the autobiography to build a sense of community, at least deliberately. That is, until after [our] class meeting. I once again struggled with how to make sense of the autobiography assignment as I prepared for class. So, I went to a website I was exposed to about a month ago when I sought insight into critical friend groups. I continued sharing my exploration of the website and the various protocols they provided to support engagement and collaboration with others. Using the critical incident protocol for the first time, I wrote, I thought out of the 5 or 6 times I have done in-­class activities on the autobiography, that last night’s meeting provided the most substantive deliberation into student biography. From my perspective as instructor, I saw an interest from you as students in the critical incidents shared by your peers. There were meaningful questions posed and in-­depth discussions taking place. The assignment had started as an exercise in modeling biographical writing, and not much else. However, the experience with Karen and my subsequent

Unpacking Practice  89

attempts at finding clearer purpose, and strategies of enactment, for the autobiography assignment brought “to the surface the reasons (or lack thereof) for [my] acting in a particular way” regarding the assignment (Loughran, 2006, p. 56). By dissecting these disturbing practices related to the autobiography assignment, I was able to more fully appreciate the challenge I was experiencing, which necessitated the identification of a clear purpose and intent for the assignment, as well as finding a way to successfully lead a learning experience tied to the assignment. I earlier noted how the 2015 enactment of the autobiography assignment felt different. The students confirmed these feelings in their responses. Aubrey stated, “As the discussion revolved around our critical incidents, I saw interest, and I neither saw nor heard any judgment. Rather, I found myself engaging with other people interested in teaching.” Another student identified the benefit of a structured protocol, noting that it “was very helpful for us to pull out a critical incident and focus on that incident and its impact on us as teacher educators.” Matthew, the third student enrolled in the course, concurred, “What I gained from the experience… was that we got to explore an incident in more depth than we would usually do in our everyday interactions.” By engaging in open dialogue with teacher education doctoral students about the purpose and enactment of an assignment, I (and they) gained a deeper understanding of the inherent challenges that exist when preparing teachers and teacher educators. We will have expectations for assignments and activities that do not comport with reality. We will struggle in enacting our practice. But what matters is that when we are faced “with the confrontation or challenge” (Loughran, 2006, p. 57), that we are open and honest with ourselves and our students about what disturbs us in our practice, and that we collectively seek the best solution. In this space, the solution was the continued use of the autobiography assignment, while providing clarity about its purpose and a formal structure for collectively exploring our autobiographies. Open-­Mindedness: The Course Project Open-­mindedness “…includes an active desire to listen to more sides than one; to give heed to facts from whatever source they come; to give full attention to alternative possibilities; to recognize the possibility of error even in the beliefs that are dearest to us”. (Dewey, 1933, p. 30, as cited in Loughran, 2006, p. 3)

Evidence of open-­mindedness in my practice appeared in my re-­consideration of the final course project. In planning the 2012 seminar, I had constructed an in-­depth project that required students to conduct individual self-­studies of their practice or growth as educators/teacher educators. I believed this

90  Brandon M. Butler

assignment was purposeful and students would gain experiential knowledge of how to conduct self-­study research. What I did not take into account was the institutional culture of academic research. Students had little exposure to qualitative research, let alone research that required investigations of the self. The first requirement for the project required students to schedule a meeting to discuss potential ideas for their self-­studies. Conversations with several students raised concerns about their ability to conduct independent research at that time, so I presented the dilemma to the class. I noted, “I have hesitancies about having each of you complete an individual self-­study project. I knew I wanted you to engage in self-­study, but I wasn’t sure individual self-­study was the appropriate way.” I then shared my ideas for a collaborative self-­study and we co-­constructed a collaborative project that had the group investigate how course participation informed the students’ emerging identities as teacher educators. By listening to students’ concerns, we were able to construct an assignment that was more purposeful than originally envisioned and provided students with opportunities to learn and conduct research and share that research with others in the field. After the class meeting, Catherine stated: I am very excited about the shift in the final project. I think it will be much more manageable to engage in self-­study in a guided manner that breaks the research down into steps. This hasn’t been done before in my other research classes. Had I not listened to students’ concerns and instead forced them to complete the project as initially conceived, the course might have taken a different direction in terms of purposeful and meaningful learning. My ability to “give full attention to alternative possibilities” (Dewey, 1933, p. 30) resulted in collaborative relationships and research that would likely not have existed if I had not been open-­minded about my practice. Heading into the 2015 course, I was worried I had caught “lightning in a bottle,” and that the course project that had worked effectively in 2012 would not produce new findings. I wrote to this new group of students, “My most significant concern about the next iteration of the course revolved around what the course project would be. We would not be able to replicate the same investigation from the 2012 iteration.” I added, This problem forced me to acknowledge the solution – that the question under investigation would emerge from student interests and the course meetings. This is always a scary proposition. The fate of the course, and our work together, centers on something that is unknown, and still unknown [but]…this fear is not necessarily a bad thing.

Unpacking Practice  91

We were using the same structure for the course project, but I acknowledged that it was not me who would decide the learning outcomes – it was the students enrolled in the course who would do that. In short, I was giving attention to alternative possibilities. I had my research interests tied to the course, but given that the course’s focus was on doctoral student learning, I had to be mindful of their interests as they would inevitably be leading the research products. Bringing this degree of open-­mindedness into the course paid off. Heading into the second class meeting, Matthew noted, “The exciting part for me was that as a group we are already identifying possible research agendas and lines of inquiry. This happened quite naturally and was not a ‘forced’ part of the conversation.” Over the next few weeks, the three students enrolled in the course aligned their thinking with three lines of inquiry, which we collectively explored in the coming years. We considered the influence of the course on developing a scholarly identity (Gregory et al., 2017), the impact of the autobiography assignment on creating our self-­study community of practice (Branyon et al., 2022), and the steps the group took to learn self-­study research methods (Diacopoulos et al., 2022). Had I closed my mind, by identifying a research problem in line with the 2012 iteration of the course, these studies and others might never have come to fruition.

Uncertainty of Practice: The Class Itself When teacher educators demonstrate for their students of teaching how they anticipate and deal with uncertainty in their own practice and, when they make explicit how they respond to the contradictions and constraints of their own program structures, they demonstrate scholarship. (Loughran, 2006, p. 164)

My teaching of the PTE seminar was replete with uncertainty. In 2012, this was my first doctoral seminar. Like any new course, a syllabus and class schedule had to be designed from scratch. As I prepared for each class meeting, I regularly asked myself: What do I do with this reading? How do I proceed with the discussion? What instructional strategy do I use in class? Course objectives and inclusion of the reflection-­ on-­ action assignment required open reflection on my part. As such, I was more open about my uncertainties and fears than in previous teacher preparation coursework. In my first reflection post in the 2012 course, I wrote that “I have constant fears of inadequacy as a teacher educator and researcher. I regularly wonder if I am ‘good enough’ to do the work I am doing. Will I be unmasked as a fraud or fake?” There are inherent risks in sharing such thoughts with students. What would students think given

92  Brandon M. Butler

the perceived authority of experience and practice held by professors (Loughran, 2006)? Would they dismiss me and the class? Although there was risk in sharing these feelings, I felt the need to remain honest and model uncertainty for my students as I would expect them to model uncertainty and explicate teaching practice for their own students. Students were indeed surprised to read that their professor had many of the same fears they had about their current status as doctoral students. Admitting my own uncertainties and fears provided students with a reflective model and dialogic space to engage in substantive discussions around their growth and future as educators. Because students knew we were all in the process of becoming, discussions and activities in class that faltered were not negatively critiqued or forgotten but used as learning experiences and critiqued for how they might have been approached differently. In the 2015 course, my uncertainties were a bit different. By that time, I had successfully taught the 2012 course and produced its associated scholarship. I had also taught several other doctoral seminars in the meantime and chaired/sat on doctoral committees. With this group, I noted, “I have learned to embrace uncertainty in ways, especially when working with doctoral students.” But that did not mean I did not experience uncertainty. Instead, I expressed my uncertainties in a different manner. One assignment I included in this course was a reflection-­on-­action assignment, where I journaled about my experiences teaching each class meeting and students responded to my reflections. In the second week of the class, I wrote the following about my struggle with writing reflective responses, As I write these reflections, I often find it difficult to identify what it is I will write about when I teach this course. In a methods course, there are a host of decisions I make in the course of a meeting that present opportunities to write about – missed questions, activities that do not work as well as I thought they would, etc. But in this class, the meetings are so conversational in nature – and generally directed by the students – that there are few teachable moments I can reflect upon. I had written so many reflections for the 2012 course offering that, entering into the 2015 class, I initially worried that there was nothing “new” to write about. I did not want to reiterate what I had previously said, as I wanted to be responsive to the needs and voices of those enrolled in the current section of the course. But much of the content was unchanged. Given the uncertainty about what I would write, I could have delayed my responses, removing their time sensitivity, or replaced the assignment altogether. Instead, I made the conscious decision to unmask my own uncertainties with the assignment and forced myself to write. I came to find that the very

Unpacking Practice  93

act of forcing myself to write forced my mind to pull experiences from the course that I could reflect upon. Immediately after writing the statement above, I added the following, “That said, as I write the words ‘teachable moments’ the topic for this reflection-­on-­action pronounced itself like a freight train hitting a car on the tracks.” I would go on to write approximately 500 words about the consequences of unintended actions in the courses we teach, and how we elucidate for students the process of making “in-­the-­moment” decisions as educators. Sharing my own uncertainties and insecurities with the reflection-­on-­action assignment provoked some of the most lengthy student responses in the course, accounting for 3,000 words of student and instructor dialogue around this issue. Expressing and modeling how I deal with uncertainty has become a core pedagogical practice in my PTE, whether I am working with future teachers or future teacher educators. It has value for both populations, but it is a pedagogical practice that is of crucial importance to the preparation of future teacher educators as many enter their doctoral programs with a certainty of practice and scholarship that needs discouraging. Rather than being models of “expertise” – think the arbiter of knowledge and flawless practice mindset – the teacher educator should serve as models of “critical thinking” and “uncertainty,” as we are continuously all – doctoral student and faculty alike – in the “process of becoming a teacher educator” (Williams et al., 2012, p. 256). Conclusions

As a teacher educator, I acknowledge that my identity and practice are constantly in flux (Dinkelman, 2011; Williams et al., 2012). And it is important that I make this acknowledgment publicly, not just in my scholarship, but (perhaps more important) in my day-­to-­day teaching of future teachers and teacher educators. My experiences teaching the PTE course reified the importance of appropriate pedagogies of teacher education in my practice as a teacher educator. The lessons I learned and emphasized in this doctoral seminar have carried over to my other courses. I provide students with reasons for my inclusion of assignments and expectations for what I hoped they learned from those assignments. Additionally, I often express uncertainty with students about the direction of class meetings and use that uncertainty to allow for student-­developed discussion. In instructional strategy courses, I unpack my practice for students in ways I had not done before. Students generally appreciate my honesty and how my explication of practice provides them with important insights into how experienced educators teach, though there is often uncertainty on their part at the outset as few instructors openly critique their own pedagogical actions in the ways I do.

94  Brandon M. Butler

In terms of teaching emerging teacher educators, this chapter provides insights into one teacher educator’s experiences in learning how to teach emerging teacher educators. The process of teaching teachers and teacher educators is filled with uncertainty, unexpected and problematic moments, and sudden alterations to pedagogy and expectations. What is important is that we explicate these experiences for emerging teacher educators so they can learn from our experiences and can effectively teach others (future teachers) how to teach, or even how to teach others (future teacher educators) to teach others (future teachers) how to teach. For instance, the pedagogy of acknowledging and responding to disturbing practice related to one student’s dishonest sharing of an educational autobiography. This experience forced the class to confront our feelings and experiences in an open environment, and it precipitated changes to the next course offering. The pedagogy of open-­mindedness played out in the course project, as I had initially expected students to conduct a self-­study of their practice individually or collaboratively. Students shared their concerns about their ability to complete such a project – several had yet to take a research course. My open-­ mindedness afforded us the space to develop a collaborative self-­study project centered on the students’ learning of self-­study in the course, which inevitably produced a more impactful learning experience. My continued open-­ mindedness in the next section of the course provided space for the group to pursue separate lines of inquiry. Finally, I embraced an uncertainty of practice in my teaching of the course. I openly expressed my fears and uncertainties about the class, student learning experiences and assignments, which surprised students, but doing so provided them with a reflective model and dialogic space to engage in substantive discussions around teacher education practices. Inevitably, developing a PTE is not limited to our day-­to-­day interactions with future teachers. We must also look to those we prepare to be teacher educators, and ensure that we are effectively helping them develop understanding of a PTE so they might enact those practices in their preparation of teachers and teacher educators. References Branyon, A., Diacopoulos, M. M., Gregory, K., & Butler, B. M. (2022). The power of autobiography in establishing a self-­study community of practice. In B. M. Butler & S. M. Bullock (Eds.), Learning through collaboration in self-­study: Critical friendships, collaborative self-­study, and self-­study communities of practice (pp. 249–263). Springer. Bullough, R. V., & Gitlin, A. D. (2001). Becoming a student of teaching: Linking knowledge production and practice (2nd ed.). Routledge Falmer. Butler, B. M. (2014). Learning to teach emerging teacher educators. In D. Garbett & A. Ovens (Eds.), Changing practices for changing times: Past, present and future possibilities for self-­study research (pp. 41–43). University of Auckland.

Unpacking Practice  95

Butler, B. M. (2019). Self-­study and preparing the next generation of teacher educators. In D. Yendol-­Hoppey, D. T. Hoppey, & N. F. Dana (Eds.), Preparing the next generation of teacher educators for clinical practice (pp. 227–247). Information Age Publishing. Butler, B. M. (2023). The pedagogy of teacher education course: Learning and living teacher education practice and self-­study research methods. In B. M. Butler, A. Cuenca, & J. K. Ritter (Eds.), Pathways to teacher education: Profiles in emerging teacher educator development (pp. 85–98). Information Age Publishing. Butler, B. M., Burns, E., Frierman, C., Hawthorne, K., Innes, A., & Parrott, J. A. (2014). The impact of a pedagogy of teacher education seminar on educator and future teacher educator identities. Studying Teacher Education, 10(3), 255–274. Cole, A. L., & Knowles, J. G. (2000). Researching teaching: Exploring teacher development through reflexive inquiry. Allyn and Bacon. Cuenca, A. (2010). In loco paedagogus: The pedagogy of a novice university supervisor. Studying Teacher Education, 8(1), 29–43. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Heath and Company. Diacopoulos, M. M., Gregory, K., Branyon, A., & Butler, B. M. (2022). Learning and living self–study: Guidelines for the self–study journey. Studying Teacher Education, 18(2), 175–196. Dinkelman, T. (2011). Forming a teacher educator identity: Uncertain standards, practice, and relationships. Journal of Education for Teaching, 37(3), 309–323. Gregory, K., Diacopoulos, M. M., Branyon, A., & Butler, B. M. (2017). From skepticism to scholarship: Learning and living self–study research in a doctoral seminar. Studying Teacher Education, 13(3), 257–274. Kitchen, J., Berry, A., Bullock, S. M., Crowe, A., Taylor, M., Guðjónsdóttir, H., & Thomas, L. (Eds.). (2020). 2nd international handbook of self-­study of teaching and teacher education. Springer. Labaree, D. F. (2004). The trouble with ed schools. Yale University Press. Loughran, J. (2006). Developing a pedagogy of teacher education: Understanding teaching & learning about teaching. Routledge. Loughran, J. J., Hamilton, M. L., LaBoskey, V. K., & Russell, T. (Eds.). (2004). International handbook of self-­study of teaching and teacher education practices. Springer. Lunenberg, M. (2002). Designing a curriculum for teacher educators. European Journal of Teacher Education, 25(2&3), 263–277. National School Reform Faculty (2007). Critical incidents protocol. www. nsrfharmony.org/system/files/protocols/critical_incidents_0.pdf Russell, T., Martin, A. K., & Loughran, J. (2020). Introducing new practices in a teacher education classroom: Lessons learned, insights gained. In C. U. Edge, A. Cameron-­Standerford, & B. Bergh (Eds.), Textiles and tapestries: Self-­study for envisioning new ways of knowing (pp. 435–445). EdTech Books. https:// equitypress.org/textiles_tapestries_self_study/chapter_115 Williams, J., Ritter, J., & Bullock, S. M. (2012). Understanding the complexity of becoming a teacher educator: Experience, belonging, and practice within a professional learning community. Studying Teacher Education, 8(3), 245–260.

7 ALIGNING PEDAGOGIES OF TEACHER EDUCATION WITH THE TEACHING OF SOCIAL JUSTICE Dylan Scanlon, Elaine Murtagh, Antonio Calderón, Ann MacPhail, and Claire Walsh

There is a continued interest in creating more comprehensive teacher education programs with explicit focus on equity and social justice (Kaur, 2012). While researchers have explored the process of identity formation and learning to become a teacher of and for social justice with pre-­service teachers and beginning teachers (Farnsworth, 2010), less attention has been given to the process of individual or collective identity formation of teacher educators in becoming teacher educators of and for social justice. This chapter addresses this – individual and collective teacher educator (social justice) identity formation – by exploring the identification and construction of a social justice teacher identity (Boylan & Woolsey, 2015) through a community of learners. Developing a pedagogy of teacher education (with a view to informing the practice of teaching the teaching of social justice orientations to curriculum, teaching, and learning) was central to the evolving community, acknowledging that teaching about teaching requires specialized skills and knowledge. Imperative to the longevity of the community is the continuation of creating learning about teaching opportunities that are meaningful for the development of learners (in this instance, teacher educators and pre-­service teachers) as well as an articulation of social justice teaching practices that might be helpful for others to learn from and build on. Social Justice, Teacher Education and Teacher Educators

Social justice as a concept and a pedagogy has gained considerable traction in the teacher education literature (Cochran-­Smith, 2009; Walton-­Fisette & Sutherland, 2018). A proposed means of understanding social justice in DOI: 10.4324/9781003365129-7

Teacher Education Aligning with Social Justice Teaching  97

teacher education (and teacher education for social justice) is the exploration of “identity” and therein, positionality (Boylan & Woolsey, 2015). It is acknowledged that identities are multifaceted and entail individual, interpersonal and social processes embedded within social structures (Davids et al., 2019). Identity theories explain how individuals understand and develop their identities, enact them in social situations, and respond to identity-­ relevant feedback (Burke & Stets, 2009). Social identity theory furthers this and is concerned with identity processes through inter-­and intra-­group dynamics (Burke & Stets, 2009). Aligning this with social justice, we are informed by Boylan and Woolsey’s (2015) term “social justice teacher identity” which explores “teachers’ relationships to social justice beliefs and principles and their interrelationship with a range of issues” (p. 63). Social justice matters have long been considered important elements of teacher education and preparation (e.g., Goodlad et al., 1990; Beyer, 1997). While criticized for being an “ambiguous concept that is widespread but under-­ theorised and vague” (Cochran-­Smith, 2009, p. 350), recently scholars have synthesized theories of social justice in education and sought to provide a sound foundation for conceptual work on teacher education for social justice (Mills & Ballantyne, 2016; Reagan & Hambacher, 2021). A central interest of the community of learners presented in this chapter is identifying personal and contextual features of teacher educators’ work and judgements around social justice, appreciating that a pedagogy of teacher education extends beyond the transmission of information about teaching (Loughran, 2006). As Loughran (2006) suggests, the shaping of a pedagogy of teacher education must be dynamic, flexible and responsive to the needs, concerns, issues and practices of participants (both student teachers and teacher educators). Once such considerations are interrogated, the intention of the community is to explore the extent to which these constrain or enable the identification of aims and teaching processes that support pre-­service teachers to interrogate and potentially disrupt oppression and injustice in their school communities (Brownlee et al., 2022). That is, focus more attention on the manner in which practice might be purposefully shaped and conducted given the interrogation of personal and contextual factors associated with the development of a social justice teacher (educator) identity and therein, a pedagogy of teacher education. The role of teacher education programs in preparing “socially just” teachers is multifaceted. This may include providing information about social in/justice and modeling practices that promote social justice, but the influence on pre-­service teachers will be minimal unless they internalize a commitment and understand how it translates to practice (Guyton, 2000). As the authors of this chapter are located in physical education teacher

98  Dylan Scanlon et al.

education (PETE), the formation of teacher educator social justice identity in this case resides in this space (but is applicable and relevant to teacher education in general). PETE programs educating pre-­service teachers to be social justice advocates, who challenge the existing inequalities and dominant discourses through a well-­designed and informed approach, are not common (Ovens et al., 2018). Walton-­Fisette et al. (2018) pointed out that there are certain “resistance and constraints” that capture the individual challenges PETE faculty face when they teach for social justice (p. 504). Some of those factors were attributed to the resistance that pre-­service teachers and teacher educators showed in engaging with uncomfortable conversations related to some of the strands of oppression (Lynch et al., 2020) and the implications for physical education pedagogy. Lack of content knowledge and time were other constraints reported (Walton-­Fisette et al., 2018). Reagan and Hambacher (2021) concluded that their synthesis of the empirical literature from 1999 to 2019 on teacher preparation for social justice was consistent with findings by Sleeter (2001) 20 years earlier: the majority of studies “help us to ‘watch’ students struggle with issues and can provide ideas of how different professors [and programmes] approach teaching, but they simply do not tell us which strategies … help preservice students become good [and just] teachers” (p. 10). Thus, scholars in this area are urged to examine the philosophies espoused by teacher educators (Mills & Ballantyne, 2016) and the role of teacher educators in modeling and fostering practices that enable pre-­service teachers to enact socially just pedagogies. Social Justice Teacher (Educator) Identity

It is difficult to conceptualize programs for social justice education without considering the interconnection between various social identities and how such identities can feed into critical agency and education for social justice (Francis & le Roux, 2011). Indeed, Loughran (2006) champions the importance of coming to understand one’s own professional identity and taking more active responsibility for the ways in which that is shaped and developed is central to helping students of teaching learn about teaching. That is, the importance of recognizing and responding to one’s emotions, feelings and reactions, all of which are so enmeshed in the experiences of learning and teaching about teaching (Loughran, 2006). Boylan and Woolsey (2015) use the term “social justice teacher identity” to discuss teachers’ relationships to social justice beliefs and principles and their interrelationship with a range of issues, and qualify that an important initial distinction to make is between identification and identity:

Teacher Education Aligning with Social Justice Teaching  99

One way of understanding a teacher’s relationship to social justice is as an identification – an affinity identity (Gee, 2001) – a conscious and expressed commitment to social justice in teaching. This implies alignment with a particular set of beliefs and practice and also identification with other teachers for social justice. However, here we are concerned with a much broader meaning of social justice teacher identity, one that supposes all teachers and beginning teachers have a relationship to issues of social justice. This being so even if, for example, the main features of this are lack of awareness, a refusal to engage with, or dis-­identification from, issues of social justice. (p. 63) They go on to examine the relationship between (beginning teacher) identity and engaging with issues of social justice in teacher preparation. They report four pedagogical approaches/stances supported through research on teacher education beliefs and identity in relation to a deeper dialogue about social justice: (i) inquiry; (ii) discomfort; (iii) compassion; and (iv) respect. Boylan and Woolsey (2015) conclude by stating that understanding social justice teacher identity as being both determinate and indeterminate challenges teacher educators to expand their teacher education pedagogy to augment pedagogies of discomfort and enquiry with compassion and respect. Farnsworth (2010) explores ways in which community-­based learning can contribute to the development of a social justice (pre-­service) teacher identity, reminding the reader that “a social justice teacher identity is negotiated (Wenger, 1998) with respect to lived experiences and culturally-­ informed reflections on those experiences (Connelly & Clandinin, 1990)” (p. 1482). In concluding their study, Farnsworth (2010), influenced by the work of Wenger (1998), suggests that if teacher education is about supporting individuals in becoming a certain kind of teacher, then ways of engaging the self in the learning process matter. Acknowledging that we read “individuals” as pre-­service teachers, teachers, and teacher educators, we believe two related goals stated by Farnsworth (2010) are relevant to our study; i “enabling identity negotiations; and ii involving critical reflection on personal narratives, with the aim to ‘open up possibilities for transformative social justice approaches in which socially constructed identities, Discourses and ideologies are destabilized and deconstructed” (p. 1487)

100  Dylan Scanlon et al.

Taking a “Step Back”: Collaborative Self-­Study, Narrative Inquiry, and Story

Encouraged by Mitchell et al. (2021), we engaged in collaborative self-­study as teacher educators fostering social justice teacher identities (LaBoskey, 2004; Ovens & Fletcher, 2014). The research was grounded in LaBoskey’s (2004) tenants of self-­study as it was: (i) self-­initiated and self-­focused; (ii) improvement-­ aimed; (iii) interactive throughout the research; (iv) drew on multiple forms of qualitative data; and (v) defined validity as a validation process based in trustworthiness. While self-­study is associated with an improvement in practice, we decided to take a “step back” to explore our identities which would then allow us to take a “step forward” in enhancing our pedagogy of teacher education (and pre-­service teacher learning) around social justice. We adopted narrative inquiry, and in particular, storytelling (Chiu-­Ching & Chan, 2009), to explore identities, biographies, and positionality which can then lead to a deeper understanding and application of pedagogical practices that can enhance and/or limit socially just practices (i.e., the self-­study aspect of the study). In this chapter we focus on the “step back,” i.e., narrative inquiry and storytelling. Narrative inquiry is regarded as “the best way of representing and understanding experience” (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000, p. 18) and “story” (Connelly & Clandinin, 1990; Chiu-­Ching & Chan, 2009) allowed us to express such experiences. Story allows us “to tell stories of our own lives concerning how we make personal connections and recover meaning from our lived experiences and resonate with even more stories” (Chiu-­ Ching & Chan, 2009, p. 23). The intention here is to use stories to “stimulate our own reflection” (Chiu-­Ching & Chan, 2009, p. 22), explore our social justice teacher educator identities, and to demonstrate a level of vulnerability (Fletcher & Hordvik, 2022). This is supported by Loughran (2006), Seeking to better understand one’s own practices is a natural starting point for better understanding teaching about teaching and its impact on learning about teaching. The knowledge developed through such learning may initially be informing, applicable and useful to one’s own practice, but when it creates the need to better articulate and communicate such learning with, and for, others, a developing pedagogy of teacher education is evident. (p. 174) It is important to acknowledge that while self-­study has traditionally focused on individual self-­study, there is a growing literature base for collaborative self-­study (e.g., Butler & Bullock, 2022; Carse et al., 2022; Davey et al., 2011) Agreeing with Carse et al. (2022), that “teacher educators will

Teacher Education Aligning with Social Justice Teaching  101

increasingly need to support experiences that are authentically collaborative in nature” (p. 135), we focus on collaborative self-­study and acknowledge an inevitable level of individual self-­study which occurred during the collaborative piece. Our collaborative self-­study occurred through a community of learners, conscious of Loughran’s (2006) belief that there is a collective responsibility of the community of teacher educators to develop a pedagogy of teacher education that might truly shape the way teaching and learning about teaching is conducted in our teacher education programs. While the use of a community of learners is more common with the school environment and teachers, we believe the use of a community of learners in teacher education can enhance individual and collaborative professional learning and development (MacPhail et al., 2014). Tuval et al.’s (2011) work, which explores group identity and the associated tensions within the collaborative, highlighted how the use of collaborative self-­study exposed “the crisis we were facing was eye-­opening for us and prompted a resolution that allowed us to better understand our individual and collective teacher educator identities” (p. 208). The “crisis” in our context was the exploration and enactment of pedagogies for social justice in a PETE program in response to growing calls for such inclusion (Walton-­Fisette & Sutherland, 2018) and using this as an opportunity to develop our pedagogy of teacher education around social justice. In taking a “step back,” we engaged in collaborative self-­study through a community of learners by adopting a storytelling approach to exploring our social justice teacher educator identities with the aim of enhancing our pedagogy of teacher education around social justice. We focused on our biographies as a starting point to identities by responding to a guiding question: What exposure would you share as critical incidents that position us in a particular way/make you heightened to particular social justice matters? It was crucial that for constructively critical conversation to be shared, we needed to work with trusted colleagues in safe conditions (Brookfield, 1995). Similar to Schuck and Segal (2002), we are trusting colleagues and that allows for issues to be raised with each other that those, with lesser relationships, may not. We drew on Freire’s (1973) concept of dialogue in supporting how we can learn from each other through open, honest dialogue whereby we (teacher educators) are all “students” and “teachers” learning from and with each other. The Community of Learners and the Associated Community Meetings

Our community of learners consists of six physical education teacher educators who all teach/taught on a PETE program in the same Department in an Irish University. The six teacher educators range in teaching experience

102  Dylan Scanlon et al.

and are a mixture of early career researchers and established academics. Our community of learners and self-­study research is ongoing. The community met for one-­hour meetings eight times regarding the above guiding question over eight months and met monthly (and in some cases, bi-­weekly) over one year regarding the self-­study of enacting pedagogies for social justice. The meetings which addressed the guiding question (What exposure would you share as critical incidents that position us in a particular way/ make you heightened to particular social justice matters?) involved each member sharing a photograph/picture which captured their “critical incident.” We used the notion of “critical incidents” to act as a conversation starter for an interrogation of our social justice teacher educator identities. The use of these critical incidents shed light on peoples’ life histories and their positionality within that history which enhanced or limited their exposure to social justice matters (and therefore shaping their social justice teacher educator identity). The member then told their story which elicited other stories from other community members. At the end of each meeting, a group reflection would occur whereby we would discuss the commonalities and differences across stories. This structure – personal reflection, reflection-­in-­action through elicited stories/comments, and shared/group reflection – encouraged a layered reflection approach to the storytelling. Each member was held accountable to the layered reflection approach as all community members had to share a story and engage in the reflective dialogue. Data was collected through narrative inquiry and story, recorded Zoom meetings, personal reflections, prompted break-­out room discussions, photographs/pictures, and brainstorming activities. Some of these prompts and brainstorming activities included creating a shared working definition of social justice, using Mentimeter to collect answers to certain questions (e.g., how can we position ourselves to teach through and about social justice pedagogies?) to use for conversation starters, listening to podcasts on social justice and bringing key take-­home messages to the community meetings, and reflecting on our teaching practice for opportunities and challenges in teaching for social justice. This collaborative discursive approach to exploring (and constructing) identity aligns with the work of Farnsworth (2010) who utilized a socio-­cultural discursive approach such that meanings made of experiences are recognized for their role in constructing one’s identity. Informed by Carse and colleagues’ collaborative self-­ study approach to identity, Gee’s (2001) framework of identity provided us with a theoretical understanding of our identity construction, particularly, the discourse element (while acknowledging the interactive, overlapping nature of all four elements of Gee’s (2001) framework: Nature; Institution; Discourse; and Affinity).

Teacher Education Aligning with Social Justice Teaching  103

Gee’s (2001) discourse element of the framework of identity acknowledges construction through discourses and dialogue with/of other people and the combinations of ways of thinking, acting, and interacting to be recognized as “certain kind of person” (Gee, 2001). This particular element informed the guiding question and the layered approach of reflection in the self-­study community meetings. We analyzed the data through a “live coding” (Parameswaran et al., 2020) approach. Live coding was chosen over traditional coding as it “allowed for coding of non-­verbal content including non-­verbal participant agreement, the visual of the participant (and their visible identities), emotion, the emphasis of certain phrases, and other paralinguistic behaviour which offered depth and preserved the voice of the participant” (Parameswaran et al., 2020, pp. 640–641). Given the emotional and vulnerable nature of the exploration of social justice teacher educator identities, we believed this approach to coding would capture deeper and richer data. Through the data analysis process (Charmaz, 2014), two categories were constructed which will now be outlined followed by a discussion of such findings. The Complexity in Understanding/Uncovering Our Social Justice Teacher Educator Identities as an Ever-­Evolving Process Elaine’s narrative

I have chosen a plate of spaghetti to represent my social justice biography. The critical incidents that shaped my viewpoints and heightened my awareness of particular matters were not linear. Sometimes it was not till many years after a key experience did I reflect on what it taught me about social justice. My professional life has provided me with opportunities to witness challenges facing many groups in society. While teaching and coaching in a variety of communities in 1990’s Belfast, I saw the effect of the lethal mix of conflict and poverty. Probably the principal influence was the years I spent working with refugee populations in the Middle East who were living in an active conflict and humanitarian crisis. This experience showed me political and humanitarian injustice on a grand scale. The most recent experience that has influenced my viewpoint is navigating the Irish – and very Catholic – primary school system with my children. Faith formation is evident in every school day. I’ve learned that being “different” sets you apart in aspects of school life). So my social justice journey is a bit messy like the plate of spaghetti. I still have not dis-­entangled what it all means and how it shaped how I approach my professional life now. As we shared our “critical incidents,” we began to realize the multiple and different experiences each of us had that contributed to each person’s social justice journey. Sharing these critical incidents was a powerful, and

104  Dylan Scanlon et al.

sometimes uncomfortable and overwhelming, experience: “[it is] exhausting listening to the depth…it is always more intense than I ever imagined it to be given the topics we are asked to respond to [i.e., the guiding question]” (Ann). The interrogation of these critical incidents highlighted the complexity in uncovering a social justice teacher educator identity. In Dylan’s narrative, Dylan deconstructs the notion of a “critical incident” to an “everyday incident” based on social positioning by living as a social justice matter (e.g., being from a certain social class or being LGBTQ+): I thought of the notion of a ‘critical incident’ and the more I thought about it, the more frustrated I got with the concept. My thoughts on this are; if you live in or as the particular social justice matter, are the incidents not critical incidents per say but more everyday incidents?… The problem with everyday incidents is that they become normalised to the point that they are not incidents anymore, but everyday life. This speaks to Ahmed’s (2009) concept of “being diversity” as they discuss being Black: “What does diversity mean for those of us who look different, and who, in the very terms of our appearance, to embody diversity? What does ‘being diversity’ do?” (p.45). The “being” here is important to highlight for both teacher educators and pre-­service teachers. Teacher educators with different life experiences and different levels of “being” can diversify teacher education and (possibly) address different kinds of social justice teacher preparation which pre-­service teachers with different life experiences and different levels of “being” may need (and more so what their students will need). In Elaine’s narrative above, Elaine discusses how the critical incidents which heightened her awareness were not linear. The non-­ linearity of experiences and the delayed reflection in identifying experiences as points of social justice exposure and awareness heightens the complexity of developing a social justice teacher educator identity. Elaine’s process of “disentanglement” captures the complexity of social justice teacher educator identity and the notion of “becoming.” Brigitte’s narrative, which spoke to inclusion in dance, also hints at this slow burn process of “becoming”: My reaction to that critical incident and how it’s informed my thinking, my learning and my pedagogical practices has been slow to burn but now percolates all my work as a teacher. Possibly, the issue lies in the wording of the guiding question, but this also sheds light on the complexity of understanding our social justice teacher educator identities, and questions what (if any) experiences are needed to “have” a social justice teacher educator identity. We return to this in the next category. In all, there was an appreciation for this activity in interrogating our social justice teacher educator identities and we began to

Teacher Education Aligning with Social Justice Teaching  105

understand how our social justice teacher educator identities are an ever-­ evolving process of “becoming”: “It’s a great exercise [sharing our narratives] …actually thinking about what shapes your vision point…It’s uncomfortable but it makes you think about what you teach and the way…you know” (Brigitte). These narratives and conversations shed light on how to best be a social justice-­oriented teacher educator; a teacher educator of and for social justice. These experiences also identify and highlight the personal features of the teacher educator which influences their pedagogy of teacher education. Loughran (2006) emphasizes the shaping of a pedagogy of teacher education needs to be responsive to the needs of the teacher educator (and pre-­service teachers). This responsiveness, or self-­responsibility, is reflected in the above when discussing the concept of “being diversity.” These activities (e.g., storytelling) can act as genuine ongoing professional learning in which teacher educators can engage through a community of learners to explore the personal and contextual features that shape a pedagogy of teacher education (Loughran, 2006). This further aligns with Loughran’s (2006) belief in the collective responsibility of teacher educators to develop a pedagogy of teacher education. Recognizing Privilege as a Shaping Factor in Different Forms in Social Justice Teacher Educator Identity Ann’s narrative

In revisiting our working definition of social justice that we discussed at our last meeting, it is the element of ‘privilege’ that I suggest weights my positioning with respect to social justice. Specifically, accepting the extent to which privilege may be self-­determined and not necessarily aligned with your vision for privilege. This is a photo of my dad at school when he was 10-­years old. He was one of seven siblings from a small croft on the Isle of Lewis. Given the remoteness of island life, the barren land and lack of opportunity, he left Lewis at the age of 15 and travelled to Glasgow to stay with an aunt as he began his apprenticeship as an electrician in John Browns shipyard. He worked with, and on, ships all his life (later life on oil rigs) and as an electrician worked in conditions where it was widely known that workers were being exposed to dangerous levels of asbestos – while a highly effective electrical insulator it has been widely acknowledged for years that inhalation of asbestos fibres can lead to various serious lung conditions and cancer. When my dad was diagnosed with mesothelioma (as a result of inhaling asbestos to varying extents over 50 years) he was not angry regardless of being told he had about six-­months of life to live. When I asked why he was not angry he commented that the shipyard and subsequent companies he worked for had been good to him in giving him an opportunity to learn a

106  Dylan Scanlon et al.

trade and earn money. When I pushed him further on the fact that there was now widespread evidence that companies had known for years that workers were being exposed to asbestos, and the likely consequences for such workers, he defended them by stating that they had given him gloves to wear. While I could see no privilege in the situation, my dad maintained that he had been advantaged by doing something special and enjoyable throughout his life. That is what matters – he saw no injustice. Across all the narratives, the notion of privilege was emphasized (although in many cases, this was implicit and became explicit through dialogue and interrogation). Privilege was recognized as existing in different forms, for example, family, social positioning, race, and in some cases, privilege was self-­determined, for example, skill ability and level of education. While we agree on how our own biographies position our social justice teacher educator identity, when privilege was discussed, questions were asked about the existence of an ideal biography in social justice journeys and how this can position them (or not) as becoming teacher educators of and for social justice: “My own story positions me as a privileged, white, middle class man…is there an ideal biography context or journey that position us with an interest towards social justice in education?” (Antonio). Interestingly, this ideal biography may be people of social injustice or of strands of oppression who can use such experiences to advocate for social justice (and possibly therefore have a “strong” social justice teacher educator identity). This was emphasized by others who could not identify social justice matters in their own biography: “I wouldn’t consider myself to have personally experienced any socially just issues really as I have never thought about it before” (Claire). In saying this, we are not suggesting that it is solely those who hold historically, conscious or unconscious, marginalized identities to advocate for, and do, social justice work. It is a collective effort whereby we can listen to, hear, and learn from these historically marginalized groups of people and work together in progressing the goal of social justice. In exploring this further, we agreed and recognized privileged individuals, who may not have experienced explicit social justice matters, can still advocate for it as an ally. This led to a discussion on injustices occurring in traditionally high privileged spaces (e.g., white, middle-­class schools), as seen in Claire’s narrative below (which focused on “invisible” social justice matters in schools), and in people being othered based on their own beliefs (e.g., religious beliefs), as seen in Elaine’s narrative above. Claire’s narrative: The picture that I share is from a Thank You card from a volleyball team that I coached when I was teaching [in schools]. This team were the B team in the school and as such, did not have the same privileges as the A team.

Teacher Education Aligning with Social Justice Teaching  107

They did not have a consistent training time or consistent coaching in comparison to the A team…Whilst this group of students were not a minority population and attended a school where the student body was white and middle class, that is not to say that they had not experienced adversity. The entire group had in a way been discriminated against because of their ability or lack of because they were not afforded the same privileges as the A players. I want to highlight that even though these students attended a middle-­class school, they still needed an environment where they felt welcome, safe, and valued. Exploring different notions of privilege through these narratives and elicited discussions, we searched for a response or action we could take in addressing different privileges. We question if allyship may be the action associated with privilege, and if so, the examples here in Claire and Elaine’s narratives heighten the need for allyship in these spaces (see Lynch et al., 2022). We recognize and strongly advocate that this call for allyship needs to go beyond “performative” allyship to effective, authentic allyship or to, what Bettina Love calls, “co-­conspirators” which is grounded in “authentic relationships of solidarity and mutuality” (Love, 2019, p.73). Claire alludes to this in her narrative with regards to school teaching: Majority of PE teachers give time to extracurricular activities, and this is the space where teacher student relationships are strengthened. This was where I could create space where students felt welcome and valued and show that my role as their teacher was not only inside the classroom. The pre-­ service teachers we teach, will be teaching in different contexts where there may or may not be a prominent social justice matter but it is important for them to understand that in these contexts there will be students who do not feel welcome, safe or valued and that what they do in their role as a teacher both inside and outside the classroom can make a difference. We were further pushed in our thinking of privilege through Ann’s narrative above. Ann’s narrative encouraged us to view privilege through a different lens and highlights the assumptions we can make of someone else’s privilege. We recognized privilege as a shaping factor in social justice teacher educator identity construction, but further suggest that what this privilege is and how it operates is complex. Some can be born into certain privileges, for example, a certain social class, and some can gain further privilege, for example, education (although in most cases, this is only possible through certain privileges). However, peoples’ perspectives on privilege are not uniform; as Ann’s narrative highlighted, what one person views as privilege may not be viewed as privilege by another. Interrogating privilege through

108  Dylan Scanlon et al.

different lenses proved to be a valuable task in our conversations as this shed light on how a teacher educator positions themselves as a teacher educator of and for social justice. This is also central to the development of a pedagogy of teacher education as it can inform the practice of teaching the teaching of social justice. As evident in this section, privilege plays a crucial role in identifying and understanding social justice teacher educator identity. We strongly suggest that privilege also plays a significant shaping factor in the development of a pedagogy of teacher education. Following Loughran’s (2006) advice, we believe teacher educators need to engage in positionality and identity work (possibly through community of learners as professional learning) whereby they can explore these notions of privilege to interrogate why and how it can influence the development of a pedagogy of teacher education (and encourage student teachers and beginning teachers to engage in similar professional learning). Discussion and Conclusions

We acknowledged how doing social justice work in our teacher education programs is a two-­way street, drawing on Freire’s (1973) concept of dialogue: “Through dialogue, the teacher-­of-­the-­students and the students-­of-­ the-­teacher cease to exist and a new term emerges: teacher-­student with students-­teachers” (p. 53). This – teacher-­student with students-­teachers – is how we approached the identification and construction of social justice teacher educator identity in our community of learners. By engaging in collaborative dialogue and critical discussion as “teacher-­ student,” we learned from each other, gained new insights into certain social justice matters, and expanded our understanding of what it means to be a teacher educator of and for social justice. While our community of learners consisted of teacher educators, Freire’s notion of dialogue applies here. We moved between teacher (educator) and student positions throughout dialogue as we taught, and learned from, each other. Our different positionalities, identities, and backgrounds enabled this learning and exposed us to perspectives which we may not have considered before this collaborative self-­study learning journey. This is similar to the advice of Loughran (2006). For teacher education, and teacher educators specifically, to encourage student teachers and beginning teachers to explore ways of creating the conditions needed to become students of their own thinking and practice, teacher educators need to foster genuine ongoing professional learning for themselves as well as student and beginning teachers (Loughran, 2006). As stated, the process reported in this chapter is not dissimilar to Freire’s (1973) “teacher-­student” concept if we substitute Loughran’s (2006) reference to students of teaching with teacher educators;

Teacher Education Aligning with Social Justice Teaching  109

In learning about teaching, students of teaching [and we suggest teacher educators] need to be conscious of their own learning so that they overly develop their understanding of the teaching practices they experience in order to purposefully link the manner in which they learn in a given situation with the nature of the teaching itself. (p. 4) The process of our social justice teacher educator identity identification and construction was/is a fluid, provisional, responsive, and relational (Boylan & Woolsey, 2015) journey. Throughout this journey, we have challenged our positioning, our understanding, and our beliefs around social justice through educating ourselves through safe (and in some cases, discomforting) collaborative dialogue. It is the learning (and teaching) from each other through our involvement in this community of learners that further advances (and in some cases, retreats) the construction process. This process – our ever-­evolving social justice teacher educator identity –positions us as teacher educators in a particular standpoint for the enactment of teacher education pedagogies for social justice. While we collectively explored and constructed our social justice teacher educator identity, we did so through the (pedagogical) lens of “discomfort,” “enquiry,” “compassion” and “respect” in the process of becoming teacher educator for/of social justice. It has been suggested that teacher educators develop their knowledge of a pedagogy of teacher education through undertaking two activities: reflecting on their own practice and researching their own practice (Tillema & Kremer-­Hayon, 2005). Now that the community of learners has interrogated their own, and colleagues’, emotions, feelings and reactions to social justice, it is timely that they begin a journey to enact and capture (through research) their social justice practices in a teacher education program. This community has continued to develop working principles of practice with regards to the teaching of social justice. These working principles of practice will be enacted and the enactment will be captured through collaborative self-­study as we continue to develop a pedagogy of teacher education. The community element of this ongoing work heightens in importance when one considers the necessity of a teacher education program (and not solely through individual teacher educators’ practice) reflecting the way in which a pedagogy of teacher education is inherently intended to shape teacher education (Loughran, 2006). Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge the invaluable contribution of our learning community colleague, Brigitte Moody (University of Limerick).

110  Dylan Scanlon et al.

References Ahmed, S. (2009). Embodying diversity: Problems and paradoxes for Black feminists. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 12(1), 41–52. Beyer, L. E. (1997). The moral contours of teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 48(4), 245–254. Boylan, M., & Woolsey, I (2015). Teacher education for social justice: Mapping identity spaces. Teaching and Teacher Education, 46, 62–71. Brookfield, S. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. Jossey-­Bass. Brownlee, J. L., Bourke, T., Rowan, L., Ryan, M., Churchward, P., Walker, S., L’Estrange, L., Berge, A., & Johansson, E. (2022). How epistemic reflexivity enables teacher educators’ teaching for diversity: Exploring a pedagogical framework for critical thinking. British Educational Research Journal, 48(4), 684–703. Burke, P. J., & Stets, J. E. (2009). Identity theory. Oxford University Press. Butler, B. M., & Bullock, S. M. (Eds.). (2022). Learning through collaboration in self-­study: Critical friendships, collaborative self-­study, and self-­study communities of practice. Springer. Carse, N., Jess, M., McMillan, P., & Fletcher, T. (2022). The ‘we-­me’ dynamic in a collaborative self study. In B. M. Butler, & S. M. Bullock (Eds.), Learning through collaboration in self-­study: Critical friendships, collaborative self-­study, and self-­study communities of practice (pp. 127–141). Springer. Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory. Sage. Chiu-­Ching, R. T., & Chan, Y. E. (2009). Teaching and learning through narrative inquiry. In D. L. Tidwell, M. L. Heston, & L. M. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Research methods for the self-­study of practice (pp. 17–34). Springer. Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research. Jossey-­Bass. Cochran-­Smith, M. (2009). Toward a theory of teacher education for social justice. Part 2. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, & D. Hopkins (Eds.), Springer international handbook of education: Vol. 23. Second international handbook of educational change (p. 445–567). Springer. Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1990). Stories of experience and narrative inquiry. Educational Researcher, 19(5), 2–14. Davey, R., Ham, V., Gilmore, F., Haines, G., McGrath, A., Morrow, D., & Robinson, R. (2011). Privatization, illumination, and validation in identity-­making within a teacher educator research collective. Studying Teacher Education, 7(2), 187–199. Davids, J. L., Love, T. P., & Fares, P. (2019). Collective social identity: Synthesizing identity theory and social identity theory using digital data. Social Psychology Quarterly, 82(3), 254–273. Farnsworth, V. (2010). Conceptualizing identity, learning and social justice in community-­based learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 1481–1489. Fletcher, T., & Hordvik, M. M. (2022). Emotions and pedagogical change in physical education teacher education: A collaborative self-­study. Sport, Education and Society, 28(4), 381–394. Francis, D., & le Roux, A. (2011). Teaching for social justice education: The intersection between identity, critical agency, and social justice education. South Africa Journal of Education, 31, 299–311.

Teacher Education Aligning with Social Justice Teaching  111

Freire, P. (1973). Education for critical consciousness. Seabury Press. Gee, J. (2001). Identity as an analytical lens for research in education. Review of Research in Education, 25, 99–125. Goodlad, J., Soder, R., & Sirotnik, K. (1990). The moral dimensions of teaching. Jossey-­Bass. Guyton, E. (2000) Social justice in teacher education. The Educational Forum, 64(2), 108–114. Kaur, B. (2012). Equity and social justice in teaching and teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(4), 485–492. LaBoskey, V. K. (2004). The methodology of self-­study and its theoretical underpinnings. In J. J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V. K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell, International handbook of self-­study of teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 817–869). Kluwer. Loughran, J. J. (2006). Developing a pedagogy of teacher education: Understanding teaching and learning about teaching. London: Routledge. Love, B. L. (2019). We want to do more than survive: Abolitionist teaching and the pursuit of educational freedom. Beacon Press. Lynch, S., Davies, L., Ahmed, D., & McBean, L. (2022). Complicity, trauma, love: An exploration of the experiences of LGBTQIA+ members from physical education spaces. Sport, Education and Society. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322. 2022.2141216 Lynch, S., Sutherland, S., Walton-­Fisette, J. (2020). The A-­Z of social justice in physical education: Part 1. Journal of Physical Education Recreation & Dance, 91(4), 8–13. MacPhail, A., Patton, K., Parker, M., & Tannehill, D. (2014). Leading by example: Teacher educators’ professional learning through communities of practice. Quest, 66, 39–56. Mills, C., & Ballantyne, J. (2016). Social justice and teacher education: A systematic review of empirical work in the field. Journal of Teacher Education, 67(4), 263–276. Mitchell, M. F., Sutherland, S., Walton-­Fisette, J. L. (2021). Chapter 5: Physical education teacher education faculty: A focus on social justice. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 40(3), 1–10. Ovens, A., & Fletcher, T. (Eds.). (2014). Self-­study in physical education teacher education: Exploring the interplay of practice and scholarship. Springer. Ovens, A., Flory, S. B., Sutherland, S., Philpot, R., Walton-­Fisette, J. L., Hill, J., Philips, S., & Flemons, M. (2018). How PETE comes to matter in the performance of social justice education. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 23(5), 484–496. Parameswaran, U. D., Ozawa-­Kirk, J. L., & Latendresse, G. (2020). To live (code) or to not: A new method for coding in qualitative research. Qualitative Social Work, 19(4), 630–644. Reagan, E. M., & Hambacher, E. (2021). Teacher preparation for social justice: A synthesis of the literature, 1999–2019. Teaching and Teacher Education, 108, 1–12. Schuck, S., & Segal, G. (2002). Learning about our teaching from our graduates, learning about learning with critical friends. In J. Loughran & T. Russell (Eds.), Improving teacher education practices through self-­study (pp. 88–101). Routledge Falmer.

112  Dylan Scanlon et al.

Sleeter, C. E. (2001). Epistemological diversity in research on preservice teacher preparation for historically underserved children. Review of Research in Education, 25(1), 209–250. Tillema, H., & Kremer-­Hayon, L. (2005). Facing dilemmas: Teacher-­educators’ ways of constructing a pedagogy of teacher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 10(2), 203–217. Tuval, S., Barak, J., & Gidron, A. (2011). Negotiating a team identity through collaborative self-­study. Studying Teacher Education, 7(2), 201–210. Walton-­Fisette, J. L., Philpot, R., Phillips, S., Flory, S. B., Hill, J., Sutherland, S., & Flemons, M. (2018). Implicit and explicit pedagogical practices related to sociocultural issues and social justice in physical education teacher education programs. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 23(5), 497–509. Walton-­Fisette, J. L., & Sutherland, S. (2018). Moving forward with social justice education in physical education teacher education. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 23(5), 461–468. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press.

8 NAVIGATING CRISIS WHILE LEARNING A JUSTICE-­ORIENTED PEDAGOGY OF TEACHER EDUCATION Elizabeth Ann Tetu

Learning a pedagogy of teacher education (PTE) is consequential work. As an emerging teacher educator, my learning matters to the learning of the teacher candidates (TCs) that I teach, as well as the students that those TCs (will) teach. Having a justice orientation to teacher education can heighten this sense of mattering, adding urgency to the learning process. In this chapter, I chronicle a stage in my learning during which fear of failing to develop and enact a justice-­ oriented pedagogy of teacher education (JOPTE) impeded my progress toward that very goal. Navigating this experience helped me understand that the emotions that arise in and from the process of learning a JOPTE – particularly the unpleasant emotions that I thought threatened my enactment of the pedagogy I envision – can in fact be resources for moving in the direction of a justice vision. Before I tell my story, I define several concepts around which this chapter revolves. Drawing from a range of critical and anti-­racist scholarship (e.g., Freire, 2000; Kumashiro, 2000b; Love, 2019; Paris & Alim, 2017), I use the term justice to represent a vision for the future of education in which teachers and teacher educators disrupt oppression in their classrooms and communities while modeling a more just world in their practice. What this looks like in practice varies, because it is responsive to the specific manifestations of oppression and the unique personal and cultural assets of the educators and learners in the teaching context. For instance, a JOPTE in the context of a teaching methods course may seek to select curricular resources that reflect the specific cultural backgrounds of both the TCs in the course and the population(s) of students they teach in their clinical placements while modeling the teacher educator’s reasoning and process for selecting such materials. DOI: 10.4324/9781003365129-8

114  Elizabeth Ann Tetu

Building from Loughran’s (2006) work, I use the term pedagogy of teacher education to describe teacher educators’ purposeful and transparent decision-­making about what to teach to (pre-­service) teachers and how to teach it. The idea of PTE is grounded in the understanding that “teaching is a relationship” (p. 86), between the teacher and students, as well as between the acts of teaching and the learning that unfolds. Beyond telling students about teaching, it makes visible the dilemmas and purposeful decisions that lie beneath a teacher’s visible actions and engages them in the pedagogical reasoning involved in teaching. Enacting PTE involves self-­ awareness about our teaching behaviors and an understanding of one’s students. While PTE can and surely has been enacted in ways that advance justice, I name my approach as a justice-­oriented pedagogy of teacher education (JOPTE) to explicitly implicate myself and my practice in the project of social transformation (Souto-­Manning, 2019). A justice orientation adds a political dimension to decision-­making about what and how to teach, while a PTE grounds such decisions in the purpose(s) that teacher educators assign to their engagement with learners. Although JOPTE might use some of the same teaching methods as PTE that are not framed politically, JOPTE does so with the transparent purpose of disrupting injustice and/or advancing justice, just as justice-­oriented teachers can employ a range of teaching methods through the lens of their political clarity (Bartolomé, 1994). JOPTE is not synonymous with activism – which implies advocacy for social or political outcomes – but rather treats issues of (in)justice as if they belong in the pedagogy and curriculum of teacher education. Nor is it synonymous with indoctrination, because PTE centers the learners’ development of pedagogical reasoning over the transmission of knowledge from teacher to learner (Loughran, 2006). Finally, in this chapter, I refer to my emotional experience and the process of navigating it as a crisis (Kumashiro, 2000a). Crisis, in Kumashiro’s work with high school and college students, refers to strong or overwhelming emotions embedded in learners’ responses to anti-­oppressive education. As experiences push learners to challenge their assumptions or recognize the gaps between what they believe and what they do, uncomfortable emotions like anger, guilt, and fear can arise and consume the learning. I call my experience a crisis because my emotions made it difficult to enact a purposeful PTE for fear that I would be doing it “wrong.” This affective dimension of becoming a teacher educator is understudied, as “attention to the cognitive domain too often dominates” discussion of teaching and learning about teaching (Loughran, 2006, p. 3). Ultimately, this narrative centers on my case of a common experience among novice teacher educators: if we receive any preparation for teacher

Navigating Crisis While Learning a JOPTE  115

education, we typically receive it concurrently with our first attempts at practice (Murray, 2016). As I tried to get comfortable with the uncomfortable experience of doing an important job for the first time, I sought to develop a vision of what JOPTE looks like in practice, a sort of destination toward which I could map the course of my learning. Yet, the ever-­evolving demands of justice work make JOPTE a moving target, and having absolute clarity about what to do is an impossibility. Initially unwilling to accept this uncertainty, I found myself in a crisis, caught between the part of me that thought I needed to know what I “should” do to move forward, and a part that knew I’d never find definitive answers to my questions. As I articulate in this chapter, it was only through confronting my emotions and bringing them into my learning process that I could productively work to build the JOPTE I desired to enact. Both conducting self-­study research and participating in a doctoral seminar for novice teacher educators created space for me to lean into and resolve this crisis. Context & Process: Navigating Uncertainty

At the start of this story in Fall 2020, I was beginning my second year as a doctoral student and field coach for TCs participating in a year-­long teaching practicum. It was also the middle of a global pandemic, which had moved my own doctoral courses, TCs’ courses and practicum experience, and all of my interactions with TCs into virtual spaces. In addition to the intense uncertainty that the pandemic brought to all areas of life, I found myself grappling with a strong desire to understand what I was supposed to do as a field coach and teacher educator, a question that had been building in my mind and heart since my first days as a doctoral student. Having read about self-­study research, I began trying to systematically document my teacher education practice through various writing practices. I took notes on my computer during interactions with TCs and wrote ethnographic field notes about small group learning sessions that I facilitated virtually. I also sustained a habit of hand-­writing open-­ended reflections on my teacher education practice in a journal, which served as a mental health practice as well as a method of data collection. Barely a novice researcher at this time, I approached self-­study as an activity that might help me understand and improve my practice as a teacher educator, but without specific research questions or goals. In Spring 2021, I enrolled in a doctoral seminar titled “Critical Inquiry and Becoming a Teacher Educator,” which was co-­taught by Professors Jamy Stillman and Sara Staley. The course brought together readings from critical pedagogy and queer pedagogy with literature about practitioner inquiry, including the self-­study methodology. As part of the course, we

116  Elizabeth Ann Tetu

were assigned and supported to conduct practitioner inquiry projects within our own practice, and this prompted me to begin making more deliberate decisions about what I was trying to learn by studying my practice and, therefore, what data I wanted to collect. I drafted the following questions early in the semester to guide my inquiry:

• What does it take to transform teaching and teacher education into professions that disrupt inequality instead of reproducing it?

• What is my role in that process of transformation? What are the implications of this mission for my practice? • These questions emerged from my engagement with critical and queer scholarship that encouraged reimagining teacher education and implicating the self in the work of transforming it (e.g., Ellsworth, 1989; Freire, 2000; hooks, 2015; Kumashiro, 2002; Luhmann, 1998). I recognize now that, rather than being questions that could reasonably be addressed by a self-­ study project, these are the essential questions for learning JOPTE. They were what I came to call my “heart questions,” the questions at the center of my pursuit of JOPTE, even as I came to recognize that they were impossible to conclusively answer. I focused the self-­study project on my written responses to five TCs’ weekly journal entries. In addition to the practical reasons that I selected this focus – for example, by focusing on a weekly practice, I expected to produce a moderate amount of data within one semester – I understood my responses to be heavily mediated by my own beliefs and knowledge because I exercised discretion in both what I responded to (the topics of my responses) and how I responded (the framing and content of my responses). In other words, I thought the inner workings of my JOPTE (what and how I taught TCs) might be visible in these written dialogues. To help make my decision-­ making processes available for analysis, I wrote brief reflective memos immediately after responding to each TC’s journal. These memos documented the aspects of the candidates’ journals to which I did or did not respond, what I said in my responses, the conscious rationale for my decisions, and my perception of the benefits and drawbacks of my decisions. In some cases, the act of writing out a justification led me to change my mind and revise my responses. Throughout the research process, I worked to engage in praxis, or cycles of mutually informing action and reflection (Freire, 2000). During the doctoral seminar, I wrote sixteen reflections related to my project in class, typically before or after sharing my thinking-­in-­progress with my peers. I also drafted analytic memos throughout the semester about the research process and a final “unfinished” research paper about the project I completed and

Navigating Crisis While Learning a JOPTE  117

what I learned from it. To construct the following narrative, I analyzed these data sources from class, as well as other reflective writing from the 2020-­21 school year, placing emphasis on the data’s “emotional resonance” in relation to my desire to learn JOPTE (Stillman et al., 2019, p. 272). Narrative: Navigating Emotional Crisis Desiring Certainty in an Independent Self-­Study

At the beginning of my second year in doctoral education, I was desperate to feel like I knew what I was doing as a teacher educator. I wanted to be seen by others as doing a good job, and just as importantly I wanted to see my own values and personality demonstrated authentically in my practice. Central to any PTE is a commitment to teaching about teaching through making one’s pedagogical reasoning transparent to learners of teaching (Loughran, 2006). Yet it was difficult to make visible something that I did not yet understand, and it was almost unimaginable to make visible something that I feared might work against my stated purpose for teaching or reveal that I was not equipped for the responsibility of teaching teachers. Indeed, my biggest fear at this early stage of learning JOPTE was that I would enact practices that ran counter to my values. This fear was not unfounded; it was grounded in my past experience as a teacher who felt that I had often failed to provide humanizing, culturally sustaining learning experiences for my elementary students, despite my best intentions and commitment to justice. I entered and move(d) through graduate school with feelings of regret and shame about my former practice, which I knew was both the best I knew how to do at the time, having received little preparation to teach for justice, and much less disruptive and transformative than my students deserved. My regret loomed over me throughout this school year, as shown by the following reflection: [As a teacher] I could not figure out how to reconcile my philosophical and pedagogical commitments with the requirements of my job. While there are small bits of my elementary school teaching practice of which I am proud, for the most part my practice reflected the dehumanizing, banking model of teaching and learning [(Freire, 2000)] that I hoped to avoid. It breaks my heart to reflect on the significant gap between what my students deserved and what I offered them as a teacher. My own story tells me that an earnest, deeply felt commitment to justice is insufficient for developing a teaching practice that reflects such a commitment. (memo, 2/8/21)

118  Elizabeth Ann Tetu

In this reflection, I referenced but did not explicitly name what was dehumanizing about my past practice, such as my prioritization of academic development sometimes to the detriment of my students’ well-­being, and my complicity in disciplinary practices that enacted unnecessary control over students’ bodies. I also felt regret about my experience as an instructional coach in a context that applied a rigid and hierarchical approach to teaching and framed learning as a transmission of knowledge from expert to novice. This approach ran counter to PTE’s emphasis on “unpacking teaching in ways that [give] students access to the pedagogical reasoning, uncertainties and dilemmas of practice that are inherent in understanding teaching as being problematic” (Loughran, 2006, p. 6). Whenever my past experiences arose in my writing, I expressed fear that I hadn’t unlearned what was unjust about them, and I wondered if my past made me unsuitable or unprepared to learn JOPTE. In a journal entry I wondered, “am I the right person for the job?” (journal, 9/8/20). Being the “right” person for the job or doing the job in the “right” way was a theme in my thinking and writing during this period, as I sought to avoid repetition of my past, which I understood to be littered with “wrong” choices and actions. I felt that others, including other novices, perhaps those with a stronger track record of justice-­oriented teaching practice, knew how to do what I was trying to do. I perceived that these others, the “right” people for the job, were all around me, and I might be an imposter in their midst. At this stage, I saw certainty – about what I “should” do to enact my values as a teacher educator – as the antidote to my fears of repeating the past. But the belief that a correct answer existed, and that it was possible to uncover it, was misguided. Loughran’s (2006) notion of a PTE leans heavily on the idea that teacher educators do not merely teach content, but also teach students; pedagogical decisions are therefore not based on universal truths but dependent on context. Furthermore, I knew that contingency was inherent to all justice work, including justice-­oriented teacher education. Nevertheless, I desired the simplicity of the “right” way to enact JOPTE. Although my learning of JOPTE was already far from linear – I had been thrust into the role of teacher educator prior to receiving preparation, and I knew that TCs were learning from their experiences (whether or not I attempted to mediate that learning) and our interactions (whether or not I chose the “right” things to do and say) – my emotions implored me to seek a linear process going forward. Being consumed by my emotions constituted a crisis because I was unable to engage in meaningful sense-­making and purposeful decision-­ making, even as contradictions proliferated between what I felt and what I knew. For example, although I strongly desired certainty, I was aware that uncertainty would always be present because justice is too big for anyone to

Navigating Crisis While Learning a JOPTE  119

“figure out.” Furthermore, I recognized there was no way to predict or conclusively identify how my actions impacted TCs’ learning, a reality that I could not eliminate by doing the “right” actions. For instance, I might respond to a journal entry with a probing question intended to shift a TC’s thinking in relation to a teaching dilemma, but it would be up to the TC to engage in the thinking work that accomplishes such a shift. I believe that the certainty/uncertainty binary constituted a crisis for me in part because I had adopted a justice orientation to the process of learning PTE. My engagement with scholarship about (in)justice in teacher education, gave me more precise language for how consequential my work as a justice-­ oriented teacher educator was. Meanwhile, my lived experience highlighted the impossibility of “accomplishing” justice or being certain about the impact of my practice. And in my desperate search for the right answers, awareness of these limitations made it difficult to see myself as moving toward justice. Unable to unsettle my binary thinking during Fall 2020, I focused my efforts on the realm of technical actions (e.g., ensuring that TCs logged their field hours), where there was both greater certainty (defined tasks, deadlines) and significant uncertainty (I completed tasks without much analysis of their role in teacher learning, because they simply “needed to be done”). I was, as Loughran (2006) cautioned against, seeking “a simple solution to a complex problem” (p. 31), and I felt even then that I was not doing much to advance learning or justice. For example, when I reflected on a small group learning space that I facilitated, I wrote that I had “failed” to develop a TC’s question about establishing her presence in the classroom into a generative conversation for learning, commenting that I instead “treated the question…as a logistical one that is specific to this year” (journal entry, 9 November 2020). I was lamenting TCs’ focus on the technical at this time, as well: for instance, after I asked a group to share “peaks and valleys” about their past week, I reflected that “most [of what they shared] had to do with assignments and workload” rather than questions or ideas about teaching (journal entry, 26 October 2020). In the fast pace of becoming teachers and becoming a teacher educator, it seemed that we found the technical, surface-­level aspects of our work to be most accessible for action and reflection; unfortunately, this work at the surface did little to address the emotional or political dimensions of our processes of becoming. For developing teachers and teacher educators alike, embodying new practices does not merely involve acquiring knowledge and skill, but also interrogating and unlearning ingrained ways of thinking and acting (Cochran-­Smith, 2003). To resolve my crisis and move toward JOPTE, then, I would have to go “beyond the technical” to examine myself, my beliefs, my actions, and my desires more intentionally (Loughran, 2007,

120  Elizabeth Ann Tetu

p. 1). This process can generate fear, discomfort, excitement, uncertainty, and tension (Staley & Leonardi, 2019), yet it also opens the door for deeper engagement with the moral, political, and even the technical dimensions of teaching (Kelchtermans & Hamilton, 2004). Beyond attending to the technical, therefore, I needed to analyze parts of myself that were closer to my core: my mission, identity, beliefs, and competencies (Korthagen & Verkuyl, 2007; Loughran, 2006). In retrospect, I can see that becoming aware of my focus on the technical was a step toward learning from my crisis and that my use of self-­study methods had helped me point out the patterns in my own behavior, as well as reflect on the inadequacy of my technical approach for learning a JOPTE. Yet becoming aware, on its own, was insufficient because my focus on the technical enabled me to avoid confronting the crisis that was operating in the emotional domain, something I felt ill-­equipped to do. I needed a learning community of teacher educators to get me to confront my emotions, as well as the embodied experiences and actions that created them. Desiring Certainty and Change in a Self-­Study Community

Confronting my desire for certainty in service of learning JOPTE was long, slow, and intense work during the Spring 2021 semester. It required that I dig deep into limiting beliefs about myself, TCs, and the work we were doing together so that I could develop an authentic connection to and articulation of the purpose of my JOPTE. Self-­study continued to play a role in this process, and in the context of the doctoral seminar, it was bolstered by my engagement with queer and critical scholarship, a learning environment and assignments that invited tentative thinking and emotional expressions, and a collective of justice-­ oriented teacher educators. The course mediated my practice of self-­study such that I could begin to address the emotional underpinnings of my technical actions and resistance to uncertainty, as well as their implications for my learning of JOPTE. I began to unsettle the binary at the root of my crisis by making visible the implicit assumptions that guided my practice, especially the limiting beliefs I carried about myself and the TCs I coached. As I have illustrated, my limiting beliefs generally revealed a sense that there are “right” and “wrong” ways to be a teacher educator, and they were leading me to reproduce ideas of “right” and “wrong” in my practice. For example, one week I wrote: I felt compelled to respond to [a TC] mentioning that a student was labeled the ‘problem’ student. I think this is because she did not explicitly interrogate this label, and I didn’t want to ‘let it go.’ I’m glad to be

Navigating Crisis While Learning a JOPTE  121

reflecting on this because I think my initial assumption was a deficit viewpoint on [the TC]–assuming she was accepting this label. But as I look back on what she said about her interaction, that may or may not have been [an] accurate [assumption]. (reflection on journal responses, 4 April 2021) Given my commitment to justice in education, it had felt like it was my job to identify and correct what I perceived as evidence of deficit thinking, but this belief impeded my ability to teach my student, the TC whose reflection I was reading, in addition to ideas about justice that I thought important for her to engage with (Loughran, 2006). When I imposed a binary of right and wrong ways to talk about teaching and learning, I left little room to recognize opportunities for learning within the TC’s honest sense-­making and dilemmas. But engaging in systematic reflection on my responses to journals nudged me toward more authentic dialogue in which I assumed that TCs’ perspectives offered a starting point for facilitating learning about teaching. To move through and beyond my crisis and prepare to enact the dialogic practices that I envisioned to be part of JOPTE, I had to learn to hold the fear that arose as I worked to interrupt my patterns of thinking and behavior. This was both an intellectual process and an emotional one and participating in the doctoral seminar helped me on both fronts. The faculty instructors, Jamy and Sara, communicated both verbally and nonverbally that they welcomed and expected emotion to emerge from the process of becoming teacher educators. The syllabus included texts centering on the role of love (hooks, 2015), humanization (Freire, 2000), and desire (Kumashiro, 2002), and their facilitation created opportunities to name emotions, as well as what our emotions were doing to us and for us as learners (Luhmann, 1998). As a result, I understood that this course was a countercultural academic learning environment in which I could “go there,” I could make my emotions visible and salient in my self-­study project (Ahmed, 2014). The invitation to confront emotions enabled me to start to reframe my patterns of binary thinking. In turn, it also helped me invite TCs to engage their emotions more explicitly in our dialogue about their teaching and sense-­making. Beyond creating space for my emotions, the course created accountability and opportunities for dialogue that aided me in navigating the crisis and building JOPTE that integrated knowledge of my students alongside justice frameworks into my decision-­making about what and how to teach. Re-­ reading Kumashiro’s (2000b) work on learning through crisis in the context of the course gave me language to describe how my emotions were impeding my actions in real time. Meanwhile, having course assignments to complete within the bounds of a semester made it impossible for me to wait for certainty, as I had been doing in my independent self-­study. Furthermore, in

122  Elizabeth Ann Tetu

class, I hesitated to state false binaries and limiting beliefs out loud as if they were true. I felt embarrassed about being stuck in the same place week after week and wanted to contribute meaningfully to the collective learning, which meant that I needed to generate understandings about practice that were guided by the authentic purpose inherent to JOPTE, not just by fear. A key shift the course community helped me make was toward resolving to try to make sense of what I was doing rather than what I should do. A chapter by Gutiérrez (2015) was influential to this intellectual and methodological shift. In a mid-­course memo, I wrote: Rather than give in to my desire to resolve this tension – to ‘choose’ whether I ‘should’ intervene when fears/worries about teacher candidates’ thinking arise – Gutiérrez suggests I can actually retain the tension itself as a framework for approaching the work. Each time I encounter this dilemma of practice, fully aware of the complex tensions that arise, I will/do of course choose a response. Making this choice does not make the tension go away; instead, it provides an opportunity [for] praxis – reflection on the action taken, and subsequently/perhaps new courses of future action resulting from that reflection. (1 March 2021) From this text and the class discussions that surrounded it, I started to accept that if I could learn to hold my fear of doing it “wrong” and act from a place of uncertainty, I might be able to learn something that could move my practice in the direction of justice. Although a part of me still held on to my desire for certainty (and continues to hold onto it), I also began to desire something else: change in my patterns of thinking, feeling, and acting. I now had another strong desire to break the cycle of getting stuck waiting for certainty, and to enact JOPTE by making intentional choices in my interactions with TCs. As Gutiérrez’s (2015) work suggests, the decision to examine and try to learn from what I was doing in my interactions with TCs – to try to understand the relationship between my teaching and their learning (Loughran, 2006) – did not resolve the emotional crisis. Instead, it helped make it possible for me to confront it: I expect that [looking closely at my actions] will require me to own up to mistakes and harms that I have undoubtedly enacted, and I am somewhat afraid that I will uncover a deep divide between my espoused and enacted beliefs. [But] I know that this is part of the work of unlearning racism and of being/ becoming the teacher educator my students (and their students) deserve. (project proposal, 14 March 2021)

Navigating Crisis While Learning a JOPTE  123

In this way, I was able to reframe the idea of acting without certainty as a necessary part of developing JOPTE, rather than as a failure to enact that pedagogy correctly. Rather than avoiding my crisis by continuing to seek certainty, I needed to move toward it and be willing to accept that the negative outcomes I feared might come to pass. All teaching involves a risk of inflicting harm on learners, and PTE, perhaps especially JOPTE, demands that teacher educators meaningfully take accountability for our actions, as it asks us to explicitly identify and share with learners the reasoning that guides what we do and how we do it. Once I accepted that my actions would always be imperfect, and that I would have to make those actions available for inquiry alongside TCs and other teacher educators, I had no choice but to begin emerging from the paralysis that characterized my crisis. From the vantage point of the end of the course, drawing from the critical and queer framings we had read and discussed throughout the semester, I recognized that the emotions and desires that accompanied (and still accompany) my uncertainty about what to do were important to my process of learning JOPTE because they pointed to ideas that I needed to (un)learn in order to embrace the contingent nature of justice work. As such, I re-­ framed my research questions for studying my practice as follows: • What happens when tensions, contradictions, and uncertainties arise in my teacher education practice? • How do I respond physically, emotionally, and intellectually? • What do I desire? • How do I experience, understand, and work through the cycles of praxis that come next? (unfinished paper, 30 April 2021) Rather than making certainty the precondition for action, I came to more fully embody praxis, turning this linear process into a cycle where thinking/ knowing came both before and after action. Thus, I could expect that uncertainty would always be present because action was always in relationship with reflection. Understanding that everyone has partial knowledge (Kumashiro, 2001), including about what is right and just, I began to appreciate that not knowing could be a fruitful starting point for teaching, learning, and research. Looking back, I would now add that not knowing but feeling can also be a generative starting point for learning, because emotions can point to what one deeply knows but has forgotten or is unwilling to confront. In this case, my desire for certainty pointed to a deeper desire to transform what is unjust in teacher education. The intense discomfort that those desires produced reflected my inner knowing that injustice cannot simply be solved or

124  Elizabeth Ann Tetu

eliminated by choosing the right actions or by moving with connection to purpose, as required by a PTE. Learning to hold that discomfort allowed me to acknowledge my desire for transformation alongside my knowledge that the transformation I desire may never be complete, as was evident in my reflection from the final class meeting: My [self-­study] project has really helped me to bring forward and actually look at these competing discourses happening in my head [and heart], instead of trying to silence the parts of me that I find worrying or limiting. If something is rising to the surface, it’s worth looking at. I think getting more comfortable with just looking at what’s there (in my mind, between the lines of my practice) facilitates more self-­compassion as well as more learning. (in-­class reflection, 26 April 2021) The point of my story is not that I have arrived at enacting JOPTE. The rewards of my learning process were more modest: my desire shifted to include not only certainty (which I know is impossible) and broad transformation (which I know is a collective project), but also the embodiment of purpose in my day-­to-­day practice to contribute to and invite TCs into project of transformation. For example, instead of seeking or asserting the right answers and ideas, I started to lead with curiosity in responding to TCs’ writing, placing emphasis on both my and TCs’ development of pedagogical reasoning. Often, this led me to suggest multiple ways of viewing a dilemma and ask questions about how and why TCs might choose a particular response given their dilemma and context, rather than nudging toward what I imagined to be the “right” way to move forward. By moving through the crisis and the emotions that accompanied it, I was able to integrate my political and moral commitments with an intellectual analysis of my role in justice work, moving me closer to enacting JOPTE. Why Unpack Crises?

Learning JOPTE is a transformational process of becoming (Freire, 2000; Loughran, 2006). Like learning to teach, it is complex and involves development along technical, moral, political, and ethical dimensions (Kelchtermans & Hamilton, 2004). Although a part of me will always wish it could, PTE cannot be simply “learnt, applied, and technically mastered” (Loughran, 2006, p. 16). I now believe that acknowledging that one does not know, accepting discomfort, and acting in the face of fear are commonplace but often invisible aspects of the work that justice-­oriented teacher educators do. For me, and perhaps for others, getting to a place where I could do this

Navigating Crisis While Learning a JOPTE  125

emotional work required navigating a crisis; I may never have attempted to do so or found my way through if not for the personal nature of self-­study methodologies and the humanizing space offered to me by Professors Stillman and Staley. The data from my self-­study support the idea that emotion is important to learning PTE, because of the vulnerability inherent in opening up one’s practice for analysis and critique (Loughran, 2006). Emotions also have a political dimension (Ahmed, 2014) and may be even more likely to arise when learning JOPTE, or in any circumstance where political clarity about one’s purpose is in tension with one’s status as a novice. Though emotions can be uncomfortable and even frightening, my data also suggest that emotions need not be framed as barriers to learning (JO)PTE. When crisis is seen as inherent to the learning process, it can be explored and made an object of study. In the story I recounted here, the act of leaning into the affective experiences that I had learned to control and suppress in academic spaces (Ahmed, 2014) created an opportunity to think and understand differently. This process was at times difficult, frustrating, and even disheartening, but the emotional work that I did during this pivotal year in my development of JOPTE made it possible for me to recognize those emotions as sites where exploration might lead to growth. The emotional work I chronicled in this chapter did not replace the process of developing concrete practices for JOPTE (such as how to engage in dialogue about power, select culturally sustaining curricula for undergraduate learners, and centering multiple perspectives about (in)justice), but rather complemented and buoyed the intellectual and technical work I was doing by making me more resilient and receptive to new ideas. After the crisis receded, furthermore, confronting difficult emotions has remained a regular, necessary practice as I continue to learn and attempt to enact JOPTE. For some novice teacher educators, crises may never materialize in the way that mine did, and novices should not be required to reveal or perform a crisis as evidence that they are learning. However, data from my self-­study suggest that crises can be treated as resources for learning, rather than feared or viewed as barriers, when they do arise. In this slice of my story of becoming, thanks to opportunities to move through rather than avoid emotional crisis, I progressed toward enacting JOPTE, while remaining an “unfinished, uncompleted [being] in and with a likewise unfinished reality” (Freire, 2000, p. 84). As this volume seeks to make visible how individuals teach and learn PTE, I submit that making space for emotion, and even crisis, in opportunities for teacher educators to learn bolsters the process of learning (JO) PTE. Just as important, taking emotion and crises seriously as a part of the

126  Elizabeth Ann Tetu

learning process makes becoming a teacher educator a more humanizing and inspiring experience. During my crisis, having self-­study methods available as tools for deep personal exploration, alongside a learning community where my fearful and uncomfortable self could co-­exist with my intellectual and technical pursuit of learning, enabled me to move toward PTE that is authentic to me and reflects my purpose as a justice-­oriented teacher educator. I offer my story not as a prescription for how others should move through crises, but as an affirmation that crisis can be a meaningful, productive, and thankfully, temporary phase in learning (JO) PTE. References Ahmed, S. (2014). The cultural politics of emotion (2nd ed.). Routledge. Cochran-­Smith, M. (2003). Learning and unlearning: The education of teacher educators. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 5–28. Ellsworth, E. (1989). Why doesn’t this feel empowering? Working through the repressive myths of critical pedagogy. Harvard Educational Review, 59(3), 297. Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed (M. Bergman Ramos, Trans.; 30th Anniversary Edition). Continuum International Publishing Group. Gutiérrez, R. (2015). Nesting in Nepantla: The importance of maintaining tensions in our work. In N. M. Joseph, C. Haynes, & F. Cobb, Interrogating whiteness and relinquishing power: White faculty’s commitment to racial consciousness in STEM classrooms (pp. 253–281). Peter Lang. hooks, b. (2015). Outlaw culture: Resisting representations. Routledge. Kelchtermans, G., & Hamilton, M. L. (2004). The dialectics of passion and theory: Exploring the relation between self-­study and emotion. 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. 785–810). Springer. Korthagen, F., & Verkuyl, H. S. (2007). Do you encounter your students or yourself? The search for inspiration as an essential component of teacher education. In T. Russell & J. J. Loughran (Eds.), Enacting a pedagogy of teacher education: Values, relationships and practices (pp. 106–123). Routledge. Kumashiro, K. K. (2000a). Teaching and learning through desire, crisis, and difference: Perverted reflections on anti-­oppressive education. The Radical Teacher, 58, 6–11. Kumashiro, K. K. (2000b). Toward a theory of anti-­oppressive education. Review of Educational Research, 70(1), 25–53. Kumashiro, K. K. (2001). “Posts” perspectives on anti-­oppressive education in social studies, English, mathematics, and science classrooms. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 3–12. Kumashiro, K. K. (2002). Against repetition: Addressing resistance to anti-­ oppressive change in the practices of learning, teaching, supervising, and researching. Harvard Educational Review, 72(1), 67–92. Loughran, J. (2006). Developing a pedagogy of teacher education: Understanding teaching and learning about teaching (1st ed.). Routledge.

Navigating Crisis While Learning a JOPTE  127

Loughran, J. (2007). Enacting a pedagogy of teacher education. In T. Russell & J. J. Loughran (Eds.), Enacting a pedagogy of teacher education: Values, relationships and practices (pp. 1–15). Routledge. Love, B. (2019). We want to do more than survive: Abolitionist teaching and the pursuit of educational freedom. Beacon Press. Luhmann, S. (1998). Queering/querying pedagogy? Or, pedagogy is a pretty queer thing. In W. F. Pinar (Ed.), Queer theory in education (pp. 120–132). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Murray, J. (2016). Beginning teacher educators: Working in higher education and schools. In J. Loughran & M. L. Hamilton (Eds.), International handbook of teacher education (pp. 35–70). Springer. Paris, D., & Alim, H. S. (2017). Culturally sustaining pedagogies: Teaching and learning for justice in a changing world. Teachers College Press. Souto-­Manning, M. (2019). Toward praxically-­just transformations: Interrupting racism in teacher education. Journal of Education for Teaching, 45(1), 97–113. Staley, S., & Leonardi, B. (2019). Complicating what we know: Focusing on educators’ processes of becoming gender and sexual diversity inclusive. Theory into Practice, 58(1), 29–38. Stillman, J., Ahmed, K. S., Beltramo, J. L., Catañeda-­Flores, E., Garza, V. G., & Pyo, M. (2019). From the ground up: Cultivating teacher educator knowledge from the situated knowledges of emerging, asset-­oriented teacher educators. Asia-­Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 47(3), 265–285.

9 EXPLORING THE COMPLEXITY OF EMBEDDING SOCIAL JUSTICE INTO A PEDAGOGY OF LITERACY TEACHER EDUCATION Pooja Dharamshi, Lydia Menna, and Clare Kosnik

Drawing on Loughran’s pedagogy of teacher education (PTE) (2006), we studied 58 literacy teacher educators (LTEs) in four countries (Canada, the U.S., England, and Australia) to understand their pedagogies and challenges. Our aim was to develop a pedagogy of literacy teacher education (Kosnik et al., 2017, 2020) because we wanted to extend PTE into the discipline of literacy. Literacy is a vast discipline with many competing narratives thereby integrating social justice into literacy teacher education adds to the complexity of this work. Our work addresses the challenge described by Loughran (2006): “There is a need to be able to theorize practice in such a way as to know and be able to articulate the what, how, and why of teaching and to do so through the very experiences of teaching and learning about teaching” (p. 14). Our research focused on two pivotal questions: 1 What makes addressing social justice in literacy teacher education so complex? 2 What do LTEs need to know to embed social justice in their literacy courses? For the purposes of this study, social justice refers to the concept of promoting equity, access, and opportunity for all individuals and communities in society. In the context of literacy teacher education, this study explored how teacher educators prepare teacher candidates to teach diverse learners from various racial, linguistic, socio-­ economic, and cultural backgrounds by embedding social justice content and socially just pedagogies into their literacy methods courses. DOI: 10.4324/9781003365129-9

Embedding Social Justice in Literacy Teacher Education  129

The experiences and pedagogies of four LTEs are presented in the findings, which allow for an in-­depth description of each LTE’s formative experiences and the nuanced ways they address social justice. Because social justice is a broad topic, we begin by situating the work in the field of teacher education and the field of literacy, focusing on the work of teacher educators. This is followed by a description of Kosnik et al.’s (2017) elements of a pedagogy of literacy teacher education. These elements, along with the theoretical perspectives presented, are used as an analytic tool and structure the findings. Our findings describe theories and practices in developing a complex pedagogy for two timely issues: literacy and social justice. Literature Review

The current climate and shifting literacy landscape have exacerbated the university-­field divide (Anderson & Stillman, 2010; Ahmed, 2019; Feiman-­ Nemser & Buchmann, 1985). Neoliberal policies have led to several educational reforms, influencing teaching, assessment, and the rise of marketplace competition in schooling contexts. This has placed an increased pressure on student teachers and teacher educators to meet imposed mandates perpetuating a culture of “teaching to the test” while moving away from “explicit equity-­oriented teacher preparation, and toward preparing teachers as technicians” (Sleeter, 2013, p. 7). Loughran and Menter (2019) add: In many ways, increased scrutiny and critique of teaching and teacher education has led to a shift in emphasis from professional conceptions to something more akin to a training focus through which the “doing of teaching” becomes a proxy for pedagogical expertise. (p. 216) Due to pressure to meet various standards, current pedagogical reforms, and assessment of student-­teacher practice, teacher educators report their work has been “less focused on enacting change and more focused on upholding the status quo,” and as a result, “tenets of critical literacy, such as social justice, equity and social action became de-­centered in [their] methods courses” (Tondreau et al., 2022, p. 61). As a result of these educational reforms, standardization and surveillance have become commonplace in schools and teacher preparation programs. These reforms are often in stark contrast to the disciplinary shifts the field of literacy has experienced over the past several decades (Brass, 2015; Kosnik et al., 2015). Literacy, a practice once synonymous with the discrete and autonomous skills of simply reading and writing, is now increasingly understood as a complex social practice in which historical, cultural, social, and

130  Pooja Dharamshi et al.

technological perspectives are at the center (Brass, 2015). Interdisciplinary fields of study have emerged that reflect these significant shifts in how literacy is understood today, including new literacy studies, multiliteracies, and critical literacies studies. Pedagogical implications take into account the various ways in which one makes meaning and aim for practices that promote equity in classrooms, including multimodal pedagogies, culturally sustaining pedagogies, and critical literacies pedagogies. Despite the shifting landscape of literacy teacher education, relatively little is known about LTEs, those who play a critical role in designing learning opportunities for student teachers that shape knowledge, skills, and dispositions needed to work confidently with culturally and linguistically diverse children and families (Cochran-­Smith et al., 2004; Kosnik et al., 2013; Rogers, 2013). By focusing on the work of LTEs, this chapter aims to better understand their conceptualizations and practices of literacy teacher education and social justice in increasingly contentious times. Social Justice and Teacher Educators

Scholars of teacher education have argued that although teacher education programs across North America claim the mantle of teacher education for equity and social justice, this work is done unequally and/or ineffectively across institutions (Zeichner, 2016). Several reasons have been identified for these shortcomings: a lack of teacher educator training, preparation and development (Stillman & Anderson, 2016; Goodwin & Darity, 2019); teacher educators using an “add-­on” and superficial approach to social justice because they are simply appeasing a call to action; the majority of teacher educators come from homogenous backgrounds (white, middle-­class, monolingual) often reinforcing the status quo (Ellis et al., 2019, p. 5); a wide variation in the ways social justice is addressed in teacher education (Milner & Laughter, 2015); and/or student teachers potential resistance to engaging with this work and contending with own biases and assumptions (Dixson & Dingus, 2007; Dover et al., 2020). At the same time, contributions to the literature on advancing equity and social justice in teacher education have offered pedagogical implications to the work of teacher educators:

• Giving prospective teachers an opportunity to interact with children in

non-­school settings and seeing students in places where they are likely to be experiencing success (e.g., community centers, clubs, teams) (Ladson-­ Billings, 2006, p. 109); Structuring experiences and activities for student teachers to closely look • at their cultural systems and begin to recognize the cultural underpinnings of their own beliefs, attitudes, and practices in order to develop an asset-­based orientation (Souto-­Manning, 2019);

Embedding Social Justice in Literacy Teacher Education  131

• Facilitating opportunities for student teachers to view themselves as cur-

riculum makers and ultimately agents of change (Cochran-­Smith et al., 2022); and Creating hybrid spaces in university teacher preparation programs where • university, school-­based and community knowledges come together to develop and deliver teacher education curricula (Zeichner, 2020; Zeichner et al., 2015). Although there has been emerging research on the practices of teacher educators (i.e., what they need to know; transitions from classroom to university), what remains missing is understanding their work in the disciplines they teach. The framework for this study draws upon theoretical perspectives in the areas of literacy teacher education and social justice education. Why Study Literacy Teacher Educators?

In our study of LTEs (Kosnik et al., 2017), we found that they have their own set of expectations, skills, and consequently unique needs. Their knowledge base, backgrounds, career trajectories, and visions of teacher education are unique, and they face specific challenges. Our research on LTEs revealed discrete yet interrelated elements of a pedagogy of literacy teacher education:

• • • • • • • • • •

Value and respond to diversity Weave theory and practice Build the class into a learning community Read, discuss, and analyze a range of texts and genres Participate in local and international research communities and organizations Connect practice teaching with academic program Create authentic reflection activities Set assignments to consolidate learning Integrate digital technologies Use repertoire of pedagogical skills

These elements are centered around an evolving conception of literacy and reveal the complex work of LTEs because they “span two disciplines, literacy and teacher education” (p. 138). Rather than simply list their goals and teaching strategies, three aspects of a pedagogy of literacy teacher education are analyzed in the findings, as they are directly related to embedding social justice in teacher education: value and respond to diversity; read, discuss, analyze a range of texts and genres; build meaningful community connections.

132  Pooja Dharamshi et al.

Methodology

This research employed a qualitative methodology with a modified grounded theory approach for data analysis (Charmaz, 2006; Punch, 2009; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Fifty-­eight LTEs working in four countries, Canada, the U.S., England, and Australia were interviewed. The semi-­structured interviews inquired into their background experiences, influences on their current practice, turning points in their careers, and social justice practices. Each semi-­structured interview took approximately 60–90 minutes. In conjunction with the interviews a document analysis was also conducted of syllabi from the LTEs’ literacy methods courses. For data analysis, qualitative software NVivo was used. The first level of analysis, “open coding,” (Strauss & Corbin, 2000) was used to examine the properties of the data (Creswell & Miller, 2000) by identifying salient words and phrases, related to the research questions and any other category or theme, which were emerging. The interview transcripts and syllabi were read several times line-­by-­line and important words and phrases were coded. Approximately 164 codes and sub-­codes were generated. For example, the social justice node had 31 sub-­codes such as: barriers, student-­teacher response, government mandates, critical literacies, and connections to the community. During the next level of analysis axial coding, the codes and categories generated through open coding were examined to identify interrelationships between and within the data. As with open coding, the procedures of posing questions to the data and the constant comparison methods of analysis were used. For the purposes of this chapter, we will focus on a subset of four LTEs, from higher education institutions in the U.S., whose practice provides rich and diverse examples of a pedagogy of literacy teacher education with a focus on social justice (see Table 9.1). The pedagogies of four LTEs are presented in the findings which allowed for descriptions of each LTE’s backgrounds and their unique enactments of a pedagogy of literacy teacher education for social justice. Below is an overview of the four LTEs: Findings Unpacking Government Initiatives, Standards, and Educational Reform

Recognizing teaching as a political act, the LTEs made space in their courses to problematize issues around teaching and learning in the current teacher education climate. Specifically, the LTEs recognized the mandated curriculum was a source of tension for student teachers; on one hand, in their academic courses, they understood literacy practices as expansive and broad, while on the other hand they experienced the mandated curriculum as

TABLE 9.1  Overview of four LTEs as of time of data collection

Racial Background

Years Teaching in Grade Level the Classroom

Years as Teacher Educator

Faculty Position

Research Topic

Sarah

White

3

Primary

29

Professor

Misa

Black

2

Intermediate

6

Associate Professor

Melissa

Latinx

6

ECE, Intermediate

8

Associate Professor

Gavin

Biracial (White/ 10 SouthEast Asian

Primary, Senior

11

Associate Professor

Preparing student teachers to serve racially and culturally diverse students Ethnographic study of Black and Latinx student teachers Examines inequities and injustices in early childhood teaching and teacher education Immigrant narratives from fifth grade students

Note: All participants are tenure-­track faculty at U.S. universities. ECE = early childhood education. Primary, Grades 1–5; intermediate, Grades 6–8; senior, Grades 9–12.

Embedding Social Justice in Literacy Teacher Education  133

Participant

134  Pooja Dharamshi et al.

increasingly prescriptive and pre-­set during their practice teaching placements. In the U.S. context for instance, during the time of data collection, the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) had been recently adopted as academic standards for literacy/English Language Arts (ELA) and Mathematics. In their practice teaching placements, student teachers observed that meeting state standards was a top priority, and so the LTEs felt pressure to explicitly teach the CCSS in their academic courses so the student teachers could teach to the standards in their future classrooms. Misa was aware of the tension her student teachers faced: “On one level we are thrown standards and at the same time I’m saying to them be present, be in the moment, and I think that for student [teachers] that is a very difficult contradiction to work through.” Similarly, Gavin noted his student teachers had the difficult task of “navigating contexts that are very standardized” within the broader context of the city in which they would be teaching, which he described as “profoundly under-­funded…adding to a really stressful teaching climate.” As a result, he probed student teachers to regularly consider: “How do I work within and against the system to enact a social justice curriculum when things are so top-­down and standardized?” Because of their experience and thoughtfulness the LTEs firmly understood the complex and paradoxical task at hand. Many noted they tried to find a balance between focusing on state standards versus expansive pedagogies. Melissa realized the possible consequences of not prioritizing the state standards in her teacher education courses: “There is a danger that if you don’t talk about [standards] at all, then they’re in shock and end up just not questioning it, and then thinking that your program didn’t prepare them for that.” She recognized that not explicitly addressing the state standards was a missed opportunity to critically engage with the documents. Ultimately, she did not view the standards as an all or nothing issue; rather, she recognized the standards as a text with the potential to be critically analyzed with student teachers. Interestingly, the LTEs felt it was their primary responsibility to help student teachers learn how to teach children, not the mandated curriculum. While they recognized the importance of meeting standards, they had experienced several iterations of the standards in their professional careers. Living through an era of educational reform, they recognized the changing nature of reform initiatives, and so focused their efforts on ensuring student teachers would be able to engage and teach children in any circumstance. For this reason, all of their courses focused on theory, pedagogy, and praxis, which in turn allowed student teachers to develop the skills, knowledge, and dispositions needed to effectively teach pupils regardless of the political landscape. Melissa explained,

Embedding Social Justice in Literacy Teacher Education  135

I think we should be preparing [them] to teach children. That’s one of the main things that I convey to the students is you’re not teaching literacy, you’re teaching the student. You’re not teaching the curriculum. The student should be in the middle and to try to be fit around the curriculum because you can stretch that to fit around. So, I teach them to teach children. Melissa believed good practice and the mandated curriculum were not mutually exclusive. She believed it did not detract from her equity-­oriented approach. Melissa modeled how her approach could be negotiated into classrooms. She explained how in the midst of reforms she was still able to find “space” and “wiggle room” in the curriculum. She acknowledged, however, the pressure student teachers faced: One of the things that I’m very much a proponent of is being realistic… They can’t disregard the Common Core. One of the challenges for them is that they have to get to know the child, they have to document the child’s interest, they have to be culturally responsive. At the same time they do have to address the Common Core standards. In response, Melissa, and the other LTEs used this palatable tension as a resource in their literacy courses. In her course, student teachers were encouraged to “see the standards as the floor not the ceiling…they need to understand the standards to get around them.” And so, student teachers were invited to use curriculum documents as a text to be inquired into (e.g., interrogating the assumptions the documents made about pupils in the classroom). By helping student teachers to analyze a wide range of texts (Kosnik et al., 2017), in this case government documents and curricular standards, they encouraged student teachers to apply a critical lens to their developing pedagogies as teachers. Conceptualizing Literacy Teacher Education as a Transformative Practice

The LTEs viewed literacy teacher education as a site for social justice to be enacted. As such their practices were contextualized and responsive to their students and the communities in which they served. Their view of literacy was informed by their sustained engagements in the local contexts in which they lived. They conceptualized literacy as a meaning-­making practice and as a tool for transformation. Below we highlight each of the LTEs’ relevant background experiences, their broad and expansive conceptualizations of literacy and pedagogies of social justice teacher education.

136  Pooja Dharamshi et al.

Sonia

Personal and Educational Background. Sonia is a professor of education at a university located in the Mid-­West. Sonia grew up in a culturally diverse community although noting it was racially homogenous. From a young age she understood class and wealth disparity: “My parents always bought the least expensive home in the most expensive neighborhood.” Sonia describes herself as a teacher educator who is passionate about equity in schools and brings with her an “urgency to [her teacher education] work.” A hallmark of her teaching has been the community-­engaged teacher education program she co-­designed intended to immerse student teachers into the community while learning to identify needs so they can develop a plan to address them in collaboration with community members. Example of Literacy Teacher Education Practice and Pedagogy. Sonia developed pedagogies of teacher education which brought community knowledge into her course. She drew on the experience and knowledge of community mentors to facilitate literacy learning that was conscious of the historical, social and racial histories of the schooling contexts many would be teaching. The community mentors included parents, grandparents, and various stakeholders who had a long history in and deep knowledge of the local community. The mentors became an integral part of the teacher education program as they helped student teachers develop culturally relevant practices for literacy teaching. When learning how to teach reading, student teachers prepared for an assignment where they would deliver an interactive read aloud with children and directly talk about race. To prepare, community mentors were invited in to listen to the read-­ alouds and provide feedback on the types of prompts and questions student teachers were asking. Sonia described an impactful learning moment: [Student teachers] don’t know a lot about what causes differences in skin colours and how to reference skin or talk about it. They learned things like not talking about skin being darker but being richer, for example. It was an identity experience that they had that they won’t forget. Over the duration of the teacher preparation program, student teachers developed strong relationships with the community mentors. Sonia recognized how important it was for student teachers to develop knowledge of their students’ lives outside of the classroom (Ladson-­Billings, 2006), as well as develop asset, equity, and justice-­oriented attitudes toward students in order to be culturally responsive educators (Souto-­Manning, 2019).

Embedding Social Justice in Literacy Teacher Education  137

In her course, Sonia actualized what Zeichner et al. (2015) have termed “hybrid spaces” where “university, school-­based and community knowledges come together to develop and deliver teacher education curricula (p. 124). Melissa

Personal and Educational Background. Melissa is an Associate Professor at a large research-­focused university in the Northeast. She teaches in the Early Childhood Education Program. Melissa was born and raised in Brazil and attended an elementary school and a high school strongly influenced by the work of educational scholar Paulo Freire. As a young adult, Melissa immigrated to the U.S. where she experienced first-­hand issues of power and access facing English language learners. She later pursued a doctoral degree in Early Childhood Special Education, focusing on inequities and injustices multilingual learners face in early childhood teaching settings. Example of Literacy Teacher Education Practice and Pedagogy. Melissa held an expansive view of literacy describing it as a practice in which we “make sense of and in the world.” Melissa attempted to make systemic barriers transparent so her student teachers could recognize and understand what marginalized members of society face. [I want them to] understand the author of any text has a political message whether we see it or not…and literacy is constructed, it’s not neutral…and for them to also disrupt some of the hierarchies that they may have come across, such as the distinction between illiterate and literacy peoples or groups. Melissa ran after-­school programs and advised on school boards. Viewing involvement in schools and with families as an “essential responsibility” of her role, these experiences directly informed her pedagogy as a teacher educator. For instance, by leveraging relationships in the community, Melissa developed a model for her teacher education course in which she partnered with a local elementary school where there was a dual language program. She said: “Inside one school there is an overarching representation of the community. Also, a representation of English language learners and of children who have been identified for special needs.” Because the course was partially delivered in the local school, student teachers were able to engage with pupils in a tutoring capacity. This provided them with immersive experiences to inform their work as teachers and to bridge theory presented in their academic courses with real-­life practice with multilingual students in

138  Pooja Dharamshi et al.

order to “get to know children and plan around their interests and get to know and honour their cultural backgrounds.” They worked with the same pupil over the course of the term and in turn developed a sense of responsibility for the learning and development of that pupil. Melissa believed this model of bridging theory and practice gave student teachers meaningful experiences to “really think about what it means to have a relationship with a child while providing authentic experiences in which they could first-­hand arrive at complex understandings of the relationship between language, class, race, and power.” Misa

Personal and Educational Background. Misa is an Associate Professor in the department of Reading and Language Arts in the School of Education at a university in the Northeast region of the U.S. Raised by a “family of educators” she described a strong calling and “deep responsibility” for her work as a teacher educator. She was born and raised in a working-­ class household in an inner city in the Midwest where she recognized that her community’s literacy practices were not valued in schools. As an LTE, she strives to remain engaged in the community so she can stay current with local literacy practices, as well as model a “humanizing pedagogy.” A humanizing pedagogy has been described in the literature as an additive approach to teaching and learning that views pupils in rich and complex ways and is enacted by drawing on students’ and parents’ cultural resources, valuing students’ background knowledge, and building trusting and caring relationships between teachers and students (Salazar, 2013). Example of Literacy Teacher Education Practice and Pedagogy. Misa aims to have her student teachers think deeply about literacy teaching and learning beyond what happens in classrooms. She encourages them to be engaged with parents, as well as with the community at large. She explains, “I think too often teachers think it’s just about them and the students. They don’t think about how it is part of a larger community, a larger context.” Misa integrated young adolescent literature (YAL) into her courses to help student teachers interrogate multiple perspectives and voices. Using texts such as books like Push (Sapphire, 1996) and Bronx Masquerade (Grimes, 2002) student teachers were able to get a glimpse into the lives of adolescents, often in high needs areas. In Bronx Masquerade, “each chapter is a different student, so you kind of get into those adolescent’s lives and things that they’ve done.” Using a text like Push, Misa was able to demonstrate the power of a humanizing pedagogy, a stance for which she advocated:

Embedding Social Justice in Literacy Teacher Education  139

I really don’t feel you should be in a classroom if you are not about nurturing relationships with your students, with their families, with their communities. You know a student will not learn from you if they think you do not like them or that you are fearful of them or that you don’t care about who they are. She described how young adolescent literature like Push influences student teachers to consider a pedagogy rooted in truly caring about pupils: In the book you see an evolution of her literacy. Ivy begins to develop and improve as she begins to have more positive interactions and experiences with teachers and adults in her life so from the beginning of the book, they are trying to show her literacy skills and by the end of the book, she is writing poetry. So I use that to get at a humanizing pedagogy and… the role of teachers to help students be able to write about their lives and to be literate. By helping student teachers interrogate the multiple perspectives of literacy and schooling presented in YAL Misa was able to help student teachers view diverse students in more complex ways. This, in turn, helped them develop a pedagogy rooted in social justice. Gavin

Personal and Educational Background. Gavin is an Associate Professor in the Department of Reading, Writing, and Literacy at a research-­intensive university in the Northeast region of the U.S. Gavin’s research area and context are personal to him because they are closely linked to his own familial heritage. His family history specifically his grandfather’s experiences as a migrant laborer shaped his research area, as well as his views on literacy teaching and learning. His research and teaching involve the role of literacy in immigrant and migrant communities as a form of social justice. Example of Literacy Teacher Education Practice and Pedagogy. Viewing literacy as a practice that is inherently political, Gavin’s course goals and assignments invited student teachers to: “problematize…to think about literacy as being broader than traditional views about reading, writing, and speaking.” For instance, in his courses he had student teachers examine non-­fiction and fiction children’s literature to analyze how diverse students are represented. From this analysis, they conducted research on issues that mattered to them from which they then authored their own non-­fiction children’s books. Wanting student teachers to start seeing themselves as “change agents” and intellectuals who could develop curriculum not just deliver it (Cochran-­Smith et al., 2022; Goodwin & Darity, 2019).

140  Pooja Dharamshi et al.

Further, Gavin’s course was connected to a faith-­-based institution that was made up of mostly newcomers and an immigrant population. By engaging with community members in a place where they were regarded as knowledgeable and successful, the student teachers in Gavin’s class were able to experience first-­hand expansive literacy practices taking place outside of traditional sites of literacy learning. Here student teachers could see their students in out-­of-­school settings (Ladson-­Billings, 2006) in places where they often experienced success by being on various committees, members of choir, etc. Ultimately, Gavin wanted student teachers to question who counted as knowledgeable in order “to view the [pupils] they are working with as intellectual resources and as people who come in with rich experiences.” The influence of positionality on the development of a PTE is evident in the experiences and practices of the teacher educators described above. Each teacher educator’s personal and educational background shaped their cultural, social, and educational contexts and has influenced their pedagogical approaches. Their positionality influenced the ways in which they approach teaching, engage with communities, and advocate for equity and social justice. These findings suggest that understanding and embracing positionality is essential for developing a PTE that is responsive to diverse contexts and promotes inclusive and meaningful learning experiences for future teachers. Enacting Pedagogies of Literacy Teacher Education

The LTEs in this study developed pedagogies of literacy teacher education that were inextricably linked with social justice. As such their pedagogies were contextualized, responsive and critically explored educational reforms and tensions of teacher education. In Loughran’s seminal text, Developing a Pedagogy of Teacher Education (2006) he argued, “being a teacher educator requires an understanding of teaching that goes beyond being a good teacher” (p. 14). To embed social justice into their literacy courses, the LTEs engaged their student teachers in the “what, how and why of teaching” through multiple and interrelated pedagogies. When considering the first research question – What makes addressing social justice in literacy teacher education so complex? – we saw the ways in which the LTEs immerse student teachers in the political landscape of teaching that “goes beyond being a good teacher.” By engaging student teachers in discussions and exploring the policies and politics in teacher education, as well as sharing their decision-­making. LTEs invited their student teachers into the conversation engaging them in the complexity of teaching with a social justice approach. They were realistic with the student teachers, making it clear the context in which they would be working was not ideal; rather, “you need to

Embedding Social Justice in Literacy Teacher Education  141

know how to [meet standards] and you also need to know how to envision the possible” (Gavin). The second driving question for this study was: What do LTEs need to know to embed social justice in their literacy courses? To begin answering this question, we turn to the elements of a pedagogy of literacy teacher education (Kosnik et al., 2017), specifically the three elements of: value and respond to diversity; read and analyze a range of genres texts; and make connections in the community. Valuing and Responding to Diversity

The LTEs understood that limiting views of literacy to decontextualized reading and writing skills would mean discounting the rich and complex practices students bring to the classroom every day. For instance, in Melissa’s course, students were paired with language learners in a mentorship capacity over the course of a term. Student teachers were expected to “get to know and honour [pupil’s] cultural and linguistic backgrounds,” in order to develop practices that were responsive. Recognizing the negative implications of a narrow definition of literacy and the culturally sustaining possibilities of a responsive pedagogy the LTEs in this study all had a central goal in their courses related to expanding student teachers’ understandings of literacy both in-­school and out-­of-­school contexts. Read, Discuss, and Analyze Range of Texts and Genres

The LTEs introduced a range of texts and genres in their course as a way of embedding social justice into their pedagogy of literacy teacher education. Melissa for instance had student teachers read the curriculum as a text that could be critiqued and analyzed. This demonstrated to students the inherent political nature of all authored texts while engaging them in dialogue about the “inequities perpetuated by the educational status quo” (Cochran-­ Smith & Lytle, 2009, p. vii). While Misa introduced YAL novels centering the experiences of racially diverse characters. In Sonia’s class, student teachers engaged in the close analysis and reading of children’s literature to unpack issues around race and culture. These critical engagements with texts necessitated the conscious contextualization of the text, reader, and author within a historical, social, political, and cultural context (Calderwood et al., 2010). Understanding literacy through this lens helps problematize the history of literacy while arriving at new views. These unique practices illuminate possibilities for transformative literacy learning, that focus on a range of texts that engage students in problem-­posing critically reading texts.

142  Pooja Dharamshi et al.

Connections in the Community

Creating meaningful connections in the local community (Kosnik et al., 2017) was an integral part of the LTEs PTE. They understood literacy as a way to make meaning in the world, and so they worked with student teachers to help them recognize literacy as a contextual practice, which takes place both in and outside of schools. While some were involved in schools and districts others were involved with community partners and stakeholders. Sonia emphasized community knowledges by integrating community mentors into her courses in the university. Gavin and Melissa used their relationships in the local community to partially deliver their courses in faith-­based institutions and schools respectively. This immersion in local spaces allowed for students to see up-­close the needs and strengths of the community, as well as begin to develop meaningful relationships with various stakeholders. Each LTE brought to their pedagogies their own interests, strengths, research areas, and personal experiences; however, their courses were anchored in conceptualizing literacy as an expansive and evolving practice. The aim of this chapter is not to provide cookie-­cutter pedagogies for teacher education but rather to offer pathways that help LTEs navigate the complexities of the contemporary literacy landscape in teacher education. This leads to a discussion that each discipline needs specific pedagogies to actualize the goal of social justice. This, however, cannot be realized without more attention paid to the work or LTEs. Given the crucial role LTEs play in preparing future teachers to effectively promote social justice, it is important they receive more deliberate preparation and support. This could include opportunities for ongoing professional development, as well as targeted support and resources to help them better understand the social and cultural contexts in which their students will be teaching. Implications

The findings presented in this chapter also have implications in disciplines beyond literacy particularly related to developing pedagogies of teacher education. Firstly, the recognition of the political nature of teaching is significant to developing pedagogies of teacher education for social justice. The study highlights the importance of recognizing the tensions between government initiatives, standards, and educational reforms in subject-­ specific contexts. The literature (Tondreau et al., 2022) cautioned that reforms could lead to a de-­prioritization of social justice and equity in methods courses (p. 61). To address this, teacher educators across subject areas should create space for problematizing and critically analyzing the

Embedding Social Justice in Literacy Teacher Education  143

prescribed curricula and standards relevant to their disciplines. By acknowledging the challenges student teachers face in reconciling expansive pedagogies with standardized requirements, teacher educators can help them navigate these complexities and develop nuanced understandings of teaching within specific subject domains. Next, balancing standards and expansive pedagogies is an important consideration in developing pedagogies of teacher education that are sustainable. This study underscores the significance of integrating community knowledge and local contexts into subject-­ specific teacher education. Teacher educators in other subject areas can expand their pedagogies of teacher education by recognizing and deliberately involving community mentors and stakeholders who possess expertise and experience relevant to the discipline (Ladson-­Billings, 2006). This allows student teachers to develop culturally responsive practices and gain insights into the broader implications of the subject area beyond the classroom. In summary, this research on LTEs can inform the wider teacher education community. By acknowledging the political nature of teaching, finding a balance between mandated curricula and student-­centered pedagogies, and actively engaging with local contexts and communities, teacher education programs across discipline areas can contribute to the development of pedagogies that prioritize student needs, social justice, and transformative practices. References Ahmed, K. S. (2019). Being a “bridge builder”: A literacy teacher educator negotiates the divide between university-­promoted culturally responsive pedagogy and district-­mandated curriculum. Literacy Research and Instruction, 58, 211–231. Anderson, L., & Stillman, J. (2010). Opportunities to teach and learn in high-­needs schools: Student teachers’ experiences in urban placements. Urban Education, 45, 109–141. Brass, J. (2015). Reconstituting teacher education: Literacy, critical theories, and English. In J. Banks & A. Webb (Eds.), Reclaiming English language arts methods courses: Critical issues and challenges for teacher educators in top-­down times (pp. 1–21). Routledge. Calderwood, P., Mazza, M., Ahearn, H., Ruel, A., Favano, A., Mahieu, K., McNeil, D., Pryde, L., & Stenerson, C. (2010). “Power without honor is indeed a dangerous thing”: The social construction of critical literacy in elementary teacher education. Language and Literacy, 12, 1–21. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Sage. Cochran-­ Smith, M., Craig, C., Orland-­ Barak, L., Cole, C., & Hill-­ Jackson, V. (2022). Agents, agency, and teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 73, 445–448.

144  Pooja Dharamshi et al.

Cochran-­Smith, M., Davis, D., & Fries, K. (2004). Multicultural teacher education: Research, practice, and policy. In J. Banks & C. M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (2nd ed., pp. 931–975). Jossey-­Bass. Cochran-­Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (2009). Inquiry as stance: Practitioner research for the next generation. Teachers College Press. Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice, 39, 1–30. Dixson, A. D., & Dingus, J. E. (2007).Tyranny of the majority: Re-­enfranchisement of African-­American teacher educators teaching for democracy. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 20, 639–654. Dover, A., Kressler, B., & Lozano, M. (2020). Learning our way through: Critical professional development for social justice in teacher education. The New Educator, 16, 45–69. Ellis, V., Souto-­Manning, M., & Turvey, K. (2019). Innovation in teacher education: Towards a critical re-­examination. Journal of Education for Teaching, 45, 2–14. Feiman-­Nemser, S., & Buchmann, M. (1985). Pitfalls of experience in teacher preparation. Teachers College Record, 87, 53–65. Goodwin, A. L., & Darity, K. (2019). Social justice teacher educators: What kind of knowing is needed? Journal of Education for Teaching, 45, 63–81. Grimes, N. (2002). Bronx Masquerade. New York, NY: New York Dial Books. Kosnik, C. Dharamshi, P., & Menna, L. (2020). Displaced academics: Intended and unintended consequences of the changing landscape of teacher education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 45, 127–149. Kosnik, C., Menna, L., & Dharamshi, P. (2017). So how do you teach literacy in teacher education?: Literacy/English teacher educators’ goals and pedagogies. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 40, 59–72. Kosnik, C., Menna, L., Dharamshi, P., Miyata, C., Cleovoulou, Y., & Beck, C. (2015). Four spheres of knowledge required: An international study of the professional development of literacy/English teacher educators. Journal of Education for Teaching, 41, 52–77. Kosnik, C., Rowsell, J., Williamson, P., Simon, R., & Beck, C. (Eds.). (2013). Literacy teacher educators: Preparing teachers for a changing world. Sense Publishers. Ladson-­Billings, G. J. (2006). It’s not the culture of poverty, it’s the poverty of culture: The problem with teacher education. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 37, 104–109. Loughran, J. (2006). Developing a pedagogy of teacher education: Understanding teaching and learning about teaching. Routledge. Loughran, J., & Menter, I. (2019). The essence of being a teacher educator and why it matters. Asia-­Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 47, 216–229. Milner, R., Laughter, R. (2015). But good intentions are not enough: Preparing teachers to center race and poverty. The Urban Review, 47, 341–363. Punch, K. (2009). Introduction to research methods in education. Sage. Rogers, R. (2013). Cultivating diversity through critical literacy in teacher education. In C. Kosnik, J. Rowsell, P. Williamson, R. Simon, & C. Beck (Eds.), Literacy teacher educators: Preparing teachers for a changing world (pp. 7–19). Sense.

Embedding Social Justice in Literacy Teacher Education  145

Salazar, M. (2013). A humanizing pedagogy: Reinventing the principles and practice of education as a journey to toward liberation. Review of Research in Education, 37, 121–148. Sapphire. (1996). Push. Alfred A. Knopf. Sleeter, C. (2013). Power, teaching, and teacher education: Confronting injustice with critical research and action. Peter Lang. Souto-­Manning, M. (2019). Transforming university-­based teacher education: Preparing asset-­, equity-­, justice-­oriented teachers within the contemporary political context. Teachers College Record, 121, 1–26. Stillman, J., & Anderson, L. (2016). Minding the mediation: Examining one teacher educator’s facilitation of two pre-­service teachers’ learning. Urban Education, 51, 683–713. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (2000). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques for developing grounded theory. Sage. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Sage. Tondreau, A., Gardiner, W., White, K. Stevens, E., Hinman, T., Dussling, T. Wilson, N. Degener, S. (2022). (Be)coming critical teacher educators: Collaborative self-­ study contexts. Studying Teacher Education, 18, 61–79. Zeichner, K. (2016). Advancing social justice and democracy in teacher education: Teacher Preparation 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 52, 150–155. Zeichner, K. (2020). Preparing teachers as democratic professionals. Action in Teacher Education, 42, 38–48. Zeichner, K., Payne, K. A., Brayko, K. (2015). Democratizing teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 66, 122–135.

10 THE PERSISTENT RELATIONAL DISCONNECT OF TEACHER EDUCATION Reimagining Teacher Education Pedagogy as Feminists Monica Taylor and Emily J. Klein Emily: The focus on the academic as an individual is so deeply Western, rational, and patriarchal. The assumption is that really creative, important, and unique contributions happen as a sole individual sitting in their room, dreaming up solutions to the problems of the world. In fact, we all know that isn’t how knowledge works. Knowledge construction happens when an individual is in dialogue with a community, past and present. Monica: Yes exactly. So I think our very conception of what it means to be a scholar is in that blurred in-­between space of the individual/collective. We recognize that we each come to the table with knowledge, experiences, and lenses that are important and valuable (whether scholars or students) but the magic happens when we dialogue, problematize, and question together. That stuff just cannot happen in isolation. Emily: Totally. And our enactment of mentoring tries to allow for that blurring, finding spaces where we can collaboratively mentor, work alongside and work with. We ask our doctoral students to work together on projects with us, but also amongst themselves. Monica: Yes, and that is truly the co-­construction of meaning. We don’t just talk about making meaning together theoretically. We walk our talk and both invite our students to be co-­inquirers and model how we ourselves inquire together.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003365129-10

The Persistent Relational Disconnect of Teacher Education  147

The crucial tensions that emerge in a pedagogy of teacher education – the theory/practice gap, the struggles to represent the rich complexities of practice, the challenge to “teach” relational practice, and the preparation of a largely white, female teaching force for diverse communities and populations – often seem more elusive despite decades of research, and tinkering in innovation. The intractableness of these tensions is, in large part, emergent from the ways the pedagogy of teacher education is situated within the neoliberal agenda of the university, centered on patriarchal academic notions that favor individualistic, hierarchical, and logical ways of knowing with little, if any, attention to the limitations of such ways of being. As decades-­long doctoral faculty in teacher education and teacher development, we take up and model a feminist teacher education pedagogy to prepare teacher educators to navigate these critical tensions in their work with the next generations of teachers. For, as Russell and Bullock (1999) wrote, “How we teach is the message … If I want students to construct an understanding of the world around them, I must create an environment rich in experience” (pp. 138–140). In Loughran’s (2006) seminal work, Developing a Pedagogy of Teacher Education, he explored a series of principles of practice including those centered on relationship, purpose, and modeling. He noted the importance of self-­reflection as we work through articulating our own principles of practice, to better “see” our “teaching behaviors … determining how such behaviors might need to change … better aligning beliefs and practices” (p. 82). Similarly, our intention for this chapter is to examine the ways in which our principles of feminist teacher education emerge pedagogically as we mentor and support our doctoral students. Specifically, we describe our feminist embodied co/autoethnographic self-­study where we examine the blurring principles of our feminist friendship epistemology as a model of teacher education pedagogy. We define this framework as a stance focused on building relationships with and mentoring our doctoral students through caring collaboration, co-­ construction of knowledge, and embodied self-­reflection. We explore how our own learning to be teacher educators and scholars has shaped this work. We emphasize a blurring of boundaries between the individual and the collective, authority and dialogic negotiation, and the creative and the practical. Below, we share some of the principles of our feminist friendship epistemology. Then we briefly describe our co/autoethnographic methodology to provide insight into our process of self-­reflection and finally we analyze our narratives of becoming teacher educators and our mentoring and co-­mentoring of doctoral students as teacher educators across a variety of endeavors. We offer a vision for how feminist teacher education pedagogy invites a radical re-­ imagining of how we prepare and mentor teacher educators.

148  Monica Taylor and Emily J. Klein

Boundary Blurring: A Feminist Friendship Epistemology

Monica: How does this sound to you for my doc student? She should illustrate her continuum with examples from the data as a way to explain it, instead of going through each participant. Otherwise it feels like she is explaining the same categories over and over again. What do you think? I am relying on your brain. Emily: Haha! It can be tricky to do but if she can do it, that makes a ton of sense. (Text Message Exchange) Monica: Omg I have never been so sick. The booster killed me. It started with horrible chills around 7 pm and then I was up on and off all night. Emily: Oh no!!! So sorry. Yes it was pretty rough. How do you feel now? It took me 2–3 days. Monica: I feel better but wiped out. I did not really sleep. Emily: Btw is Students of Color correct? Shouldn’t it be students of Color? Monica: Yes lowercase students. (Text Message Exchange) Emily: Honey in case I miss you tomorrow I want you to know how grateful I am for you every single day!! I hope you are feeling better!! Monica: So incredibly grateful for you too my friend. Could not imagine life without you! I hope you have a lovely Thanksgiving – a real brain break! Love you very much!!! (Text Message Exchange) To explain our feminist friendship epistemology, we thought it would be useful to share the above text exchange which is typical for us almost daily. As our dialogue illustrates, in our relationship, we often blur the lines between the personal and professional and the individual and collective. Although we know our friendship began seventeen years ago when Emily started her career as a teacher educator at Montclair State University and Monica was up for tenure, it is hard to remember a time when we did not call one another “work wife,” “one brain,” “soul sista,” or “sisterfriend.” We rely on each other to make decisions, think through ideas, or even get clarity and perhaps that is because, as Wolf Shenk (2014) wrote in his book about creative partnerships, “Over time, they develop what psychologists call ‘couple identity,’ and a coordination of cognitive functions that some scientists even consider a shared mind” (p. 27). We see ourselves as authentic friends, mainly because we have allowed ourselves to be vulnerable with one another. We value our friendship and support each other emotionally but beyond a personal relationship, our professional lives are intertwined too. Many have asked us how this friendship came about and how we were able to find one another, within the context of academia which can be so isolating and competitive. As we have described previously (Taylor & Coia, 2020; Taylor & Klein 2021),

The Persistent Relational Disconnect of Teacher Education  149

our friendship evolved in the context of our lives as teachers, because we are our best selves when we are performing as teachers, as well as our deeply vulnerable selves, as it involves sharing a deep passion that is a kind of risk-­taking. (Klein & Taylor, 2023, p. 25) We have designed and co-­taught courses, we research, present, and write together, we co-­edit an academic journal, we co-­mentor doctoral students, and we generally lean on one another for honest feedback to navigate our professional careers. In particular co-­constructing curriculum and co-­teaching became the context for our blossoming friendship, as it required us to both share our deep pedagogical beliefs but also our more private selves that we often only have revealed to our students. Co-­teaching, then, as we wrote, “meant a unique way of sharing the self, our most vulnerable professional self, and also the self that often we cannot share with others such as our partners and closest friends” (Taylor & Klein, 2021, p. 95). In the early years of our collaboration, we found ourselves perpetually discovering the intersections of our personal lives, even if they emerged in the tiny cracks of our professional lives. We began to recognize the ways in which our individual dispositions complemented one another too – so that we became more efficient and could really rely on the other. Juggling motherhood in addition to other responsibilities we did not always have the downtime to socialize, but we knew instinctually that once we had the time, we would be fast friends. We have continuously sought out creative ways to get to work together, something not always easy amidst the institutional regularities so ingrained in universities. Grant projects allowed us to co-­teach and co-­facilitate professional development. We cannot emphasize enough how the vulnerability inherent in co-­teaching and co-­writing creates a particular intimacy that has fed our friendship, even as our friendship allows us to be vulnerable in those spaces. The more we worked together and began writing into each other’s lives through co/autoethnography (Taylor & Coia, 2020), the more blurred our personal and professional lives became. Additionally, our cowriting has often been guided by our ethic of friendship, care for one another, hope, and even love, and therefore privileges the tending of the friendship and one another’s needs over the labor, including trusting that some parts of our lives will be kept private or secret at times. To do this requires a kind of communication that is authentic and honest, even if it is not always comfortable, a kind of continual exchange that allows us to connect empathetically and really see, hear, and understand the other. Our active “shared mind,” borrowing from Wolf Shenk (2014), involves a blurring of the personal and the professional, providing a roadmap for the blurrings that occur with our doctoral students. We emphasize the notion

150  Monica Taylor and Emily J. Klein

of blurring rather than a continuum which is often how tensions are conceptualized within teacher education, because although the continuum can be useful for thinking about individual ideas, meanings of those remain fixed and stagnant and there is often simply a movement from one concept to the other. From our feminist friendship epistemology, a blurring of the personal and the professional allows for both ways of knowing to exist at the same time so that what seems to be personal is actually professional and vice versa. Said differently, individual categories of personal and professional or even individual and collective lose meaning within the enactment of the tension. The blurring allows for a kind of third space (Klein et al., 2013), where messiness, uncertainty, and unknowability can occur; but also creativity, invention, and possibility (Coia & Taylor, 2013). We also blur when we make meaning and communicate, as illustrated in the above text exchange through our dialogue on text, Facebook, email, Google Docs, the phone, or in person. As we wrote, Our friendship is messy and engaged, filled with our reacting and responding emotionally, brainstorming, thinking, venting, reporting, sharing, disagreeing, making meaning of the world, comforting, caring, and sometimes just simply celebrating and finding joy in each other and the small moments of our lives. (Klein & Taylor, 2023, p. 19) We move seamlessly from “water cooler talk” (Brown & Gray, 1995), when we discuss mentoring challenges of doctoral students, ask for a suggested class text, or even ask for feedback on an email draft to a student to the day-­ to-­day concerns of our lives as mothers, women, partners, and friends. But beyond a mode of communication, this text exchange offers a tangible example of what we mean by the blurred principles of our feminist friendship epistemology. We make sense of the world through collaboration, connection, and cooperation within the context of our caring empathetic relationship (Belenky et al., 1986; Maher & Tetreault, 1994). To be able to take risks and think creatively, we hold space for one another, inviting opportunities to sit in dissonance, partiality, and confusion (Ellsworth, 1994). Rather than take over for one another, instead we stand alongside and offer a mirror for self-­reflection. Our friendship allows us to take risks, shake things up, disrupt, and open ourselves to new possibilities (Lather, 2006; St. Pierre, 2000). Blurring the limitations of words, we also look to embodied ways of knowing, like feelings and bodily memories to help us make meaning (Klein & Taylor, 2023). Our feminist friendship epistemology also provides the foundational principles for the ways in which we mentor as feminist teacher educators and

The Persistent Relational Disconnect of Teacher Education  151

differs from the traditional patriarchal approach “where the mentee gains access, connections, status, and protection” and “the mentor gains political and social support” (Ellingson & Sotirin, 2008, p. 37). For us, feminist mentoring is grounded in relational being: it is something we do together with others. As Remer (2011) wrote, feminist mentoring relationships are “collaborative and mutually enhancing. They are reciprocally beneficial to both the mentee and the mentor” (para. 2). The reciprocity we describe is less about an exchange of benefits and more about what we are able to do together – whether creating new ways of thinking, building a caring learning community, or furthering a legacy. Ellingson and Sotirin (2008) described this kind of feminist mentoring as “academic aunting” rather than mothering. Aunting allows for mentoring to serve as a kind of kinship or agency, where multiplicity, fragmentation, and dissonance can also exist. Next, we share the methodology we used to come to know our feminist pedagogy of teacher education. Coming to Know a Feminist Pedagogy of Teacher Education: A Co/Autoethnography

To understand our feminist pedagogy of teacher education, we employed a feminist embodied co/autoethnographic methodology (Klein & Taylor, 2023), an adapted version of co/autoethnography that Monica originally created with Lesley Coia (Taylor & Coia, 2020) and which has been redesigned with Emily through the new nuances of their feminist friendship. Building from the original methodology, for us the co-­ construction of knowledge occurs when we share our stories in dialogue, instead of a hierarchical model of critical friends. The meaning and connections emerge when we actively listen to one another’s narratives and respond with our own stories. Similar to the methods of other self-­study researchers, our dialogic exchanges occur within informal communications of texts, emails, and Facebook posts and messages (Cardetti & Orgnero, 2013; East et al., 2009). We find ourselves enacting a kind of “nomadic jamming” (Coia & Taylor, 2014), where we wander and reflect from the past to the present, and from our personal experiences to our professional experiences as teachers and teacher educators. For this chapter, we found ourselves sometimes deliberately dialoguing about questions and concerns related to our work with doctoral students, and sometimes informally texting and messaging in the midst of our lives. The morning we began this chapter we found ourselves texting about work and our kids even as we were emailing about two articles for a journal we co-­edit, and with a doctoral student on whose committee we serve. Below we describe the themes that emerged through our dialogue.

152  Monica Taylor and Emily J. Klein

Blurring the Individual and the Collective

In his piece about principles of practice, Loughran (2006) wrote about navigating the tension between individual and collective learning in preservice teacher education, noting that when teacher educators develop “relationships with individual learners,” they “must be in concert with developing relationships within the group” (p. 86). Loughran’s insistence on the importance of the relational to teacher education pedagogy and in particular the ways in which relationships are built from sensitivity, honesty, authenticity, and trust is at the core of how we conceptualize feminist doctoral mentoring. We see the personal development of becoming a teacher educator and scholar as something that happens to an individual within an academic collective. As we describe at the beginning of the chapter, traditionally the focus on the academic as a sole individual, toiling away in their room, dreaming up solutions to problems, is deeply Western, rational, and patriarchal (assuming, as it must, that there is a woman there to resolve all the daily problems of life, cooking, cleaning, and maintaining a home). In reality, we know that creative knowledge construction happens among individuals in dialogue with a community, with its past and present. Our work of mentoring tries to hold that tension, finding spaces to collaboratively mentor, work alongside, and work with our students. Being a teacher educator and scholar occurs in the blurred space of the individual/collective, recognizing that we each come to the table with knowledge, experiences, and a variety of lenses that are important (whether we are scholars or students). The creative academic knowledge construction happens when we dialogue, share, problematize, question, and analyze together, whether in discussions or writing. As we began to reflect on our own experiences as doctoral students, we noticed some of the blueprints for how to blur the individual and the collective. Monica, for example, reflected on her coursework with her chair, Dana Fox: Dana was a proclaimed feminist teacher – my first course with her that first semester was focused on gender and literacy and certainly laid the groundwork for the ways I have structured my own courses. And she co-­ taught it with Patti Anders. We read texts from a gender and literacy reader (the one that Lesley and I bonded over when we first met) and then wrote our own narratives in response and class sessions were spent sharing our narratives and discussing the texts. Over the course of the 3 years I was there, we also analyzed all of those narratives and proposed to write a book about that semester. We wrote conference proposals, presented our research, and wrote some together – Dana took that very seriously. She saw her job as mentoring me into the profession.

The Persistent Relational Disconnect of Teacher Education  153

The apprenticeship model Dana provided would become a sort of apprenticeship for Emily as she and Monica worked together. As we have worked and written together over the years, we rarely stop to consider what were our individual ideas, pieces of writing, or teaching practices. Continually working together in a variety of different ways – co-­teaching, co-­researching, and co-­ mentoring – has blurred the lines of the individual and collective, allowing for the shared opportunities to co-­construct and co-­create. Sometimes we work alone, and other times we work together. Sometimes we use email exchanges to work through an idea, and other times we take ten minutes to talk about a concept on the phone. We rarely use track changes, and often just write into each other’s words. In the passing back and forth, the collective and the individual become hybridized. Recently, a colleague mentioned an attempt at co-­ authoring and noted how each author was extremely clear about what they had written, something that is no longer the case in our work. Even returning to work on this chapter, Emily noted she truly had no idea who had written what. Reflecting on our collaborative process has helped us to notice that blurring these lines supported risk-­taking; the doing together felt less risky perhaps than the doing alone and we began to see how bringing our doctoral students along with us in this process would support their own development; in part because our feminist lens meant that we were not rigid about our own authority in the academy, we welcomed the “thinking alongside.” For us, the personal development of becoming a scholar/academic has happened in the collective. For example, for our recent WIPRO science grant (a grant focused on developing science teacher leadership in five districts in NJ: https://www.montclair.edu/ wipro/), a team of doctoral students meets separately and then alongside us. They bring us ideas, we co-­construct with them, and they take our discussions back and continue to develop new theories. We neither expect them to figure it out in isolation nor do we want to be the sole drivers of the work; we believe that the meaning should be co-­ constructed. Unlike the stereotypes of academia, we eschew “traditional pedagogies that centre on teacher talk” (Bullock, 2007, p. 77) or what Loughran (2006) aptly called “the tyranny of talk” (p. 173). Like Kosnik (2007), we believe in nurturing our doctoral students as co-­inquirers and we are proud of the number of research projects and publications (a total of 16) we have co-­investigated with them. Just as we honor our own collaboration and take turns leading publications, we try to do the same with our doctoral students too. Again, this is a way to model how the collective can often take precedence over the individual. We also recognize that part of blurring the boundaries of the individual and the collective involves welcoming our students into our various academic communities. Both our academic mentors modeled doing this as they encouraged us to co-­author conference proposals and co-­present research within the academic contexts where they were known. In a sense, by bringing our doctoral students into these larger and less local academic

154  Monica Taylor and Emily J. Klein

conversations, we are helping to expand their scholarly community as well as their spheres of influence, and in doing so, we are also extending our own legacy. A wonderful example of this has been the embracing of our doctoral students in the special interest group of self-­study of teacher education practices, where they have presented, been invited to publish, collaborated, and taken on leadership roles. Welcoming them into our academic communities reinforces the notion that scholarly work should not be done in isolation and also helps them see their role in the larger scholarly picture. Blurring Authority and Dialogic Negotiation

Emily: I still struggle to assert my authority especially when I disagree with a colleague about a doctoral student. I had to recently say to one of my students, “there are too many voices right now in the construction of your research question. I need for us to work on this alone before we open it up to others.” My student had spoken to many faculty about her research and kept bringing the changes back to me. We would shape the question, and then she would share it back with others, and return again. But at some point I need to balance that back and forth of outsider/insider knowledge and say “ok now stop.” Knowing when and how to do that – how to exert my own authority (authority not authoritative) is really hard for me. It’s often why I come to you to ask “Am I right? Is it time? Should I elicit more dialogue?” Monica: Totally. I am thinking about the incident I had last summer with a doctoral student who was confused when I tried to establish some boundaries around professional communication over the summer. I had asked that they not communicate with me via text about work related issues because I found it hard to separate work and personal life. I had also asked that they not email me while I was on summer vacation for a few specific weeks. In fact this was in an email I sent to all of my doctoral students to be completely transparent – something I had never done before but felt proud of as I was working on the sharp self-­care boundaries. I emphasized that I was happy to be supportive and provide feedback on their writing throughout the summer, even though technically at our institution professors are not paid, but that I needed a few weeks completely off when I was not checking email to restore and re-­energize. Most of my doctoral students responded positively to this email, wishing me a good vacation, but, as you remember, this particular student expressed that they felt I was sending mixed messages with unclear boundaries. We emailed back and forth and also spoke on the phone to make sure we were on the same page but I was really taken aback. Wasn’t I allowed to have my own boundaries around the work?

The Persistent Relational Disconnect of Teacher Education  155

As we reflected on the ways in which we mentor our doctoral students, the day-­to-­day challenges emerged instantly. We wanted to explore the tension of both connecting with our doctoral students on a personal level and yet still providing them the guidance that comes from our positions of authority, drawing from our vast collective experiences and expertise. How do we both approach them as whole people, who have lives outside of academia, professional responsibilities, and emotions, and yet still offer them constructive criticism, sometimes rigid boundaries, and ultimately useful scaffolding and structure? Where do we find the balance and what does it look like as feminist teacher educators? As Emily reflected, Our students are our age or older. They have tons of life and work experience that matters. They are people we would be friends with if we met them on vacation and ARE friends with. But the part of me that may be more entrenched in the patriarchy struggles with these blurred boundaries and what does it mean to be in relationship as a mentor. Interestingly, this was not the first time Monica has explored this issue as she examined feminist authority with Lesley almost 20 years ago (Taylor & Coia, 2006) and reflected in that self-­study how she had been concerned about negotiating authority throughout her teaching career. In truth both of us have been committed to teaching democratically throughout our careers. As Monica and Lesley described in their chapter, we have intentionally created classroom environments where our students are co-­learners and co-­inquirers. We bring our whole selves into the classroom and we invite our students to do the same. And certainly occasions have arisen when we have had to be more assertive or heavy-­handed in changing the direction of a classroom conversation or dialogue, which has not always been easy for us or for our students to receive. We know, from the literature on women academics, that assertiveness of women faculty is often perceived as aggression and unlikeability and that this can lead to emotional exhaustion (Bennett, 2019). Williams (2019) explained, “More than 40 years of research by social scientists have shown that Americans define the good woman as helpful, modest and nice” (para. 4) and so, as we wrote, “behaviors that are often considered acceptable – and even admirable – in men, are considered obnoxious, pushy, arrogant, and unattractive in women” (Klein & Taylor, 2023, p. 201). This is often particularly challenging when feminist mentoring can be misconstrued to be “mentoring without boundaries.” With that in mind, the mentoring of doctoral students during their dissertation writing, a tremendously vulnerable experience at times, can be particularly difficult for us as women teacher educators. During the conceptualization of a research study, the data analysis, or the writing of the

156  Monica Taylor and Emily J. Klein

dissertation, students can feel anxious, fearful, or even resistant, and finding the right ways to blur authority and negotiation as the mentor can often be overwhelming. We find ourselves supporting one another through this process (we are so grateful to have one another and even see this as a kind of co-­mentoring model) and look for validation when our instinct tells us that we need more rigid boundaries between us and our students or we need to provide more explicit structures and direction. We often send drafts of emails for doctoral students to one another for feedback and approval, asking such questions as does this sound okay? Am I being too heavy-­handed? Does this feel fair? Our worries as feminist mentors echo the kinds of concerns that feminist teachers have shared about their teaching too. Bell (1997) described this as: The self-­surveillance I constantly engage in (Did I say that right? Am I being fair? Whose point of view is being excluded? Will they like me?) … The ways in which my ‘competence’ falters changes each semester, and I search for reasons, make corrections, do things differently. (p. 93) We feel a tremendous responsibility as women mentoring mostly other women and yet sometimes we have to be the heavy and assert what Applebaum (2000) described as an authority that is “derived from the bonds of respect, concern, and trust that teachers and students develop among themselves” (p. 315). Below is an excerpt of our dialogue as we tried to make sense of this blurring: Monica: It’s that blurred poststructural feminist dance of moving about, having power and then letting go of power. I don’t think I totally understood that until now. It’s what Ellsworth (1994) meant when she asked why doesn’t this feel empowering. I used to think our mentoring drew from a kind of mothering authority but I think Ellingson and Sotirin’s (2008) notion of aunting as mentoring makes more sense to me. Emily: Oooh yes because really the mother/child metaphor is way too hierarchical for me. When they wrote: The tensions that mark the boundaries separating second wave and third wave feminists are often referred to in the terms of the nuclear family: the third wave “daughter” is locked in a struggle against the second wave “mother, “ and both remain mired in a patriarchal academic system. (p. 35)

The Persistent Relational Disconnect of Teacher Education  157

– that really resonated. Yes I hear what you’re saying and this is where I feel like I often come to you for wisdom and support. I have struggled with how to exert authority at all sometimes. I think what you’re saying about power being a feminist dance really resonates with me – like partnering – each of the partners has authority in different parts of the dance and lets it go in others. I have sometimes struggled against a notion of “woman as selfless” which mistakenly gets mixed up with feminism. What you said to me last night about sometimes being the “heavy” spoke to me. Monica: I think it is about where the need for authority comes from – we do it from a place of caring for our doctoral students – we are scaffolding the research process in a more deliberate and explicit way and sometimes that means using hard sharp lines. I always think of my therapist who said self-­care can be both soft or it can involve hard boundaries and I think the same can be applied to our students. I am honestly just coming to terms with this in my personal life and now it is starting to seep into my professional life too. Emily: Selflessness in mentoring is not feminist. That is very much a patriarchal notion of what women should do in relation to others. Feminism is reciprocal and sometimes the self needs to be more assertive. Embracing Ellingson and Sotirin’s (2008) notion of the “auntie,” has been pivotal for us, as we know that finding the right “frame” helps us to see the work differently and therefore DO the work differently. This new frame positions scholar and mentee less from authoritative and antagonistic stances (of the problematic mother/daughter relationship), and more in the still “familial” and therefore intimate, but also more flexible space of auntie. In finding a new frame, we are able to hold space for a more complex and blurred relationship. The Creative and the Practical

Monica: I had a funny conversation with Michael last year after I participated in the art workshop at Esalen during my sabbatical. I shared a photo of the found art piece I had created, and said this is the first piece of art I have made since I was in high school that I am proud of. And Michael responded, “That’s great mom but kind of weird to hear when you’ve made a lot of other cool writing stuff even if they are different media.” His words really took me aback because I have always compartmentalized creativity and academic writing separately. I had a similar conversation with an undergraduate student earlier this week and we concluded that we are in fact artists too. I know you have reminded me of this but I need to more fully embrace it.

158  Monica Taylor and Emily J. Klein

Emily: You are an artist and we are creative but I understand your reluctance to embrace that. You know I have struggled with this too. Back as a doctoral student, I had someone who shared different ways of writing and doing research – my qualitative research professor Margot Ely. But I admit I was still pretty conventional in my late 20s. I rolled my eyes a LOT at the idea of writing poetry as analysis. But when I saw my peer Meg Riordan do it in her dissertation I began to take that seriously. Similarly, Joe (my advisor) was, in no way, a very traditional researcher or writer. His voice was powerful, and he encouraged us to read outside the academy and to value ideas that inspired me and shed light on my work from everywhere – popular culture, business, and music. To me that’s very feminist and very intersectional. It showed me that there was more than one way of creating and valuing knowledge in the academy. Monica: Totally. I think this is very much a feminist epistemology and Leavy and Harris (2019) have written about that – that personal tacit knowledge and the lived experience are just as important and that the representation and how we get there can look very different too! That arts based is not lesser – hell even self-­study has suffered from those accusations of not being legit or valid. It has taken me years to stop engaging in that argument too. In this final blurring, we describe the ways in which our mentoring both explores and contends with both the practical and creative. In part, we suggest that our focus on research and writing that includes multiple forms of meaning-­making and representation is a feminist notion of locating knowledge and authority in multiple spaces, not just in those that are considered valid by the traditional academy. We write for academic journals and communities, but we often write in non-­traditional academic voices, and we invite our students to as well. Although the academy has long looked the other way when senior scholars move into more personal writing and collaboration, the message to doctoral students has always been that they must first establish themselves within the narrow confines of what counts as knowledge-­making and expression before they are allowed that “freedom.” Only post-­tenure and promotion, do they feel they have permission to blur the rigid edges of scholarly writing. However, we locate our mentoring in a space that is both creative and practical. This manifests in a number of ways both large and small. For example, Monica has had the opportunity to mentor a variety of dissertations that have tended to be more creative and have taken up narrative inquiry, queer, feminist, autoethnographic, or arts-­based methodologies. Students interested in a more creative approach often find her perhaps

The Persistent Relational Disconnect of Teacher Education  159

because within her doctoral courses, she centers alternative research methodologies, theoretical lenses, and forms of representations and invites her students to authentically find their academic voices. Having developed and used co/autoethnography with Lesley Coia for the last 20 years (Taylor & Coia, 2020) and an adapted version with Emily more recently (Taylor & Klein, 2021), she has been a strong advocate for both self-­study and feminist research methodologies, and sharing her own scholarship as well as others’ has helped to encourage her students to experiment creatively. Supporting more alternative methodologies in a doctoral program for teacher education and teacher development can often mean helping students to put together committees of like-­minded faculty, as well as providing alternative criteria for trustworthiness (Berry & Taylor, 2017). From a more practical perspective, we have had to accommodate and support our non-­traditional doctoral students who, unlike many traditional doctoral students in the liberal arts and sciences, do not have full-­time student status or fellowships to support multiple years of study. They have had full careers in education before returning for their PhD figuring out the logistics of courses, writing, and doing research is a highly practical endeavor. They need to be able to collect and write data in spaces that are doable for full-­time jobs with children, partners, and spouses. For example, Emily had a student with three children under the age of six and a full-­time job who was interested in doing research about instructional rounds. One committee member was insistent that she work in a school outside her own, without recognizing that there simply were not extra school hours where she could both work and do research. Financially, the student was unable to take a semester or two away from her job to collect data, so we were tasked with finding a creative and pragmatic solution to constructing her study. We have to be very pragmatic and support that. As Monica noted, I think about the ways in which the practical can manifest as rigid for me – like these are the hard deadlines that you have to – or this is the hard format that you have to learn. We need a balance of both to help them be successful – or you only will have two participants in your study – let’s make it work. On the other hand, we are both constantly pushing the creative – both intellectually and expressively. Emily, who teaches the first semester seminar for all incoming doctoral students, invites them to see themselves as creators of academic and professional knowledge. She draws from Maxine Greene’s (1995) notion that, “To call for imaginative capacity is to work for the ability to look at things if they could be otherwise” (p. 19), to imagine the world as it is not yet. For our doctoral students that means both finding their more authoritative academic voice, but also engaging in creative

160  Monica Taylor and Emily J. Klein

thinking about the biggest problems in our field. Most of our students have been teachers and/or administrators for decades in public school systems, where the day-­to-­day bureaucratic pressures, policies, and obstructions create an internal, reverberating voice of “I couldn’t do that in my school,” that we often find deeply ingrained in their thinking and actions. Part of our feminist mentoring extends from our work together in urban schools (Taylor & Klein, 2015), where oppressive systems and limited resources, meant that we had to work with our students to find practical ways for them to imagine being (and then actually being) subversive, finding spaces for voice and hope. For one student/administrator it has involved creating a pilot project that turned into a dissertation where he learned alongside his teachers through inquiry; for another it was creating a group of teachers who were interested in creating LGBTQ+ responsive practice in his district. For a third it is opening the first space in her district in years where teachers felt safe to talk about their practice. Conclusion

The purpose of describing these blurrings is to push the conversation about how we even conceptualize the persistent tensions within teacher education. Despite the appeal of using a continuum to illustrate the ways we navigate relational challenges in teacher education, we suggest that there are limitations to this framing. We know from Crenshaw’s (2016) work on intersectionality that the framing of a problem has dramatic implications for how we understand and solve problems of equity and justice. Recasting our mentoring and teacher education practices for doctoral students as “blurrings” as opposed to a “continuum” has helped to move us from the traditionally patriarchal notions of the academe and teacher education to a more feminist model. The implications for this are vast because creating the spaces where we are engaged in co-­constructing what it is to be a teacher educator must reflect the kinds of spaces we want to create in schools and society. Circling back to the original inspiration, in his book, Developing a Pedagogy of Teacher Education, Loughran (2006) described how teacher educators mentor “their students of teaching” to help them think and “study their practices … with others so that alternative perspectives and possibilities might become apparent and can be acted on” (p. 170). In this chapter, we take up Loughran’s definition of mentoring but apply it to the work we do with doctoral students who are becoming teacher educators and developing their own pedagogy of teacher education. Similar to Loughran (2006), we understand that mentoring students very much relies on the relationships we develop together and requires trust, and honesty, something that “develops through a relationship in which mutual acceptance is to the fore”

The Persistent Relational Disconnect of Teacher Education  161

(p. 170). These relationships with our students are a kind of “academic aunting” (Ellingson & Sotirin, 2008) that we do alongside one another where we both nurture and advocate, but also allow for them to be vulnerable, imperfect, and uncertain. As Loughran (2006) wrote, “mentoring in teaching about teaching needs to be actively embraced, not passively absorbed” (p. 171). Our feminist pedagogical work demonstrates how seriously we have taken Loughran’s (2006) call to actively embrace our role as doctoral mentors, particularly for those who will go on to do the work of teacher education in a variety of roles. We do this through providing opportunities for our students to develop as individuals within the context of an academic collective; supporting students in ways that are both authoritative but also allow for dialogic negotiation; and inviting them to find their voices as researchers in creative and practical ways. As we note the similarities of our mentoring model with that of John Loughran’s, we only wonder if perhaps he too might consider himself a feminist teacher educator. References Applebaum, B. (2000). On good authority or is feminist authority an oxymoron? Philosophy of education, 1999 (pp. 307–317). Philosophy of Education Society. Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. (1986). Women’s ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. Basic Books. Bell, E. E. (1997). Listen up. You have to: Voices from women and communication. Western Journal of Communication, 6, 89–100. Bennett, J. (2019, Aug. 27). But is she likeable? The New York Times. https://www. nytimes.com/2019/08/27/us/likability-­penalty.html Berry, A., & Taylor, M. (2017). Personal experience methods in practitioner research. In D. Wyse, N. Selwyn, E. Smith, & L. E. Suter (Eds.), The BERA/SAGE handbook of educational research, 2v. (pp. 589–608). Sage. Brown, J. S., & Gray, E. S. (1995, November). The people are the company: How to build your company around your people. Fast Company, 1, 78. https://www. fastcompany.com/26238/people-­are-­company Bullock, S. (2007). Finding my way from teacher to teacher educator. In T. Russell & J. Loughran (Eds.), Enacting a pedagogy of teacher education: Values, relationships, and practices (pp. 77–94). Routledge. Cardetti, F. A., & Orgnero, M. C. (2013). Improving teaching practice through interdisciplinary dialog. Studying Teacher Education, 9(3), 256–266. https:// doi.org/10.1080/17425964.2013.831756 Coia, L., & Taylor, M. (2013). Uncovering feminist pedagogy: A co/autoethnography. Studying Teacher Education, 9(1), 3–17. Coia, L., & Taylor, M. (2014). A co/autoethnography of feminist teaching: Nomadic jamming into the unpredictable. In M. Taylor & L. Coia (Eds.), Gender, feminism, and queer theory in the self-­study of teacher education practices (pp. 157–169). Sense Publishers.

162  Monica Taylor and Emily J. Klein

Crenshaw, K. (2016, December). The urgency of intersectionality [video]. TED conferences. https://www.ted.com/talks/kimberle_crenshaw_the_urgency_of_ intersectionality?language=en East, K., Fitzgerald, L., & Heston, M. (2009). Talking, teaching, and learning: Using dialogue in self-­study. In D. Tidwell, M. Heston, & L. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Research methods for the self-­study of practice (pp. 55–72). Sense Publishers. Ellingson, L. L., & Sotirin, P. (2008). Academic Aunting: Reimaging Feminist (Wo) Mentoring, Teaching, and Relationships. Women & Language, 31(1), 35–42. Ellsworth, E. (1994). Why doesn’t this feel empowering? Working through the repressive myths of critical pedagogy. In L. Stone (Ed.), The education feminism reader (pp. 300–327). Routledge. Greene, M. (1995). Releasing the imagination: Essay on education, the arts, and social change. Jossey-­Bass. Klein, E. J., & Taylor, M. (2023). Our bodies tell the story: Using feminist research and friendship to reimagine education and our lives. Myers Education Press. Klein, E. J., Taylor, M., Onore, C., Strom, K., Abrams, L. W. (2013). Finding a third space in teacher education: Creating the MSU/NPS urban teacher residency. Teaching Education 24(1), 27–57. 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). Routledge. Lather, P. (2006, October). (Post)Feminist methodology: Getting lost OR a scientificity we can bear to learn from [Paper presentation]. The Research Methods Festival, Oxford, England. Leavy, P., & Harris, A. (2019). Contemporary feminist research from theory to practice. The Guilford Press. Loughran, J. (2006). Developing a pedagogy of teacher education. Routledge. Maher, F. A., & Tetreault, M. K. (1994). The feminist classroom. Rowan and Littlefield. Remer, P. (2011). Taking a warm feminist bath: Feminist mentoring. https://www. apadivisions.org/division-­35/news-­events/news/2011/feminist-­mentoring Russell, T., & Bullock, S. (1999). Discovering our professional knowledge as teachers. In J. Loughran (Ed.), Researching teaching: Methodologies and practices for understanding pedagogy (pp. 132–157). Falmer Press. St. Pierre, E. (2000). Poststructural feminism in education: An overview. Qualitative Studies in Education, 13(5), 477–515. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518 390050156422 Taylor, M., & Coia, L. (2006). Revisiting feminist authority through a co/autoethnographic lens. In D. Tidwell & L. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Self-­study research and issues of diversity (pp. 51–70). SensePublishers. Taylor, M., & Coia, L. (2020). Co/autoethnography as a feminist methodology: A retrospective. In J. Kitchen, A. Berry, S. M. Bullock, A. R. Crowe, M. Taylor, H. Guðjónsdóttir, & L. Thomas (Eds.), 2nd international handbook of self-­study of teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 565–588). Springer. Taylor, M., & Klein, E. J. (2015). A year in the life of a third space urban teacher residency: Using inquiry to reinvent teacher education. Sense Publishers.

The Persistent Relational Disconnect of Teacher Education  163

Taylor, M., & Klein, E. J. (2021). Allowing the personal to drive our self-­study: Texting, emailing, and Facebook messaging our way to feminist understanding. In J. Kitchen (Ed.), Writing as a method for the self-­study of practice (pp. 91–108). Springer. Williams, J. C. (2019, August 27). But is she likeable enough? New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/27/us/likability-­penalty.html?fbclid= IwAR10Tceu00JgRIuaTHc-­gKTcacolb-­iBXMDRAMCr0xjvJep4DP-­912lIQEA Wolf Shenk. J. (2014). Powers of two: How relationships drive creativity. Mariner Books.

11 A SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVE TO LEARNING A CLINICAL PEDAGOGY IN AND OF TEACHER EDUCATION Megan E. Lynch and Rebecca West Burns

Teaching teachers is complex work and requires a specific, extensive, and nuanced knowledge base and skill set. Loughran (2006) referred to this knowledge base and skill set as a pedagogy of teacher education, arguing that those who teach teachers must develop a pedagogy of teacher education to teach about teaching effectively. Teaching about teaching requires being able to both model the kinds of pedagogical moves and decision-­making being taught and unpack modeled, observed, and enacted teaching practices (Loughran, 2006). Broadly, a pedagogy of teacher education can be enacted across a continuum of teacher professional learning, from licensure to early career support and throughout teachers’ careers (Feiman-­Nemser, 2001; Jacobs & Burns, 2021), and it includes “what teacher educators do and say in their activities and interactions and the reasoning behind those activities and interactions” (Johnson & Golombek, 2020, p. 117). Teacher education could be conceptualized through three research-­practice strands: (1) initial teacher preparation, (2) the induction of early career teachers, and (3) the ongoing professional learning of veteran teachers. This chapter is situated within the first strand, teacher preparation, in which teacher candidate learning takes place through university-­based certification and licensure programs. Teaching teacher candidates in certification programs involves coupling coursework and clinical experiences in ways that integrate theory and practice to develop teachers’ content, pedagogical, and pedagogical content knowledge through meaningful, developmentally appropriate experiences in schools (Bransford et al., 2005; Feiman-­Nemser, 2001; Hollins & Warner, 2021; Zeichner, 2010). Given that clinical DOI: 10.4324/9781003365129-11

Learning a Clinical Pedagogy in and of Teacher Education  165

preparation is an essential component of teaching teacher candidates and that teacher candidates cite their clinical experiences as some of the most powerful and influential aspects of their preparation, how teacher candidate learning is cultivated and supported in clinical experiences is critical. Thus, embedded within a pedagogy of teacher education are specialized knowledge and skills to teach about teaching when in clinical experiences, known as clinical pedagogy (Burns & Badiali, 2016, 2018). Just as it is imperative that a pedagogy of teacher education must be taught, that same intentionality in articulating, teaching, and learning a pedagogy of clinical practice in teacher educators must receive equal attention. In this chapter, we reflect on how we learned our clinical pedagogies in our respective doctoral programs as part of our graduate assistantships. We unpack our experiences using a Vygotskian sociocultural theoretical perspective of teacher education to provide readers the opportunity to consider their programs and structures for teaching a clinical pedagogy in teacher education. We end the chapter with implications for the explicit teaching of a clinical pedagogy of teacher education to future teacher educators who will inevitably play a central role in creating and sustaining meaningful clinical experiences in teacher education. A Clinical Pedagogy of and in Teacher Education

An overlooked lineage of a clinical pedagogy of, and in, teacher education as it relates to teacher preparation and teacher candidate learning can be found in the field of clinical supervision and instructional leadership. More than 50 years ago, Goldhammer (1969) and Cogan (1970) advocated for the need to teach teachers in schools. Drawing from their work of supporting post-­baccalaureate teachers earning certification, they found that supporting teacher learning while learning to teach in the dynamic spaces of classrooms was not only complex, but imperative. They contended that teacher educators should meet with teachers to learn about their thinking and decision-­making for an upcoming lesson, observe that lesson, and debrief with the teacher afterward to reflect on the lesson and make improvements. Undergirding these processes is the belief that in order to support teacher professional learning, teacher educators must 1) know the students, the context, and the teachers they are supporting, 2) be able to collect data when observing the activity of teaching and learning, 3) facilitate data-­ driven discussions to deepen the understanding of both the observer and observed and mediate new learning, and 4) incorporate new teaching/ learning practices in the classroom to be better meet the needs of P-­12 students and teachers. In essence, they named the most common process embedded in coaching teachers today – the preconference-­observation-­post

166  Megan E. Lynch and Rebecca West Burns

conference supervision cycle/coaching cycle. Goldhammer (1969) and Cogan (1970) framed their work as clinical supervision. Much of the empirical literature on clinical supervision for teacher candidate learning has been focused on targeted instructional support and evaluation (Burns et al., 2016a). While providing instructional feedback through observation cycles is part of teaching teacher candidates, it is only one aspect of the function of supporting teacher learning in clinical experiences. The breadth of the role of the university supervisor and the function of supervision as supporting teacher candidate learning has expanded and includes the sophisticated coupling of high-­leverage practices and concrete pedagogical routines of practice to cultivate, through partnership with schools, clinical experiences as a robust learning environment not only for teacher candidates but also for teachers (Burns et al., 2016b, 2020; Burns & Lynch, in press). Teacher educators in the clinical setting, then, teach about teaching in ways that provide a lens to “see into teaching” and make the tacit explicit (Loughran, 2006). They engage in activities that uncover the why and how of practice. In this way, teacher educators do not model “good” teaching practices for replication or adding to a “teacher toolkit” but use models as a way to theorize teaching and engage in decision-­making dialogue. Burns and Badiali (2016) identify six pedagogical moves university supervisors make to engage in such decision-­making dialogue and “break down the complexity of teaching”: ignoring, marking, intervening, pointing, unpacking, and processing (p. 162). Critical to teaching about teaching is an understanding and development of teacher identity and stances for teaching. By theorizing teaching, teacher educators provide space for teachers to develop teacher identities, examine their personal and professional identities, and learn more about their students’ identities (Johnson & Golombek, 2020). Teaching about teaching must be purposeful, and thus, a clinical pedagogy of teacher education includes the development of an inquiry stance (Cochran-­Smith & Lytle, 1999; Dana & Yendol-­Hoppey, 2020) and stances that are anti-­racist, culturally responsive, and socially just. Clinical experiences as an intentional learning environment for the professional learning of everyone in the clinical setting expands the conception of who teacher educators are and what teacher educators do. In addition to university-­ based teacher educators, school-­ based teacher educators and those in school-­university boundary-­spanning roles can be responsible for the teaching, mentoring, and coaching teacher leaders, teachers, and teacher candidates as part of a school-­university partnership. Conceptualized in this manner, clinical experiences situated within the school become a learning community for all, everyone is a learner, and everyone has expertise that is valued, respected, and needed.

Learning a Clinical Pedagogy in and of Teacher Education  167

How Did We Learn Our Clinical Pedagogies?

The impetus for the reflective nature in this chapter stems from our – Megan’s and Rebecca’s – shared understandings of each other’s clinical pedagogy in teacher education and our ongoing discussions of how it came to be that we have shared understandings. Rebecca was hired as the Director of Clinical Practice and Educational Partnerships and awarded an endowed professorship in 2021 at the University of North Florida, and several months later, Megan was hired as a postdoctoral research fellow at the same institution. A portion of Megan’s responsibilities was devoted to developing the capacity for school and university-­based teacher educators to engage in research on clinical experiences and engage in practitioner inquiry. Prior to working together, we had met at national conferences and social events during conferences. We shared interests in supervision, clinical pedagogy, and school-­university partnerships, and we had a shared academic background, both earning our PhDs in Curriculum and Supervision at The Pennsylvania State University, which is what often brought us together at national conferences. To develop a clinical pedagogy, novice teacher educators must have ample opportunity to link the theory and practice of a clinical pedagogy as they are learning. In a position paper on standards for teacher candidate supervisors, the Association for Student Teaching’s (1968) Commission on Standards for Supervising Teachers and College Supervisors recommended that supervisors “have completed or [is] currently enrolled in an advanced graduate program related to the supervision of student teaching” (p. 7). Indeed, doctoral students make up a significant portion of teacher candidate supervisors at research-­ extensive universities (Burns & Badiali, 2018; Capello, 2022, Cuenca et al., 2011). The coupling of doctoral coursework in supervision, partnership, and clinical practice with the practice of supervising and engaging in clinical partnerships can be fertile ground for the development of future teacher educators who have a strong clinical pedagogy (McCorvey & Burns, 2022). As we reflect on this case, we attribute much of our early development to our experiences as doctoral students at a research-­intensive university who were provided space to link theory and practice in intentional ways in school-­university partnerships with expert guidance and support from outstanding teacher educators. To better understand how we learned how to teach within clinical experiences, we collaboratively reflect on our past experiences to imagine a future for a clinical pedagogy in teacher education. Doing so within a complex, ever-­changing system of teacher education and broader social, political, and cultural dimensions of our work allows us to develop, through dialectical thinking, an idea of what clinical pedagogy in teacher education can be.

168  Megan E. Lynch and Rebecca West Burns

Theoretical Framework

A theoretical lens is necessary for understanding and deepening the practices of a clinical pedagogy of teacher education. Having opportunities to critically reflect on the simultaneous development of a theoretical basis for teacher education and the enactment of the practices of teacher education to develop self-­awareness and growth are essential for developing a pedagogy of teacher education (Jacobs, 2023). Like cycles of theory-­reflection-­action, engaging in methods of self-­study research can be a powerful vehicle for developing a pedagogy of teacher education (Berry, 2008; Diacopoulos & Butler, 2020). Therefore, we turn to sociocultural theory (Vygotsky, 1978,1986, Lantolf & Thorne, 2006) and Johnson and Golombek’s (2020) teacher education pedagogy, that – although developed in the context of language teacher education – still applies to teacher education more broadly, to put our practices of a clinical pedagogy in conversation with the theoretical constructs that explain and undergird such practices. A Vygotskian sociocultural theoretical perspective (Vygotsky, 1978, 1986) of the development of higher psychological functions (i.e., development of human cognition) makes the case that the mind is embedded in the interactions between human beings and the world. Our consciousness is mediated by the tools and artifacts (psychological and physical) in our sociocultural, historical, and geopolitical context. Put simply, learning is “social.” Yet, this does not mean that learning is only subject to external culture. From a Vygotskian sociocultural theoretical perspective, learning is both an individual and cultural act. It is also non-­linear and ongoing. When teacher candidates learn to teach, teacher educators must recognize that their teacher candidates are “shaped in and through their experiences as learners engaging with teachers and other learners, the cultural practices of teacher education, and the particulars of their teaching contexts: all embedded within larger sociocultural histories yet appropriated in individualized ways” (Johnson & Golombek, 2020, p. 118). Identifying the places and spaces in which learning has taken place is one step in understanding how humans learn, but the interactional moments targeted at people’s ripening stages of development provide deeper, more theoretically sound insight into how people learn. In this chapter, we do not only describe the contexts, structures, programs, and courses that we participated in as we developed our clinical pedagogy but also apply a conceptual and theoretical lens, grounded in a sociocultural theoretical perspective of teacher education to unpack and reflect on those past experiences. A Sociocultural Perspective of Clinical Pedagogy in Teacher Education

Johnson and Golombek (2020) offer eight propositions, or tenets, that represent a language teacher education pedagogy grounded in a Vygotskian

Learning a Clinical Pedagogy in and of Teacher Education  169

sociocultural theoretical perspective. These eight tenets exemplify the dialectical logic of Vygotsky’s (1978, 1986) theory of mind, and we believe they apply to teacher education broadly, as well as to a clinical pedagogy in teacher education. In sharing these eight tenets, Johnson and Golombek (2020) shift the focus from not just investigating what teacher candidates are asked to do or learn in their teacher education programs, but instead focus on “what we do, as teacher educators; our goals, intentions, expectations, the quality and character of our pedagogy, and the consequences of our pedagogy on the ways in which teachers come to understand both the scope and impact of their teaching” (p. 117). Johnson and Golombek (2020) posit that a (language) teacher education pedagogy must 1) be “located,” 2) recognize who the teacher is and wishes to become, 3) be intentional and goal-­directed, 4) create opportunities to externalize everyday concepts while internalizing relevant academic concepts, 5) contain structured mediational spaces to play/step into teaching, 6) involve expert, responsive mediation, 7) include self-­inquiry into professional learning, and 8) demonstrate influence between teacher professional learning and student learning. Many of these tenets are evident in the practices already articulated above, e.g., modeling, making the tacit explicit. In the same way that teachers and teacher candidates learn to teach through a sociocultural theoretical perspective, we argue that teacher educators learn to teach teachers in similar ways. The development of a clinical pedagogy in teacher education requires that novice teacher educators have structured mediational spaces to practice their clinical educator pedagogy, can enact their practice locally, engage in concept development, self-­inquire, receive expert, responsive mediation, and attempt to provide responsive mediation to teachers/teacher candidates, and engage in goal-­directed activities that are intentional and explicit in developing a clinical pedagogy of teacher education. In the sections that follow, we tease out three of the propositions and apply them as a lens to understand how we were prepared to be teacher educators and develop our clinical pedagogies during our time as doctoral students. Our Clinical Pedagogy in Teacher Education Preparation Was “Located”

Context is a tricky word. Our lived experiences occur in the sociocultural, geopolitical, spatiotemporal, and historical world, which shapes and is shaped by our individual and collective goals, beliefs, and activities. An effective clinical pedagogy must recognize the local contextual dimensions of the classroom and school environments the teaching and learning community (i.e., teachers, teacher candidates, mentor teachers, and P-­12 students) are a part of. Indeed, “teacher educators must create locally appropriate professional

170  Megan E. Lynch and Rebecca West Burns

development opportunities, practices, and resources that are socially, culturally, historically, and institutionally situated in and responsive to teachers’, students’, and community needs” (Johnson & Golombek, 2020, p. 120). A clinical pedagogy must recognize the way those in the school setting position themselves and are positioned and support teachers and teacher candidates in recognizing the impact of positioning as well. This means that a clinical pedagogy must be focused on educator empowerment, agency, and the ability to critically analyze institutional norms and structures. We both attribute our time at The Pennsylvania State University as a critical experience to our development of a clinical pedagogy in intersecting and distinct ways. As doctoral students, we were involved in the Penn State – State College Area School District K-­4 Professional Development School (PDS) and we shared a dissertation chair. Megan held graduate assistantships outside the PDS but was deeply involved in the PDS community for several years of her doctoral program. Rebecca held a graduate assistantship as a Professional Development Associate (PDA), in the simplest sense a university supervisor, in the PDS community for all five years of her preparation. In the different periods of time that we were involved in the PDS, we encountered some similar surface-­level structures that shaped and were shaped by the pervading and enduring beliefs held by many in the PDS community. PDSs are intentional P-­20 school-­university partnerships for teacher education that are “guided by a comprehensive, articulated mission that is broader than the goals of any single partner” (National Association for Professional Development Schools [NAPDS], 2021, p. 15). One distinguishing essential of a PDS is the focus on professional learning of all participants. In the Penn State – State College Area School District Elementary PDS, they not only prepared teachers, but they also prepared teacher educators; it was part of their 4-­E mission: Enhance the educational experiences of all children, Ensure high-­quality inductions of new teachers into our professions, Engage in furthering our own professional growth as teachers and teacher educators of all children, and Educate the next generation of teacher educators. The design of the PDS was complex and continually evolving based on feedback from all stakeholders in the PDS community. More about the PDS can be found in Coon-­Kitt et al.’s (2018) article in School-­University Partnerships which offers an overview of the partnership. Critical Incidences

Megan had the opportunity to develop a located clinical pedagogy across two distinct teacher education systems and contexts that varied in history, goals, beliefs, and activities. What worked in one site may or may not have worked in the other. At the core of Megan’s developing clinical pedagogy

Learning a Clinical Pedagogy in and of Teacher Education  171

was a critical pedagogy and social justice stance. Teacher candidates she worked with expressed interest and emerging practices in being socially just teachers. They wanted to understand how their emerging practices were socially just and how they could develop the lens to look for inequality and injustice in their school contexts. And given that Megan was developing a clinical pedagogy that valued mentor teacher input and the fostering of triadic relationships for reciprocal learning and development, Megan attempted to bring mentor teachers into the work. However, the sites varied in how this would be possible due to the types of interactions Megan had with the mentor teachers. She had to navigate multiple spaces while developing her clinical pedagogy, providing her with direct contrast of the “located” nature of teaching. To navigate such spaces, she engaged in in-­depth conversations with more expert teacher educators in both contexts to unpack the how and why of partnering with mentor teachers differently. Rebecca recalls being in a doctoral course on designing high-­quality professional development that included a key assignment of creating a professional development plan that could be implemented in a school. Not wanting to do anything that was not actually going to be used, Rebecca teamed up with the principal of a PDS elementary school to design a professional development plan, then went to the faculty member teaching the course with an idea for an alternative assignment, which was to write a State Department of Environmental Protection grant to implement their professional development plan. The grant was funded, and they were then able to implement the professional development plan over the course of the following year. Rebecca believes the modeling provided by the principal helped build her knowledge base and skill set of designing and facilitating professional learning for teachers. Our Clinical Pedagogy in Teacher Education Preparation Involved Explicitly Learning Key Concepts

Central to a Vygotskian sociocultural theoretical perspective is the notion that we learn through concept development. Our experiences in the world allow us to form “everyday concepts” to classify, categorize, and interpret those experiences. Schooling, on the other hand, provides an opportunity for us to internalize “academic concepts,” which are “systematic and generalizable knowledge of entities and phenomenon in the world” (Johnson & Golombek, 2020, p. 122). By linking everyday and academic concepts, they generate true concepts; everyday phenomena can become abstracted and generalized, and abstracted concepts can be realized in concrete phenomena. True concepts are then used as psychological tools for thinking, which is the mediating aspect of cognition from a Vygotskian perspective.

172  Megan E. Lynch and Rebecca West Burns

In teacher education, Lortie’s (2002) “apprenticeship of observation” is not unlike teachers’ and teacher candidates’ everyday concept of teaching. They may notice, for example, that teachers provide a formative assessment in the form of an exit ticket at the close of a lesson. However, with a teacher educator, they can “see” into the why of the practice as a teacher educator unpacks, points to, and/or processes with the teacher why that practice occurred. Thus, they are introduced to academic concepts in assessment that they then internalize and integrate with their everyday concepts to generate true concepts that can guide their teaching practices in ways that may have been previously unexamined/unanalyzed. Johnson and Golombek (2020) explain the importance of thinking in concepts. When teachers think in concepts, they are able to think through the demands of new teaching situations, identify their instructional objectives within the affordances and constraints of their instructional context, design connected instructional practices, and articulate the pedagogical reasons underlying their thinking and activity. (p. 122) Critical Incidences

In our graduate assistantships and in conjunction with our time in the Penn State – State College Area School District K-­4 PDS developing our clinical pedagogy, we have now come to realize that we had explicit learning opportunities around several concepts, two of which are elaborated on below: inquiry and supervision. Inquiry

During each of the time periods we were part of the PDS, practitioner inquiry was considered one of its signature pedagogies (Yendol-­Hoppey & Franco, 2014). Practitioner inquiry is the systematic, intentional investigation by educators into their own teaching or professional practices (Cochran-­ Smith & Lytle, 2009; Dana & Yendol-­Hoppey, 2020). Educators are asked to see practitioner inquiry as “a worldview, a habit of mind, a dynamic and fluid way of knowing and being in the world of educational practice that carries across the course of the professional career” (Cochran-­Smith & Lytle, 2009, p. 113). To embody this habit of mind, educators consistently go through cyclical and iterative processes of identifying a question or problem to ask, systematically generating and collecting data, analyzing the data, taking action, and sharing with others.

Learning a Clinical Pedagogy in and of Teacher Education  173

Since the PDS’s inception, practitioner inquiry has been a foundational core of the partnership. It is embodied and celebrated in nearly every aspect of the PDS. In Fall semester methods courses, teacher candidates are taught through and how to teach inquiry-­based science, math, and social studies, and they are taught how to use practitioner inquiry as a reflective practice and a way to learn more about their students. They have inquiry-­based assignments in each of their courses (e.g., inquiry into student learning, inquiry into a school/community, etc.) In the Spring, teacher candidates engage in a semester-­long inquiry that begins with a Great Wondering Brainstorm at the start of the semester and an inquiry conference at the end. During Seminar each week in Spring, a portion of time is dedicated to their inquiry development. Because Seminar was co-­planned among all the PDS supervisors and had input and involvement from mentor teachers, collective understanding was built around expectations for teacher candidates’ inquiry development. As novice teacher educators, we learned how to coach teacher candidates through their identification of a problem of practice and wondering development. We were able to introduce and coach teacher candidates through a variety of data collection and analysis methods, which strengthened and was strengthened by what we were learning about conducting research in our doctoral coursework. Mentor teachers and supervisors collaborated on supporting teacher candidates through the inquiry process. If, for example, a teacher candidate was inquiring into the K-­2 social studies curriculum and their supervisor had expertise in science, the supervisor would ask someone with social studies expertise to aid in feedback and consultancy with the inquiry. Inquiry was a collaborative endeavor and resources were shared extensively. Holding an inquiry conference at the end of each academic year meant everyone in the PDS could participate in, share, and celebrate inquiry. The inquiry conference was also a learning experience for all. Additionally, inquiry as a signature pedagogy led to many PDS dissertations and research focused on inquiry development. The findings and implications of these studies were regularly shared with the PDS community. Megan had the opportunity to take a graduate course on inquiry in the PDS that was a near 50-­50 split between doctoral students in Curriculum & Supervision and PDS mentor teachers. PDS supervisors also participated in the course (some auditing and some taking it for credit). This course brought together doctoral students, supervisors, faculty, and mentor teachers for a full semester to engage in various forms of collaborative, parallel, and individual inquiries (Dana & Yendol-­Hoppey, 2020). Course materials, activities, and interactions were intentionally created to develop a deeper and shared conceptualization of practitioner inquiry while being immersed in inquiry practices together. The instructor for the course was an expert

174  Megan E. Lynch and Rebecca West Burns

teacher educator who modeled how she used inquiry as a signature pedagogy and a way to empower school and university-­based teacher educators. By being in her class, Megan was able to notice, unpack, and process how the expert teacher educator taught and lived inquiry in the graduate course. Supervision

The supervision of teacher candidates was a highly valued activity in the PDS. Supervision was not a practice separate from the teacher education program or methods courses, instead it was a collaborative effort with shared responsibilities across different titles and positions. Because those who had supervisory duties ranged in titles, all faculty responsible for supervision were referred to as “Professional Development Associates”. PDAs with supervisory duties assume boundary-­spanning, hybrid roles in the third space of the PDS, though oftentimes PDAs would align themselves with either the school district or the university. PDAs were predominantly 1) classroom teachers on release (typically for three years), 2) graduate students with an assistantship in the PDS, or 3) full-­time university faculty whose work was in the PDS. Supervisors were assigned to supervise teacher candidates in a triadic relationship with mentor teachers. They balanced the needs to build community and collaboration with providing instructional feedback and support to their teacher candidates. They were also responsible for co-­teaching a weekly methods course in Fall, co-­planning and co-­leading weekly Seminar in the Spring, and facilitating teacher candidate cohort meetings each week, and meeting as a PDA team each week. Our conceptual understanding of supervision was strengthened as we engaged in the act of supervision, studied our practice, and received expert mediation from other, more experienced supervisors. While Megan had taken courses in supervision and had taught methods courses in the early years of her doctoral program, she had not yet had the opportunity to supervise teacher candidates. Before supervising her own teacher candidates, she shadowed other supervisors who had demonstrated expertise in their supervision. By shadowing and engaging in professional conversations about supervision, the expert supervisor (another doctoral student) was also able to externalize and make explicit their intentional supervisory practices and values. Because supervisors engaged in similar readings and met weekly for professional learning related to supervisory tasks, a shared understanding was developed. Graduate faculty teaching courses on supervision created space in their course activities for practicing supervisors to bring their problems of practice to the coursework and encouraged them to study the supervision they were enacting.

Learning a Clinical Pedagogy in and of Teacher Education  175

Our Clinical Pedagogy in Teacher Education Preparation Took Place in Structured Mediational Spaces

Mediation is key to a Vygotskian sociocultural theoretical perspective of the mind. Johnson and Golombek (2020) describe structured, mediational spaces as “an array of interconnected intentional and goal-­directed activities and interactions, the pedagogical reasoning for which teacher educators/ teacher education programs have made explicit” (p. 123). These activities and interactions vary in what they are, but they must be targeted at the learner’s zone of proximal development, a stage in which they are ripe for development. Asking a teacher candidate to go into a classroom and lead a 20-­minute phonics lesson on the first day of their teacher education program would not be appropriate; conversely asking a 20-­year veteran teacher and teacher educator to take a five-­question quiz on key components in phonics would also not be appropriate. Albeit extreme examples, they highlight that structured mediational spaces need to be intentional opportunities for teachers/teacher candidates to “play” and attempt a skill or practice beyond what they are comfortable or feel safe doing while receiving expert, explicit responsive mediation to aid in the teacher/teacher candidates’ development of a new concept. Our time in our graduate assistantships afforded us the opportunities to participate in structured mediational spaces. These activities and interactions were opportunities for expert teacher educators to “make their expertise explicit, to model conceptual thinking, and to introduce relevant academic concepts that support teachers as they re-­ conceptualize their teaching activities” (or, in our case, teacher education activities) (Johnson & Golombek, 2020, p. 123). We had spaces to “play” without fear of evaluation, failure, or being alone. The act of co-­planning and co-­teaching as well as collaborative presentations and publications on practices within a clinical pedagogy in teacher education stand out as two mediational spaces from which we learned a great deal. Critical Incidences Co-­Planning and Co-­Teaching

Throughout Rebecca’s experience in the PDS and Megan’s experience in the PDS and another school-­university-­community partnership, co-­planning and co-­teaching was another signature clinical pedagogy that we explicitly learned in both theory and practice while engaging in the act of co-­planning and co-­teaching at the same time. The act of co-­designing courses afforded school and university-­based teacher educators the opportunity to unpack the why and how of their clinical pedagogy with other teacher educators.

176  Megan E. Lynch and Rebecca West Burns

Co-­planning and co-­teaching in the PDS occurred in fall semester methods courses and in spring Seminar. For each course taught in the PDS, there were two or three instructors. Mentor teachers and/or other teachers in the district, doctoral students, university tenure-­earning faculty, and full-­time faculty were selected to teach courses based on prior experience and/or expertise. Co-­planning spaces were cultivated to be safe learning spaces for all teacher educators. In regularly scheduled co-­planning meetings, instructors had the opportunity to “try out” ideas for assignments, tasks, and activities. Co-­instructors could also act as thought partners, providing space for us to begin to externalize why we are designing a particular goal-­oriented activity or lesson and how we intend to mediate our teacher candidates’ understanding. Trusting relationships in co-­ planning/co-­ teaching pairs allowed us to take risks, pushing us beyond our comfort zones by attempting something for the first time or in a new way. Rather than learning to teach in the clinical setting alone, we planned and taught together. Co-­ teaching created opportunities for other expert teacher educators to process co-­taught lessons and provide insight, feedback, and guidance. As novice teacher educators, if we got “stuck” during a lesson, there was always a co-­ teacher who could provide real-­time mediational support. Co-­planning and co-­teaching also provided a space to build inquiry into emerging problems of practice and seek insight from others. In this layered approach, our co-­ instructors were making their clinical pedagogy of teacher education explicit and intentionally marking their pedagogical moves, we were doing the same with our teacher candidates through our enactment of our clinical pedagogy of teacher education. Collaborative Presentations and Publications

It is no secret that tenure-­earning faculty are motivated by structures in higher education to publish in peer-­reviewed journals consistently and regularly and present at national conferences. Because tenure-­earning faculty were involved in the PDS, and because we were doctoral students preparing for faculty positions, conference presentations and publications were an expectation. Yet those involved rarely did these things in isolation. For Megan, an early formative learning experience was with a science education faculty member making explicit why it is important to collaborate on conference presentations with mentor teachers and teacher candidates from a professional learning perspective. This faculty member explained in depth and showed examples of how the month spent leading up to the preparation of the presentation, practicing the presentation, attending the conference together, presenting and getting feedback from session participants, and  debriefing the experience afterward provides a sustained, ongoing

Learning a Clinical Pedagogy in and of Teacher Education  177

professional learning experience that can benefit everyone involved in the process. Megan had the opportunity to learn from the science education faculty member in a structured way. Rebecca had similar experiences, having a tenured full professor in the PDS co-­present with her on PDS work during the very first semester of her doctoral program. While initially nerve-­ wracking for Rebecca, this practice set the expectation that collaborative dissemination of work was a norm not only in this community but also in what faculty who espouse and enact a clinical pedagogy in and of teacher education should do. By extension, faculty members – with expertise in clinical pedagogy in teacher education – presenting with novice teacher educators provide the same kind of ongoing professional learning and mentored support and mediation. Because this work is not happening in isolation and because it includes expert others who can mediate learning, preparing conference presentations and publications in collaboration provides novice teacher educators a structured, mediational space where they can learn how to share what they have learned about their clinical pedagogy and also develop their clinical pedagogy by enacting the same pedagogies expert teacher educators are doing with them, novice teacher educators can enact these practices with mentor teachers, teacher candidates, and other graduate students. What Are the Implications for Developing a Clinical Pedagogy of Teacher Education? And, What Are the Implications If We Do Not Teach a Clinical Pedagogy?

As doctoral students who held graduate assistantships in school-­university (and school-­university-­community) partnerships, we had structures in place to support our development of clinical pedagogies. We were incredibly privileged in our doctoral programs to engage in the kind of mediated teacher educator preparation we had. While being asked to enact clinical pedagogy as our assistantship responsibilities, we were learning how to do so by being explicitly taught what clinical pedagogy is and could be. Our preparation as teacher educators was “located,” meaning we had clearly defined contexts to practice our pedagogy. We were also able to see the located nature of our clinical pedagogy as it had to be adapted and evolved over contexts that differed socioculturally, geopolitically, historically, and spatiotemporally. Our preparation also included structured, mediational spaces for us to attempt our pedagogy, and engage in practices that were carefully crafted and supported for us to grow. And within those spaces, we were able to clearly define and understand academic concepts at the core of a clinical pedagogy. We provided inquiry and supervision as two examples.

178  Megan E. Lynch and Rebecca West Burns

Our  everyday concepts and prior experiences in inquiry and supervision were challenged, changed, and/or deepened by the explicit, systematic introduction of academic concepts that we internalized differently according to our own teacher educator identities, lived experiences, and perspectives. The mentors and expert teacher educators who provided us with guidance, mediated our thinking, and provided the structured support for us to develop our own clinical pedagogies were critical. We learned that a clinical pedagogy encompasses supporting teacher candidate learning, but it also leverages school-­university partnerships as a learning community to promote the professional learning of teachers, teacher leaders, teacher candidates, and teacher educators. Additionally, we learned that there is a skill set and knowledge base to a clinical pedagogy that must be taught to novice teacher educators. In the same ways that we teach about teaching by unearthing the pedagogical moves and decision-­making, identities, and stances that inform our teaching pedagogy, we must do the same with teaching about teacher education. For clinical pedagogy in teacher education to continue to be a valued pedagogical approach to professional learning across the educator continuum, there must be space for teacher educators to develop a clinical pedagogy. This requires ongoing attention to cultivating and sustaining school-­university partnerships that value ongoing professional learning for all partners. References Association for Student Teaching. (1968). The college supervisor: Standards for selection and function. Association for Student Teaching: Commission on Standards for Supervising Teachers and College Supervisors of the Association for Student Teaching. Berry, A. (2008). Tensions in teaching about teaching: Understanding practice as a teacher educator. Springer. Bransford, J., Darling-­Hammond, L., & LePage, P. (2005). Introduction. In L. Darling-­Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. Jossey Bass. Burns, R. W., & Badiali, B. (2016). Unearthing the complexities of clinical pedagogy in supervision: Identifying pedagogical skills of supervisors. Action in Teacher Education, 38(2), 156–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.201 6.1155097 Burns, R. W., & Badiali, B. (2018). Clinical pedagogy and pathways of clinical pedagogical practice: A conceptual framework. Action in Teacher Education, 40(4), 428–446. https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2018.1503978 Burns, R. W., Jacobs, J., & Yendol-­Hoppey, D. (2016a). Preservice teacher supervision within field experiences in a decade of reform: A comprehensive meta-­ analysis of the empirical literature from 2001–2013. Teacher Education and Practice, 29(1), 46–75.

Learning a Clinical Pedagogy in and of Teacher Education  179

Burns, R. W., Jacobs, J., & Yendol-­Hoppey, D. (2016b). The changing nature of the role of the university supervisor and the function of preservice teacher supervision in an era of increased school-­university collaboration. Action in Teacher Education, 38(4), 410–425. https://www.doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2016.1226203 Burns, R. W., Jacobs, J., & Yendol-­Hoppey, D. (2020). A framework for naming the scope and nature of preservice teacher supervision in clinically based teacher preparation: Tasks, high-­leverage practices, and pedagogical routines of practice. The TeacherEducator,55(2),214–238.https://www.doi.org/10.1080/08878730.2019 Burns, R. W., & Lynch, M. E. (in press). Teacher candidate supervision as praxis: The keystone to creating school-­university partnerships for educational renewal. In J. Dresden, J. Ferrara, J. Neapolitan, & D. Yendol-­Hoppey (Eds.), Handbook on School-­University Partnerships. Cambridge University Press. Capello, S. (2022). “I wanted to give back to the profession:” Preservice teacher supervision as service work. Action in Teacher Education, 44(1), 4–20. https:// doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2021.1935362 Cochran-­Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher learning in communities. Review of Research in Education, 24, 249–305. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1167272 Cochran-­Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (2009). Inquiry as stance: Practitioner research for the next generation. Teachers College Press. Cogan, M. (1970). Clinical supervision. Houghton Mifflin. Coon-­Kitt, M. J., Lloyd, G. M., Wolkenhauer, R., Badiali, B., Bauer, D., Davenport, A., de Carle, A., Dewitt, K., Higgins, M., Hutchinson, D., Lynch, C., McDonald, C., Reitz, N., & Titus, N. (2018). The Pennsylvania State University and State College Area School District: Taking stock and looking to the future after 20 years of collaboration. School-­University Partnerships, 12(1). 3–9. https:// files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1220180.pdf Cuenca, A., Schmeichel, M., Butler, B. M., Dinkelman, T., & Nichols Jr., J. R. (2011). Creating a “third space” in student teaching: Implications for the university supervisor’s status as outsider. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 1068–1077. Dana, N. F., & Yendol-­Hoppey, D. (2020). The reflective educator’s guide to classroom research: Learning to teach and teaching to learn through practitioner inquiry. (4th ed.). Corwin. Diacopoulos, M. M., & Butler, B. M. (2020). What do we supervise for? A self-­ study of learning teacher candidate supervision. Studying Teacher Education, 16(1), 66–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/17425964.2019.1690985 Feiman-­Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 1013–1055. Goldhammer, R. (1969). Clinical supervision: Special methods for the supervision of teachers. Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Hollins, E., & Warner, C. K. (2021). Rethinking teacher preparation program design. Routledge. Jacobs, J. (2023). Preparing the next generation of equity-­centered teacher educators: Considerations for a pedagogy of teacher educator education. Action in Teacher Education, 45(2), 159–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2023.2184881 Jacobs, J., & Burns, R. W. (2021). (Re)Designing programs: A vision for equity-­ centered, clinically based teacher preparation. Information Age Publishing.

180  Megan E. Lynch and Rebecca West Burns

Johnson, K. E., & Golombek, P. (2020). Informing and transforming language teacher education pedagogy. Language Teaching Research, 24(1), 116–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818777539 Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford University Press. Lortie, D. C. (2002). Schoolteacher. A sociological study. The University of Chicago Press. Loughran, J. (2006). Developing a pedagogy of teacher education: Understanding teaching and learning about teaching. Routledge. McCorvey, J. K., & Burns, R. W. (2022). The importance of supervision in preparing scholars of teacher education: One student’s transformative journey. In R. W. Burns, L. Baecher, & J. K. McCorvey (Eds.), Advancing supervision in clinically based teacher education: Advances, opportunities, and explorations. Information Age Publishing. National Association for Professional Development Schools. (2021). What it means to be a Professional Development School: The nine essentials (2nd ed.) [Policy statement]. Author. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Edited by M. Cole, V. John-­Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman. Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Translated by A. Kozulin. MIT Press. Yendol-­Hoppey, D., & Franco, Y. (2014). In search of signature pedagogy for PDS teacher education: A review of articles published in School-­University Partnerships. School-­University Partnerships, 7(1), 17–34. Zeichner, K. (2010). Rethinking the connections between campus courses and field experiences in college-­and university-­based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 61, 89–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022487109347671

12 A COLLABORATIVE FACULTY APPROACH TO A PRACTICE-­BASED PEDAGOGY OF TEACHER EDUCATION Carla Finkelstein, Lijun Jin, Maria Perpetua Liwanag, Pamela S. Lottero-­Perdue, Vicki McQuitty, Shannon Monacelli, Stephanie M. Moody, and Laurie Mullen

This chapter responds to Loughran’s (2006) call for “developing a pedagogy of teacher education … [that] is enhanced through scholars working together at the institutional level” (p. 177). We describe the adoption of a pedagogy of teacher education (PTE) at Towson University, the largest preparer of teachers in the state of Maryland. Aligning with the framework put forth by Loughran (2006), we sought to articulate a set of principles grounded in “a concentration on practice [that] must continually resurface, first and foremost, through a focus on our own teaching” (p. 82). For us, this approach rests on a belief that teaching is inherently complex, that teacher candidates (TCs) need opportunities to practice teaching, and that “beyond students of teaching needing to know how a teaching procedure works … they also need to know the complexities of why it works” (p. 83). Additionally, we recognized the need to develop a common language around these shared commitments, so that “tacit views of teaching and learning (teacher educators’ and students’) necessarily become more explicit as the need for a language through which to share understandings of teaching and learning become readily apparent” (p. 83). Primarily, we aim to offer insight into how we sought to operationalize this PTE: [At the institutional level]… the practices inherent in a pedagogy of teacher education need to be explicitly played out not only through individual teacher educators’ practice, but also in the manner in which program organization and structure reflect the way in which a pedagogy of teacher education is inherently intended to shape teacher education as a whole. (Loughran, 2006, p. 176) DOI: 10.4324/9781003365129-12

182  Carla Finkelstein et al.

As one PTE, practice-­based teacher education (PBTE) provides us with a framework and model that embodies the commitments outlined by Loughran (2006). Grounded in the literature on learning from experience (Dewey, 1904) and learning from an experienced other (Schön, 1987), PBTE holds promise to serve as an intervention into TCs’ apprenticeship of observation (Lortie, 2002) by engaging them in learning activities that “peel back the curtain” on the dilemmas and complexities of teacher decision making (Ball, 1988; Loughran et al., 2013). The pedagogies of teacher education in PBTE are framed by three concepts: (1) representations, examples and models of specific teaching practices; (2) decompositions, breakdowns of complex practices into component parts and making these parts visible to novices; and (3) approximations, opportunities to simulate components of practice with support and in-­the-­moment feedback (Grossman et al., 2009). These practices are well represented as a “Learning Cycle,” in which both university-­based and field-­based faculty support TCs through increasingly complex, scaffolded opportunities to unpack and rehearse teaching practices that promote an asset-­ oriented, responsive approach to teaching and learning (Grossman, 2018; Kavanagh et al., 2019). In particular, PBTE addresses PTE’s call for teacher education to shift from telling about teaching to explicit modeling and scaffolded practice guided by teacher educators who enact the dual roles to “teach their students as well as teach about teaching” (Korthagen et al., 2005, p. 11). As our college adopted PBTE, we considered how to approach organizational change, recognizing, as Korthagen (2016) expresses, the enormity of this undertaking: Grossman et al. (2009) warn that their approach requires a re-­thinking of program structures, as it requires teacher educators to work within an integrated program, and thus work closely together. “Organizing teacher education around a set of core practices” challenges existing structures in teacher education (p. 286). At our institution we sought a coherent approach to support teacher educator (TE) learning and to develop a shared language and understanding of PBTE enactment across programs and departments. This included both top-­ down and bottom-­up activities. Through the Dean’s leadership team, faculty were offered professional development workshops on PBTE from an external provider. And based on a model proposed by two faculty members, interested faculty were encouraged to apply as “PBTE Faculty Fellows,” an initiative launching a community of practice for scholars working together at the institutional level (Loughran, 2006) to engage in self-­study and collaborate on problems of practice arising from their teacher education courses; and participate in one-­on-­one instructional coaching (Aguilar, 2020; Costa & Garmston, 2015) with a colleague who has expertise in this area.

A Collaborative Faculty Approach to a Practice-Based PTE  183

The remainder of this chapter provides self-­study narratives describing the rollout of our college’s pedagogical reform, primarily through the voices of participants, including university-­ based methods course faculty, field supervisors, the Faculty Fellows facilitator, and the College of Education dean. Narratives describe participants’ experiences – successes as well as challenges and ongoing dilemmas – as they undertook the adoption of this PTE. Our Story

[Dr. Laurie Mullen, Dean] As Dean of a College of Education, I have deep interest in programmatic coherency. By this, I am referring to how teacher education programs organize themselves with an articulated and shared understanding of learning to teach. I am profoundly aware of the teacher education literature suggesting the weak effect of programs and curriculum on preservice students’ and new teachers’ models of teaching – in particular when a program’s curriculum is inconsistent with prior experiences and current field placements. I have become influenced by the work around high-­leverage practices (HLPs; Ball & Forzani, 2009) and core practices (Grossman & McDonald, 2008) that articulates, in part, that learning to teach includes iterative practice on central instructional moves that can be taught as part of coursework. With this knowledge base and framework, I was interested in creating a process for engaging with faculty and college leadership on how to address investigating pedagogies of teacher education. I knew that a top-­down mandated approach was doomed at inception. Therefore, I began by identifying a small group of faculty who had interest in learning about pedagogies of teacher education. Faculty would engage in self-­ study of their practice and meet together to discuss the ways in which they conceptualized a specific practice-­based pedagogy in the context of their course. Concurrently, I engaged with the college leadership team attempting to understand and gauge our collective perspectives for what “learning to teach” meant for college leaders. A key component for this process centered on the accreditation requirement of a clinical curriculum, defined as “a developmental sequence of clinical experiences in diverse settings that incorporate instructional moves from simpler to more complex teaching skills, from working with fewer to larger numbers of students, and from requiring less to more planning (Henning et al., 2016, p. 24). In other words, a clinical curriculum addresses how university coursework teaches the instructional moves that prepare candidates for clinical experiences. In following years, I arranged a series of annual professional development events for faculty around PBTE. The workshops were voluntary and featured introductory content as well increasingly individualized content as the years

184  Carla Finkelstein et al.

progressed. The sessions were well attended with positive feedback from attendees. However, high-­quality professional development experiences alone will not necessarily change individual practice nor move toward program coherency. As would be expected with any large-­scale organizational change effort, I was aware that additional professional learning experiences were needed. ** [Dr. Carla Finkelstein, Faculty Fellows facilitator] In the fall of 2017, I had a serendipitous conversation with a colleague I didn’t know well at the time. We were at a college-­sponsored writing retreat, and Vicki shared that, through a pilot group organized by our Dean, she was beginning to integrate rehearsals of instructional practices with students in her methods courses. “I like the rehearsals, but I haven’t gotten any guidance on how to best facilitate them or give the most effective feedback to my TCs,” she said. “I need someone to coach me.” “That’s what I do!” I offered. Our collaboration began that spring with ongoing cycles of co-­planning Vicki’s literacy methods course, observing or coteaching, and debriefing. Her pedagogy was PBTE. Mine was instructional coaching. The collaboration was fruitful. Mentor teachers asked, “What are you doing differently this semester? The interns are so much better at getting students to talk!” As Vicki described: This is a radical rethinking of teacher education […] getting your head around the idea that you’re teaching interns to DO something, not teaching them ABOUT something. It has revolutionized the way I think about my teaching, because I [now] teach it through this practice lens. I demonstrate how to do it and then give them opportunities to rehearse it with in-­ the-­ moment feedback. And she reflected on the coaching experience: Two heads are more than twice as good as one […]. Having another whose primary responsibility is not the teaching of this course allows for a higher level of perspective that considerably speeds up the trajectory of TE learning. We can think about teaching & learning on two different layers. [I benefit from the] ability of coach – an other – to analyze and label what’s happening for the TE in a way that pushes the practice forward. (VM memo 4.13.08) By the end of that semester, we proposed an extension of this experience, the PBTE Faculty Fellows, to the Dean. Our model sought a small group of faculty for monthly group meetings – to share problems of practice, discuss the growing body of literature around PBTE, and support individual and collective research into our practice (Korthagen, 2016) – as well as instructional coaching for each participant, which would include cycles of goal-­setting, coplanning, modeling or coteaching, and reflecting.

A Collaborative Faculty Approach to a Practice-Based PTE  185

The Faculty Fellows initiative launched the following fall. In their end-­of-­ year reflections, participants expressed appreciation for the monthly group meetings, as illustrated by the following feedback: It’s been a wonderful place to share ideas with people who (1) understand the work and (2) are attempting to do similar things in their own courses. It’s been an actual PLC. It’s a supportive place to share ideas, ask hard questions, grapple with the challenges. It would be difficult to innovate without this kind of support. The instructional coaching component was received with more wariness. Not everyone initially signed up for this, and there were some uncomfortable conversations when discussing goals for the work. Sharing pedagogical strategies through ongoing coaching and coteaching is not typical practice at the university level. My experience with coaching in K-­12 schools made colleagues’ discomfort unsurprising but still challenging. In my midyear report to the Dean, I reflected, “Normalizing classroom coaching and co-­teaching is a culture shift that will take time.” The next year, the Dean continued her commitment to Faculty Fellows. Ten new Fellows participated, including tenure-­ track faculty, two field-­ based supervisors, and two disciplinary faculty from outside the COE. Additionally, four of the inaugural group came back as Returning Fellows. The make-­up of the Year Two group yielded a number of benefits. First, during monthly meetings, Returning Fellows organically mentored new Fellows, not only sharing resources, but also inviting them into their classrooms to view PBTE in action. In addition, the greater variety of roles led to developing coherence for TCs across their years in the program, and across university classrooms and field placements. One Fellow reflected: One of the reasons for applying for the Fellows was to learn about the practice–based teaching model […] When I was able to watch how other Fellows modeled in their classrooms and used the learning cycle, I thought: I can do this! […] PBTE gave me clear, focused goals and a path to reach the goals. […] The interns experienced a hands-­on active approach, just like we teach them to do with their own students. Also in Year Two, Fellows’ group discussions about our teaching and the growing literature base around PBTE began to intentionally “put PBTE in conversation more centrally with equity and justice” (Peercy et al., 2019, p. 1180). Because PBTE centers teaching practice, we posited, its implementation should be informed by an equity-­based framework that equally centers practice. Several Fellows incorporated more explicit attention to equity and culturally responsive pedagogy into their courses – particularly in the modeling, rehearsal, and analysis activities for their TCs. For example, one

186  Carla Finkelstein et al.

Fellow composed a literature discussion scenario in which an avatar student asks why the narrator is “speaking wrong” in a poem whose narrator uses African American Vernacular English. TCs are faced with the in-­the-­moment decision of how to respond, and the rehearsal structure allows for the practice of multiple responses guided by the instructor’s coaching. Over the next three years, the number of new Fellows gradually decreased while many Returning Fellows continued, with goals and plans that differentiated over time. Some came just to monthly meetings; many video-­ recorded their teaching, both for self-­study and as an instructional tool (i.e., revisiting in-­class rehearsals for analysis with students); several provided PD for their department; and a few began mentoring and coteaching with colleagues who taught other sections of the courses they had modified through PBTE – exactly the kind of scale-­out and coherence-­building that the Dean had been seeking. The lead faculty facilitator embodied the PTE tenets of self-­study and self-­reflection. Having someone dedicated to support faculty directly in their planning and implementation of a PTE was key. The instructional coaching model provided a structure for TEs’ ongoing self-­reflection of the complexities of PTE within their day-­to-­day instruction of TCs. Additionally, convening the Faculty Fellows regularly as a group developed coherence in our approaches to PTE. ** [Dr. Vicki McQuitty, faculty in Elementary Education] This faculty member approached PBTE through her focus on modeling and rehearsing literacy strategies for elementary preservice teachers in a methods course. My implementation of PBTE grew out of my dissatisfaction with what TCs learned in the literacy methods courses I taught. For several semesters, the end of the course left me feeling that TCs “sort of” knew some things about literacy instruction, but they could not articulate a clear, coherent, or comprehensive vision for teaching reading and writing. Even worse, when I observed them in field placements, they rarely implemented the types of instruction we learned about in the course. My frustration with this situation led me to PBTE, and I began to experiment with it in my class. PBTE, especially the incorporation of in-­class rehearsals with TCs, quickly changed both my practice and what my TCs learned. They began to implement effective literacy instruction in the field, and they commented on how prepared they felt to teach children. The success I found with PBTE led me share my experience and excitement with anyone who would listen. I convinced my colleague,

A Collaborative Faculty Approach to a Practice-Based PTE  187

Dr. Pamela Hickey, to begin experimenting with PBTE in her course, Teaching Multilingual Learners. TCs take her course and my Literacy Methods course in the same semester, and we began to co-­plan, co-­teach, and co-­analyze videos of both our class sessions. Over the next several semesters, Pamela and I engaged in numerous cycles of course revisions; We created, evaluated, and refined learning cycles (McDonald et al., 2013) to guide our TCs learning how to elicit and interpret children’s thinking; model reading and writing strategies; and conduct writing conferences. We created and implemented scenarios for our TCs to rehearse literacy teaching practices with avatar students that were developmentally and contextually specific. This collaborative work was the most powerful professional development of my career. Our views of preparing teachers, as well as our pedagogy and course assignments, underwent radical shifts, and we began to develop a philosophy of teaching unique and specific to preparing literacy teachers. As our courses evolved, we realized that TCs in the cohort we taught had profoundly different experiences – and likely different outcomes in their abilities to teach reading and writing – than TCs in other sections of the course. This realization led us to offer professional development for other instructors in our department. We demonstrated the learning cycles we created, showed videos of our class sessions, and shared the materials we had developed for TCs to use. However, while our colleagues expressed deep interest in PBTE, the series of hour-­long “professional developments” we offered could not replicate the radical shift that we experienced from engaging in design research. We needed a different way to share our work and help others learn from it. In Spring 2022, through our engagement with the Faculty Fellows, we found a more substantive way to support the spread of PBTE in the department’s literacy courses. We co-­taught with an instructor, Laura, who regularly teaches both Literacy Methods and Teaching Multilingual Learners. We shared our learning cycles with her, and we all met together weekly to plan class sessions and embed PBTE into Laura’s pedagogy. We co-­taught each class, sometimes with me or Pamela taking the lead while Laura observed, and other times with Laura taking the lead while Pamela and I supported. Unlike our “show you what we did” professional development, co-­teaching made a significant impact on Laura’s teaching and on my own understanding of PBTE. Explaining the learning cycles and our theory of how they supported TC learning refined my thinking about PBTE. Laura helped us make additional changes to the learning cycles, and we continued to improve the way we prepared TCs for literacy instruction. Collaborating with colleagues and working to spread PBTE in our literacy courses through modeling and co-­teaching has changed me as a teacher educator. My understanding of what TCs must learn to be effective literacy teachers

188  Carla Finkelstein et al.

and my thinking about how to best support their learning have shifted in ways that I could not have imagined before beginning this journey. Although I began the work in isolation, Pamela and Laura pushed my thinking forward in ways that I doubt would have been possible alone. Thus, collaboration not only spread PBTE to others, it also was critical to my own growth as a teacher educator. This faculty member grew especially in the following areas of PTE: (1) learning how to model and scaffold TC opportunities to observe, practice, and reflect on complex teaching practices; and (2) mentoring colleagues to engage in the same process. Her narrative begins to reveal the additional complexities in scaling out a PTE across multiple faculty. ** [Dr. Pamela Lottero-­Perdue, faculty in Physics, Astronomy, and Geosciences] This faculty member focused her PTE work within the context of facilitating argumentation discussions in elementary science methods courses. I first encountered the terms “practice-­ based teacher education” and “approximations of practice” in 2017, about a decade after I started my position as a teacher educator. Labels unbeknownst to me, I had been participating in aspects of PBTE and engaging my TCs in approximations of practice for many years in three courses that I routinely taught, including an elementary science teaching methods course. The primary approximation I had been using was to have TCs teach multiple lessons to the same small group of elementary students, with multiple forms of support from me, one another, and the classroom teachers. I learned this approximation from colleagues who had taught the course before I came to the university (Sandifer et al., 2020). After joining the Faculty Fellows, I made explicit connections to the teaching practice of how to facilitate a group discussion with and among students (TeachingWorks, 2022). Also in 2017, I was given the opportunity to be a TE participant in a project supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and led by researchers at ETS. The project aimed to examine the impact of simulated classroom discussions on TCs’ learning about how to lead argumentation discussions, which are notoriously challenging for teachers to facilitate (Kim & Hand, 2015, Mikeska & Howell, 2020). My role was to help my TCs prepare to facilitate three discussion simulations and debrief after them. Initially I was skeptical about the use of student avatars (not real students) in teaching practice – but also quite curious about how this new tool might help prepare TCs to facilitate an important type of group discussion they had few opportunities to practice in their field placements given constraints like teaching time and the low frequency with which these discussions occur.

A Collaborative Faculty Approach to a Practice-Based PTE  189

Being a part of the PBTE community provided ideas for how to prepare and debrief, and I drew from my own research and teaching experiences, as well. Some of the approaches I tried in fall 2019, I abandoned; others I improved or kept, and I added new approaches in spring 2020. Key useful strategies included (1) additional representations – having TCs analyze videos and transcripts from former TCs; (2) further decomposition of the argumentation process, by adding graphic organizers I called “discussion frames” to support TCs in planning and facilitating discussions; and (3) additional reflection, having TCs analyze strengths and areas of growth in components of argumentation discussions in their own videos and transcripts. I was fascinated by the growth in my TCs’ abilities over the semester – growth that is supported by pre-­post evidence collected by the project team (Mikeska et al., 2022). I also saw evidence of transfer between what they learned in the simulated and real classrooms. Over the last five years, I have learned to see the value of the simulated classroom as a context for TCs to rehearse facilitating important and challenging discussions. In doing so, I have expanded PBTE within the courses I teach and have grown in my ability to support TCs to develop as educators. This faculty member’s collaborations with Faculty Fellows colleagues and an outside research team honed her adoption of our practice-­based approach to a PTE. Through multiple iterations of refining her core course activities, she has been able to offer her TCs increasingly more effective opportunities to observe, analyze, rehearse, and metacognitively reflect on their abilities to implement a challenging teaching practice. ** [Dr. Maria Perpetua Liwanag and Dr. Lijun Jin, faculty in Elementary Education] These faculty describe their PTE work through teaching TCs how to interpret student work in their literacy assessment course. As faculty who collaborate often and both regularly teach the Principles and Practices of Assessment in Reading and Language Arts course, we became interested in Faculty Fellows as an opportunity to examine our teaching pedagogies. The Fellowship allowed us to learn more about and implement PBTE, with the goal of offering TCs purposeful practice with interpreting student work and literacy assessments – a key component of our course. We grappled with some challenges as we began learning to enact PBTE to improve our teaching. One has been reconciling what we thought were similar practices we were already doing with the approach of PBTE, which demands us to share the stage with TCs and work side-­by-­side. We found ourselves going in circles as we made sense of our teaching, eventually disrupting our own thinking to identify how PBTE centers pedagogical strategies, such as our own

190  Carla Finkelstein et al.

modeling of analyzing student work, and then allowing space for TCs to enact this practice with our real-­time feedback. We are now in the process of developing avatar simulations to further engage TCs in the practice of interpreting student reading performance with increasing nuance and complexity. We have witnessed frustration and joy in the process as TCs learn to better rationalize their thinking process after they’ve practiced giving students feedback and making data-­driven decisions to target student needs. It is gratifying to see TCs discuss their student work in context and within a broad framework of literacy development. A quote from one TC represents a common theme: “… I feel more confident in my assessment abilities as a teacher…to build strong relationships with [my]…focus students… if your students don’t do well with a topic…it is not an indicator of… failure, but rather an area of growth to ensure student success…” Teaching and assessment are no longer seen as separate. Participating as PBTE Faculty Fellows allowed us to examine our own teaching through a new lens. We now devote more space and time for TCs to practice mining through assessment data and articulate how to meet students where they are. We are more conscious of TCs’ needs and have become more strategic and intentional in our pedagogy. We appreciate our collaboration as we have each other’s back when needed, not to mention all the intellectual conversations that, in turn, have also helped better our work. Overall, in examining what it takes to teach under the framework of PBTE, we have gained an alternative lens in helping TCs navigate the unpredictability and variability of teaching with confidence. By examining their practice, these faculty recognized they had been talking about teaching and were now modeling teaching, providing their TCs with a window into the complexity of their thinking. ** [Dr. Stephanie Moody, faculty in Early Childhood Education] This faculty member focused on eliciting student thinking across several early childhood methods courses. PBTE is something I inherently integrated into my own teaching before even realizing I was doing so. As a doctoral student charged with teaching several pre-­established classes, I had my fill of the bland, lecture-­based approach to teacher education that seemed so accepted by the faculty around me. I found it particularly ironic that colleges of education, which encourage hands-­on, multimodal pedagogy for teaching young learners, did not apply the same principles to their own teacher education pedagogy. At the same time, I directed an after-­school writing program, training TCs to teach writing to second-­grade multilingual learners. I designed an instructional cycle with role-­plays, real-­ time and video-­based feedback, and bi-­weekly hands-­on practice with students.

A Collaborative Faculty Approach to a Practice-Based PTE  191

I had no idea that PBTE existed and already had a framework for this, and neither did my doctoral committee. Upon graduation I was hired at Towson University (TU) largely on the back of my dissertation study, which (unknowingly) incorporated the PBTE strategies that were beginning to play a central role in TU’s teacher education program. My curiosity about PBTE led me to join our Faculty Fellows group. I immediately began reading, learning, and plotting how PBTE could be integrated into my courses. I focused on the practice of eliciting student thinking because I knew I could integrate it across multiple courses. Eliciting involves creating a safe space for students to share their thinking, where teachers carefully attend to, and value, the responses of all students to uncover their patterns of thought and understandings (TeachingWorks, 2022). Eliciting is critical not only for increasing student learning, but also promoting equity in the classroom, as it necessarily embraces an asset-­based stance toward learners. Since eliciting is an integral practice across all areas of early childhood education, it seemed a good place to begin my PBTE journey. With the Faculty Fellows coach, I designed a four-­ module unit to practice eliciting within literature discussions. This learning cycle begins with classroom transcript, followed by direct instruction, role-­plays, video exemplars, further decompositions, and culminates in an avatar simulation. Designing the module was no small feat; we read literature on PBTE and eliciting, met to discuss and debrief, mull and ponder, and finally, to plan. This collaboration, albeit a heavy lift amid an already chaotic semester, was so rewarding. It illuminated the affordances of gaining a second perspective into instructional approaches and challenged me to reconsider the purpose of each instructional move that I was making. The intellectual curiosity that the unit sparked in my TCs, along with the close examination of their own beliefs about students, was truly unprecedented. In debriefing class each day, Carla and I were continually amazed at what PBTE taught us about ourselves and each other, as well as the tremendous growth my TCs showed from one course period to the next. So inspired was I by this experience that I decided to run the unit again the following year. This time, I would also include two of my colleagues, in the hope of providing a similar experience for all our TCs. While my TCs were, once again, quite successful with the module, it was not so well received within the classes of my two colleagues. As I discussed this with my original co-­ conspirator, Carla, we realized that we had completely underestimated the mentorship role we would need to play. In assuming that any TEs could simply pick up and integrate PBTE successfully through reviewing my lesson plans and talking about the practices, we had unintentionally ignored the need to provide our colleagues with modeling, coteaching, critical reflection and analysis of these complex practices. Only through this process can PBTE be

192  Carla Finkelstein et al.

integrated successfully and authentically. I walked away from the experience ready to try again, and with a new understanding: PBTE is deeply complex and cannot be entered into lightly. However, when well planned, it is truly transformative. This faculty member integrated explicit modeling and TC rehearsal of the complexities of eliciting student thinking; her story also illuminates the challenge of bringing colleagues into this work without providing opportunities for them to participate in equally comprehensive coaching and self-­study. ** [Ms. Shannon Monacelli, instructor in MAT program] This faculty member explored the enactment of practice-­based pedagogies in her field placement supervision. I had just begun my first semester as an instructor and supervisor for TCs, and one thing stood out to me right away: in their field placements, I could clearly identify when TCs were trying to implement an instructional strategy from our seminar work but were doing it quickly for my benefit and not applying strategies in any meaningful way. They often then shifted to ineffective practices. In post-­observation conferences TCs would say, “I didn’t have time to ask questions for further clarification, we had to move on,” or “that isn’t how my mentor does it and I don’t want to offend her.” These are typical responses for TCs in the early stages of learning, but I struggled with exactly how to move forward. How would I get them to understand why these practices work and make connections to the K-­12 classroom? Then it happened. Before my second semester began, our College of Education hosted professional development on PBTE. This was one of the most profound “ah-­ha” moments of my career. I now had detailed decompositions of various teaching practices and a clear path forward with the Learning Cycle-­- how to introduce, prepare, enact, and analyze each practice with TCs. I applied to be a Faculty Fellow. I attribute many of my successes to the collaboration and work completed with my Fellows colleagues. On the first day of class I explained the PBTE learning cycle to my TCs, and it became the defining structure of our course and internship. I knew right away that we would need mentors’ understanding and support. With support from the local school district, the Faculty Fellows facilitator and I offered a series of PD sessions for mentor teachers. I was amazed at the positive response from many mentors who expressed interest because they too recognized the disconnect between what TCs were learning in their university courses and what was happening in the K-­12 classrooms. In the PD, mentors learned the variety of ways our TCs would be engaged in the

A Collaborative Faculty Approach to a Practice-Based PTE  193

Learning Cycle to practice new skills – for example, through rehearsals and transcript analysis – before being expected to enact them in their classrooms. We also shared the peer and self-­evaluation tools that TCs had been using in methods courses. In the PD, mentors rehearsed how to use these tools to give non-­ judgmental feedback and guide candidates to self-­reflect on their practice. After participating in three highly interactive PD sessions, we had a shared language and a common evaluation tool to use with our TCs. The changes in TCs have been remarkable. When observing in the classroom, I see them enacting practices as part of their teaching, not just a check-­ off box for my benefit. A principal commented to me how well an intern “elicited student thinking and really knew how to draw answers from the students.” She went on to say she rarely sees that skill when observing interns. After engaging in self-­reflection, and receiving consistent supervisor and mentor feedback, TCs were prepared to analyze their practices and explain the why, as well as to express their strengths and areas for growth around the different practices of teaching. They have been able explain the differences they see not only in their growth but in their students’ learning and engagement. Overall, PBTE has allowed me to bring into practice everything TCs have learned throughout their methods courses to effectively educate the whole child. This faculty member’s implementation of the PBTE Learning Cycle reflects PTE’s call for practice and rehearsal of the complexities of teaching practices; her work also highlights the value of developing coherence across university classroom and field placements, for TCs to receive support aligned across those who provide them feedback. Discussion

Loughran’s (2006) book ends with a call for teacher educators to implement a PTE at the institutional level. We have picked up this call with this narrative description of our college’s efforts to operationalize a coherent and cohesive PTE across faculty, courses, programs, and departments. The above narratives highlight faculty’s progress and challenges in implementing a PTE through their own perspectives. We’ve seen how each of their experiences and trajectories varied considerably. As our College of Education has sought to adopt a shared PTE, we have needed to contend with the complex processes of both individual transformation and organizational change. Adoption of PBTE is not “finished” in our college, and in fact one of our lessons learned is that it never will be. Continuous learning through collegial collaboration is an essential component of our approach to enacting this teacher education pedagogy. And, as these narratives have illustrated, this is transformational work.

194  Carla Finkelstein et al.

Additional takeaways include the following: Investing in Non-­Evaluative, Job-­Embedded Collaboration

Creating space for TEs to read about and discuss new pedagogical practices is not sufficient for making meaningful change. In our experience with the Faculty Fellows initiative, the involvement of a dedicated facilitator and compensated time for faculty participation have been instrumental. It has taken providing both structured and unstructured opportunities for faculty to observe, coteach, analyze, and reflect on our own teaching and on artifacts of student work. Perhaps not coincidentally, these activities mimic the very PBTE learning cycle we have adopted; that is, in our approach to faculty learning and growth, TEs are experiencing the same pedagogies that we use to teach our TCs. This process embodies a key principle of a PTE: “Learning about teaching is enhanced by explicitly collaborative and collegial approaches to ‘unpacking’ teaching and learning” (Loughran et al., 2013, p. 604). And for these new pedagogical practices of teacher education to take hold, it has taken the time and intentional effort to build collaborative communities of trust, where faculty feel they will be supported, not judged, by their peers. Balancing Top-­Down and Bottom-­Up Approaches to Pedagogical Change

Our experience shows that a directive from college leadership alone was not sufficient to effect coherent adoption of PBTE across our large college of education. Neither was the voluntary effort of already-­ interested faculty. Working from both directions simultaneously has been key, with college leadership supporting faculty efforts to explore new practices and scale them out with colleagues in the pursuit of cohesive and coherent instruction for TCs. A key dimension of scaling this effort relates to a.) the importance of establishing a respected faculty lead and b.) the growth of a comprehensive cohort of Faculty Fellows. The faculty lead provided support so that participating faculty could effectively navigate the challenges that arose from using a new pedagogy, without having to face these challenges alone. The second facet of scaling this initiative is tied to the college cohort of Faculty Fellows. Fellows with experience in this PTE serve as coaches to additional faculty, thus advancing the reach of impact. The top-­down and bottom-­up approach to establishing a pedagogy for teacher education is consistent with Loughran’s (2006) proposition that: Developing a pedagogy of teacher education begins with individuals but is enhanced through scholars working together at the institutional level as well as within the community of teacher educators at large. Real action

A Collaborative Faculty Approach to a Practice-Based PTE  195

at all three levels then matters in developing a pedagogy of teacher education that might truly shape the manner in which teaching and learning about teaching is conducted in our teacher education programs. (p. 177) References Aguilar, E. (2020). Coaching for equity: Conversations that change practice. John Wiley & Sons. Ball, D. (1988). Unlearning to teach mathematics. For the Learning of Mathematics, 8(1), 40–48. 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. Costa, A. L., & Garmston, R. J. (2015). Cognitive coaching: Developing self-­directed leaders and learners. Rowman & Littlefield. Dewey, J. (1904). The relation of theory to practice in education. Teachers College Record, 5(6), 9–30. Grossman, P. (Ed.). (2018). Teaching core practices in teacher education. Harvard Education Press. Grossman, P., Hammerness, K. & McDonald, M. (2009): Redefining teaching, reimagining teacher education. Teacher and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 15(2), 273–289. Grossman, P., & McDonald, M. (2008). Back to the future: Directions for research in teaching and teacher education. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 184–205. Henning, J., Erb, D., Randles, H., Fults, N., & Webb, K. (2016). Designing a curriculum for clinical experiences. Issues in Teacher Education, 25(1), 23–38. Kavanagh, S. S., Metz, M., Hauser, M., Fogo, B., Taylor, M. W., & Carlson, J. (2019). Practicing responsiveness: Using approximations of teaching to develop teachers’ responsiveness to students’ ideas. Journal of Teacher Education, 71(1), 1–14. Kim, S., & Hand, B. (2015). An analysis of argumentation discourse patterns in elementary teachers’ science classroom discussions. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 26(3), 221–236. Korthagen, F., Loughran, J., & Lunenberg, M. (2005). Teaching teachers: Studies into the expertise of teacher educators. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(2), 107–115. Korthagen, F. A. (2016). Pedagogy of teacher education. In J. Loughran & M. L. Hamilton (Eds.), International handbook of teacher education (pp. 311–346). Springer. Lortie, D. (2002). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. The University of Chicago Press. Loughran, J., Korthagen, F. A., & Russell, T. (2013). Teacher education that makes a difference: Developing foundational principles of practice. In C. J. Craig, P. C. Meijer, & J. Broeckmans (Eds.), From teacher thinking to teachers and teaching: The evolution of a research community (Vol. 19, pp. 597–613). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

196  Carla Finkelstein et al.

Loughran, J. J. (2006). Developing a pedagogy of teacher education: Understanding teaching and learning about teaching. Routledge. McDonald, M., Kazemi, E., & Kavanaugh, 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. Mikeska, J. N., & Howell, H. (2020). Simulations as practice-­based spaces to support elementary teachers in learning how to facilitate argumentation-­focused science discussions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 57(9), 1356–1399. Mikeska, J. N., Howell, H., & Kinsey, D. (2022). Do simulated teaching experiences impact elementary preservice teachers’ ability to facilitate argumentation-­focused discussions in mathematics and science? Journal of Teacher Education. Advance online publication. Peercy, M. M., Varghese, M., & Dubetz, N. (2019). Critically examining practice-­ based teacher education for teachers of language minoritized youth. TESOL Quarterly, 53(4), 1173–1185. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.533 Sandifer, C., Lottero-­Perdue, P. S., & Miranda, R. (2020). A 20-­year journey in elementary and early childhood science and engineering education: An iterative cycle of reflection, refinement, and redesign. Innovations in Science Teacher Education, 5(4). Retrieved from https://innovations.theaste.org/a-­20-­year-­journey-­in-­ elementary-­and-­early-­childhood-­science-­and-­engineering-­education-­a-­cycle-­of-­ reflection-­refinement-­and-­redesign/ Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. Jossey-­Bass TeachingWorks (2022). High-­leverage practices. https://library.teachingworks.org/ curriculum-­resources/high-­leverage-­practices/

13 A PEDAGOGY OF TEACHER EDUCATOR DEVELOPMENT Lessons Learned and Future Considerations Eline Vanassche, Paulien Meijer, Helma Oolbekkink-­ Marchand, and Ruben Vanderlinde

It is generally agreed that learning to teach is a complex and uncertain process that requires formal support and preparation. Strangely enough, it is often not recognized that this also holds for those who teach teachers to teach. To date, the professional preparation and development of teacher educators remain under-­ supported and under-­ studied (Flores, 2018; Loughran, 2014). An international comparative needs analysis concluded that “teacher educators are only moderately satisfied with their professional development experiences” (Czerniawski et al., 2016, p. 127). Beginning teacher educators quickly realize that what worked for them in the school classroom is not a sufficient basis to work from in the teacher education context and that they need to develop identities, practices, and knowledge in teacher education. Yet, the lack of induction and professional development programs results in a ‘sink-­ or-­ swim’ experience or ‘haphazard’ (MacPhail et al., 2019) and ‘ad-­hocly’ learning (Berry, 2016). The situation is further compounded by the permanent critique and questioning of teacher education and teacher educators by policymakers and public media (Vanassche, 2023). This chapter focuses on how teacher educators’ identities and practices can be supported through targeted professional development. It aims to lay the foundation for a pedagogy of teacher educator development, drawing on the experiences of the International Forum of Teacher Educator Development (InFo-­TED; https://info-­ted.eu) during the organization and facilitation of a Summer Academy (SA) for experienced teacher educators in 2018 and 2021. InFo-­TED was established in 2013 and gathers teacher educators-­ researchers from across Europe (Austria, Belgium, England, DOI: 10.4324/9781003365129-13

198  Eline Vanassche et al.

Finland, Ireland, Scotland, the Netherlands, and Norway), with representatives from the US and Australia. The group aims to advance the professional identities, knowledge bases, and development of all involved in teacher education (Lunenberg et al., 2016). InFo-­TED has weighed heavily on debates in policy and research through the development of a conceptual model for teacher educator development (a.o. Vanassche et al., 2015; Kelchtermans et al., 2018), an international needs analysis of teacher educators working in higher education (a.o. Czerniawski et al., 2016) and schools (ongoing), presentations at conferences, national and international policy meetings, and the delivery of a SA for teacher educators. This chapter reflects on the SA experiences with the aim of contributing (the beginning of) a pedagogy of teacher educator development. As with other forms of pedagogy, the foundation of a pedagogy of teacher educator development is found in the reciprocity between teaching and learning. Extending Loughran’s (2006) foundational work on the pedagogy of teacher education, a pedagogy of teacher educator development can be seen as the theory and practice of teaching and learning about teacher education. It not only captures the essence of educating teachers, but also “engages with the ways in which a teacher educator’s knowledge of practice is developed, shaped, and formed, and how that knowledge might be used (…) in ways that genuinely enhance student teachers’ learning” (Loughran, 2013, p. 19). The structure of the chapter is as follows. The first section introduces the question guiding this chapter and our goal to articulate a pedagogy of teacher educator development through a series of principles of practice (Bullough, 1997). Then, we present the professional development context of the InFo-­TED SA. We explain the SA activities and program, and the strategy of data collection implemented throughout the process of design, implementation, and follow-­up of the SA. The third section introduces five principles of practice which together capture the rationale that underpins our approach to facilitating teacher educator development. Our goal in sharing these principles is to inspire much-­needed cross-­national conversations about how to support teacher educators’ ongoing professional development. Developing a Pedagogy of Teacher Educator Development through Articulating and Sharing Principles of Practice

Arthur, one of the participants of the SA of 2018, experienced the value of having a cross-­national conversation about his professional development. He ‘had an amazing experience’ at the SA and particularly appreciated the collective and individual reflection on his professional trajectory and identity as a teacher educator. The dialogue helped him realize that other teacher educators may have other trajectories in vastly different contexts but reflect

A Pedagogy of Teacher Educator Development  199

on similar themes as a teacher educator. Arthur’s experience highlights one of many necessary ingredients that together allow for meaningful professional development. This chapter focuses on what principles can shape initiatives and practices designed to support the professional development of experienced teacher educators. These reflections on what constitutes a pedagogy of teacher educator development start from a clear perspective on the nature of the pedagogy of teacher education. Central, in our view, is recognition that the work of educating teachers requires an understanding of oneself as a teacher of teachers (rather than a teacher of a particular subject) and the development of related practices and knowledge for teaching about teaching. We also echo what Loughran (2006) described as the need for a pedagogy of teacher education to challenge simplistic notions and practices of teaching, including the practices of teaching about teaching. If student teachers are to “see into practice in ways that go beyond their initial expectations of learning the script, or developing a recipe, for how to teach” (ibid, p. 14), then teacher educators must open up and share the pedagogical reasoning and deliberations underpinning their practice (see also Lunenberg et al., 2007). How one enacts a pedagogy of teacher education thus sends powerful messages about the nature of the teaching profession. Following Russell (1997), ‘how I teach is the message’ (see also Vanassche et al., 2015). This perspective on the pedagogy of teacher education feeds into our conceptualization of a pedagogy of teacher educator development (see also Vanassche et al., 2015; Kelchtermans et al., 2018). In our view, a pedagogy of teacher educator development recognizes that teacher educator development is not (only) about solving problems, upscaling the efficiency of practice, or increasing its effectiveness, but also requires being perceptive of and willing to explore the complexities, nuances, tensions, and ambivalences of teaching and teacher education. It invites the reflection on and sharing of the nature of practice within the teacher education learning community and, most importantly, it steers clear of prescriptive orientations toward teacher educators’ practice and blueprints for action (see also Kelchtermans et al., 2018). This chapter extends these insights further based on the experiences with the SA for experienced teacher educators organized by InFo-­ TED in 2018 and 2021. The SA is a unique example internationally of a concerted effort to bring together teacher educators from different countries and institutions to work on their professional development both collectively and individually. The authors of this chapter were involved in the SA in different roles (e.g., preparing the program, facilitating the process, presenting plenary sessions). The purpose of this chapter is to articulate principles that can guide teacher educator development initiatives and practices. The notion

200  Eline Vanassche et al.

‘principles of practice’1 draws on Bullough’s (1997) work on practicing theory and theorizing practice. “Principles emerge from practice; we practice our principles, and in practicing and confronting our limitations often we discover just what those principles are” (p. 13). It is through mapping and reflecting on what we planned and why, as teacher educator developers, and how this played out in practice and why, that principles of practice began to emerge. The principles presented below draw from an analysis of previously published work of this group on the SA (e.g., Murray et al., 2021; Oolbekkink-­Marchand et al., 2021), as well as the (re-­)examination of the original documentation of the SA. This includes, for example, field notes of daily debrief sessions amongst the facilitators during the SA, facilitators’ auto-­ethnographic reflections, preparatory documents on the SA curriculum, video selfies of the participants in which they reflect on the impact the process had, the output produced by participants during the SA, and internal and external evaluation reports. Highlighting examples from the SA, we argue that professional development initiatives for teacher educators are substantially enriched when such initiatives: 1) start and end with practice; 2) work from inquiry as a stance; 3) provide opportunities to zip theory and practice; 4) acknowledge and actively build on the different institutional and policy contexts in which teacher educators work and develop; and 5) enable the development of professional learning communities. Each principle reads as an empirical validation and refinement of the general theoretical starting points and assumptions we started from informed by the conceptual model. Identifying these principles has enabled us to develop a deeper understanding of what it takes to support the professional development of teacher educators. These principles are intended to generate debate and discussion, and when linked to principles of other teacher educator developers, help to build a pedagogy of teacher educator development. The Professional Development Context of the SA

The first SA organized by InFo-­TED was held in Trondheim (Norway) in July 2018. It brought together 27 experienced teacher educators from nine institutions in seven countries (Belgium, England, Ireland, Israel, the Netherlands, Norway, and Scotland). Over a period of five days, participants were challenged through a series of learning activities. Experts, defined as teacher educators who possess research experience in the emerging field of teacher educators’ professional development (e.g., through a PhD), contributed their understanding of the dynamics of teacher educator development in a series of short, interactive lectures. Participants then connected these understandings to their past, present, and future practice. This was

A Pedagogy of Teacher Educator Development  201

facilitated with storyline techniques (Oolbekkink-­Marchand et al., 2021), embodied experiences of active participation, and daily private video selfies in which participants reflected on their experiences. The video selfies delivered on the final day became public and were shared and discussed with all participants and facilitators. These selfies not only supported the integration of theory, practice, and biographies, but also provided facilitators with trustworthy feedback on the learning that had occurred. During the week, the participants worked in groups based on the interests and concerns they had expressed when applying for the SA. The groups self-­designed, executed and evaluated a creative project that was shared with the whole group at the end of the week, such as a collaborative research proposal, a conference presentation, or a professional development program for (beginning) teacher educators. The groups were paired with a facilitator who joined— but did not lead—the conversations throughout the week. Engagement before, during, and after the SA was facilitated through a virtual learning platform. The platform served as a resource portal for the professional development of teacher educators organized according to InFo-­TED’s conceptual model and a set of 13 domains relevant for the profession (i.e., identities, social changes, diversity, communication, relations). It also provided a digital workspace environment where participants could share documents and extend and continue their discussions asynchronous, at their own time of convenience. The first iteration of the SA was systematically evaluated from multiple perspectives, including the perspectives of the facilitators, participants, and external experts. The content and pedagogy were reworked in a framework that formed the basis for the second SA in 2021. A crucial difference with the first iteration was the necessary shift to an online program in response to the outbreak of COVID-­19 and the restrictions for international travel. Another difference was the inclusion of not only university-­based teacher educators, but also school-­based teacher educators in recognition of their important work with student teachers in schools (White, 2019). Participants applied for the SA as dyads or triads and had to have prior experience working together as a team. Three thematic webinars formed the backbone of the online program. These webinars introduced thematic conversations around teacher educator professional development, identities, and collaboration; and were open to a broader public. The webinars were followed by three compulsory half-­day sessions in June 2021. These sessions were open only to the SA participants and encouraged them to work through the ideas and understandings offered in the webinars. Again, groups were composed based on the interests and concerns shared in the application process for the SA and included people from different national contexts and with different experiences of working

202  Eline Vanassche et al.

in schools or universities. Those groups combined product-­oriented work with learning activities capitalizing on the storyline technique successfully used in 2018. Principles of Practice Start and End with Practice

In our experience, professional development should start and end with practice. The SA worked from the assumption that “teacher educators have good reasons for doing their job the way they are doing it” (Vanassche et al., 2015, p. 346). The practice-­based approach acknowledges that teacher educators’ actions and decisions in practice and their reflections on and rationale for practice, reveal what someone stands for. How teacher educators make sense of and enact their practice shows how they define good teacher education, the goals they aspire for, and the pedagogies they consider worthwhile and effective in meeting those goals with their students. It also shows the compromises teacher educators are willing or required to make, and the consequences of those compromises for student teacher learning. To study practice is thus a gateway for studying personal beliefs, values, and aspirations as well as institutional demands, resources, and constraints. As part of the SA process, for example, participants were invited to create a storyline capturing the development of their practice and identities as teacher educators. The storyline was used as a key artefact throughout the program. The visual representation of the storyline on large worksheets—literally—held up a mirror for participants to help understand their current situation in light of past and future practice (i.e., mirror data; Cole & Engeström, 2007). The analysis of the highs and the lows rendered visible the multitude of factors and considerations impacting their practice and allowed them to turn these factors into a focus for inquiry and learning. Sharing and discussing the storylines in the heterogeneous working groups was key here as it revealed differences and similarities between teacher educator practices in relation to policies and other forms of guidance across countries and institutions, also suggesting opportunities for future development. In designing and facilitating teacher educator development activities from a practice-­based approach, one needs to acknowledge the multidimensionality of practice. Lunenberg et al. (2014) showed teacher educators take on multiple roles, including that of a teacher of teachers, researcher, coach, curriculum developer, assessor, and broker. Facilitators need to be aware that these different roles, and the practices and commitments associated with them, potentially generate conflict or confusion. The storylines provided a space to explore these tensions. An experienced teacher educator,

A Pedagogy of Teacher Educator Development  203

for example, expressed how the activity helped him to consider the multiple aspects of his practice, including his practice as a teacher educator while he had previously identified mostly as a teacher or an academic. Another participant, quoted in Rust and Berry (2019, p. 2), explained how the SA “offered a rare chance for time to reflect on my own professional journey, which for me was the crossing from being a teacher to a teacher educator” and allowed her to develop “more confidence in my new role and an understanding of its overlapping complexities.” Ultimately, the goal of the SA was to generate and sustain long-­term learning and change in practice. However, it is not simply change for change’s sake. Rather it is deliberate change as a result of continuously adapting, adjusting, and refining one’s practice in ways that are responsive to one’s own needs and students’ needs. The SA prepared for new forms of practice and learning in the workplace through its consistent focus on practice and the considerations and deliberations underpinning practice. Educate Teacher Educators with Inquiry as Stance and Recognize the Vulnerability this Carries

We argue that the professional development of experienced teacher educators is substantially enriched if it encourages an inquiry stance (Cochran-­ Smith, 2003; Cochran-­Smith & Lytle, 2009; Tack & Vanderlinde, 2014). Inquiry as stance is not an activity or a series of skills and behaviors, but a particular presence in practice. Drawing on the work of Rodgers and Raider-­ Roth (2006), it refers to a natural state of being “wide awake to one’s self, to one’s students and to their learning in such a way that that learning is served through skillful and compassionate analysis” (p. 284). It involves learning to see practice anew, making problematic what has become the typical way to do things, and working together with others to combine the perceptual and the conceptual and theorize practice. The metaphor of stance suggests a particular positioning toward practice. The paradox of inquiry as stance, as we have come to understand it from the SA, is that it combines being present in and distancing oneself from practice. It requires that teacher educators pay close attention to what they do, why and the effects this produces, while taking a step back and looking at practice from a distance to really understand its dynamics. The SA allowed for this balance in part because it was an ‘off-­the job’ learning experience. The professional development context provided by the SA was not participants’ working context. Traveling to a different country to attend the SA in 2018 physically removed teacher educators from their daily practice. When participating in the SA, they were not teaching, not marking, nor preparing for internship visits. The distance helped to mitigate the ‘urgency of the

204  Eline Vanassche et al.

immediate’ (Horn & Little, 2010) which often stands in the way of the critical, reflective attitude implied in inquiry as stance. The breach with participants’ day-­ to-­ day working environment in the online SA in 2021 was different in spatial terms, making it harder yet not impossible to create “‘mind space’ for sustained inquiry” (Murray et al., 2021, p. 139). Having to work from home in an online environment seemed to deliver a similar ‘off-­the job’ experience. Educating teacher educators from an inquiry as stance “requires a need to accept that it carries inherent vulnerability because learning through such means is a risky business” (Loughran, 2006, p. 29). The risky business relates to the necessary confrontation of assumptions underpinning practice. Inquiry as stance involves “learning new knowledge, questions, and practices, and, at the same time, unlearning some long-­held ideas, beliefs, and practices, which are often difficult to uproot” (Cochran-­Smith, 2003, p. 9). Making explicit and sharing one’s practices, interpretations and beliefs induces a level of discomfort, yet also accelerated learning as explained by one of the participants: If conflict, unease, problematization (…) brings us to a pedagogical discomfort triggering a heightened self-­awareness and close reflection I can learn so much during this discomfort. This part of learning could (…) involve disconnecting from my previous learning and starting afresh. (Kidd et al., 2019, p. 5) The group setting of the SA was found to both add to and mitigate the vulnerability and discomfort involved in the process. The participants in the groups were all given the space to bring in their practices and questions in a safe environment. Collaboratively, they decided on the questions and interests they wanted to work on. The group setting in some ways increased the exposure as practices and beliefs were being questioned publicly. However, seeing one’s choices, struggles and the inconclusive nature of teacher education practice confirmed and normalized in the group conversations also made this vulnerability more manageable. It is re-­assuring to notice that some issues are endemic to the work of educating teachers and cannot be fully resolved or understood (Horn & Little, 2010). As one of the participants stated: There is also the insight that it is normal to ‘search’ your way. I went to the SA with the idea that I would be among high quality professionals, and it is good to see that they are also still searching and trying, that connects. (Oolbekkink-­Marchand et al., 2021, p. 102)

A Pedagogy of Teacher Educator Development  205

We explicitly addressed this necessary vulnerability by modeling this as facilitators. One of the facilitators shared her own process of developing as a teacher educator, including phases in which she was ‘searching’, and repositioning herself. Doing so established strong connections with other participants, who indicated feeling safer to share their own stories. The facilitator, in turn, felt accepted as a learner, adding to her feeling of safety as well. Provide Opportunities to Zip Theory and Practice

The SA started from actual experiences of teaching about teaching which were deepened through the careful introduction of concepts and theoretical frameworks. Theory was introduced in multiple stages and forms throughout the program, providing participants with new or alternative justifications and interpretations of practice. The theory included, for example, the conceptual model of InFo-­TED providing a language for teacher educator development, a series of 13 building blocks (e.g., technological change, social change, assessment) on the virtual learning platform serving as knowledge bases, keynote sessions compiling recent research on specific themes (e.g., school-­university partnerships), blogs posted on the website documenting innovative practices, etc. The learning structures in the academy challenged participants to link the theory to their own practice and development. They were, for example, given a transparent overlay to re-­story their storyline using the theory presented. In the process, the layers beneath were not erased; theory rather served to add texture, depth, and nuances, in similar ways as the exchange and discussion of the storylines in small groups helped to layer the experience. As one participant explained, “it’s like the combination of just yourself, another person and a theoretical perspective, it’s like a lovely progression” (Rust & Berry, 2019, p. 19). The use of the word ‘perspective’ in the quotation above, and the idea of theory being one of the perspectives alongside one’s own sensemaking and that of fellow participants, is significant as it shows that theory was not offered as a ready-­made blueprint to be followed or imported into practice. The SA pedagogy was rather designed to help participants relate to the theory presented, challenge and question it. Kelchtermans’ (2022) metaphor of professional learning as zipping is a helpful analogy of the ways in which the learning structures in the SA attempted to connect theory and practice. A zipper consists of two parts that need to be connected, in this case the theory offered during the SA and participants’ professional practice. As Kelchtermans explains, “the interactive dynamics between facilitators and participants aim at bringing both parts close enough together to establish an actual connection, which makes the eventual closure of the zipper (the professional learning) possible” (p. 10).

206  Eline Vanassche et al.

Essential in the process is keeping the two parts close enough so that the zipper can be fully closed. The act of closing the zipper, as a metaphor for the envisaged learning, “has to be performed by the participants themselves” (p. 10). The metaphor helps to understand professional development as an active process in which participants negotiate the SA content and pedagogy. As one of the participants shared in the interview with the external evaluators: “In order to merge the theory into practice, I would need to zip them together, so professional learning requires a conscious action to be taken, that is enacting on what I took away from the sessions” (Kidd et al., 2019, p. 5). The SA has shown that participants’ agency in professional development activities introduces an element of passivity or dependence on the side of the facilitators (Kelchtermans, 2022). This means that facilitators can set the scene, orchestrate, invite, and support, but participants ultimately decide on how and with what results learning will take place. No matter how carefully we selected the content of the sessions and deliberated the pedagogy of the SA, we could not determine nor predict (the direction of) learning for the participants. This is not intended as a critique of participants’ level of engagement with the program or their openness to change. It rather suggests that teacher educator development is the result of a complex interaction process between the professional development setting on the one hand, and the personal, institutional, and policy contexts on the other, as detailed in the fourth principle. Acknowledge and Actively Build on the Different Institutional and Policy Contexts in which Teacher Educators Work and Develop

Embedded in the SA was a situated perspective on teacher educator development (Borko, 2004). Teacher educators are enacting their practice in particular institutions, with a particular group of colleagues and leaders, policy frameworks, and other forms of guidance, at a particular point in time. This implies that possibilities for future practice are always contrasted and compared with episodes from past and present practice, and expectations and resources existing on the institutional and policy level. In line with this principle, we made sure that teacher educators’ identity and working context were activated in nearly every activity or discussion. The storyline technique, for example, invited exploration of highs and lows and shifts in participants’ identities and practices. In the process, we encouraged careful examination of changes in positions or organizations because they reveal, like a flashbulb, collective norms and expectations for teacher educators’ work. One of the participants, for example, described having worked with student teachers for over a decade, considering himself mostly as a teacher or an academic. Moving to a university abroad allowed him to

A Pedagogy of Teacher Educator Development  207

identify as a teacher educator because of the strong focus on teacher education in his new university (Oolbekkink-­Marchand et al., 2021). We also introduced theory in the group work allowing participants to understand how personal, institutional, and policy contexts interact and combine to produce specific outcomes for oneself and one’s students. One of the groups in 2021, for example, analyzed their storylines through the combined lenses of ‘restrained professionalism’ and ‘personal professionalism’ referring to issues of autonomy, responsibility, and personal quality assurance. A crucial enabling factor was the pan-­European composition of the working groups. Discussions around the storylines and group work led to rich discussions of the working contexts and differences and similarities in expectations, quality control procedures, and policy measures. Learning that some of the issues and struggles were like those experienced by colleagues in other countries and institutions helped to see the fundamental relevance of the institutional and policy level to their professional lives, work, and development. It contributed, as the evaluators wrote, to “the need – especially as teacher educator developers – to also develop a political understanding of the institutional working conditions (and not only an educational or pedagogical)” (Kelchtermans & Deketelaere, 2019, p. 7). It seemed self-­evident for us, at the start of the SA, that teacher education, just like teaching, is contextually embedded. This was, however, not as self-­ evident for participants who repeatedly shared that participating in the SA helped them better understand the contextualities of their work and development. This is a crucial outcome and goal for teacher educator development as teacher educators’ awareness of the contextual embeddedness of their own practice also alerts them to the need to make their students aware of the contextualities of their (future) practice. “[J]ust like teacher educators, they will have to operate in specific schools with a specific curriculum, student population, mission statement, infrastructure, policy framework, etc. which all impact the possibilities for their practice” (Vanassche, 2022, p. 6). Enable for the Development of Strong Professional Communities

The SA provided evidence that strong professional learning communities can foster teacher educator development. Collaborative groupwork was the backbone of the SA. These groups were purposefully composed with participants from different professional backgrounds and contexts, at different career stages. The groups shared many of the characteristics known from research on teacher learning communities (Prenger et al., 2019; Stoll et al., 2006). These were communities of practice in which people shared and critically interrogated their practice, took ownership of their practice and learning, and consistently focused on student learning.

208  Eline Vanassche et al.

SA participants consistently referred to the sense of community and trust to explain the groups’ success. This was an important achievement of the groups themselves, but also explicitly staged for in the SA learning structures. For example, the virtual forum installed months before the SA prompted participants to introduce one another. Facilitators also explicitly modeled the inquiry stance and the willingness to account for one’s practice as facilitators of professional development (e.g., through making explicit the rationale for the SA activities) and as teacher educator-­ colleagues. For example, while introducing the storyline technique, the facilitator – an experienced teacher educator herself – shared her own struggles and victories as a way of modeling the learning opportunities that come with sharing one’s vulnerabilities on a public forum (see principle 2). Furthermore, the 2018 program allowed for informal gathering and joint leisure activities. The daily walk from and to the campus and having lunch and dinner together were seen as activities integral to the program and its goal to build relationships across people, contexts, and institutions. Research on teacher learning communities has revealed a tension between group norms of trust and safety and other necessary conditions for professional development (a.o. Darling, 2001; Vanassche & Kelchtermans, 2015). Inquiry as stance, as we have come to define it, involves rigorous critical thought, contradiction, and being challenged to argue for one’s position with conviction. While this requires trusting relationships in the group, one needs to be mindful that a focus on care, commitment, and acceptance does not go at the expense of professional development. Interestingly, the SA groups maintained an appropriate balance between the norms and the commitments of what could be called a ‘community of support’ and a ‘community of inquiry.’ Participants in the diverse working groups were close enough to experience the level of trust necessary to open up but also kept an appropriate distance to ask each other critical questions and challenge the worth of the claims made. As facilitators, we modeled ways of maintaining this balance in the groups. Halfway through the program, for example, each group was introduced to a ‘stranger in the group,’ a metaphor for a facilitator who had not worked with the group before, but who was a facilitator on the SA. The ‘stranger in the group’ enabled participants to look at their practice and their collaborative product from a distance as to better understand it, by bringing in for instance new perspectives. An explicit goal of the SA was to create long-­term professional communities, with people returning to their groups on regular occasions, to continue working and learning together. The forum was kept online after the SA, serving as an online meeting point to interact and exchange ideas and products. Some groups achieved this longevity while patterns of participation in other groups weakened over time. The virtual learning platform did not fully deliver. We noticed a similar pattern in the online academy of 2021 where

A Pedagogy of Teacher Educator Development  209

people’s continuous involvement with the group seemed to depend more heavily on the facilitator initiating contact. This was disappointing because the SA had always kept the ownership of participants front and center. Lessons Learned and Future Considerations

This chapter aimed to contribute (the beginning of) a much-­needed pedagogy of teacher educator development based on a careful re-­examination of the SA experiences (from the perspectives of both the facilitators and its participants) and the research literature. We argue that the following five principles capture the essence of supporting teacher educators’ professional development: 1) start and end with teacher educators’ practices; 2) work from inquiry as a stance; 3) provide opportunities to zip theory and practice; 4) acknowledge and actively build on the different institutional and policy contexts in which teacher educators work and develop; and 5) enable the development of professional learning communities. These principles make clear that the work of supporting the professional development of teacher educators is, just as the work of educating teachers, marked by complexity, tensions and uncertainty. In that sense, the principles shared are not a recipe for success when followed. Staying true to these principles in practice might, however, help to create conditions conducive for teacher educators to start seeing teacher education as problematic so that “the swamp becomes intellectually challenging and practically engaging so that mapping its terrain becomes professionally rewarding” (Loughran, 2006, p. 31). The set of principles is not rich enough to prescribe teacher educator developers what to do, nor is it their intention. With these principles we aimed to hold onto the ambivalence that characterizes the work of supporting teacher educator development and create new possibilities for understanding and improving this work. We conclude the chapter by highlighting elements that need further consideration in future practice and research. First, how can we organize professional development initiatives that meet the needs of both school-­based and higher education-­based teacher educators? How can professional development initiatives model opportunities for these groups to collaborate and jointly develop practice? Interestingly, the bourgeoning research on the learning needs of higher education-­based teacher educators is developing largely separate from the rich tradition of research on mentors working with student teachers in schools (e.g., Orland-­Barak & Wang, 2021). We need to pay equal attention to the identities and needs of school-­based teacher educators and create conditions that bring all involved in the work of educating teachers together to inquire practice, also to avoid what White (2019) described as the risk of creating a hierarchy of teacher educators’ needs. The second iteration of the SA shows the value of bringing these groups

210  Eline Vanassche et al.

together but also the need to establish an equal playing field and conditions that allow them to work and learn together from a perspective of complementary expertise. Interesting in this respect is the work of Taylor et al. (2014) who engaged in a co/autoethnographic study and described an intense collaboration in the third space between university-­based teacher educators and mentors leading to reconsiderations of hierarchies, knowledge, and relationships. Second, how can technology be used to interlink formally planned professional development and informal learning in the workplace? The second iteration of the SA challenged us to translate the collaborative and interactive activities and pedagogies into an online environment. An essential task for future facilitators is to explore meaningful integration of different modes of professional development (both synchronous and asynchronous, both online and offline) (Vanderlinde et al., 2021). We also encourage further exploration of the affordances of blended learning or hybrid forms of learning to build sustainable networks between people and institutions that center on collective and individual learning through inquiry of practice. This is crucial in the current pressure-­cooker-­like environment for teacher educators and teacher education. Third, the SA aimed to build participants’ capacity to support, influence, and advocate for (structured) teacher educator development in their respective countries and institutions. We aimed to equip them with relevant theoretical principles, pedagogies, and capacity for collaborative dialogues with peers. More research is necessary to develop insight into the ways intensive off-­the-­job experiences in an international context can indeed stimulate participants’ agency and advocacy in their respective national contexts. Finally, we invite future facilitators of professional development to hold their own practices and learning as teacher educator developers accountable to principles similar to those argued for in their professional development work with teacher educators. Many of the principles articulated here hold true for the practice of teacher educator developers, including the need to take risks, expose one’s vulnerability, zip theory and practice, and perhaps most crucially, understand that the ways in which we support teacher educators may send far more influential messages than the content we deliver. If how we teach is the message, then what should this message look like?

Note 1 The notion of ‘practice’ referred to in this chapter involves both the practice(s) of educating teachers as well as the practices of those aiming to support the professional development of teacher educators.

A Pedagogy of Teacher Educator Development  211

References Berry, A. (2016). Teacher educators’ professional learning: A necessary case of ‘on your own’? In B. De Wever, R. Vanderlinde, M. Tuytens, & A. Aelterman (Eds.), Professional learning in education: Challenges for teacher educators, teachers and student teachers (pp. 39–56). Ginko. Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 315. Bullough, R. (1997). Practicing theory and theorizing practice in teacher education. In J. Loughran & T. Russell (Eds.), Teaching about teaching: Purpose, passion and pedagogy in teacher education (pp. 13–31). Falmer. Cochran-­Smith, M. (2003). Learning and unlearning: The education of teacher educators. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(1), 5–28. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/S0742-­051X(02)00091-­4 Cochran-­Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (2009). Inquiry as stance: Practitioner research for the next generation. Teachers College Press. Cole, M., & Engeström. Y. (2007). Cultural-­historical approaches to designing for development. In J. Valsiner & A. Rosa (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of sociocultural psychology (pp. 484–507). Cambridge University Press. Czerniawski, G., Guberman, A., & MacPhail, A. (2016). The professional developmental needs of higher education-­based teacher educators: An international comparative needs analysis. European Journal of Teacher Education, 40(1), 127–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2016.1246528 Darling, L. F. (2001). When conceptions collide: Constructing a community of inquiry for teacher education in British Columbia. Journal of Education for Teaching, 27(1), 7–21. Flores Assunção, M. (2018). Tensions and possibilities in teacher educators’ roles and professional development. European Journal of Teacher Education, 41(1), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2018.1402984 Horn, I., & Little, J. (2010). Attending to problems of practice: Routines and resources for professional learning in teachers’ workplace interactions. American Educational Research Journal, 47, 181–217. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028 31209345158 Kelchtermans, G. (2022). Continuing professional development: Negotiating the zip. In I. Menter (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of teacher education research (pp. 1–24). Palgrave. Kelchtermans, G., & Deketelaere, A. (2019). Output 7.1 Evaluation report of the EPDP and the VLP. Unpublished internal report. InFo-­TED. Kelchtermans, G., Smith, K., & Vanderlinde, R. (2018). Towards an ‘international forum for teacher educator development’: An agenda for research and action. European Journal of Teacher Education, 41(1), 120–134. https://doi.org/10.1 080/02619768.2017.1372743 Kidd, W., Mcmahon, A., & Viswarajan, S. (2019). Developing a pan-­European approach to teacher educators. Research in Teacher Education, 9(2), 39–45. https://doi.org/10.15123/uel.88z7v Loughran, J. (2006). Developing a pedagogy of teacher education: Understanding teaching and learning about teaching. Routledge.

212  Eline Vanassche et al.

Loughran, J. (2013). Being a teacher educator. In M. Ben-­Peretz (Ed.), Teacher educators as members of an evolving profession (pp. 9–24). Rowman & Littlefield. Loughran, J. (2014). Professionally developing as a teacher educator. Journal of Teacher Education, 65, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487114533386 Lunenberg, M., Dengerink, J., & Korthagen, F. (2014). The professional teacher educator. Roles, behaviour, and professional development of teacher educators. Sense. Lunenberg, M., Korthagen, F., & Swennen, A. (2007). The teacher educator as a role model. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(5), 586–601. Lunenberg, M., Murray, J., Smith, K., & Vanderlinde, R. (2016). Collaborative teacher educator professional development in Europe: Different voices, one goal. Professional Development in Education, 43(4), 556–572. https://doi.org/10.10 80/19415257.2016.1206032 MacPhail, A., Ulvik, M., Guberman, A., Czerniawski, G. Oolbekkink-­Marchand, H., & Bain, Y. (2019). The professional development of higher education-­based teacher educators. Professional Development in Education, 45(5), 848–861. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2018.1529610 Murray, J., Kidd, W., de Vries, B., McMahon, A., & Viswarajan, S. (2021). Designing professional development for teacher educators. In R. Vanderlinde, K. Smith, J. Murray & M. Lunenberg (Eds.), Teacher educators and their professional development: Learning from the past, looking to the future (pp. 131–143). Routledge. Oolbekkink-­Marchand, H., Meijer, P., & Lunenberg, M. (2021). Teacher educators’ professional development during an international summer academy: Storylines as a powerful pedagogy. In R. Vanderlinde, K. Smith, J. Murray & M. Lunenberg (Eds.), Teacher educators and their professional development: Learning from the past, looking to the future (pp. 92–105). Routledge. Orland-­Barak, L., & Wang, J. (2021). Teacher mentoring in service of preservice teachers’ learning to teach. Journal of Teacher Education, 72(1), 86–99. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0022487119894230 Prenger, R., Poortman, C., & Handelzalts, A. (2019). The effects of networked professional learning communities. Journal of Teacher Education, 70(5), 441– 452. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487117753574 Rodgers, C. R., & Raider-­Roth, M. B. (2006). Presence in teaching, Teachers and Teaching: Theory and practice, 12(3), 265–287. https://doi.org/10.1080/134506 00500467548 Russell, T. L. (1997). Teaching teachers: How I teach is the message. In J. Loughran & T. L. Russell (Eds.), Teaching about teaching: Purpose, passion and pedagogy in teacher education (pp. 32–47). Falmer. Rust, F., & Berry, A. (2019). Output 7.2: Evaluation report of the E-­InFo-­TED project. NTNU. Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Wallace, M., & Thomas, S. (2006). Professional learning communities: A review of the literature. Journal of Educational Change, 7(4), 221–258. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-­006-­0001-­8 Tack, H., & Vanderlinde, R. (2014). Teacher educators’ professional development: Towards a typology of teacher educators’ researcherly disposition. British Journal of Educational Studies, 62(3), 297–315. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071005.2 014.957639

A Pedagogy of Teacher Educator Development  213

Taylor, M., Klein, E. J., & Abrams, L. (2014). Tensions of reimagining our roles as teacher educators in a third space: Revisiting ac/autoethnography through a faculty lens. Studying Teacher Education, 10(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 17425964.2013.866549 Vanassche, E. (2022). Four propositions on how to conceptualize, research, and develop teacher educator professionalism. Frontiers in Education, 7, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.1036949 Vanassche, E. (2023). Teacher education policy and professionalism: A personal review of teacher education policy research. In R. Tierney, F. Rizvi, & K. Erkican (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (pp. 10–19). Elsevier. Vanassche, E., & Kelchtermans, G. (2015). Facilitating self-­study of teacher education practices: Toward a pedagogy of teacher educator professional development. Professional Development in Education, 42(1), 100–122. https://doi.org/10.10 80/19415257.2014.986813 Vanassche, E., Rust, F., Conway, P., Smith, K., Tack, H., & Vanderlinde, R. (2015). InFo-­TED: Bringing policy, research, and practice together around teacher educator development. In C. Craig & L. Orland-­Barak (Eds.), International teacher education: Promising pedagogies (pp. 341–364). Emerald. Vanderlinde, R., Smith, K., Murray, J., & Lunenberg, M. (2021). Teacher educators’ professional development: Looking to the future. In R. Vanderlinde, K. Smith, J. Murray & M. Lunenberg (Eds.), Teacher educators and their professional development: Learning from the past, looking to the future (pp. 158–171). Routledge. White, S. (2019). Teacher educators for new times? Redefining an important occupational group. Journal of Education for Teaching, 45(2), 200–213. https://doi. org/10.1080/02607476.2018.1548174

14 SIGNALING NEW DIRECTIONS Lessons for Understanding a Pedagogy of Teacher Education Shawn Michael Bullock and Brandon M. Butler

At the beginning of this book, we argued that a foundational characteristic of John Loughran’s articulation of developing a pedagogy of teacher education was its focus on relationships – between learning and teaching, between teaching and teacher education, between the work of teacher educators and policies shaping teacher education, and between learning about teaching and teaching about teaching. As Loughran (2005) wrote, A big picture view of the foundations of a pedagogy of teacher education is portrayed through the interdependent worlds of teaching about teaching and learning about teaching. By combining these worlds into a big picture the knowledge, concepts, ideas and practices of each can better interact, and therefore influence, the shaping of a pedagogy of teacher education which, of itself, must be dynamic, flexible, and responsive to the needs, concerns, issues and practices of … both students and teachers of teaching. (pp. 173–174) Ultimately, we suggested that developing a pedagogy of teacher education required a hitherto unexplored “third-­order” of teaching; that of developing an understanding of developing a pedagogy of teacher education, and thereby having the ability to support others’ development of a pedagogy of teacher education. Where, we asked, were opportunities for teacher educators to engage in this level of work? And, if self-­study methodology provided “a way in” to developing a pedagogy of teacher education, what might be its consequences for third-­order work? Put another way: Might the DOI: 10.4324/9781003365129-14

Signaling New Directions  215

process of self-­study be the foundation for developing understanding, and the output of self-­study be a way of articulating how a pedagogy of teacher education is understood at a particular moment? Two conclusions immediately come to our minds upon consideration of the chapters contained within this volume: 1 Developing an understanding of a pedagogy of teacher education is complex and deeply embedded in practice – it cannot be viewed as propositional knowledge. 2 Developing an understanding of the nature and form of a pedagogy of teacher education is iterative and often features moments of learning what is unknown. Thus, moving to third-­order teaching requires an iterative approach to learning from experiences in teacher education, which partially depends on an openness to receiving the unknown and accepting that neither first nor second-­order teaching experience is, in itself, sufficient to developing an understanding of a pedagogy of teacher education. Some readers might be familiar with Plato’s Socratic Dialogue Meno, in which a confident Meno exasperatedly confronts Socrates for behaving like a “torpedo fish” (what we might call an electric eel) and shocking Meno into the realization that perhaps he does not know as much as he thought. Ann Diller used this story to, in her words, encourage educationists to develop a particular capacity to be shocked (“torpefied,” in Plato’s language) upon examining an understanding of their own education. Diller argued, in part, that the moment of Meno’s realization, his state of shock in finding gaps in his own knowledge, is generative because it: bears close family resemblances to the ability to be awed, to be surprised, to be astonished, to be moved in a deeply moral, or ethical, or aesthetic, or epistemological, or ontological way. It takes considerable courage, self-­knowledge, a brave heart, and honest openness to face one’s own ignorance and to stay present to the concomitant experiences of discomfort, perhaps feeling horrified as well as torpified (Diller, 1998, p. 8) These comments certainly ring true with the contents of the chapters in this work. Teacher education is difficult, complex work and the process of learning to teach teachers requires the courage, self-­knowledge, and openness described above. Lortie’s (1975) comments about the effects of the apprenticeship of observation reminded us about the importance of recognizing that, as students, we have experienced thousands of hours as recipients of

216  Shawn Michael Bullock and Brandon M. Butler

teachers’ behaviors without necessarily understanding why teachers might do what they do. Similarly, teacher educators have similarly long experiences as students to draw upon and, in most cases, have experienced some sort of teacher education program in which they engaged in a similar apprenticeship of observation of teacher educators. If we tend (initially) to teach as we were taught, then it follows we often might initially teach teachers drawing, at least tacitly, from our own experiences in teacher education. We require the discomfort associated with the challenge of developing an understanding of a pedagogy of teacher education. As he read through the chapters in this volume, Shawn recalled a lesson he learned from Tom Russell, who was fond of arguing that “experience teaches us the questions we need to ask.” Tom used this idea frequently in his practice as a teacher educator, and Shawn remembers to this day a moment working with Tom as a teacher candidate in a B.Ed. program that was unique in that it placed teacher candidates in classrooms on the first day of school. Upon realizing that the assignments originally developed for the course might not meet the learning needs of teacher candidates who began their program with six weeks of school placement, Tom removed the requirements for all assignments, save one, and asked teacher candidates to come up with ideas to pursue the questions they had developed in a school context. Shawn remembers this moment as an important example of valuing what he and other teacher candidates brought to his teacher education program. The remaining assignment in Shawn’s course was called the “story” assignment, which required one to write about experiences during the program in one column of a table, in anticipation of receiving responses from the teacher educator (Tom) in the other column later in the term. Tom expanded on this idea as a part of his pedagogy of teacher education in a later publication, arguing in part that: Fostering reflective practice requires far more than telling people to reflect and then simply hoping for the best. I now believe that reflective practice can and should be taught – explicitly, directly, thoughtfully and patiently – using personal reflection-­in-­action to interpret and improve one’s teaching of reflective practice to others. (Russell, 2005, pp. 203–204) Russell’s comments serve as a useful framing device for our first two conclusions from this volume. Even though he was engaged directly in second-­ order teaching (teacher education), we can apply his comments to the third-­order discussions in this volume. One of the most powerful ideas from the program Shawn and Tom were a part of was the trust placed in those learning to teach – it was tacitly assumed that teacher candidates did not

Signaling New Directions  217

need to be “filled up” with readings about how to teach before going out into school placements. Similarly, the chapters in this volume show the power of developing an understanding of a pedagogy of teacher education via experiences. We say this, not to devalue the extant literature on pedagogy of teacher education. Rather, to understand a pedagogy of teacher education and to develop and enact it appropriately, teacher educators must use their own practice as a laboratory of learning. One of the valuable features of self-­study in this regard seems to be that the methodology gives a space for teacher educators to improvise, adapt, and make sense of the complexity of their roles – particularly when they encounter problems of practice. If self-­study is the space for third-­order work, then it is small wonder that this book has chapters exploring many ways of understanding a pedagogy of teacher education. In the inaugural issue of the flagship journal Studying Teacher Education, Loughran (2005) goes to great lengths to suggest that there is not one “right” way to engage in self-­study research. We suggest that the same is true for developing an understanding of what a pedagogy of teacher education entails. In this volume, for example, there are many chapters that offer a new conception of a pedagogy of teacher education developed in the particular crucibles of understanding: social justice pedagogy, pedagogies of literacy, mindfulness pedagogy, feminist pedagogies of teacher education, and pedagogies of teacher educator development. In line with Loughran’s suggestion about self-­study, we find that a pedagogy of teacher education is not a monolithic concept. It is a living and adaptable idea. These chapters push the concept of a pedagogy of teacher education in new directions, some explicitly grounded in self-­study methodology. Regardless of approach, all chapters point to the importance of teacher educators developing their understandings of teacher education via their own problems of practice, disciplinary interests, and personal and institutional needs. We cannot and should not advocate for a uniform method for developing an understanding of a pedagogy of teacher education. We instead argue that pedagogies of teacher education are grounded in the authority of experience. Munby and Russell’s (1994) articulated this idea to contrast with the authority of knowledge or authority of position, both of which are more commonly understood in school and university settings. At the heart of each of the orders of teaching, however, are shifts in the authority of experience. Although the word “authority” often carries particular connotations of rigidity in everyday usage, our point here is to remind teachers of all orders to find ways to analyze carefully the role of experience in their construction of knowledge about teaching, teaching teachers, and developing a pedagogy of teacher education. Experience authorizes explorations. In some cases, those explorations result in the shock of a “torpedo fish,” encouraging new types of engagements for developing understandings.

218  Shawn Michael Bullock and Brandon M. Butler

These new directions become clear signals against the noisy backgrounds of everyday practice, given the complexities of the day-­to-­day responsibilities of those learning about teaching, teaching about teaching, and learning to teach about teaching. Reflecting on a career in teacher education, Tom Russell commented, “Some expect that they can be told how to teach; others realize that learning how to teach is much more complex” (Bullock & Russell 2023, p. 74). We expect that, for second and third-­order teaching, this statement could be slightly modified to read: Some expect that the knowledge they developed as teachers will suffice for preparing (future teachers of) teachers; others realize that learning how to prepare (future teachers of) teachers is much more complex. This complexity, we argue, is about developing an understanding of what it means to develop a pedagogy of teacher education. References Bullock, S., & Russell, T. (2023). Transforming self and practice: Collecting evidence in a hall of concave mirrors. In C. J. Craig, J. Mena, & R. G. Kane (Eds.), Advances in research on teaching: Studying teaching and teacher education (pp. 63–77). Emerald Publishing Limited. Diller, A. (1998). Facing the torpedo fish: Becoming a philosopher of one’s own education. Philosophy of Education Archive, 1998, 1–9. Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. University of Chicago Press. Loughran, J. (2005). Researching teaching about teaching: Self-­study of teacher education practices. Studying Teacher Education, 1, 5–16. 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. Russell, T. (2005). Can reflective practice be taught? Reflective Practice, 6(2), 199–204.

INDEX

Pages in bold refer to tables. abstracted concepts 171 academic aunting 151, 157, 161; see also feminist pedagogy of teacher education academic concepts 171, 172; see also everyday concepts academic standards 134 activism 114; see also justice-­oriented pedagogy of teacher education (JOPTE) affinity identity 99 Ahmed, S. 104 allyship 107 American Educational Research Association 2 Applebaum, B. 156 apprenticeship of observation 14, 172 approximations 182; see also practice-­ based teacher education (PBTE) argumentation discussions, facilitation of 188–189 assertions 44–46 assertiveness of women faculty 155 Association for Student Teaching 167 Association of Teacher Educators 66 aunting see academic aunting authority: of experience 20–21; feminist mentoring 154–157 autobiography assignment 86–89

Badiali, B. 166 Baskerville, D. 51 Becoming Wise (Tippett) 55 being diversity 104, 105 Bell, E. E. 156 Berry, A. 203 blurring 147; authority and dialogic negotiation 154–157; communication 150; continuum vs. 150, 160; creative and practical 157–160; individual and collective 152–154; of personal and professional 149–150; third space and 150; see also feminist pedagogy of teacher education book knowledge 23 bottom-­up approach to PBTE 194–195; see also top-­down approach to PBTE Boylan, M. 97, 98–99 Brinda, C. 70–73, 76, 77 Bronx Masquerade (Grimes) 138 Bullock, Shawn Michael 3, 49–50, 52, 147 Bullough, R. V. 200 Burns, R. W. 166 Butler, B. M. 3, 49–50, 52, 81–94; see also teaching experiences of PTE course (doctoral-­level seminar)

220  Index

Calderón, A. 106 Carse, N. 100–101, 102 certification and licensure programs 164 clinical pedagogy 164–178; collaborative presentations and publications 176–177; co-­planning and co-­teaching 175–176; decision-­ making 8; implications of 177–178; inquiry 166, 172–174, 177–178; instructional feedback 166; as intentional learning environment 166; learning 167; local contextual dimensions 169–171; overview 8, 164–165; stances 8, 166; structured mediational spaces and 169, 175–177; supervision 165–166, 174, 177–178; theoretical framework 168; Vygotskian sociocultural theoretical perspective 168–169 clinical supervision see supervision co/autoethnography 147, 149, 151, 210 co-­conspirators 107 Cogan, M. 165, 166 co-­instructors 176 Cole, A. L. 51 collaborative presentations and publications 176–177 collaborative self-­study 100–101 collective learning/mentoring 152–154; see also individual learning/mentoring collective reflection 34 collective responsibility 105 Commission on Standards for Supervising Teachers and College Supervisors 167 Common Core State Standards (CCSS) 134 communities of practice 31, 33–46; assertions 44–46; being self-­ sustaining 36; collective reflection 34; critical reflection 34; goal setting 45–46; individual reflection 34; intentional pedagogies 46; inviting faculty 43–44; as learning structures 33; observations 41–43; problems of practice 39–41; seminar and pedagogies 34–36, 37–38; suggestions and implications 46 community meetings 101–103

community of inquiry 208 community of learners 101–103 community of support 208 connections in community 142 consciousness 168 contextual knowledge 32 Cook-­Sather, A. 20 Coon-­Kitt, M. J. 170 co-­planning and co-­teaching 174, 175–176; see also clinical pedagogy co-­teaching 149; co-­planning and 174, 175–176 couple identity 148 Cowden, R. 67–70, 76, 77 craft knowledge 23 creative mentoring 157–160; see also practical mentoring creative partnerships 148 Crenshaw, K. 160 crisis see emotional crisis critical and queer scholarship 116 critical friendship 48–60; building/ developing 49–50, 54–56; collaborations/collaborative relationships and 49, 50, 51, 52, 54, 56; commitment 51; concept or idea of 49, 50–52; context for 53–54; humor and 54, 58; as intimate scholarship 52; mindfulness and see mindfulness; music and 54–55; non-­conscious intentionalities 58; personal friendship and 49, 50; sharing details about activities 55–56; as a space 50, 51; trust 49, 50, 51, 54, 55, 56, 57–58, 59; vulnerability 51 critical incidents 87–88, 89, 101, 102–104, 103–104 “Critical Inquiry and Becoming a Teacher Educator” 115–116 critical reflection 34 critical thinking 93 cultural backgrounds 138 curriculum: documents 135; mandated 132, 134–135; teacher education 66–67 decompositions 182; see also practice-­ based teacher education (PBTE) Developing a Pedagogy of Teacher Education (Loughran) 1, 3, 81–82, 140, 147, 160–161

Index  221

dialogic negotiation 156–157; see also blurring; feminist pedagogy of teacher education dialogue, Freire’s concept of 101, 108 Dinkelman, T. 35, 39, 81 discourse element 102, 103 diversity 141 doctoral-­level course (J700) 6–7, 65–79; contextualizing 65–67; as field instructor 67–70, 76, 77; as foundations course instructor 70–73, 76, 77; overview 6–7, 65; as prospective teacher educator 73–76, 77; questions raised by 77; vignettes of experiences 67–76 doctoral students 3; colleges of education and 30–31; as NTEs see novice teacher educators (NTE) educational autobiography see autobiography assignment educational perspectives 82 educational reform 134–135 eliciting student thinking 190–192 Ellingson, L. L. 151, 157 emotion(s) 114; as barriers to learning 125; political dimension 125 emotional crisis 114, 117–124; unpacking, reason for 124–126; see also justice-­oriented pedagogy of teacher education (JOPTE) Enacting a pedagogy of teacher education (Russell and Loughran) 2, 8 epistemology of practice 17 equity-­oriented approach 135 everyday concepts 171, 172; see also academic concepts facilitating argumentation discussions 188–189 faculty community invitational days see invited faculty community days faith-­based institution 140 Farnsworth, V. 99, 102 feminist friendship epistemology 148–151; blurring 147, 149–150; see also blurring; co-­teaching 149; cowriting 149 feminist pedagogy of teacher education 7–8, 151–160; authority and dialogic negotiation 154–157;

creative and practical 157–160; individual and collective 152–154 field instructor 67–70, 76, 77 Finkelstein, C. 184–185 foundations course instructor 70–72, 76, 77 Frambaugh-­Kritzer, C. 50, 53 Freire, P. 101, 108, 137 Garbett, D. 1 Gee, J. 102–103 Goldblatt, H. 51 Goldhammer, R. 165, 166 Golombek, P. 168–169, 172, 175 Goodwin, A. L. 32 Greene, M. 52, 159 Gutiérrez, R. 122 Hagger, H. 22 Hambacher, E. 98 Hamilton, M. L. 2 Holt, J. 15 How Children Fail (Holt) 15 humanizing pedagogy 138–139 hybrid spaces 137 identification vs. identity 98–99 individual learning/mentoring 152–154; see also collective learning/mentoring individual reflection 34 indoctrination 114; see also justice-­ oriented pedagogy of teacher education (JOPTE) InFo-­TED see International Forum of Teacher Educator Development inquiry 172–174, 177–178; assignments 173; conference 173; graduate course 173–174; narrative 100; prior experiences 178; as stance 166, 203–205, 208, 209; see also clinical pedagogy; teacher educator development institutional and policy contexts 206–207, 209; see also teacher educator development institutional culture 82, 90 instructional feedback 166 International Forum of Teacher Educator Development (InFo-­TED) 197–198; see also Summer Academy (SA)

222  Index

International Handbook of Teacher Education 12 International Handbooks on Self-­Study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices 19 International Self-­Study Conference 22 intersectionality 160 intimate scholarship 5, 52; see also critical friendship invited faculty community days 43–44 J700 see doctoral-­level course (J700) Jin, Lijun 188–189 Johnson, K. E. 168–169, 172, 175 Jordan, A. W. 49, 54 journaling 44, 45–46 justice-­oriented pedagogy of teacher education (JOPTE) 7, 113–126; activism vs. 114; desiring certainty and change in a self-­study community 121–124; desiring certainty in an independent self-­ study 117–120; disrupting injustice 114; enacting 124; ever-­evolving demands of justice and 115; navigating emotional crisis 117–124; navigating uncertainty 115–117; questions for 116, 123; reason for unpacking crisis 124–126; social transformation 114; in teaching methods course 113 Kelchtermans, G. 205 knowledge base 32 knowledge domains 32 Knowles, J. G. 51 Korthagen, F. 2, 12, 13, 182 Kosnik, C. 32, 34 Kroll, L. R. 53 Kumar, A. 60 Kumashiro, K. K. 114, 121 language teacher education pedagogy 168–169 Lave, J. 39 Learning Cycle 182, 192–193 LGBTQ+ responsive practice 160 listening 19–20 literacy 128; CCSS as academic standards for 134; as a meaning-­ making practice 135; social justice teacher education and see literacy

teacher education; as a tool for transformation 135 literacy assessments 189–190; see also practice-­based teacher education (PBTE) literacy strategies, modeling and rehearsing 186–188 literacy teacher education 128–143; connections in community 142; educational reform 134–135; enacting pedagogies of 140–142; findings 132–140, 133; implications 142–143; literature review 129–131; mandated curriculum 132, 134–135; reading, discussing, and analyzing range of texts and genres 141; research methodology 132; as a transformative practice 135–138; valuing and responding to diversity 141; young adolescent literature and 138–139 live coding 103 Liwanag, M. P. 188–189 local contextual dimensions to clinical pedagogy 169–171 Lortie, D. C. 14, 68, 70, 172, 215–216 Lottero-­Perdue, P. 188–189 Loughran, John 1–5, 8, 12, 13–14, 24, 32, 44–45, 48, 54, 64–66, 68, 70, 72, 74, 75, 78, 81, 82–83, 86, 91, 97, 98, 100–101, 105, 108, 114, 118, 119, 128, 129, 152, 164, 181–182, 193, 194–195, 198, 199, 214, 217; argument for professionalizing teacher education 65; Developing a Pedagogy of Teacher Education 1, 3, 81–82, 140, 147, 160–161; influence of 3; on pedagogy of teacher education 4, 5, 12, 14, 164; principle of practice 54 Love, B. 107 Lunenberg, M. 202 MacPhail, A. 105–106, 107 Male, T. 4–5 mandated curriculum 132, 134–135 Martin, A. K. 17, 24 McIntyre, D. 22 McQuitty, V. 186–188 mediational spaces see structured mediational spaces meditative inquiry 60

Index  223

Mena, J. 52 Menter, I. 129 mentoring 160–161; feminist see feminist pedagogy of teacher education; patriarchal approach to 151 metacognition 32–33 mindfulness 6, 49, 50, 53, 54, 55, 56–60; commitments to 53; self-­care and 56–58, 59; trust and honesty for 54; use of 53 Mitchell, I. 17 Mitchell, J. 17 Mitchell, M. F. 100 modeling and rehearsing literacy strategies 186–188 Monacelli, S. 192–193 Moody, S. 190–192 Mullen, L. 183–184 Munby, H. 17, 20, 217 Murray, J. 4–5 Murtagh, E. 103–105, 106, 107 narrative inquiry 100; see also inquiry nomadic jamming 151 novice teacher educators (NTE) 30–46; community of practice approach see communities of practice; professional learning opportunities 30–31 observations 41–43 Oesterreich, H. A. 75 Oliver, K. L. 75 online academy 208–209 open-­mindedness 89–91 PBTE Faculty Fellows 182 pedagogy of teacher education: concept 4–5; as a continuous process 9; crucial tensions emerging in 147; importance of 13–14; literature 48; overview 1–4; relationships and 152; seminars/courses see teacher education seminars; as a term or terminology 11–12 PEEL see Project for Enhancing Effective Learning Peercy, M. M. 52 personal pedagogy of teacher education 11–27; apprenticeship of observation 14; authority of experience 20–21; evaluation 25–26; experienced teachers and 15–16; learning from experience 17, 21–22;

patterns of teaching 15–16; pedagogy of reflection 16–17; PEEL’s influence on 17–18; recommendations 26–27; recording experiences 19; reflection-­in-­action’s impact on 17; secondary school teaching 14–15, 18–19; self-­study 22–25; S-­STEP 19–20; as work in progress 16; workload 16 personal professionalism 207 physical education teacher education (PETE) 97–98 Ping, C. 32 Pinnegar, S. 2 Pol, M. 73–76, 77 policy contexts see institutional and policy contexts positionality 140 practical mentoring 157–160; see also creative mentoring practice-­based teacher education (PBTE) 181–195; approximations 182; collaboration 194; decompositions 182; eliciting student thinking 190–192; facilitating argumentation discussions 188–189; framework and model 182; interpreting student work and literacy assessments 189–190; modeling and rehearsing literacy strategies 186–188; overview 8, 181–183; representations 182; self-­study narratives 183–193; top-­down and bottom-­up approach 194–195; workshops on 182 practice teaching placements 134 practitioner inquiry see inquiry pre-­conference observation post-­ conference supervision cycle/ coaching cycle 165–166 presentations see collaborative presentations and publications preservice teachers (PST) 30 principles of practice 54, 152, 200; articulating and sharing 65, 198–201; self-­reflection 147; teacher educator development through 198–200, 202–209; working 109 privilege 105–108; allyship 107; forms 106; narratives 106–107; notions 106, 107–108; perspectives on 107–108; self-­determined 106;

224  Index

see also social justice teacher educator identity/identity formation problems of practice 39–41 Professional Development Associates (PDA) 174; see also supervision Professional Development in Education 12 Professional Development School (PDS) 170 professional learning, domains of 32 professional learning communities 207–209 Project for Enhancing Effective Learning (PEEL) 17–18 prospective teacher educator 73–76, 77 publications see collaborative presentations and publications Push (Sapphire) 138–139 Raider-­Roth, M. B. 203 Reagan, E. M. 98 reciprocity 151 reflection-­in-­action 12, 17, 85, 92–93 reflective practice 2, 12 The Reflective Practitioner (Schön) 17 reform see educational reform Remer, P. 151 representations 182; see also practice-­ based teacher education (PBTE) restrained professionalism 207 Rodgers, C. R. 203 Russell, T. 2, 3, 12, 17, 49, 52, 78, 147, 217; see also personal pedagogy of teacher education Rust, F. 203 Sarason, S. B. 16 Scanlon, D. 104 Schön, Donald 12, 17 School-­University Partnerships 170 Schuck, S. 49, 101 Segal, G. 101 self-­care 56–58, 59; see also mindfulness self-­determined privilege 106 self-­reflection 147, 150, 186 self-­responsibility 105 self-­study 19; course project 85, 89–91; literature 48; see also critical friendship; social justice; teaching experiences of PTE course (doctoral-­level seminar) Self-­Study of Teacher Education Practices Special Interest Group (American Educational Research Association) 2

Self-­Study of Teacher Education Practices (S-­STEP) 11–12, 19–20, 24 self-­study of teaching and teacher education practices (S-­STTEP) 1 seminars see teacher education seminars social justice 7; education programs 97, 98; identities/identity formation 96, 97, 98–99; see also social justice teacher educator identity/identity formation; literacy teacher education and 128–143; see also literacy teacher education; theories 97; see also justice-­oriented pedagogy of teacher education (JOPTE) social justice teacher educator identity/ identity formation 100–109; as an ever-­evolving process 103–105; becoming 104, 105; being diversity 104, 105; collaborative self-­study fostering 100–101; community of learners and community meetings 101–103; critical incidents 102, 103–104; discourse element 102, 103; live coding 103; narrative inquiry 100; privilege as a shaping factor 105–108; socio-­cultural discursive approach 102; step back 100, 101; story 100 social justice teacher identity 97; community-­based learning and 99; identification vs. 98–99 socio-­cultural discursive approach 102 Sotirin, P. 151, 157 S-­STTEP see self-­study of teaching and teacher education practices Staley, S. 115 state standards 134 step back 100, 101 Stillman, J. 115 Stolle, E. 50, 53 story 100; see also social justice teacher educator identity/identity formation storyline techniques 201, 202–203, 205, 206–207, 208 Strom, K. J. 52 structured mediational spaces 169, 175–177; collaborative presentations and publications 176–177; co-­planning and co-­teaching 175–176 student thinking, elicitation of 190–192; see also practice-­based teacher education (PBTE)

Index  225

student work, interpretation of 189–190; see also practice-­based teacher education (PBTE) Studying Teacher Education 19 Summer Academy (SA) 197, 198–200; assumption 202; collaborative groupwork 207; engagement 201; goal of 203; inquiry as stance 203–205; participants 200–201; professional development context 200–202; professional learning communities 207–209; storyline techniques 201, 202–203, 205, 206–207, 208; theory and practice 205–206; video selfies 200, 201; virtual learning platform 201, 205, 208–209; see also teacher educator development supervision 165–166, 174, 177–178; as collaborative effort 174; prior experiences 178 supervisors 167, 174 Swaffield, S. 51 Taylor, M. 210 teacher education: curriculum of 66–67; lacking institutional status 64; professionalizing 65; programs 11; research-­practice strands for 164; as second-­order practice 4, 5; as unnatural and intricate work 64 teacher education seminars: considerations for 77–79; J700 see doctoral-­level course (J700), teaching and learning experience of, teaching experiences of PTE course (doctoral-­level seminar) teacher educator development 197–210; comparative needs analysis findings 197; future considerations 209–210; inquiry as a stance and vulnerability 203–205, 208, 209; institutional and policy contexts 206–207, 209; principles of practice 198–200, 202–209; professional learning communities 207–209; start and end with practices 202–203, 209; zip theory and practice 205–206, 209; see also Summer Academy (SA) teacher educators: as former K-­12 teachers 64; professional development 64, 65

teaching: first-­order 4, 5; second-­order 4, 5; third-­order 5 teaching experiences of PTE course (doctoral-­level seminar) 82–94; autobiography assignment 86–89; collaborations 83; course design and enactment 84; open-­mindedness 89–91; reflection-­on-­action assignment 85, 92–93; self-­study research project 85, 89–91; uncertainties and fears 91–93 technology 210 Tippett, K. 55 top-­down approach to PBTE 194–195; see also bottom-­up approach to PBTE true concepts 171 Tuval, S. 101 uncertainty of practice 91–93; navigating 115–117 Vick, M. 11 video selfies 200, 201 virtual learning platform 201, 205, 208–209 Vygotskian sociocultural theoretical perspective: concept development 171; consciousness 168; learning 168, 171; mediation 175 Vygotsky, L. S. 168–169; theory of mind 169 Walsh, C. 106–107 Walton-­Fisette, J. L. 98 Wenger, E. 39, 99 White, S. 209 Wideen, M. 11 Williams, J. C. 155 Willingham, D. T. 22–24, 26 Wolf Shenk. J. 148, 149 women: Americans defining 155; mentor/mentoring see feminist pedagogy of teacher education Woolsey, I. 97, 98–99 young adolescent literature (YAL) 138–139, 141 Zeichner, K. 137 zip theory and practice 205–206, 209; see also teacher educator development zone of proximal development 175