Reconceptualizing Their Teaching Over Time: Goals and Pedagogies of Mid- and Later-Career Literacy/English Teacher Educators1

Clare Kosnik and Clive Beck

Ontario Institute for Studies in Education/University of Toronto ckosnik@oise.utoronto.cacbeck@oise.utoronto.cawww.literacyteaching.net

Paper Presented at the European Educational Research Association Conference Porto, Portugal September 2014

1 We wish to thank the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada for their generous support of this research.

1

Yet, it is at this time of hyper-criticism that demands that teacher educators innovate, be curriculum-makers who can transform teacher education, and emerge as pedagogical authorities who are equipped to be active partners in any educational reform effort because they can be architects of change, not just passive implementers (Goodwin & Kosnik, 2014, p. 341).

Current research reveals the complex (and often hidden) challenges new teacher educators encounter (Boyd & Harris, 2012; McKeon and Harrison, 2012; Murray and Male, 2005); however, there is little systematic research on teacher educators beyond their induction (or lack thereof). Our large-scale research project, Literacy Teacher Educators: Their Goals, Visions, and Practices, examined literacy/English teacher educators (LTEs) from Canada, the United States (US), the United Kingdom (UK), and Australia. There are three phases to this study. This paper reports on the first two phases, which have the following overall goal:

to study, in depth, a group of literacy/English teacher educators (LTEs) with special attention to their backgrounds, knowledge, research activities, identity, view of current government initiatives, pedagogy, and course goals.

This paper focuses specifically on the pedagogy of mid- and later-career LTEs. The goal is to study:

how the pedagogies and course goals of LTEs change over time.

The intent of this paper is not to compare novice LTEs with mid- and later career LTEs. Rather, we looked specifically at the pedagogies of mid- and later career LTEs and documented how they have changed.

Theoretical Framework Teacher educators have long been an under-researched group; however, the gap in research is beginning to be addressed because of the substantial research recently conducted on the transition from teacher to teacher educator (Bullock, S. M. & Ritter, J. K. 2011; Kitchen, J., Ciuffetelli-Parker, D. & Gallagher, T. 2008; Williams, Ritter, & Bullock, 2012). Loughran (2006) argues that one cannot simply replicate one’s practices as a classroom teacher in the university setting; there is no direct application of the skills used for teaching children to teaching adults. The long accepted myth that prior experience as a classroom teacher is sufficient to be an effective teacher in higher education has been dispelled, especially by the self-study research community. Teacher educators come to their new position with substantial knowledge about classroom teaching, but Murray and Male (2005) note that “in order to achieve the dual focus of teaching about teaching, new teacher educators needed to develop further pedagogical knowledge and understanding, appropriate for the second-order setting” (p.137). Novice teacher educators find that their knowledge is insufficient because it needs to be “repackaged” and broadened.

2

While novice teacher educators may have to broaden their knowledge, acquire new pedagogies, and shift their identity, mid- and later-career teacher educators are faced with a number of different challenges with respect to pedagogy. These challenges include solving the problem of not having recent experience as a classroom teacher, integrating digital technology into their courses, and often balancing administrative duties with their teaching (Kosnik et al., 2014).

In the groundbreaking text Developing a Pedagogy of Teacher Education: Understanding Teaching and Learning about Teaching, Loughran (2006) argues, “the teacher educator may be viewed as simply being a teacher teaching in teacher preparation” which is inadequate, and so, he suggests conceptualizing teacher educators as having “an expertise in teaching and learning about teaching” (p. 13). He provides a set of principles for his pedagogy of teacher education: a need for sensitivity; building trust; being honest; and valuing independence, reflection, and risk-taking. He sees these principles “as the essence of teaching about teaching ….. principles are the foundation for reflection on practice and a catalyst for researching teaching through self-study” (p. 98). Not to be used as a checklist, he suggests that teacher educators should cloak these principles in content and context while using them to think about teaching about teaching.

Loughran argues that teacher educators cannot simply model engaging teaching practices because student teachers must be highly involved in their own learning – thinking about what they are learning, how they are learning, and what they need to learn. Loughran challenges the common assumption that modeling must be the central pedagogy for teacher education and is highly effectie. He believes that teacher educators need to make explicit the complexities of teaching by telling student teachers about the choices they are making. They should their role as teaching about teaching, not simply teaching. As teacher educators move beyond modeling good practice, they should complement their teaching with on-going dialogue with students. “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 that they are experiencing” (p. 5). Without this window into instructors’ thinking, students are missing the opportunity to come to terms with the complexity of teaching and the thoughtfulness required in every teaching act, regardless of the level. Loughran sees teacher education as an emerging discipline; individual teacher educators cannot work out the intricacies of a pedagogy of teacher education on their own; rather, this work needs to be done collectively by teacher educators.

In regards to the knowledge teacher educators require to enact a pedagogy of teacher education, Goodwin identified five types of knowledge: personal; contextual; pedagogical; sociological; and social (2008). Pedagogical knowledge is central to this paper because teaching is one of the core duties of teacher educators. Teaching well in teacher education is essential for a number of reasons (e.g., increased effectiveness, modeling of good practice). Goodwin describes pedagogical knowledge as:

At first glance, the application of this domain to teacher educators is obvious – teaching methods, pedagogical content knowledge, disciplinary knowledge, curriculum design unquestionably belong in any program of preparation for teacher educators. But this is all simply surface knowledge; ‘teacher educators need to

3

explicitly model the types of pedagogies that they hope their candidates will enact’ (Bullock and Christou 2009, 84), and to develop a pedagogy of teacher education (Loughran 2006). Teaching teachers cannot simply be seen as a process whereby one’s expertise as a classroom teacher ‘will automatically carry over to one’s work with novice teachers’ (Zeichner 2005, 118). Pedagogical knowledge for teacher educators transcends the doing of teaching to achieve the understanding of teaching about teaching with the requisite skills and dispositions. (Goodwin and Kosnik p. 340)

Kosnik et al. (2014) built on Goodwin’s work by identifying four spheres of knowledge for literacy teacher educators, including pedagogy in higher education as a key sphere.

Knowledge of pedagogy in higher education includes specific teaching practices that include: designing opportunities for learning, selecting appropriate readings, setting useful assignments, and creating a supportive environment. Student teachers often complain about being treated like school-aged children. For example, in our research on LTEs, a number cited student teachers “pretend” they are elementary or secondary school students as poor practice. We need to identify specific teaching strategies that are appropriate for higher education in order to teach about teaching. Further, the pedagogies used must be connected to the goals for the course.

In developing their pedagogy, LTEs must attend to the four spheres of knowledge because literacy teaching and learning is complex. What specific knowledge must beginning teachers acquire and how can they do so in their teacher education program? For example, LTEs must address government initiatives and explore to what extent they should be critical of them with their student teachers. Their knowledge of research on literacy theory and literacy teaching should guide their pedagogy. LTEs’ pedagogy is multifaceted because they must draw on the four dimensions in determining what they must “do” and what student teachers must learn. In order for LTEs to help student teachers acquire the knowledge, skills, and dispositions required for 21st century teaching their pedagogy must be expansive and dynamic.

4

Most teachers continue to develop their teaching skills – life-long learning is a mantra in teacher development. In Growing as a Teacher: Goals and Pathways of Ongoing Teacher Learning, Beck and Kosnik (2014) argue that the teachers who are part of their longitudinal study “pursued increased knowledge of subject-specific pedagogy over the [7-10] years” (p. 65). One teacher in her seventh year of teaching “talked about how she is gradually adding to her collection of teaching materials – and related activities – that actually work with students” (p. 65). Can the same be said of teacher educators? To what extent do they re-conceptualize their work over time? After coming to terms with the often-traumatic transition from classroom teacher to academic, how do teacher educators’ practices develop? Mid- and later-career teacher educators need to be considered separately from new teacher educators because understanding their trajectory and examining how they change over time provides essential insights into teacher educator development. This knowledge can provide institutions with information on how they can support LTEs’ development and provide novice teacher educators with some sense of future development. To this end, two questions must be addressed: 1) How should teacher educators conceptualize their courses?; and 2) What pedagogies should they be using? Considering these two questions is essential if we wish to make advancements in the field of teacher education, which we hope this paper accomplishes.

MethodologyTo put together the sample of 28 literacy/English teacher educators we compiled lists from a balance of Tier 1 (research-intensive) and Tier 2 (teaching-focused) institutions and systematically worked through them. Some were invited because we knew they taught literacy methods courses, others because they had published research in literacy. To make the sample consistent we invited only those who had a doctorate. We tried to ensure there was a range of experience (e.g., elementary/primary and secondary teaching), and a gender representation comparable to that in the profession as a whole. Six declined our invitation to participate for a variety of reasons (e.g., assuming a new administrative position and so not be teaching literacy methods courses). To our knowledge none declined because of lack of interest. In regards to the literacy/English teacher educators’ relative experience, we understood the terms novice, mid-career, and later-career in the following way:

novice: 0 - 4 years experience mid-career: 5 - 10 years experience later-career: 10 + years experience

For the purposes of this report we only included LTEs with five years or more experience, therefore we limited our sample from the original 28 to 21 participants. We interviewed participants twice over the period April, 2012 to August, 2013. Interviews were done either face to face or on Skype and were audio-recorded and transcribed. Each interview was approximately one hour in length the first interview had five parts: background experiences; qualities (in their view) of an effective literacy educator; identity (e.g., your academic community, audience for your writing); turning points in your career (personal and professional); and research activities. The second interview focused on their teaching. The interview was semi-structured. We asked the same questions of all participants but added probe questions and welcomed additional

5

comments. Most of the questions were open-ended in that they sought more than a yes/no or simple factual answer.

Much of our methodology was qualitative as defined by Merriam (2009) and Punch (2009). We believe qualitative inquiry is justified as it provides depth of understanding and enables exploration of questions that do not on the whole lend themselves to quantitative inquiry (Guyton & McIntyre, 1990; Guzzetti et al., 1999; Merriam, 2009). It opens the way to gaining entirely unexpected ideas and information from participants in addition to finding out their opinions on simple pre-set matters. We used a grounded theory approach which does not begin with a fixed theory but generates theory inductively from the data using a set of techniques and procedures for collection and analysis (Punch, 2009). As the analysis progressed, we identified key themes and refined them – adding some and deleting or merging others – through “constant comparison” with the interview transcripts. As Strauss puts it (2003), “The basic question facing us is how to capture the complexity of the reality (phenomena) we study, and how to make convincing sense of it” (p. 16).

For data analysis we used NVivo9, going through a number of steps:(1) Our initial coding of the transcripts was fairly broad, leading to 42 nodes/themes. Some arose straightforwardly as answers to our interview questions (e.g., background experience as a classroom teacher) while others emerged unexpectedly (e.g., fell into doing a PhD). (2) After two rounds of coding we collapsed our analysis into 24 nodes/themes; however, within the 24 (e.g., early childhood experiences) there were sub-nodes (e.g., gaps in knowledge had sub-nodes of knowledge of research, knowledge of schools). With NVivo we were able to double and triple code certain content (e.g., the same material might relate to influence on practice, classroom teacher experience, and pedagogy). In addition to consulting the transcripts, we also kept returning to the literature to assist with analysis (Wold, 2011).(3) As we analyzed the quotes, annotations, and memos we developed summary findings for three areas in particular: identity; knowledge; and work Given the sophistication of NVivo9, we were able to conduct queries to see relationships between the biographical data and other data (e.g., PhD area of study and current research activities). NVivo9 allowed us to draw upon and develop both qualitative and quantitative data.

Findings

6

As Figure 1 shows, our sample of mid- and later-career teacher educators included LTEs with range of experience both as classroom teachers and as university faculty.

Experience as a classroom teacher 0 years = 11-5 years = 16-10 years = 911-20 years= 621+ years = 4

Years at the university 6 -10 years = 1011-15 years = 216 -20 years= 521+ years = 4

Figure 1: Background Experiences

Enjoyment of Teaching

Although our participants worked in both research-intensive and teaching-focused universities, we found that effective teaching was very important to all. Commitment to being a good teacher and improving their teaching was common to all participants. When asked to complete the sentence -- Being a literacy/English teacher educator in the 21st century is …. Their enthusiasm for their work was clearly evident:

Julianna said it is “fun because we have a rich environment as long as you can maintain engagement in the richness and not get grounded down by the emphasis on phonics.”

Sara describes it as, “exciting, fun, interesting, creative … we are at the forefront” Demerra finds it “fulfilling, engaging, and entangled.” Chester feels it is “a tremendous challenge and a privilege.” Caterina recognizes it as, “fun, exciting, but scary because things are changing so

much. ”Part of the LTEs’ enjoyment of teaching is derived from their sense they are doing a

good job. Confident they are effective teacher educators was apparent. Beatrice, for example, said that her student teachers are “universally happy” and appreciate that she is doing a good job. There were a number of ways that the LTEs gained confidence which in turn affects enjoyment of teaching: high course evaluations and student teachers’ informal feedback (e.g., student teachers recounted: “I used some of the strategies we learned in class during practice teaching.” “I am learning a lot in this course.”). Both of these feedback strategies were clearly a way for them to gauge their success. Interestingly, a number had been nominated for teaching awards that they found gratifying. Both formal and informal feedback processes solidified their identity as able instructors in higher education which gave them confidence.

Developing Goals for their Courses

7

In developing the goals for their courses the LTEs drew on a number of sources: experiences as classroom teachers, their doctoral research, and their ongoing work in teacher education.

a. Drawing On Own Experience as a Classroom Teacher Most teacher educators have been classroom teachers, but the length of time they spent in the classroom varies enormously, as illustrated in Figure 1. The LTEs in England spent more years teaching in the classroon than their Canadian counterparts. The notion of being a master teacher was more common in England and Australia than in the U.S. and Canada. This meant that the latter two groups often had less experience as classroom teachers.

When asked, “To what extent do you draw on your experiences as a classroom teacher?” 17 responded “a great deal,” while four replied “not at all." For those that do, they drew on their personal experiences as classroom teachers to guide them in the development of their courses. For example, Caterina knew that “there is never enough time as a teacher so she tried to help her student teachers be realistic.” Referring to their own classroom teaching experiences provided authenticity and we saw there was a continuity to their work over time. Although education (e.g., policy) has changed rapidly and substantially in the past decade, the LTEs’ priorities as classroom teachers tended to be their priorities as teacher educators (e.g., Lance’s priority as a classroom teacher was drama and it is still a priority as a teacher educator; Stella’s focus on poetry has continued from her work as a secondary school teacher to her current work as a teacher educator). Yet, drawing on classroom teaching experience was complicated for mid- and later-career teacher educators because it often occurred many years ago. Justin reported:

On a good day … one has some credibly with ones students precisely because one can talk from first hand experience. At the same time, on a bad day, I’m aware that students think that this must have happened in some era where dinosaurs roamed the earth or something and its really not relevant to current reality. On a good day, it doesn't feel like that at all. And one of the … one of the nicest bits of feedback I think I've ever had from one of my student teachers was somebody who in their end of course evaluation talked about how she had realized that everything that we do in seminars involved me modeling the kind of practice that I would hope that they would take into schools. Now, for her to realize that, is quite complicated in herself, and its also a recognition that my practice in a seminar has a history to it, a history which isn’t solely located within the university, but is also located in the experience of school classrooms.

Those who did not have recent classroom teacher experience were innovative in compensating for this gap. In order to provide relevant materials, they used examples from a variety of places: from student teachers they observed when doing practice teaching supervision; their children and grandchildren’s work; and and from data gathered from their formal research on teachers.

b. Influence of Their Research

8

In their doctoral studies our participants investigated a wide range of topics: for example, studying female college dropouts; investigating pre-service student teachers’ use of critical pedagogy; and analyzing elementary school text books. The extent to which they remained in the same area in subsequent research varied:

Doctoral research was ongoing 11

Somewhat the same 6

Research field had shifted 4

Their doctoral research continued to influence their current work. Some had expanded significantly beyond the narrow focus of their doctorate. The research they were currently doing often involved working in schools which kept them current with new government initiatives and the realities of schooling.

Although all were active researchers there were differences in the degree to which they shared their research activities and findings with student teachers (e.g., Margie said not at all because the student teachers were not interested whereas Giovanni openly shared the data and samples of student work he collected through his research). Even if they did not explicitly share their research activities with their student teachers, it influenced their stance towards teaching and their course construction. For example, Beatrice researched multimodality and adopted a multimodal approach to her teacher education courses. The goals she sets for her student teachers revolved around digital technology (e.g., Beatrice wants student teachers to use many multimodalities in their teaching).

c. Developing Specific Goals Over time, our participants developed a clearer sense of what their student teachers truly needed to be effective teachers. As Sharon noted, too heavy an emphasis on the practical is as inappropriate as too much theory. Many noted that as new teacher educators their courses were too theoretical because they believed this is what new teachers need. Many commented they are now better at balancing theory and practice. Given their experience as teacher educators and researchers, many had become very aware of what new teachers need. The goals for their courses were both expansive and specific – balancing the big picture of education, developing an identity as a professional, being mindful of the reality of schools, while acquiring specific teaching skills:

Justin’s aims to “prepare student teachers for a lifetime of teaching”; “prepare them to be public intellectuals”; “personalize English teaching”; “see schools as an emancipatory space”

Caterina wants “students to see themselves as professionals not college students.” Emma explained that she wants her student teachers to “understand current

curriculum … develop skills to plan and asses … I want student teachers to be independent thinkers who are not just teaching for the schools we have ... they must know both theory and practice.”

9

Carolina’s goals are to help student teachers know they “need to respond to the children …. recognize that children are all different … know the curriculum in connection to the children … think creatively … use assessment to understand the children.”

Bob hopes to have his “student teachers learn to focus on the students … to unpack their beliefs [about schooling] … and to develop an identity as a professional.”

Martha Ann through her course aims to have student teachers develop a “sense of self-efficacy … learn to take initiative … understand literacy strands [in the curriculum] …. know children's literature … develop a process approach [to teaching] … empower students.”

Margie believes “each student needs to figure out what he or she needs to know … they need to know how to ask questions … know to observe their students.”

Chester recognizes that “with a one-year course, you’ve got to fit a lot in. But we had kind of structured lessons and seminars and more group work to follow up some of the topics that we’d been introducing. So it was trying to set it in the context of what they saw in school. It was trying to relate theory to practical applications.”

Jessie aims to “operationalize the theory” of literacy in her course.

Like many of the participants, Carolina’s goals were complex. Only an experienced teacher educator who knows her colleagues and context could achieve them:

You have an overall sense of what this course is working towards. You’re able to make connections not just to literacy and what's happening in our English subjects across years and through the degree but also to the other subjects. You can make very explicit connections for when they, for example are working in child development and understanding those theories. If you are able to bring those other perspectives to your teaching it’s not just an isolated silo of information they are getting in my subject.

When we looked across the wide number of goals we concluded they were focused both on knowledge development (content of literacy, a repertoire of skills for teaching) and on developing the disposition of a reflective and thoughtful practitioner. The LTEs did not see these as an “either/or,” rather they wanted the two to work in a dialogic fashion – one informing the other and vice versa.

Developing a Teaching Style In terms of course design we had a series of questions about how they approached designing and implementing their courses. To get a sense of their course planning we asked: To what extent is your course organic or preset? The responses are as follows:

Organic – 7 Preset – 7 Combination organic and preset – 7 Their choice of organic or preset depended on the level of independence they had

at their institution as well as their own preference. Jessie said, “Well I'm a very organic

10

person” whereas others like Julianna, who worked on a team, needed to follow the syllabus that had been preset before the course started. Those who had an organic approach were continually reflecting on their work to gauge student teacher interest and learning and made adjustments weekly. Having to be continually revising placed pressure on them; however, they felt they were meeting the student teachers’ needs. For those whose courses were preset because of the team approach often looked for “wiggle room” to meet the individual student’s needs.

Teaching style is personal and complex. When describing their teaching style, our participants had a range of responses but there were some commonalities, in particular getting to know their students was an essential aspect of their style. This may be attributed to several factors: increased confidence allowed them to blur the boundaries between professor and student without losing credibility; recognized that they did not have to know “everything” and could draw on student teachers’ knowledge; and appreciated that personal connections with student teachers strengthens learning. The LTEs described their teaching style:

Justin wanted “to be a good listener.” He described his approach as “structured but there is time for discussion and activity.”

Margie’s teaching was driven by “inquiry first.” She had a “few lectures and few readings.” She teaches for “depth” while being sure to address “hot button topics.” She was less concerned with providing practical tips.

Caterina described her style as “very interactive” and “wants student teachers moving around” not simply being passive recipients of her knowledge.

Similarly Jessie had an interactive style with a “flattened hierarchy” where there was “camaraderie” among the student teachers and herself because she felt that she “learns from the student teachers.” She said, we are “in it together.”

Giovanni said his course “is interactive … and supportive. It’s inquiry-based. I will… use examples of student work for writing or responses to books as kind of a platform to generate discussion about topics.”

Stella described her style as: I've never been a teacher who wants to give people answers. And I know sometimes people find that infuriating because what I want to do is encourage them to think and to experiment and to take risks. So I never give them notes about things and I never did when I was working in secondary school either. It was always down to them. So that understandings would emerge through discussion and experience.

Repeatedly, participants stated they must model a range of effective teaching practices. This was partially why their course preparation was so time consuming. They are not simply lecturing but are setting up a learning environment where student teachers experience first-hand a number of teaching practices/opportunities for learning. As Carolina stated, “we try to model effective teaching, what we consider effective teaching strategies in our own teaching.” She further elaborated:

11

[we use] a whole range of different configurations of how we set it up. But in terms of the pedagogies that I tend to use in my own classroom, I try to model what we are talking about. So for example I always try the whole group, whole structures. I always try to in build some very specific critical reflective practices at the end of their sessions. Generally, when I have the introduction of my sessions I have a welcome board so that when the students come straight into the classroom, there is actually get-to tasks so they can get going straight away.

When asked about teaching strategies, the LTEs provided an enormous range: holding debates on hot topic issues; working in groups, student teachers create a video on a topic; forming on-line discussion groups; holding book talks; organizing literature circles; accessing on-line streaming of Shakespearean plays; analyzing videos of classrooms; reading children’s literature; analyzing transcripts of interviews with children; working with children in tutoring programs; assisting with in-service sessions on drama for teachers; performing Slam Poetry; going on field trips (e.g., to museums); inviting classroom teachers and/or community leaders as guest speakers; examining photographs of places for literacy; conducting community walks; connecting student teachers with community-based groups; and using a range of digital technologies (e.g., Tumble Books, Voice Thread, Kid Blog, Smartboards, digital pens, Moodle). These opportunities for learning were labour-intensive to organize but demonstrated the creativity of our LTEs.

When asked if their teaching style was eclectic or based on one method, most felt they ed to use a mix of styles: Beatrice said, “I think I mix and match different styles. So sometimes I'm quite, telling what's what … and other times I attempt to get them to talk. … I often have a clear sense of what I'm going to do.” Similarly, Giovanni’s style included both direct delivery and discussion:

there are times I'm soap boxy in my classroom … But it is not necessary my style. My style is to try to really use to make an argument about what I believe in. I use examples from classrooms or student work or newspaper articles. I try to make a case for my perspective. Rather than just toss out a controversial issue or take a strong stance and provoke more conservative students to have an immediate reaction I want them to cultivate their own critical perspectives, but I also don't deny that I have one.

In developing their repertoire of teaching methods, many LTEs used trial and error by experimenting with different teaching strategies, readings, assignments, and so on. Since they were confident in their ability to be an effective LTE and had clear goals of what they were trying to accomplish, they were comfortable trying out different pedagogies and activities. Many recalled efforts that were disastrous yet they could laugh them off.

The notion of a pedagogy of teacher education (Loughran, 2008) has been slowly emerging. Although this concept is still in its infancy, the LTEs demonstrated a deep understanding that there are specific skills required for teaching about teaching: bridging theory and practice; designing appropriate learning opportunities for adults; preparing useful assignments and carefully selecting readings; deciding on appropriate formats for class (e.g. lecture, workshop, small-group, and individual); and creating community.

12

As noted earlier, the goals for the LTEs’ courses should match the chosen pedagogy. Repeatedly, we found a direct link between their goals and their pedagogies (including assignments and readings). For example, the goal of being reflective was realized through activities such as Hailey’s use of on-line discussion groups. Student teachers responded to each other’s videos (and analysis) they had made during their practice teaching. Hailey found this process helped them with analysis of teaching and made “reflection” relevant because it was directly tied to practice. Helping student teachers become professionals was actualized by Rachel who had student teachers participate in organizing in-service sessions for teachers on use of drama. She also included them in her research activities. Aiming to help student teachers become aware of the wider context of education was addressed by Chester who had student teachers debate the question: Why do politicians find the teaching of phonics so appealing? Focusing on the needs of the children was achieved by having student teachers do a case study of an individual child. Often these case studies were the basis for discussion post practice teaching. Student teachers acquired skills for observing children and planning appropriate lessons, which would meet the needs and interests of the child.

The types of assignments set by the LTEs reflect their goals and can influence the student teachers’ views of the course and their learning. By looking at course syllabi and responses to interview questions, we identified a number of assignments that were used frequently. See Figure 2:

Topic of Assignment Number of participants who set itUnit plan (curriculum area) 13Case study of a child/adolescent 11On digital technology 7On assessment (conduct assessments on a student or explore the topic of assessment)

7

Literacy autobiography 7Complete the entire writing process (from idea through revisions to final product)

4

Reading log 4Portfolio 4Figure 2: Summary of assignment topics

Again, these assignments tended to be linked to goals for the LTEs’ courses. These mid- and later-career teacher educators were so thoughtful in course construction that they had achieved coherence in their work.

Being in a Constant State of Revision As we learned about their pedagogical practices, it was clear that our participants spent countless hours developing their courses. One of the challenges identified was insufficient time for preparing for teaching. Mid- and later-career LTEs often had administrative duties (e.g., Chair of their centre/department/group) that were very time consuming. While all spoke passionately about their teaching, with most finding true satisfaction in their work, many anguished about the number of hours they spent preparing their classes. For example, Sara recalled that it “took six months to prepare the [new] unit guide so that when we started it was in the best position.” As they modeled

13

effective teaching, provided resources, gave student teachers opportunities to unpack their lessons, and created a supportive classroom community, they devoted a significant amount of time to their teaching. It seemed that most were in a perpetual state of improving their teaching.

When asked about the changes in their work over time, many commented that as beginning teacher educators they pored over their course evaluations in an effort to understand and improve their teaching. They often anguished at the comments made by the student teachers. Many years later, they could vividly recall specific criticisms leveled at them by their student teachers. By mid- and later-career, the LTEs expanded their self-assessment methods for improving their teaching beyond reliance on course evaluations. They used these multiple forms of “data” to inform their teaching. These veteran instructors used in-class observation as a way to assess their own teaching and student teacher development. Reflecting on and assessing their teaching occurred in a variety of ways: they thought about their work (reflection-on-action), they observed how student teachers participated in class discussions (reflection-in-action), they noted the gaps in student teachers’ knowledge in their written assignments, and they listened to the questions student teachers raised. For Jane one of the ways she gauged the “success” of her teaching is when the student teachers “make connections with reality.” Bob spent a significant amount of time after practice teaching debriefing with his student teachers. He developed a form of “rounds” where student teachers talk about their experiences. “That was a highlight for them … you could see how affirming that was for them, being able to discuss their professional practice in that [professional] way. And it was a highlight for me because I found those conversations very rewarding and I was learning from them as much as they were.” He closely monitored these rounds to “assess” the student teachers’ learning which in turn influences how he proceeds in the course.

Each week Carolina used an “exit task” for monitoring student learning and consequently adjusted her teaching accordingly. She described it as:

at the beginning [of the lecture] we give a focus question we want them to be thinking about at the beginning of the lecture. And then we have the lecture … and at the end of it we put up the focus question again and they have to respond to it in relationship to what we’ve learned about in the lecture … we use that as a bit of a tool for us. We can assess understandings straight away, assess where we need to go to in the workshop.

Many others used the student teachers’ assignments to gauge their own effectiveness. Carolina’s example shows that she has clear goals for what she wanted to accomplish and knows how to recognize the student teachers’ learning.

I love the first assignment in our literacies for the futures subject .. they actually have to create a digital essay. So they actually have to use the content knowledge about multi-literacies, multi-modality, semiotic systems, understanding design… all of those things and … they have to show in a multi-modal text [the principles]. We all it a digital essay. They have to capture the points. But they also have to capture the essence of the points. Like design, multi-modality, semiotic systems.

14

So they have to do both-and. So some of the students do the most remarkable things. YouTube video clips, they’ve written scripts of stories, multi-modal man means textual woman and so they are trying to compare multi-modal digital design text compared to hard copybooks. So it was multi-modal man and textual woman and they went out and they acted these things out … And they write raps of the course … it’s free, they can do whatever they want.

Team planning and team teaching were ways to improve teaching and develop as an LTE. Formal and informal conversations with colleagues were a powerful form of learning. Many described how team planning and team teaching contributed to their growth in a higher education setting, due to their peers’ expertise. Sara noted that collaboration with a fellow teacher educator helped her fill the gaps in her knowledge: “Gillian, she is the one with the multiliteracies [knowledge]. I mean that's a whole skill set that I don't have. She finds apps for all sorts of different things.” Collaboration was not just within the same institution – another participant reported: “I have a very strong network of people across Australia, so I can draw on their expertise in the area of literacy.”

Working in Politicized Context Although the LTEs in this study worked very hard at improving their teaching, there were forces beyond their control that were (negatively) impacting their work. Most are working in a very politicized context where education is being “controlled” by and from various bodies. From our data it appears that mid- and senior-career LTEs were very cognizant of the political context. As Justin said, “I have lived through 4 or 5 national curricula.” They have seen initiatives come and ago. By contrast, the newer LTEs did not talk to the same extent about the political context. Perhaps, because newer LTEs have had recent experience with the current national initiatives they are more knowledgeable about and comfortable with them. And they may not realize that over their entire career they will see a number of education initiatives – the pendulum swings wildly.

Many of our LTEs felt the political pressure was impacting on them in a number of ways. With curricula (both for schools and for teacher education programs) being imposed by the government they often felt they could not develop their courses to be in line with what they knew student teachers needed. Since they have spent years developing their courses, doing practice teaching supervision, and conducting research on various aspects of education they had a keen understanding of the skills, knowledge, and dispositions required of new teachers. Therefore, they knew what was needed to be done in initial teacher education to prepare their students. Bob was terribly perplexed by “the steady erosion of quality curriculum and pedagogy through standards-based reforms at the university level, that is, required forms of accountability that have led to a dumbing down of the curriculum.” Rachel felt “the frustration with the politicization of the profession and the ever-increasing demands on us. And in lots of ways, you know, I think the government is working against us.”

Most LTEs have thought deeply about education having conducted research on children. 20 of the 21 were actively conducting research in schools. They know what is needed to be effective literacy/English teacher in elementary and secondary schools. In short, they feel confident that they know how to be an effective elementary or secondary

15

school literacy/English teacher. Hailey who teaches in New York State struggled with her commitment to child-focused approaches, which she believes are essential to effective teaching. Her stance strongly contrasts the phonics-driven and generic-skills Common Core standards imposed on schools. She acknowledged, “ The political structure is really a major deal. I’m not always sure that what I’m teaching my students is the right thing to teach them since it’s going to be putting them at a disadvantage.” Carolina from Australia felt pressure from all government levels:

we have the political push from the national level that's been taken up at a state level that then is now been rolling out into universities. So for example then for your teachers to be accredited to teach in New South Wales schools, your university has to tick these boxes. So we now have exit testing for our pre-service teachers so we are going to have to be jumping through those hoops as well. So from a university perspective we’ve got these three layers of hoops that we are jumping through and at the center of that is students. That sometimes we seem to forget that that's what we are here for. So the exit testing is a huge change.

Many painfully recounted the negative experience of external credentialing bodies (e.g., NCATE in the US and OFSTED in England). These inspections are expensive and divisive. Justin, Julianna, and Hailey recounted the negative impact they had on their university culture. Justin said they are just looking to tick boxes. Stella who is the Director of her teacher education program describes how high stakes the reviews are:

I suppose I've become more critically aware of pressures on me to perform at a certain level and to make sure that what I do is going to be compliant or not found wanting of any of kind of OFSTED regulation. Because I am very clear that if they came in, and they could ring up this afternoon and come in on Monday. And within two days they could say our course didn't fit the bill and that would be curtains [for the program]. And that's terrifying.

The pervasive presence of the inspections hangs over these LTEs. Chester recounts:

Well we had to have an eye on the requirements of the national curriculum of the schools. Also we had a set of generic skills and objectives for the [teacher education program] as a whole … We have quite a rigorous and punitive inspection each year so we have to have an eye on that as well … and we have to show evidence that we were moving the students on, that we were enhancing their subject knowledge.

Those working in Canada have much less interference by external credentialing bodies and/or the government. Since Canada does not have a national education department and does not have a long history of standardized tests, there were fewer mechanisms to control education. Nevertheless, all Canadian participants were aware of the increased pressure on teachers to raise achievement levels and a less flexible curriculum in elementary and secondary schools. Changing Views and Practices

16

Many of the LTEs recalled their early years in teacher education as stressful and trying. As documented in the literature (Murray & Male, 2005; Dinkelman et al., 2006), the transition from classroom teacher to instructor in higher education is not seamless and is often accompanied with feelings of inadequacy. One participant admitted: “I am embarrassed when I think about my practice when I was a new lecturer.” Our participants concurred that as beginning teacher educators they were surprised at the amount of time it took to prepare their lessons and the need to go beyond what they did as classroom teachers. In short, they had to develop a new skill set and expand their knowledge base. Stella’s advice to a new LTE would be “do not underestimate how hard it is to be an LTE.” Emma recalls,

I remember when I first started I inherited a course that had, you know all the courses in Australia are 12 or 13 weeks. And so at 3 hours a week for 13 weeks. And I think it had about 16 or 17 topics. And I just thought I’d rather not deal with something than try to pretend that I was covering it in a week.

When asking the question “How have you grown?” we received a range of responses to the question. Below are a few of these responses:

Chester realized through trial and error that “learning takes time. I've become much more confident and I think that's changed my practice. Not panicking, not rushing, not getting anxious about things.”

Caterina noted that “as a beginning teacher educator I was really focused on theory” but she now balances theory with practice.

Emma feels her course construction has improved because she has an overall design for her course making it more coherent.

Carolina said she no longer expects student teachers to want to know everything. She has “mellowed” is “not as intense’ and is “more realistic what she can accomplish.”

Martha Ann now goes “more in depth” and builds time in class to do for application.

Amelia became more realistic:

understanding that my role is to prepare teachers for education, whatever that may be. I find that I’m much more in touch with what’s going on in the national perspective of teachers and where they are,. So I think that I am much more about preparing teachers for not just the province of Newfoundland, but teaching for elsewhere, and looking at it as a life journey that may not necessarily always be in the classroom.

Over time they realized the value of the affective qualities (e.g., caring, listener, relational) of being a teacher educator and were not afraid that having this stance would undermine their authority as professors/lecturers. When asked to define the qualities of an effective LTE, 17 of the 21 included the “softer” qualities of caring and being supportive in addition to subject expertise. When asked “What do you hold dear to your heart” the responses tended to focus on the affective: Margie said, “getting to know the students as individuals.” While Sharon cherishes her “relationships with the student teachers.” Bob values “openness … knowing your student teachers individually … developing capacity

17

to understand the world from the student teacher’s perspective because it is different from when he was a teacher … respecting student teachers.” Similarly, Justin believes in “getting to know the student teachers as individuals and valuing what they bring to the course.”

Having a much clearer sense of the kind of higher education instructors they wanted to be was apparent; in many ways they had resolved many of the conflicts novice teacher educators experience regarding finding the boundary between being flexible and firm with student teachers. They were realistic about the demands on student teachers (e.g., having to learn a great deal in a program that is often somewhat disjointed) yet they had high expectations for their student teachers. Nevertheless, many recounted on-going frustrations with their student teachers:

Lance – student teachers want just practical tips and tools. Emma – student teachers do not want to be independent thinkers. Rachel – “student teachers are working long hours (at paying jobs) and

just fly in to the university and they do not do readings.” Sara – set up a tutoring program in a local elementary schools to give

student teachers first-hand experience working with a struggling reader: Even though I believe it's a great model, there is a lot of resistance … some of them want to go to a lecture and want to go to a tutorial and want to have a textbook and want to have all of my knowledge…. want it laid out for [them].

Although the LTEs found some student teachers challenging, for the most part, they did not concede to the student teachers’ “demands” for more practical tips, fewer readings, and so on. They were confident that what they were offering would help student teachers become more effective teachers. In order to maintain the courses they had set, they needed the courage of their convictions while drawing on their experience as instructors in higher education and their knowledge of research on teachers

DiscussionThe 21 LTEs in this study are very hard working and committed individuals who have grown over time in confidence, skill, and knowledge. Much of their development came about because of their own efforts: reflecting on practice, collaborating with colleagues, conducting research, listening to their student teachers, and so on. Developing as an LTE takes time. Certainly, new teacher educators have much to offer; however, experienced LTEs seem to have a depth of knowledge and flexibility. They can adjust their course to respond to their student teachers because of their extensive knowledge and repertoire of teaching strategies. They have a significant number of pedagogies they can match to their goals and draw upon them as needed. Beyond their actual teaching skills, they have confidence they are effective and can modify their practices as needed. This expansive set of skills and positive identity is highly relevant when we consider the vast number of contract instructors who now cycle through teacher education programs; they simply do not have the time to develop.

The findings from this research show that these LTEs were actualizing Loughran’s pedagogy of teacher education principles: need for sensitivity; building trust; being honest; valuing independence; reflection; and risk-taking. The many examples

18

provided show what these principles look like “in action.” Examples of specific learning opportunities, assignments, and readings cloak these principles in concrete practice which extends the theory into the real world of teaching. This is what it looks like in action to help student teachers become independent, reflective, risk-takers. Our LTEs clearly outlined some of the goals you must set for the course, the logical sequence of steps/topics you must go through for student teachers to learn, and the relationship you must establish with them. A pedagogy of teacher education must include the conceptual (goals) plus the practical (actual topics for discussion) if it is going to be useful to others.

The 21 LTEs’ on-going efforts to improve their practice are admirable but the amount of time devoted to their teaching cannot be underestimated or dismissed. Becoming a “good” LTE takes time – years to develop. Beyond long-term development there is a more immediate aspect of “time.” On a weekly basis there is an enormous time commitment for planning highly interactive classes. The demands on their time is increased for those LTEs who place a high importance on the relational aspect of teaching. Beyond teaching formal classes where they model a range of practices they also meet individually with student teachers as they negotiate the challenging and complicated journey of becoming a teacher.

From our research two troubling issues have been identified. Firstly, the goals these LTEs hold are very broad. By contrast, student teachers are often so focused on the immediate – practical tips for their teaching placements – yet faculty have very expansive goals. Does this gap create some issues? Are such broad goals helpful? Secondly, some of the LTEs used very innovative pedagogies (e.g., a number had LTEs had student teachers experience the writing process fully over a number of weeks) but we wonder if devoting so much time to one issue (in a 36 hour course) is the best use of time. Research on the effectiveness and appropriateness of specific pedagogies is needed (Kosnik & Beck, 2009).

The findings from this study would be useful for new LTEs because they would provide direction on how to shape and organize teaching in HE. Drawing on the work of mid- and later-career teacher educators will help develop a pedagogy of teacher education.

ReferencesBall, D. (2000). Bridging practices: Intertwining content and pedagogy in teaching and

learning to teach. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(3), 241-247.Beck, C. & Kosnik, C. (2014). Growing as a teacher: Goals and pathways of ongoing

teacher learning. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Boyd, P. & Harris, K. (2010). Becoming a university lecturer in teacher education: Expertschool teachers reconstructing their pedagogy and identity. Professional Development in

Education, 36 (1-2), 9-24.Bullock, S. M. & Ritter, J. K. (2011). Exploring the transition into academia through

collaborative self-study. Studying Teacher Education, 7(2), 171-181. Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Powerful teacher education: Lessons from exemplary

programs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

19

Dinkelman, T., Margolis, J., & Sikkenga, K. (2006). From teacher to teacher educator: Experiences, expectations, and expatriation. Studying Teacher Education, 2(1), 5-23.

Goodwin L. (2008). Defining teacher quality: Is consensus possible? In M. Cochran-Smith, S. Feiman-Nemser, D.J. McIntryre, & K. Demers (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education: Enduring questions in changing contexts. (3rd ed. pp. 399-403). New York: Routledge.

Goodwin, L. (2012). Teaching as a profession: Are we there yet? In C. Day (Ed.), The Routledge international handbook of teacher and school development. (pp 44- 56). New York: Routledge.

Goodwin. L. A., & Kosnik, C. (2013). Quality teacher educators = quality teachers?: Conceptualizing essential domains of knowledge for those who teach teachers. Teacher Development: An International Journal of Teachers' Professional Development, 17(3), 334-346.

Guyton, E. & McIntyre, J. (1990). Student teaching and school experiences. In W. R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 514-534). New York: Macmillan.

Guzzetti, B., Anders, P., & Neuman, S. (1999). Thirty years of Journal of Reading Behaviour. Journal of Literacy Research, 31(1), 86-92.

Kitchen, J., Ciuffetelli-Parker, D. & Gallagher, T. (2008). Authentic conversation as faculty development: Establishing a self-study group in an education college. Studying Teacher Education, 4(2), 157-171.

Kosnik, C., Dharmashi, P., Miyata, C., Cleovoulou, Y., & Beck, C. (2014). Beyond initial transition: An international examination of the complex work of experienced literacy/English teacher educators. English in Education 48(1), 41-62.

Kosnik, C. & Beck, C. (2014). Four spheres of knowledge required: An International study of the professional development of literacy/English teacher educators. European Educational Research Association, Porto, Portugal.

Kosnik, C., Menna, L., Dharmashi, P., Miyata, C., & Beck, C. (2013). A foot in many camps: Literacy teacher educators acquiring knowledge across many realms and juggling multiple identities. Journal of Education for Teaching 39(5), 534-540.

Kosnik, C. (2007). Still the same yet different: Enduring values and commitments in my work as a teacher and teacher educator. In T. Russell, & J. Loughran (Eds.), Enacting a pedagogy of teacher education: Values, relationships and practices (pp. 16-30). London: Routledge.

Kosnik, C. & Beck, C. (2009). Priorities in teacher education: The 7 key elements of pre-service preparation. London: Routledge

Loughran, J. (2006). Developing a pedagogy of teacher education: Understanding about teaching and learning about teaching. London. Routledge.

McKeon, F. & Harrison, J. (2012). Developing pedagogical practice and professionalidentities of beginning teacher educators. Professional Development in Education, 36 (1-2), 25-44.

Merriam, S. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Murray, J. & Male, T. (2005). Becoming a teacher educator: Evidence from the field.Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(2), 125-142.

20

Murray, J. (2005). Re-addressing the priorities: New teacher educators and induction into higher education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 28(1), 67-85.

Punch, K. (2009). Introduction to research methods in education. London: Sage.Skerrett, A. (2008). Biography, identity, and inquiry: The making of teacher, teacher

educator, and researcher. Studying Teacher Education, 4(2), 143-156. Williams, J., Ritter, J., Bullock, S. (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

21