10. Teacher Education Research
Paper
Re-designing a Sustainable Teacher Education Programme while addressing the Theory–practice Problem
Jorunn Spord Borgen, Åsve Murtnes, Torgeir Haug, Elin Birgitte Walstad
University of South-Eastern Norway, Norway
Presenting Author: Borgen, Jorunn Spord;
Walstad, Elin Birgitte
Many discussions have been held about how teacher education can be enhanced to increase the impact on students’ learning and future practice and to understand the principles that should underlie teacher education to better address the theory–practice problem (Darling-Hammond et al., 2005; Korthagen et al., 2006; Shulman, 1987; Standal et al., 2014). Although there is agreement on the need to reconsider both the structure and practice of teacher education, a constant challenge is how to design programmes that can effectively support teacher learning and development (Ball, 2000; Cochran-Smith & Zeichner, 2005; Jenset et al., 2018; Darling-Hammond et al., 2005). However, designing sustainable programmes that meet needs and address dilemmas in the learning-to-teach process is complex (Darling-Hammond et al., 2005, p. 391).
The Bologna process established a joint two-cycle system in bachelor’s and master’s programmes in European countries (Evetts, 2008). In Norway, a general two-cycle teacher education reform has been introduced through regulations and frameworks that have been implemented gradually since 2013, including a programme in specialised practical and aesthetic subjects (LUPE) introduced in 2020 (Ministry of Education and Research, 2020). Teacher education is through this reform to be translated from a bachelor’s to a master’s programme (Røvik, 2016). This study is conducted by teacher educators who have recently been involved in the programme design and implementation of LUPE – specialisation in physical education and sports teacher education, at a Norwegian university. A key feature of the LUPE programme design is the extended practicum, which is an integral part of both the pedagogy subject syllabus and the specialised subject syllabus; the practicum also has its own syllabus. The practicum in teacher education provides student teachers with opportunities to explore the theory–practice relationship under guidance from practice teachers and teacher educators (Standal et al., 2014). However, in this context, they also encounter practices based on traditional understandings of what it means to be a ‘good’ teacher (Mordal-Moen & Green, 2014). Among several dilemmas we face as teacher educators in the development of programme design and the implementation of LUPE is the need to integrate theory and subject content practice in the practicum. Our research question is what kind of needs and dilemmas are addressed in the learning-to-teach process in LUPE when the practicum as an integrated part of the study programme?
Theoretical framework
To address needs and dilemmas when practicum is integrated in LUPE teacher education, we use perspectives from social practices and the ecology of practice, more specifically, the theory of the of practice architecture (Kemmis & Heikkinen, 2012; Kemmis et al., 2014). Within this theory, practices are understood as “a form of human action in history, in which particular activities (doings) are comprehensible in terms of particular ideas and talk (sayings), and when the people involved are distributed in particular kind of relationships (relatings), and when this combination of sayings, doings and relatings ‘hang together’ in a project of the practise” (Kemmis & Heikkinen, 2012, p. 36). These practices are coupled in characteristic ways through language, doings and relations. If the language changes, the doings and relations will also change. Practices are understood as biological species that evolve; some practices transform into new practices, while others are conserved and still others die. When the language changes, as with the teacher education reform (LUPE), we can expect new language, new doings and new relations. With practice architecture as an analytical framework, we can understand the connections between teacher educators’ planning and teaching and students’ reflections as an ecological whole by analysing the sayings, doings and relations that students and teachers describe based on their participation in the programme.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedWe use a workshop research method, a qualitative method that is suitable for organised and participatory group processes and for producing knowledge and data (Ørngreen & Levinsen, 2017). In a workshop, meaning can be negotiated among participants and between participants and researchers. We set up two workshops, one in autumn and one in spring semester, where student teachers, teacher educators and practicum teachers participate in dialogues and exchange views on the integration of the practicum in the new LUPE teacher education programme. The practicum is linked to subjects that run parallel in the autumn and spring semesters in the context of a) teaching on campus, b) teaching on campus with pupils from schools visiting campus for single lessons, c) visiting schools, where groups of teacher students teach a half-day lesson, and d) practicum teaching at schools, where each teacher student teaches lessons in groups. The core value of the workshops is that all participants’ opinions, experiences, thoughts and contributions are equal, and the form is therefore intended to be inclusive.
The participants in the autumn workshop consisted of the students who started their first year of LUPE in autumn 2022, along with teacher educators. The workshop was organised as a three-hour session, alternating between group work and plenary discussion, with breaks in between. We alternated between brainstorming, reflection and discussions, first in smaller groups, then with the whole group. The groups were invited to discuss the practicum organisation (a, b, c, d) and given the keywords: language, doings, relations. After a session focusing on the themes, we had a plenary discussion where the students and teacher educators discussed their experiences with the practicum in LUPE as part of the study. A workshop planned for in the spring semester, with teacher educators, students and practice teachers will follow the same procedure.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe process of analysis is ongoing. Preliminary results from the first workshop indicate that the student teachers and teacher educators in the study value the way that the workshop provided a context for discussions of connections, variations and new insights that have emerged through the various forms of practical experience during the first year of the study. The integration of the practicum on campus and in schools has contributed to an awareness of how terms and specific concepts, such as ‘didactic’, are related to different actions and ways of doing things, for instance, when physical education and sports teacher students meet pupils in the gym or in outdoor situations and how they express relations in their teaching practices (cf. Kemmis et al., 2012). Preliminary results from the first workshop indicate that when the practical experiences were organised in sequences of situations with clarified tasks and roles for the teacher student and teacher educator, the students could clearly see the step-by-step experiences involved in interacting with pupils in teaching situations. When teaching on their own in a class setting, the situations were more unclear, as is often the case in a practical context in a school, and the students became more uncertain about their roles and the frameworks for the tasks. Expected outcome of the study is that the workshops provide a context for identifying dilemmas, and development of didactical reasoning when the practicum is integrated as part of the learning-to-teach process in LUPE.
ReferencesBall, D. L. (2000). Bridging Practices: Intertwining Content and Pedagogy in Teaching and Learning to Teach. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(3), 241–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487100051003013
Cochran-Smith, M., & Zeichner, K. M. (Eds.). (2005). Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Darling-Hammond, L., Hammerness, K., Grossman, P., Rust, F., & Shulman, L. (2005). The design of teacher education programs. In L. Darling-Hammond, J. Bransford, P. LePage, K. Hammerness, & H. Duffy (Eds). Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do, chapter 11, 390-441. Jossey-Bass.
Evetts, J. (2008). Introduction: Professional Work in Europe. European Societies, 10(4), 525–544, https://doi.org/ 10.1080/14616690701871696
Jenset, I. S., Klette, K., & Hammerness, K. (2018). Grounding teacher education in practice around the world: An examination of teacher education coursework in teacher education programs in Finland, Norway, and the United States. Journal of Teacher Education, 69(2), 184–197.
Kemmis, S., & Heikkinen, H. L. T. (2012). Future perspectives: Peer-group mentoring and international practices for teacher development. In H.L.T. Heikkinen, H. Jokinen & P.Tynjälä (Eds.) Peer-group mentoring for teacher development, p. 160–186. Routledge.
Kemmis, S., Wilkinson, J., Edwards-Groves, C., Hardy, I., Grootenboer, P., & Bristol, L. (2014). Changing practices, changing education. Springer.
Korthagen, F., Loughran, J., & Russell, T. (2006). Developing fundamental principles for teacher education programs and practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(8), 1020–1041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.04.022
Mordal-Moen, K. & Green, K. (2014). Neither shaking nor stirring: a case study of reflexivity in Norwegian physical education teacher education. Sport, Education and Society, 19(4), 415-434. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2012.670114
Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research. (2019). Regulations relating to the framework plan for teacher training in practical and aesthetic subjects 1–13. Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research.
Røvik, K. A. (2016). Knowledge Transfer as Translation: Review and Elements of an Instrumental Theory. International Journal of Management Reviews, 18(3), 290-310. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12097
Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411
Standal, Ø. F., Moen, K. M., & Moe, V. F. (2014). Theory and practice in the context of practicum: The perspectives of Norwegian physical education student teachers. European Physical Education Review, 20(2), 165–178. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X13508687
10. Teacher Education Research
Paper
Research-based Teaching and Learning in Teacher Education - An Evaluation Study
Udo Gerheim
Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg, Germany
Presenting Author: Gerheim, Udo
The higher education didactic format of research-based teaching and learning (RBL) can be characterized as a central component within academic-university teacher education in Europe (BERA, 2014) and it is a central challenge for university teaching to teach diverse students from diverse subject and research cultures in this area.
RBL in teacher education exhibits different theoretical traditions, conceptualizations, and patterns of implementation. Thus, RBL can be considered as (1.) a general higher education didactic teaching-learning format (Mieg et al., 2022) or as (2.) practice research with the aim of methodologically controlled reflection and initiating a change in one’sown school pedagogical practice (Zeichner & Noffke, 2001). In addition, (3.) within the framework of professionalization theories, the establishment of a science and research orientation as well as a critical-reflexive basic attitude (researching habitus) is discussed (Spies & Knapp 2020). Furthermore, (4.) RBL formats are implemented as research-oriented practice phases or as "Research-Informed Clinical Practice" (Burn & Mutton, 2013). Here they act as a preparation for the everyday professional life in schools, ensuring a detached analysis of pedagogical actions from a professionalization perspective.
From a macro perspective, however, the question of the best possible training for teachers* is also determined by conflicting social discourses of power. Among other things, this can be seen in the educational policy or administrative conflict over whether teacher* education should be conceived in a compellingly academic-scientific way (undergraduate university studies) or as vocational training, with a practical-technical view of teaching and learning (Baan et al., 2019). BERA (2014) and Tatto (2013) argue for university-based teacher* education that is grounded in scholarship and research. They point out findings that identify Singapore and Finland as particularly successful and high-performing education systems - measured by students' educational achievement and the low link between social background and educational success. BERA and Tatto see this as due to the extensive research-based education and a high output of highly qualified academically educated teachers*.
A positive correlation between research relevance and performance of teacher education is found if: the first phase of teacher education is academic-university oriented and based on scientific knowledge and subject-specific, -didactic and pedagogical professional knowledge is taught in a research-oriented and research-based manner in the teacher training program, thus enabling students to receive and critically reflect on (the latest) research findings and studies (Healey & Jenkins, 2009).
In essence, it is about establishing subject-based autonomy of action and a critical-reflective attitude (research habitus), based on scientifically mediated professional knowledge (subject-specific, subject-didactic and pedagogical). Enabling student teachers - equipped with 'research literacy' (BERA, 2014) - to receive, critically classify, and independently conduct research and thus to use it as the basis of their pedagogical practice in school and teaching as well as of school development issues.
This paper discusses on the one hand to what extent these supposedly overly idealistic assumptions are implemented in the concrete practice of university teaching and on the other hand which learning resistances and limitations can be identified in teaching-learning processes. These limitations include ambivalences regarding the claim of professionalization through research reference, professional overload, role diffusion in practice phases, lack of time resources, low research interest, etc. (Brew & Saunders, 2020; Gerheim, 2019).
The first results of an evaluation study are presented, showing how student teachers at the Carl von Ossietzky University/Germany have implemented and evaluated the program of research-based teaching and learning in the context of a three-semester research-based course.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedObject of evaluation
The evaluation study presented here examines six courses structured in the format of research-based teaching and learning. Each course spans three semesters, pursues a superordinate educational science or (school) pedagogical topic and expects students to carry out an independent, school practice-related, research or evaluation project within the framework of a school practice phase. The maximum number of participants* is 15 students per course.
Evaluation design
The impact of research-based learning in the course is examined and evaluated on the three central levels of knowledge acquisition (research and evaluation methods), competence development (key competencies) and critical-reflexive attitude (professionalization level). On the level of acceptance research, the higher education didactic format of research-based learning in teacher education is examined in the context of the current research situation of student teachers in RBL processes in the context of practice projects (cf. Nikolev et al., 2020).
Research Instruments
At the core of the evaluation's data collection, qualitative group discussions (Mäder, 2013) were conducted at the beginning and end of the three-semester seminar cycle. By means of the group discussion, collective patterns of meaning and relevance structures in particular are to be ascertained and made analyzable. Specifically, the following aspects, each with a different weighting and orientation, were addressed at the respective measurement points (pre- and post-surveys): Expectations of the seminar, assessment and evaluation of the concrete teaching/learning processes in the format of research-based learning (motivation to learn, willingness to exert effort, learning gains, work processes, group processes, etc.), assessment of the method of research-based learning, etc.), assessment of the method of research-based learning and comparison to other seminar formats, relevance of RBL formats in teacher training (research distance, low methodological knowledge, serious character, practice primacy), ideal teaching/learning conditions for research-based learning, didactic assessment of the seminar, especially considering the didactic concept as well as discussion of the establishment of a critical-reflective attitude as a professionalization feature and the transfer potential (habitualization) into school practice.
Measurement timing and sample
Group discussions were conducted in all six courses offered at the beginning of the first semester (Oct. 2021) and at the end of the third semester (Jan-March 2023). Participation in the survey was voluntary and 40 students participated out of a total of 73 participants*.
Evaluation procedure
After transcribing the audio recordings, the data obtained through the group discussions will be evaluated and discussed in a deductive and inductive process of category formation using a reconstructive content analysis procedure (Kuckartz 2018).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsInitial results of the data analysis show that four central categories became thematic in the group discussions: (1) uncertainty and overwhelm, (2) research and professionalization ambivalence, (3) research-tutored affinity as a professionalization characteristic, and (4) practice dominance. These findings challenge idealistic conceptualizations of RBL processes in higher education (Gerheim, 2018). The category of uncertainty and overwhelm is formulated in relation to independent planning and completion of a self-selected research project. In it, students refer to a lack of methodological skills and research practice and fear an exorbitant amount of time and energy they will have to spend on implementing their research projects.
In addition, it is evident that the students offer resistance and ambivalence to the professionalization claim of establishing a critical-reflective attitude through research-based learning. Teacher professionalism is primarily conceptualized in relation to the implementation of teaching and the transmission of knowledge. Nevertheless, patterns emerge that can be classified as research-tutored affinity using the Healy-Jenkins matrix (ibid.). In it, research-based learning is understood by students as a necessary and productive resource for receiving and analyzing study and research findings with reference to school practice. The category of practice dominance, circumscribes the clear preference of teaching practice over research practice. In this category, research is perceived as a non-purposeful distraction of teaching practice from finding roles within the organizational structures at the individual practicum schools.
In the first two ex-post group discussions (out of six in total), it is shown that a seminar conception that focuses on clarity, intensive supervision as well as transparent limitation of freedom in the research design (concerning the research question, research instrument & evaluation method) is able to productively deal with these ambivalences and resistances.
ReferencesBaan, J., Gaikhorst, L., van 't Noordende, J., & Volman, M. (2019). The involvement in inquiry-based working of teachers of research-intensive versus practically oriented teacher education programmes. Teaching and Teacher Education 84(8), pp. 74-82.
BERA (British Educational Research Association) (2014). The Role of Research in Teacher Education: Reviewing the Evidence. Interim Report of the BERA-RSA Inquiry. London: BERA-RSA.
Brew, A., & Saunders, C. (2020). Making sense of research-based learning in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education. An International Journal of Research and Studies (87), pp 1-11.
Burn, K., & Mutton, T. (2013). Review of 'research-informed clinical practice' in initial teacher education. In Research and Teacher Education: The BERA-RSA Inquiry, pp 22-25. London: BERA-RSA.
Geheim, U. (2019). Forschendes Lehren und Lernen in der Lehrer_innenbildung: Ambivalenzmuster und Ablaufstörungen aus der Perspektive von Studierenden. In M. Schiefner-Rohs, G. Favella, & A.-C. Hermann, A.-C. (Eds.), Forschungsnahes Lernen Lehren und Lernen in der Lehrer*innenbildung. Forschungsmethodische Zugänge und Modelle zur Umsetzung (pp 211-228). Berlin: Peter Lang Verlag.
Gerheim, U. (2018): Ideal und Ambivalenz – Herausforderungen für Lehrende im Prozess des Forschenden Lehrens und Lernens. In J, Lehmann, & H., Mieg, (Eds.). Forschendes Lernen. Ein Praxisbuch (pp. 412-428) Potsdam. FHP-Verlag.
Healey, M., & Jenkins, A. (2009). Developing undergraduate research and inquiry. Heslington: The Higher Education Academy.
Kuckartz, U. (2018). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Methoden, Praxis, Computerunterstützung (Grundlagentexte Methoden). Weinheim: Beltz Verlagsgruppe.
Mäder, S. (2013). Die Gruppendiskussion als Evaluationsmethode – Entwicklungsgeschichte, Potenziale und Formen. Zeitschrift für Evaluation, 12 (1).
Mieg, H., Ambos, E., Brew, A., Galli, D., & Lehmann, J. (2022). The Cambridge handbook of undergraduate research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nikolov, F., Saunders, C., & Schaumburg, H. (2020). Pre-Service Teachers on their Way to Becoming Reflective Practitioners: The Relevance of Freedom of Choice in Research-Based Learning. Scholarship and Practice of Undergraduate Research (SPUR), 3(4), pp. 46-54.
Spies, A., & Knapp, K. (2020). Forschendes Lernen als hochschuldidaktische Strategie der Professionalisierung in der ersten Phase der Lehrer*innenbildung. Retrospektive Deutungen zur Nachhaltigkeit einer Lernerfahrung. In C. Wulf, S. Haberstroh, & M. Petersen (Eds.), Forschendes Lernen – Theorie, Empirie, Praxis (pp. 134-144). Wiesbaden: VS.
Tatto, M. T. (2015). International overview: the contribution of research to highperforming systems. In Research and Teacher Education: The BERA-RSA Inquiry, pp. 17-19. London: BERA-RSA.
Zeichner, K. & Noffke, S. (2001). Practitioner Research. In V. Richardson (Eds.) Handbook of Research on Teaching. Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research Association.
10. Teacher Education Research
Paper
Seeing the Complex, Diverse and Entangled Dimensions of Teacher Education from Those Who Work Inside the Field
Mark Selkrig1, Ron Keamy1, Sharon McDonough2, Amanda Belton1, Robyn Brandenburg2
1The University of Melbourne, Australia; 2Federation University, Australia
Presenting Author: Selkrig, Mark;
Keamy, Ron
Background
Globally, many education systems are in crisis on a range of fronts including the retention, recruitment and preparation of teachers entering the profession (United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization, 2021), with teacher shortages being a pressing issue in many parts of the world, including in Europe (European Commission et al., 2021), England (Long & Danechi, 2022) and Australia (Clare, 2022). Options advanced to address the crisis include improving the status of the profession, teachers having a stronger professional identity and alleviating many of the administrative burdens of teaching (European Commission et al., 2021; OECD, 2020; Thompson, 2021). Familiar questions about the readiness and quality of teacher graduates have also been raised to address the issue, highlighting how the field of teacher education remains under intense scrutiny (Fox et al., 2020; Mayer & Mills, 2021) including by organisations and agencies with vested interests (European Commission, 2020). The continued and increased regulatory environments imposed on initial teacher education programs, such as in Estonia (Pedaste et al., 2019) and in Australia (Paul et al., 2022), highlight the continual policy influence over the field. Consequently, the experiences and voices of those working in teacher education are often silenced or marginalised by discourses of policy, reform, standards and accountability (Cochran-Smith et al., 2018; McLaren & Baltodano, 2000). Despite the intense regulatory, compliance and policy focus on teacher education, there exists a lack of understanding about the nature of teacher educators’ practice (Brennan & Zipin, 2016), or when it is described, the views are simplistic in nature (Loughran & Hamilton, 2016). The dominant meta-narratives about teacher education seem to come from those who are either outside, or occupy a certain part of the field, who speak about and for, rather than with, teacher educators.
Objectives
Our aim with this research project was to explore what it means for those who are working in the highly politicized, contested and entangled field of teacher education in order to uncover understandings about the complex aspects of their work.
Research Questions
The key research question for this project was: How do those who work in the field of teacher education articulate and represent the nature of their work? To assist in exploring this question we also developed the following sub-questions:
- In what ways do personal and professional dispositions intersect for those who work in the field of teacher education?
- How do the narratives and representations created by the participants relate to the meta-narratives about teacher education?
- In what ways do arts-related and narrative methods contribute to understanding experiences of those who work in the field of teacher education?
In this presentation we will discuss the ways in which we have utilised arts-based methodologies (for instance, Leavy, 2015) to engage with colleagues globally to reflect on the cognitive and affective domains of their work, and to explore dominant discourses framing the conception of working in the field of teacher education.
Theoretical framework
We draw on aspects of Bourdieu’s practice theory (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992) that take into account the intersecting relationships between the ‘field’ as a space of social interaction, conflict, and competition (often referred to as a game); ‘habitus’ as the durable dispositions we possess, to make sense of one’s place in the social world (the feel for the game) and how the various ‘capitals’ we accumulate such as economic, social, cultural, and symbolic inform how we act as players in the complex game. To consider the cognitive, intellectual work and the affective and emotional dimensions of working in teacher education, we also draw on the concepts of affect and emotion work (Prosser 2015).
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe supercomplexity research paradigm (Ling & Ling 2020) involves embracing the unknown, strangeness, fragility, while disturbing and problematizing existing understandings, provided a means to explore how those working in teacher education describe and navigate their identities and professional experiences. Our phenomenological approach (Cohen et al., 2011) meant that we were able to consider the lived experiences of those working, or who had worked in the last 10 years, in the field of teacher education (not only initial teacher education). After obtaining university ethics approval, participants were drawn from Australia and internationally and recruited via email and through social media platforms. Each participant was invited to respond to a suite of short online surveys sent at approximately 4-week intervals. For each survey, participants were asked to complete a single stem sentence prompt with some text (of no more than 50 words) and provide an associated image (from the web or self-made). The four prompts related to the troublesome, delightful, ambiguous, and hopeful dimensions of working in teacher education.
By adopting arts-based methods and inviting participants to share a visual, as well as a written response, we wanted to enable participants to provide an insight into their emotional, lived experiences, in ways that might move beyond linguistic-cognitive approaches. Arts-based and visual research methods have grown in prominence in qualitative research as ways to explore peoples’ experiences and realities. These forms of research counter traditional and linear approaches (Butler-Kisber & Poldma, 2010; Leavy, 2015) and offer researchers the ability to draw from, and develop, multiple ways of generating and analyzing data.
In total, 126 responses were received (with responses from each Australian state and territory along with 20 % of responses coming from outside Australia). This is a significant number of people involved in teacher education who wanted to share their perspectives.
Coding scripts were used to convert data from online spreadsheets into Instagram-Polaroid style representations that fused text and image for each response. These Polaroids, or individual data points, were transferred to a Miro board (online whiteboard) affording individual and collaborative analysis by the project team. This included making notations and moving the data points on the Miro board related to a particular prompt into ‘clusters’ based on metaphors and ideas present in the images and the text to identify key concepts and themes related to the troublesome, delightful, ambiguous, and hopeful dimensions of working in teacher education.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe data provided by the participants offer rich textual and visual representations. We see and read about the troublesome and ambiguous aspects, with references to control, restriction, compliance, uncertainty and contested expectations, with feelings of fragility and being de-humanized. These ideas were accompanied by images of signposts, people climbing mountains, and symbols such as question marks. These artefacts emulate what Bourdieu refers to as the prevailing ‘doxa’ that has colonized the field, along with the forms of ‘symbolic violence’ that involve subtle forms of hierarchized power that influence human relationships and positions in the field. Juxtaposing these representations, the participants’ responses to the delightful and hopeful dimensions reflect the vibrancy and energy where collegiality and collaboration are valued along with opportunities to explore new possibilities, taking risks and imagining positive futures. Typical images included those of distant horizons, cloud formations and interlocked hands, all of which highlight certain dispositions and a type of habitus, or feel for the game, that draws on particular types of cultural and social capital to stay within the field.
The use of images accompanied by text also opened ways to reveal both conscious and unconscious conceptualizations and emotions that are not so easily captured by words alone. Arts-based methods such as we have employed provide powerful and vivid representations of the intensity and level of emotions teacher educators experience in their work. These methods also offer an aesthetic mode of resistance and interruption to the dominant discourse by allowing for both individual and collective voices and images of teacher educators to be heard and the work they do to be more understood by those in other parts of the field and beyond.
ReferencesBourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. J. D. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. University of Chicago Press.
Brennan, M., & Zipin, L. (2016). The work of teacher-educators. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 44(4), 302-305.
Butler-Kisber, L., & Poldma, T. (2010). The power of visual approaches in qualitative inquiry: The use of collage making and concept mapping in experiential research. Journal of Research Practice, 6( 2), 1 -16.
Clare, J. (2022). Teacher workforce shortage issues paper. Commonwealth of Australia. Retrieved from https://ministers.education.gov.au/clare/teacher-workforce-shortages-issues-paper
Cochran-Smith, M., Stringer Keefe, E., & Carney, M. C. (2018). Teacher educators as reformers: Competing agendas. European Journal of Teacher Education, 41(5), 572-590.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education (7th ed.). Routledge.
European Commission. (2020). Shaping career-long perspectives on teaching: A guide on policies to improve initial teacher education. Brussels.
European Commission, EACEA, & Eurydice. (2021). Teachers in Europe: Careers, development and well-being. Office of the European Union.
Fox, J., C. Alexander, C. & Aspland, T. (2020). Teacher education in globalised times: Local responses in action. Springer.
Leavy, P. (2015). Method meets art: Arts-based research practice (2nd ed.). The Guildford Press.
Ling, L., & Ling, P. (Eds.). (2020). Emerging methods and paradigms in scholarship and education research. IGI Global.
Long, R., & Danechi, S. (2022). Teacher recruitment and retention on England. House of Commons Library.
Loughran, J. & Hamilton, M. (2016). International handbook of teacher education. Springer.
Mayer, D., & Mills, M. (2021). Professionalism and teacher education in Australia and England. European Journal of Teacher Education, 44(1), 45-61.
McLaren, P., & Baltodano, M. P. (2000). The future of teacher education and the politics of resistance. Teaching Education, 11(1), 47-60.
OECD. (2020). TALIS 2018 Results (Volume II): Teachers and school leaders as valued professionals. OECD.
Paul, L., Louden, B., Elliott, M., & Scott, D. (2022). Next steps: Report of the quality initial teacher education review. Australian Government.
Pedaste, M., Leijen, Ä., Poom-Valickis, K., & Eisenschmidt, E. (2019). Teacher professional standards to support teacher quality and learning in Estonia. European Journal of Education, 54(3), 389–399.
Prosser, B. (2015). Knowledge of the heart: Ethical implications of sociological research with emotion. Emotion Review, 7(2), 175–180.
Thompson, G. (2021). The global report on the status of teachers 2021. Education International.
United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2021). Reimainging our future: A new social contract for education. UNESCO.
|
