The Promise and Practice of University Teacher Education: Insights from Aotearoa New Zealand 9781350073487, 9781350212121, 9781350073517, 9781350073494

Table of contents :
Cover
Contents
List of Figures
List of Tables
Series Editors’ Preface
Acknowledgements
Abbreviations
Glossary
1 Introduction to Teacher Education in Aotearoa New Zealand
2 An Aotearoa New Zealand Study into the Work of Teacher Education
3 Teacher Educators’ Experiences of Transition and Change
4 A University-Based Teacher Educator’s Day at Work
5 The Unbounded, Busy Work of Teaching and Administration
6 The Hidden Work of Teacher Education in Aotearoa New Zealand
7 A CHAT View of Teaching and Learning in University Classrooms
8 Localized Lessons for Teacher Education Policy and Practice
9 Aotearoa New Zealand Teacher Education in an International Context
Appendix: Mirror Data Produced for Participatory Workshop Phase of WoTE-NZ
Index

Citation preview

The Promise and Practice of University Teacher Education

REINVENTING TEACHER EDUCATION The series presents robust, critical research studies in the broad field of teacher education, including initial or pre-service preparation, in-service and continuing professional development, from diverse theoretical and methodological perspectives. It takes an innovative approach to research in the field and an underlying commitment to transforming the education of teachers. Series Editors: Marie Brennan, Viv Ellis, Joce Nutall and Peter Smagorinsky Advisory Board: Beatrice Avalos (University of Chile, Chile), Ann Childs (University of Oxford, UK), Lauren Gatti (University of Nebraska, USA), Mary Hill (University of Auckland, New Zealand), Elizabeth Kahn (Northern Illinois University, USA), Yang Xiaowei (East China Normal University, PRC), Clare Kosnik (Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, Canada), Adam Lefstein (Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Israel), Janet Orchard (Bristol University, UK), Anne Phelan (University of British Columbia, Canada), Anja Swennen (VU University, the Netherlands) and Tom Are Trippestad (Western Norway University of Applied Sciences (HVL), Norway)

The Promise and Practice of University Teacher Education Insights from Aotearoa New Zealand Alexandra C. Gunn, Mary F. Hill, David A.G. Berg and Mavis Haigh

BLOOMSBURY ACADEMIC Bloomsbury Publishing Plc 50 Bedford Square, London, WC1B 3DP, UK 1385 Broadway, New York, NY 10018, USA 29 Earlsfort Terrace, Dublin 2, Ireland BLOOMSBURY, BLOOMSBURY ACADEMIC and the Diana logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First published in Great Britain 2021 This edition published in 2022 Copyright © Bloomsbury Plc. 2021 Alexandra C. Gunn, Mary F. Hill, David A.G. Berg and Mavis Haigh has asserted their right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Author of this work. For legal purposes the Acknowledgements on p. xi constitute an extension of this copyright page. Series design by Catherine Wood All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc does not have any control over, or responsibility for, any third-party websites referred to or in this book. All internet addresses given in this book were correct at the time of going to press. The author and publisher regret any inconvenience caused if addresses have changed or sites have ceased to exist, but can accept no responsibility for any such changes. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Gunn, Alexandra C. (Alexandra Claire), author. | Hill, Mary F., author. | Berg, David A. G., author. | Haigh, Mavis, author. Title: The promise and practice of university teacher education: insights from Aotearoa New Zealand / Alexandra C. Gunn, Mary F. Hill, David A.G. Berg and Mavis Haigh. Description: New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2020. | Series: Reinventing teacher education | Includes bibliographical references and index. | Summary: “Centering on the theme of university-based teacher education at a time of system change and its connections with broader global political issues, this book investigates the changing nature of initial teacher education (ITE) as it amalgamated into universities in the New Zealand context. The New Zealand government, like many across the world is seeking improvement in education system performance, with a particular interest in meeting the needs of those traditionally disadvantaged through education. As a result, over the last 20 years, most ITE has been relocated into universities and teacher qualifications have changed. Not immune to international discourses about the criticality of the teacher workforce to system performance, Aotearoa New Zealand provides a bounded yet connected case of ITE development and reform. The authors draw from a study of teacher education practice in Aotearoa New Zealand and also look at recent research carried out in other jurisdictions to consider how ITE and the academic category of teacher educator is constructed, maintained and practiced within the institution of the university. They highlight the promise of university-based ITE provision, noting areas for development and provide an opportunity to better understand how student teachers within ITE respond to and engage with teacher educators’ work in the service of their own learning”– Provided by publisher. Identifiers: LCCN 2020023050 (print) | LCCN 2020023051 (ebook) | ISBN 9781350073487 (hardback) | ISBN 9781350073494 (ebook) | ISBN 9781350073500 (epub) Subjects: LCSH: College teachers–Training of–New Zealand. Classification: LCC LB1738.G86 2020 (print) | LCC LB1738 (ebook) | DDC 378.1/250993–dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020023050 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020023051 Edit ISBN: HB: 978-1-3500-7348-7 PB: 978-1-3502-1212-1 ePDF: 978-1-3500-7349-4 eBook: 978-1-3500-7350-0 Series: Reinventing Teacher Education Typeset by Integra Software Services Pvt. Ltd. To find out more about our authors and books visit www.bloomsbury.com and sign up for our newsletters.

Contents List of Figures List of Tables Series Editors’ Preface Acknowledgements Abbreviations Glossary 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Introduction to Teacher Education in Aotearoa New Zealand An Aotearoa New Zealand Study into the Work of Teacher Education Teacher Educators’ Experiences of Transition and Change A University-Based Teacher Educator’s Day at Work The Unbounded, Busy Work of Teaching and Administration The Hidden Work of Teacher Education in Aotearoa New Zealand A CHAT View of Teaching and Learning in University Classrooms Localized Lessons for Teacher Education Policy and Practice Aotearoa New Zealand Teacher Education in an International Context

vi vii viii xi xii xiv 1 11 33 49 87 107 125 145 161

Appendix: Mirror Data Produced for Participatory Workshop Phase of WoTE-NZ 176 Index199

Figures 2.1

Engeström’s activity system heuristic

15

2.2

Three constructions of teacher education work

23

2.3

Three types of teacher educator

24

2.4

University-based teacher education positions by type Phase 1 and Phase 2

26

3.1

Background information for Chris, Val and Nat

35

3.2

How Chris, Val and Nat became teacher educators

37

3.3

Chris, Val and Nat on being a teacher educator

40

3.4

Chris, Val and Nat reflect on the joys and challenges of being a teacher educator46

5.1 5.2 5.3

Professional expert teacher educators’ work activities across two weeks at East and West universities

90

Traditional academic teacher educator work activities across two weeks

91

Dually qualified teacher educators’ work activities across two weeks at East and West universities

93

7.1

Brook’s lesson planning template

128

7.2

Cas’ dice in a corner

132

7.3

Sam’s pop-up cards

140

7.4

Resources for Sam’s pop-up cards activity

141

8.1

Teacher educators’ work activities across two weeks at East and West universities

155

Tables 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 4.1 5.1 5.2

WoTE-NZ study design Discourses constituting TE subjectivities Discourses in recruitment texts by position type Descriptive statistics for TE work shadowing participants Teacher educator work activities during fourteen days of UBITE A day from Sawyer’s work diary An activity-object analysis of a day from Lou’s work diary

14 20 22 27 52 99 100

Series Editors’ Preface Teacher education is currently one of the most pressing and topical issues in the field of educational practice and research. Around the world, in a range of countries, there is strong interest in how teachers are prepared, in the content of their pre-service education and training programmes and in measuring and monitoring their effectiveness. Fundamentally, there is a questioning of the role and function of what makes up the ‘good’ or successful teacher in society. There are questions about the place of ethical and moral judgments in teachers’ practice, about the introduction of corporate methods and the role of teachers and teacher educators in innovation. Associated with such questions, government policy agendas around the world address whether and how teachers should be educated or trained as teaching comes to be seen, in some jurisdictions, as a short-term social mission rather than as a traditionally understood professional career. For some time now, there has been an international concern to reform programmes of pre-service (or initial) teacher education. This movement has been driven by a belief that raising standards in education and raising attainment in schools will only be managed effectively if teacher quality is improved. The best way to reform the teaching profession is through changing their teacher education programmes. However, as these reforms are being enacted, contradictions in policy, practice and curriculum design in pre-service teacher education are increasingly apparent in different national settings. These contradictions are, in part, related to the underlying cultural identity of teaching (as a profession, for example) as well as the distribution of wealth within and across these different societies. In some countries, teacher education is seen as a vital tool in the building of national educational, scientific, cultural, technological and economic infrastructures. In others, teacher education has become a means by which those countries’ human capital can be improved, economic competitiveness leveraged and status as knowledge economies ensured. Yet, while many of the drivers are common across these contexts, the direction of policy and how policies are enacted in practice varies considerably and the role of higher education in teacher preparation is often a significant source of diversity across countries.

Series Editors’ Preface

ix

The series presents robust, critical research studies in the broad field of teacher education, including initial or pre-service preparation, in-service education and continuing professional development, from diverse theoretical and methodological perspectives and from different national perspectives. The series has an underlying commitment to transforming the education of teachers and aims to support innovative approaches to research in the field. The Promise and Practice of University-Based Teacher Education: Insights from Aotearoa New Zealand by Alexandra C. Gunn, Mary F. Hill, David A.G. Berg and Mavis Haigh makes a major contribution to this series through directly addressing some of the critical questions about initial or pre-service teacher education that are often subsumed by broader questions of identity or methods. Based on an Aotearoa New Zealand Teaching and Learning Research Initiative-funded project, the authors report on their study of the work of teacher educators in university-based teacher education programmes and how this work shapes the conditions for student teachers’ learning. By focusing in detail on labour processes (the ‘academic work’) and material conditions rather than who teacher educators think they are, The Promise and Practice of University-Based Teacher Education reveals its genesis in the UK Higher Education Academyfunded project ‘The Work of Teacher Education’ (WoTE) led by Viv Ellis and Jane McNicholl (Ellis & McNicholl, 2015; Ellis, McNicholl, Blake & McNally, 2014; Ellis et al, 2013; Ellis, McNicholl & Pendry, 2012). Like the WoTE study, Gunn and colleagues draw on Cultural Historical Activity Theory to reveal the contradictions in the practices of university-based teacher education and, therefore, the potential for – or promise of – transformation. However, the authors significantly deepen and extend the previous WoTE study, first in their attention to the details of the Aotearoa New Zealand context, tracing the historical evolution of the country’s teacher education practices and institutions, but secondly by placing their research in international context and showing how global policy shifts and priorities are mediated by and grow within local cultures of teaching and teacher education. They also provide a strong argument for the strengthening of universities’ role in teacher preparation based on a renewed division of labour between university-based and school-based teacher educators and teachers, as a distinctively ‘scholarly’ form of teacher education: scholarly teacher education can inform teaching practice through research partnerships that build reflective inquiry-based professional learning into the work of schools alongside the ITE roles that both TEs and teachers play in building the way ahead.

x

Series Editors’ Preface

Uncomfortable reading at times, this book makes a powerful contribution to research both on teacher educators as an occupational group and on opportunities for student teachers to learn the practice of teaching. It has significant policy implications even though not all policy-makers around the world at the moment will welcome them. Nonetheless, the impact of the research underpinning this book’s argument is clear: there must be a long-overdue re-evaluation of the important role that universities play in the preparation of teachers and this reevaluation must take place alongside a review of the kind of educational research universities do, what impact this research seeks to make and how those who work in Education departments and faculties are recruited, developed and rewarded. To get the discipline of Education right in universities – to ensure it has impact and can inform practice and policy in meaningful ways – it is necessary to get teacher education right. And, as the authors show, understanding what teacher educators do and how their work could better prepare future generations of teachers is the absolutely critical question to answer. Viv Ellis, Marie Brennan, Joce Nuttall and Peter Smagorinsky Series Editors

References Ellis, V. & McNicholl, J. (2015) Transforming Teacher Education: Reconfiguring the Academic Work, London & New York: Bloomsbury Ellis, V., McNicholl, J., Blake, A. & McNally, J. (2014) ‘Academic Work and Proletarianisation: A Study of Higher Education-based Teacher Educators’, Teaching and Teacher Education 40, 1: 33–43. Ellis, V., Glackin, M., Heighes, D., Norman, M., Nicol, S., Norris, K., Spencer, I. & McNicholl, J. (2013) ‘A Difficult Realisation: The proletarianisation of higher education-based teacher educators’, Journal of Education for Teaching 39,3: 266–280. Ellis, V., McNicholl, J. & Pendry, A. (2012) ‘Institutional conceptualisations of teacher education as academic work in England’, Teaching and Teacher Education 28, 5: 685–693.

Acknowledgements We would like to thank the many friends and colleagues who have contributed to our thinking and the development of the A|NZ (Aotearoa New Zealand) iteration of the WoTE (Work of Teacher Education) and to this book. Particular gratitude is extended to Viv Ellis and colleagues in England and Scotland, from whence WoTE emerged. Your original insights and research inspiration have travelled far. Thanks to Joyce Nuttall, Marie Brennan, Lew Zipin, Katrina Tuinamuana and Leanne Cameron, the Australian WoTE cousins with whom we workshopped early findings and research design elements suited to the A|NZ context. The study was supported generously by TLRI (New Zealand Teaching and Learning Research Initiative) under grant number 9142. We are grateful for this small and mighty research fund that supports empirical research within education designed to support the development of teaching and learning in A|NZ. Our colleagues in teacher education (whether in the universities sector or not, and in A|NZ and beyond), and our everyday work colleagues have helped us immensely with this work. We extend a special thanks to our participants, without whom this project would never have got off the ground. They have been more than research participants; they have been co-researchers and collaborators in the writing of this book. We also respectfully acknowledge the researchers, practitioners, teacher education students, wider education profession-based colleagues and friends who have challenged our conclusions, expanded our insights and given generously of their time to help us as we have pursued this book’s completion. Special note is extended to Viv Anderson, Sandra Chandler, Bev Cooper, Fiona Ell, Lexie Grudnoff, Naomi Ingram, Judy Layland, Gail Ledger, Chris Linsell, Vivienne Mackisack, Brian Marsh, Gay McDowell, Graeme McPhail, Carol Mutch, Barbara Ormond, Mary Simpson, Lisa Smith, Fiona Stuart, Jenny Vermunt and Sandra Williamson-Leadley. With the help of many, much can be achieved, even under the very circumstances faced by our teacher education colleagues described in this book. This study and book serves as testament to our collective labour within ongoing and initial teacher education in A|NZ and beyond.

Abbreviations A|NZ

Aotearoa New Zealand

BES

Best Evidence Synthesis

CHAT

Cultural Historical Activity Theory

DA

Discourse Analysis

DQ

Dually Qualified (Teacher Educator)

ERA

Excellence in Research Australia

ECE

Early Childhood Education

ERO

Education Review Office

ITE

Initial Teacher Education

KWC

Key Words in Context

LAS

Linguistic Annotation Strategy

MCA

Membership Categorization Analysis

MOE

Ministry of Education

NAFOL

National Research School for Teacher Education (Norway)

NCEA

National Certificate of Educational Achievement

NGO

Nongovernmental Organization

NZC

New Zealand Curriculum

NZTC

New Zealand Teachers Council

NZQA

New Zealand Qualifications Authority

OECD

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development

PBRF

Performance-Based Research Fund (A|NZ)

Abbreviations

PE

Professional Expert (Teacher Educator)

PGCE

Postgraduate Certificate in Education

PhD

Doctor of Philosophy

PPF

Professional Practice Fellow

PPT PowerPoint PTF

Professional Teaching Fellow

REF

Research Excellence Framework (England)

ST

Student Teacher

TA

Traditional Academic (Teacher Educator)

TE

Teacher Educator

TEF

Teacher Education Fellow

TCNZ

Teaching Council New Zealand | Matatū Aotearoa

TKI

Te Kete Ipurangi

TLRI

Teaching and Learning Research Initiative (A|NZ)

UBITE

University-Based Initial Teacher Education

UK

United Kingdom

UNESCO The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation UNICEF

The United Nations Children’s Fund

US

United States of America

WHO

World Health Organization

WoTE

Work of Teacher Education

WoTE-NZ Work of Teacher Education (A|NZ Study)

xiii

Glossary Achievement standards  New Zealand Curriculum-based standards that describe what a student must know or achieve to have a given standard credited towards a national certificate of educational achievement. Activity theory’s unit of analysis comprising Activity (system)  subjects, tools, object, rules, division of labour and community. Associate teacher A student teacher’s professional mentor while on teaching practicum. Best evidence synthesis A type of commissioned literature review for the Ministry of Education that seeks to describe the ‘what works’ research to inform A|NZ education policy and practice. Contradiction Within cultural historical activity theory, sources of change and development manifest in structural tensions within and between activity systems. Cultural Historical A theoretical framework and methodological Activity Theory approach to social research that seeks to analyse relations between human activity, thought, actions, outcomes, with particular reference to the collective and situated nature of those phenomena. A form of analysis that provides a means of Discourse analysis  showing how social and political hierarchies are produced and maintained within the fields of knowledge in which they operate. Historicity The appreciation that concepts, practices, values, beliefs and so forth have historical origins and continuities beyond their present instantiation. A meeting or gathering. Hui Kura School.

Glossary

xv

Membership categorization A form of analysis that looks at how categories, analysis established within and central to social life, are used to give meaning to social behaviour. Evidence from work practice used to represent Mirror data and examine work experiences, e.g., photographs, narrative accounts, quotes, documents, et cetera. The official national secondary school National Certificate of Educational Achievement qualification in A|NZ. The official curriculum policy for EnglishNew Zealand Curriculum  medium schooling in A|NZ. In CHAT terms the concept of object(ive) Object(ive)  represents and explains the motive of activity. Professional practice Categories of academic worker within universities fellow (also known as whose work is prioritized along teaching and professional Teaching service activities (typically under supervision), fellow or teaching fellow) including professionally oriented activities, such as school/early childhood networking, professional association membership and in UBITE, visiting and assessing student teachers in practice settings, which excludes research as a requirement of the work. Rules Explicit or implicit restrictions, norms and social practices that govern the use of tools, the tasks that can be worked on, how labour can be divided and so on in CHAT. A national system of specialized tertiary Teachers’ College (also known as Teachers’ institutions that provided programmes of teacher Training College or, education for primary, secondary and post-1986, after 1989, Colleges early childhood education teachers. With the of Education) promulgation of the 1989 Education Act, Teachers’ (Training) Colleges were reconstituted as separate entities, called Colleges of Education with degree-granting status (by application). Those Colleges of Education have now merged with their local universities and continue to provide, within the university sector, the majority of ITE provision in A|NZ.

xvi

Te Kete Ipurangi

Te Reo Māori Te Tiriti o Waitangi Tools Vulnerable Children Act 2014

Glossary

The Ministry of Education’s Online Curriculum Resource Website for schooling and early childhood education. Māori language, the indigenous language of A|NZ. New Zealand’s founding treaty between Māori and representatives of the Crown. Material and conceptual tools/artefacts that mediate activity in CHAT. An act designed to protect and improve the well-being of vulnerable children and to strengthen A|NZ’s child protection system.

1

Introduction to Teacher Education in Aotearoa New Zealand

The genesis of this book was a study of the work of teacher education in A|NZ1 (Aotearoa New Zealand) funded by TLRI (Teaching and Learning Research Initiative, http://www.tlri.org.nz/), a government fund that ‘seeks to enhance the links between educational research and teaching practices to improve outcomes for learners’ (TLRI, n.d., para 1). As a means of more fully understanding the evolution of ITE (initial teacher education) in A|NZ, its complexity and effects, we explored the discursive construction and material conditions of TEs’ (teacher educators) work to explore questions such as: what is being worked upon in teacher education? Why, and with what effects? By studying teacher education work: how it is produced, maintained and practised, it is possible to pay attention to the conditions within which STs (student teachers) are learning to teach and, from this, theorize about current and future directions in ITE. Understanding the quality and impact of ITE is a question of strategic importance to governments the world over. This project sought explanations about what happens within UBITE (university-based ITE) so as to more fully understand how teacher education work impacts on the development of teaching in the broader education system and on STs learning. We intend that insights from this study inform ITE at a time of debate and change in A|NZ regarding the education of future teachers. ●●

As developed in more detail in Chapter 2, we explored the work of teacher education by: analysing the discursive production of the category of academic worker understood as TE in job advertisements, position

We use the abbreviation A|NZ to represent the name of Aotearoa New Zealand for two reasons. First, in respect to the dual cultural heritages of Aotearoa New Zealand, we are committed to promoting and supporting the use of te reo Māori (the Māori language) and second, by using the pipe or bar symbol (|) rather than a forward slash (/), we underscore bi-cultural partnership between Aotearoa New Zealand’s two peoples, tangata whenua | tangata tiriti.

1

2

●●

●●

●●

University Teacher Education

descriptions and via interviews with people responsible for new recruits (e.g. university heads and managers); interviewing, work activity recording and work-shadowing university-based TEs as they practised their daily work; interviewing STs who were involved in teaching and learning activities in teacher education, about their experiences, interpretations and motives; and working with participating TEs in a collaborative data analysis workshop to make meaning about ITE in the university system and the work activity of their professional lives.

In this introductory chapter we explain our interest in ITE and the context of teacher education in A|NZ in order to situate the study within its historical, global and local contexts. We describe changes that have taken place in A|NZ teacher education since ITE moved substantially into the university sector, and we raise some of the opportunities and challenges that have resulted from the shift, to give a flavour of what is to come. Finally, we introduce the Work of Teacher Education studies our project contributed to and we describe each of the chapters in the book.

Our interest in ITE and motivations to study the work of teacher education As colleagues, we, Alex, Mary, David and Mavis have collaborated over interests in ITE during the last two decades, a working relationship that brought us to begin the WoTE-NZ (Work of Teacher Education, New Zealand) study in 2013. Viv Ellis and colleagues had begun the work of teacher education (WoTE) project in England and Scotland (Ellis, Blake, McNicholl & McNally, 2011). Inspired by this, Joce Nuttall had brought the work to Australia and encouraged us to develop it in A|NZ. At that time, the majority of teacher education in A|NZ had recently moved into the university sector. A study of the changing conditions of teacher education work, including the affordances for student learning and development of the profession, was an intriguing prospect to us. As TEs ourselves, subject to the changing conditions of teacher education work, yet buoyed by the prospect of a stronger practice-based research informed ITE, we sought support for the study. A successful application to TLRI, with our own set of research questions and design (to account for our interests in universitybased ST learning), enabled us to launch the study.

Introduction to Teacher Education in A|NZ

3

As is evident, we are insiders to the work of teacher education – working as TEs and studying university provision of ITE from within the field. We deliberately identified in this book a desire to explore the promise and practice of ITE within the university sector because we are committed to such provision as a form of ITE. We see promise in the institution of the university for supporting the development of a research base for the professional practices of teaching that is home-grown, fit-for-purpose and intentionally designed to address urgent questions for A|NZ education and society. Furthermore, opportunities are great within the university for interdisciplinary engagement between professionals who are actively involved in the education, health, welfare and social development of citizens and communities. Our goals are formative and seek to contribute to the continued development of ITE in A|NZ; we hope our research findings will have utility in assisting TEs, their colleagues and leaders make sound decisions for improvement in the material and discursive conditions of the work, and ultimately benefit teaching and learning in the field.

University-based initial teacher education in Aotearoa New Zealand Prior to the 1990s, teacher education in A|NZ was located almost exclusively in six teachers’ colleges (also known as Teachers’ Training Colleges and, after 1989, Colleges of Education), in a national system of specialized tertiary institutions that for the most part were governed by the then named Department of Education. The education system reforms within A|NZ in the late 1980s saw the introduction of a new Education Act (1989) and with it the establishment of national education agencies, institutions and changed conditions for schools’ operations and early childhood education (ECE) support and development. Before this, only universities could offer degrees (Alcorn, 2014). That situation had led several teachers’ colleges to develop conjoint degrees with their neighbouring universities. A drawback of such arrangements was that they required prospective  teachers to complete extra study on top of their teachers’ college diploma, lengthening qualifications to four rather than three years of study. However, in many instances, degrees were able to be completed part-time once graduates had entered the profession, but this added extra demands  to  beginning  teachers, who had quite enough to manage with their transition to work alone. Nevertheless, degree attainment was popular with student teachers, many of whom sought the higher salaries it brought them

4

University Teacher Education

(in the schools’ sector); and for those who planned to pursue postgraduate qualifications, this initial teaching degree was also an advantage. The education system reforms meant that the new colleges of education would be granted the same funding as universities if they were granted the ability to confer teaching degrees, and many were keen to contemplate independent degree status (Alcorn, 2014). The Auckland College of Education was the first to develop and offer an independent three-year degree in initial teacher education and the Ministry of Education, ‘anxious to cut costs and avoid lengthy programmes’ (Alcorn, 2014, p. 451), agreed to pay graduates of this programme the same salaries as those graduating with the four-year conjoint degree common across the country. While this was extremely controversial, this decision and other funding and teacher supply-and-demand issues quickly led to three-year teaching degrees becoming the norm nationally within the newly fledged colleges of education. The opening up of degree-level qualifications to the colleges also paved the way to begin exploring alliances with other tertiary institutions (Cameron & Baker, 2004). Furthermore, new, private tertiary institutions were able to establish and develop ITE programmes. The system-wide changes quickly led to a proliferation of organizations and programme choices. Thus, competition was rife and the neoliberal ideologies that had underpinned the systems reform abounded. As noted by Alcorn (2014), due to the growth of teacher education provision, the advent of online and distance education programmes and further financial and other pressures, by 2007 all the former colleges of education had merged with their neighbouring universities. By 2014, the year our study began, ‘the bulk of primary and secondary programmes (were) sited in the universities’ (Alcorn, 2014, p. 452) and around 50 per cent of ECE ITE was offered in universities too (Gunn, Hill, Berg & Haigh, 2016). The shift to UBITE in A|NZ was of course not unique. Even though in some countries teacher education has diversified away from the university sector – a trend in England and Scotland (McNicholl & Blake, 2013) and in the United States (Townsend & Bates, 2007; Zeichner & Pena-Sandoval, 2015) – other countries have, similarly to A|NZ, amalgamated, retained and/or strengthened university provision. Teacher education is now firmly embedded within the university system in Canada (Walker & von Bergmann, 2013), where teacher educators are predominantly doctorally qualified and many graduate-level teacher qualifications are available. Similarly, teacher education in Finland is university-based, where four-to-five-year degrees predominate (Toom et al., 2010). In Norway too, from 2017 a masters’ degree has been the basic teaching qualification. This move in Norway has been supported by the

Introduction to Teacher Education in A|NZ

5

introduction of a NAFOL (National Research School for Teacher Education) through which practising teachers moving into teacher education positions work toward the doctoral qualifications necessary for them to thrive in the academy (see Chapter 9 and http://nafol.net/english/). In other places too, such as Australia (Brennan & Willis, 2008) and South Africa, the shift is towards strengthening teacher education within universities. At the same time ITE was shifting into the universities in A|NZ, performance-based research measures were introduced for universities. Similar measurement regimes have developed in other countries. In Australia, Excellence in Research Australia (ERA) measures research outputs in higher education in order to compare Australia’s research effort against international benchmarks and create incentives to improve the quality of research and identify opportunities for research development (see https://www.arc.gov.au/ excellence-research-australia). The REF (Research Excellence Framework) in the UK (https://www.ref.ac.uk/) is a similar scheme undertaken by four higher education funding bodies in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to provide benchmarking and accountability as well as informing the selective  allocation of funding for research. In the A|NZ PBRF (Performance-Based Research Fund), unlike other similar systems internationally, all individual academics who teach degree-level courses must submit a personal evidence portfolio regarding their quality-assured research outputs and evidence of research contributions for assessment by the Tertiary Education Commission every six years (Hill & Haigh, 2012; Tertiary Education Commission, 2019). The aggregated scores of academics lead to the research funding for each institution and thus research capability and high-rated researchers are sought after (Hill & Haigh, 2012). The PBRF is, therefore, a major driver of the work behaviour of university academics in A|NZ, including teacher educators. Both the shift of teacher education firmly into the university sector and the introduction of performance-based research funding exerted pressure on teacher educators to become research active with a demand to produce qualityassured research outputs (Hill & Haigh, 2012). As those institutional mergers were occurring, evidence suggested that despite strong efforts to support TEs to become research capable and increase their research outputs, some TEs were finding it very challenging to become productive researchers (Chetty & Lubben, 2010; Hill & Haigh, 2012; Martinez, 2008; Middleton, 2006, 2007). One aspect of the WOTE-NZ project was to understand this issue in more depth. How was the work objective of meeting the research demands of university employment driving the activity of TEs?

6

University Teacher Education

Changing the nature of teacher education work through a shift to university-based provision Teacher education’s move into the universities sector in A|NZ precipitated a clear change in the scope and nature of TEs’ work. In addition to their responsibilities to prepare new teachers, many TEs now faced the prospect of new individualized measurement regimes designed to account for work they were not prepared for. Until this time, most TEs had possessed bachelor or master degree level qualifications and had worked in institutions where the conducting of research was not typically a requirement of the job. The shift to UBITE led to an expectation that TEs would be or would become doctorally qualified (Alcorn, 2014) and that research would be a core element of their work. Furthermore, by becoming university academics through organizational restructuring, TEs could now be required to supervise postgraduate and doctoral students, establish research programmes, produce peer-reviewed publications, teach postgraduate courses, and participate in all the committee and service work expected in university work. This change in the nature and scope of teacher education provision through a change of institutional location meant that those TEs without doctoral degrees and research expertise faced not only a new set of work rules and expectations but also challenges to their academic identity. A small number of TEs from within the colleges system already conducted research within their teacher education roles (Middleton, 2006, 2007) and others had enrolled in doctoral programmes, a huge commitment on top of the increased variety and type of work they had had to take on. Others made the decision to become involved in research and to publish, but not to pursue a doctoral qualification. Prior to working in universities, TEs in the colleges system were mostly involved in teaching curriculum and pedagogical courses, administration of teacher education programmes, student recruitment and selection, and practicum supervision of student teachers. That work remained after the mergers took effect, but the research, extra postgraduate teaching, service and administration roles that came with the university provision quickly added to their work commitments, both invigorating and sometimes overloading their lives. Following other WoTE studies initiated in the UK by Viv Ellis, Jane McNicholl, Jim McNally and Allan Blake (2011) and in Australia by Joce Nuttall, Marie Brennan, Lew Zipin, Katrina Tuinamuana and Leanne Cameron (2013), our project explored UBITE in A|NZ inquiring into how practising TEs made

Introduction to Teacher Education in A|NZ

7

decisions that played into their work within the academe, how teacher education careers were steered and how teacher education changed as a result.

What this book is about and how the chapters contribute to this purpose This book examines how UBITE in A|NZ is produced and maintained by studying teacher education as academic work. We sought perspectives on UBITE from key stakeholders, including TEs themselves, managers and administrators responsible for TE programme hires in universities, and STs learning from and with the TEs who told us about and showed us their work. Informed by the WoTE studies in England, Scotland and Australia (Ellis et al., 2011; Nuttall et al., 2013), and working with CHAT (Cultural Historical Activity Theory) (Engeström, 2001; Virkkunen & Newnham, 2013; Yamagata-Lynch, 2010), we have explored activity systems within UBITE, motivations for people’s activity, the tools and artefacts that have given shape to ITE in the programmes we have worked within, and the rules and contexts for the work. We offer new insights into who teacher educators in A|NZ universities are – from a ground-up perspective to inform new concept development and insights into the field. We offer CHAT analyses about what TEs, as members of the academy do, their work motives and the outcomes, and we use this information to contemplate the opportunity afforded us in the UBITE space to help shape teacher education positively for the system’s benefit and future. In this chapter we have briefly introduced the context of teacher education in A|NZ and described its location in the university sector, recognizing that most, not all, ITE in A|NZ resides in this context. Chapter 2 addresses the question of how initial teacher education is constructed in the New Zealand university setting. Using MCA (membership categorization analysis), field notes and research texts produced about fourteen teacher educators’ daily work (fifteen TE participants joined the study, but not all were able to accommodate all the phases of data collection), the chapter provides the context for the critical discussions about university-based ITE to come. Chapter 3 explores personal perspectives of change and challenge for TEs as they transition from one educational context with particular rules, tools and objects regarding teacher education to another that differs in these regards. It uses data from professional life history interviews with fifteen teacher educator

8

University Teacher Education

participants and focuses on three participants’ experiences of major transitions in their academic careers. Transitions illustrate how changes in basic work activities led to development of the TE subject, such that new identities, forms of expertise and practice arose. The stories of the transitions discussed in the chapter shed light on the interactions between people and their situated activity and provide readers with a sense of the collective TE subject in UBITE in the present day. Chapter 4 draws upon data from work diaries and work-shadowing to showcase the daily work of teacher education as practised by academics in universities. Here we present work narratives of each of the fourteen participants. The work narratives account for a-day-at-work in initial teacher education and reflect the spread and complexity of that work. Our discussion includes a critical comparison of the actual work and the prescribed work of these academics as they work across the breadth of work demands and responsibilities managed each day. In Chapter 5 we expand our discussion of our second research question: What do university-based teacher educators do? In other words, what are they working on? Here our analysis of the data collected in the two weeks of work diaries allows us to gain an overview of the work across a broader time period than the work-shadowing permitted. We note in the chapter that hierarchies of competing work demands arising from different requirements placed upon TEs from professional and academic jurisdictions lead to fractured, unbounded and interrupted work practices – conditions that work against the promise of UBITE. Here we see benefit in the uptake of CHAT methods to support TEs and their colleagues to collectively interrogate such contradictions and bring about positive system-level change. The hidden work of teacher education is the subject of Chapter 6. Drawing from cases of three teacher education academics, this chapter illustrates and critically analyses how and why TEs’ teaching and service commitments may work both with and against the imperative to research, publish and be internationally active in their field. In Chapter 7 we discuss teaching and learning within UBITE from the perspectives of STs and TEs engaged in teaching and learning activities in the university setting. By analysing teaching activities and tool use within ITE classrooms, we discuss how ST and TE object motives align, or not, in the interests of student teacher learning. The chapter illustrates how CHAT principles can inform the development of pedagogical decisions in the tertiary setting.

Introduction to Teacher Education in A|NZ

9

Chapter 8 responds to the major research questions of the study by discussing what we learned from our study into the work of UBITE. We draw our thinking from the A|NZ study together and learn from evidence generated in the local sites to call for ongoing system-development. Specifically, we discuss the bifurcation of teacher education work through employment practices, the division of the TE subject along professional and academic lines, expanded forms of service and teaching that arise from TEs ongoing involvement in the profession as university academics, and pursuit of the research object. From this, conclusions and implications for the development of ITE in its cultural historical context are put and future directions for the New Zealand case signalled. The conclusion to the book in Chapter 9 considers how the national and historical context of ITE informs localized practice. The A|NZ case is discussed in relation to examples from other countries. Through this discussion we see how tendrils of global change have transferred, transformed and manifest locally to shape ITE policies and practices. Our intention is to situate the WoTE-NZ study in its international context in order to contribute to ongoing discussions of TE globally.

References Alcorn, N. (2014). Teacher education in New Zealand 1974–2014. Journal of Education for Teaching, 40(5), 447–60. Brennan, M., & Willis, S. (2008). Sites of contestation for teacher education in Australia. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 14(4), 295–306. Cameron, M., & Baker, R. (2004). Research on initial teacher education in New Zealand: 1993-2004. Literature review and annotated bibliography. Wellington: Ministry of Education. Chetty, R., & Lubben, F. (2010). The scholarship of research in teacher education in a higher education in transition: Issues of identity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 813–20. Ellis, V., Blake, A., McNicholl, J., & McNally, J. (2011). The work of teacher education. Final research report. Subject Centre for Education ESCalate, The Higher Education Academy, UK. Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–56. Gunn, A. C., Hill, M. F., Berg, D., & Haigh, M. (2016). The changing work of teacher educators in Aotearoa New Zealand: A view through activity theory. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 44(4), 306–19. DOI: 10.1080/1359866X.2016.1174815

10

University Teacher Education

Hill, M. F., & Haigh, M. A. (2012). Creating a culture of research in teacher education: Learning research within communities of practice. Studies in Higher Education, 37(8), 971–88. doi:10.1080/03075079.2011.559222 McNicholl, J., & Blake, A. (2013). Transforming teacher education, an activity theory analysis. Journal of Education for Teaching, 39(3), 281–300. Martinez, K. (2008). Academic induction for teacher educators. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 36(1), 35–51. Middleton, S. (2006). Researching identities: Impact of the performance-base research fund on the subject(s) of education. In. L. Bakker, J. Boston, L. Campbell & R. Smyth (Eds.), Evaluating the performance-based research fund: Framing the debate (pp. 477–500). Wellington: Institute for Policy Studies, Victoria University of Wellington. Middleton, S. (2007, April). Researching teaching and teaching research: On the subject/s of education. Paper presented at the Marwell Conference, April 21, Winchester, UK. Nuttall, J., Brennan, M., Zipin, L., Tuinamuana, K., & Cameron, L. (2013). Lost in production: The erasure of the teacher educator in Australian university job advertisements. Journal of Education for Teaching, 39(3), 329–43. Robinson, M. & McMillan, W. (2006). Who teaches the teachers? Identity, discourse and policy in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 2, 327–36. Teaching and Learning Research Initiative (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.tlri.­org. nz/, accessed 2 June 2020 Tertiary Education Commission (2019). Performance-based research fund. https:// www.tec.govt.nz/funding/funding-and-performance/funding/fund-finder/ performance-based-research-fund/, accessed 2 June 2020 Toom, A., Kynäslahti, H., Krokfors, L., Jyrhämä, R., Byman, R., Stenberg, K., … Kansanen, P. (2010). Experiences of a research-based approach to teacher education: Suggestions for future policies. European Journal of Education, 45(2), 331–44. Townsend, T., & Bates, R. (2007). Teacher education in a new millennium: Pressures and possibilities. In T. Townsend & R. Bates (Eds.), Handbook of teacher education (pp. 3–22). Dordrecht: Springer. Trippestad, T.A., Swennen, A. & Werler, T. (2017). The struggle for teacher education: International perspectives on governance and reform. London: Bloomsbury. Virkkunen, J., & Newnham, D. S. (2013). The Change Laboratory: A tool for collaborative development of work and education. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Walker, J., & von Bergman, H. C. (2013). Teacher education policy in Canada: Beyond professionalization and deregulation. Canadian Journal of Education, 36(4), 65–92. Yamagata-Lynch, L. (2010). Activity systems analysis methods: Understanding complex learning environments. New York: Springer Science+Business Media. Zeichner, K., & Pena-Sandoval, C. (2015). Venture philanthropy and teacher education policy in the US: The role of the new schools venture fund. Teachers College Record, 117, 1–44.

2

An Aotearoa New Zealand Study into the Work of Teacher Education

We have been studying how university-based ITE (initial teacher education) in A|NZ (Aotearoa New Zealand) is being produced and maintained since the majority of ITE provision in this country shifted into universities after 2008. Our study has involved a close examination of teacher education as academic work. While the study’s design, borrowed from Ellis, Blake, McNicholl and McNally (2011), privileged materialist analyses of what university-based TEs (teacher educators) actually do in the everyday activities of their work, we have also engaged in discourse analysis of constructions of teacher education within the university and sought STs’ (student teachers) perspectives on teaching and learning activities within ITE. We interviewed TEs and observed them undertaking daily tasks. We sought perspectives of key stakeholders about suitable recruits to UBITE (university-based ITE). We engaged in document and discourse analysis to understand the institutional constitution of teacher education within the university, and we questioned student teachers about their experiences in teaching and learning situations to better understand how university-based ITE is being conducted and why. As a case of contemporary ITE work and development, our project used CHAT (Cultural Historical Activity Theory) (Engeström, 1999; Virkkunen & Newnham, 2013; YamagataLynch, 2010) based research to advance knowledge and practice. This chapter explains the study’s design and methods outlining how we set about addressing our major research questions: How is teacher education constructed in the Aotearoa New Zealand university setting? and what do university-based TEs do? Drawing from MCA (membership categorization analysis) data, interviews and document analyses, the chapter provides the context for the critical discussions about university-based ITE to come.

12

University Teacher Education

The broader context for our WoTE-NZ study At the time we set out to study UBITE in A|NZ, a step-change in ITE had been called for (Ministry of Education, 2013; Parata, 2012). After a period of institutional mergers and qualification reforms that had seen three-year degrees and degree-level graduate diploma qualifications established as the minimum qualifications of currency for teaching, a resurgent interest in establishing entry-level qualifications for teaching at the postgraduate level was emerging (Ministry of Education, 2013). What followed was a five-year experiment in the design and delivery of postgraduate ITE qualifications (2014–2019/20). Eight higher education institutions (seven universities and a polytechnic) developed and implemented postgraduate diploma and masters’ degree qualifications for teaching, the longevity of which are, as yet, indeterminate. It does seem that momentum towards establishing entry-level teaching qualifications at the postgraduate level has stalled for the moment and a recommitment to a diversity of pathways to teaching has been made (Education Council, 2017, 2018). Across this same time period worldwide, teacher education reform has continued unabated as countries have increasingly striven to come out on top in competitive international rankings of student performance (Furlong, 2013) and institutions such as the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) have underscored the importance of teachers and teaching for economic and social success (Coffield, 2012; OECD 2005, n.d., 2012). In the UK and the United States, debates over teacher preparation and where it is best placed have seen a shift towards more practice- or school-based models (DarlingHammond, Chung & Frelow, 2002; McNicholl & Blake, 2013; Zeichner, 2014), whereas, as explained in Chapter 1, other countries, such as Australia, Canada, Finland and Norway, have seen teacher education firmly ensconced within degree and advanced degree programmes at universities (Brennan & Willis, 2008; Toom et al., 2010; Walker & von Bergmann, 2013). The latest inquiry into teacher education in Australia was launched as recently as November 2018 (Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training, 2018). It focused on the status of the profession, following more than 100 reviews of teacher education in that country since the 1970s (Allen, Rowan & Singh, 2018; Mayer, 2014). As noted in Chapter 1, our study was connected to a network of related WoTE (Work of Teacher Education) projects from the UK, Australia and latterly,

A|NZ Study into the Work of Teacher Education

13

Canada (Ellis & McNicholl, 2015; Ellis et al., 2011; Hales & Clark, 2016; Nuttall, Brennan, Zipin, Tuinamuana & Cameron, 2013). The body of WoTE studies set out to examine, internationally, the cultural constructions and material realities of university-based initial teacher education and TEs work. Whereas Ellis et al. (2011) showed TEs to have become a troublesome category of higher education academic worker in England, and in Australia TEs were all but erased within institutional constructions of teacher education (Nuttall et al., 2013), the A|NZ findings illustrated a proliferation of TE types in the university and a fragmentation of work across professional and academic lines (Gunn, Berg, Hill & Haigh, 2015). Three different types of TE were being established in A|NZ and clear divisions of labour were demarcating the boundaries of their work. One category of TE was being institutionally reified as a PE (professional expert), charged with conducting mainly teaching and profession-related duties (e.g. visiting student teachers in practice) and no research. A second type of TE, whose position was akin with those of TAs (traditional academics in the university), was being recruited to positions comprising research, teaching (but not necessarily in ITE), and university-oriented service and leadership. A third TE type, DQ (dually qualified), whose work spanned teaching, research and service, included expanded forms of service and teaching in ways that exceeded university norms. Their remit was to address both academic and professional ITE communities. An additional line of inquiry in the A|NZ WoTE study was an exploration of TEs’ teaching from the perspectives of both STs and TEs (highlighted in Chapter 6).

Our research questions Our study was a two-year two-phase project that used tools of CHAT to inquire into: ●●

●●

●●

how teacher education work is constructed and maintained in the university, what university-based TEs do and how university-based ITE work is interpreted.

We followed Ellis et al.’s (2011) design adding elements of inquiry related to ST learning to the work-shadowing second phase of the study. We also added discourse analysis to Phase 1 (see Table 2.1).

14

University Teacher Education

Table 2.1  WoTE-NZ study design Phase 1 (2013–2014)

Phase 2 (2014–2015)

Methods Document and discourse analysis of job advertisements and associated recruitment materials Interviews with personnel involved in recruiting TEs

Professional life history interviews, work diaries, work-shadowing and post–workshadowing interviews with 14–15 TEs Interviews with STs who participated in ­observed classes Participatory workshop with TEs

Analyses Membership categorisation analysis (MCA) Linguistic Annotation Strategy (LAS) Key words in context (KWC) Discourse analysis (DA)

2nd Gen. Activity Theory Modified Developmental Work Research (DWR)

Theoretical framework We have drawn principally from the ideas of Engeström (1987, 1999, 2001) to support our study of UBITE in A|NZ, after the Ellis et al. (2011) design of the original WoTE project. The CHAT framework supports the development of understandings of historically specific local practices, their objects, their mediating artefacts and social organization (Engeström, 2005). Engeström (2001) offered five key principles of CHAT: 1. ‘A collective, artefact-mediated and object-oriented activity system, seen in its network relations to other activity systems, is taken as the prime unit of analysis’ 2. ‘An activity system is always a community of multiple points of view, traditions and interests’ 3. Historicity: ‘Activity systems take shape and get transformed over lengthy periods of time. Their problems and potentials can only be understood against their own history’ 4. Contradictions are ‘sources of change and development … are historically accumulating structural tensions within and between activity systems’ 5. ‘An expansive transformation is accomplished when the object and motive of the activity are reconceptualized to embrace a radically wider horizon of possibilities than in the previous mode of activity’ (pp. 136–7)

A|NZ Study into the Work of Teacher Education

15

In this study, the prime unit of analysis is UBITE. To structure the analysis of  UBITE Engeström’s (2001) heuristic of an activity system as illustrated in Figure 2.1 is employed. This heuristic, comprising six interrelated nodes, enabled us to think about the way certain practices and actions were sustained within aspects of the work that the university-based teacher educators were engaged in. Engeström extended Vygotsky’s (1978) well-known schematic of the mediated act, where the relationship between subjects and objects in activities is mediated by an artefact or a tool. He further argued that expansions on the theory made by Aleksei Leont’ev offered important insights into the realm of collective human activity. For us, CHAT helped to produce understandings of relatedness between people (individuals and the collective of TEs and others), institutions and the contexts within which they were brought together in shared activity. Thus, we were supported to view UBITE as lived by and through the individual and collective activity of the work. The object of activity is a ‘shared problem or societally important goal that humans are working on or towards’ (McNicholl & Blake, 2013, p. 286), or perhaps, more simply, the intended outcome of the activity (Engeström, 1987). In our case, the aim is the development of new teachers to serve the children of a society. As participants worked towards that desired and collective outcome, multiple and movable objects were pursued along the way. CHAT theory holds

Figure 2.1  Engeström’s activity system heuristic. Adapted from Engeström, 2001, p. 135

16

University Teacher Education

that all activity is directed towards objects, and that the analysis of objects can produce understandings of people and their work. Engeström (1987) views objects as being related to productivity; they can also be difficult to pin down because there is a dynamic relationship between objects and subjects (Stetsenko, 2005). Our observations and our participants’ descriptions of ‘problems, or objects of activity … [they were] working on and trying to transform’ (Edwards, 2009, p. 198) were used to infer the objects of their activity. So as we examined the work of UBITE, we systematically built our understandings of what people were doing and why. The uppermost node of the triangle in Engeström’s (2001) model denotes the mediating artefact or tool. In our analysis, we sought to understand how the use of material and conceptual tools mediated the activities that our participants engaged in. Engeström (1987) has argued that tools connect individuals with a society and its culture. They mediate people’s interactions with reality. The three nodes along the base of Engeström’s model (2001) reflect the social nature of human activity. The first of these, rules, refers to explicit or implicit restrictions, norms and social practices that govern the use of tools, the tasks that can be worked on, how labour can be divided and so on. The second node, community, represents the community of invested others who are engaged in the activity system. In our case, this includes students, colleagues, teachers in schools or kura (Māori medium school) and early childhood settings, university administrators and academics from other departments. The final node, division of labour, is closely related to community and is best understood as identifying who does what in relation to the object being worked on (Engeström, 1987). The CHAT analysis recognizes the research endeavour as holistic, consistent with Vygotsky’s (1978) principle of seeking to understand human activity in its situated context. By maintaining this broad view, the approach enabled us to identify the contradictions within the system which can act as catalyst for its development and, thus, supported us in our endeavour to study UBITE in its cultural historical evolution in A|NZ.

Methods – Phase 1 (How is teacher education constructed and maintained?) To explore the conditions and constructions of teacher education within the university, we wanted to use CHAT to analyse how teacher education was worked on from different perspectives and as different subjects pursued multiple

A|NZ Study into the Work of Teacher Education

17

motives within their shared endeavour. The analysis of recruitment materials and interviews with personnel involved in recruiting for teacher education positions in universities gave us insight into how university institutions were working on teacher education, as well as heads of departments and human resources personnel, before we explored the work from the perspective of the TEs and their students. Job advertisements and position/person descriptions for thirtyseven potentially ITE-related positions from seven universities offering ITE programmes were collected from institutional websites and a national university recruitment website during the data gathering phase (1 October 2013–31 March 2014). Eleven of the positions were then identified as ITE related. Six universities were either directly recruiting candidates for positions that involved teaching into programmes of ITE or they were recruiting candidates for positions that involved leadership of programmes or academic schools and faculties within which ITE was delivered. Contact people from job advertisements were invited to participate in a telephone interview – seven interviews were conducted, and interviewees gave informed consent for their participation. The interview explored how the position had come about, the methods by which the documentation were produced, the personal and professional skills and attributes desired and the nature of the work a potential recruit would be involved in. Each interview lasted between twenty and forty minutes and was audio-taped and transcribed.

Data analysis – Phase 1 An initial trial analysis for a single position was conducted by the full team. All documents associated with the position (the advertisement, its position and person descriptions, and the interview transcript) were independently subjected to membership categorization, linguistic annotation and word frequency/key-words-in-context analyses. An additional discourse analysis, as an alternative to the original WoTE study’s genre analysis, was conducted. This path was selected because of our research team’s strengths and interests in relationships between localized and institutionalized forms of practice and thought, and with how power moves in and through bodies and institutions (Gunn, 2019). The team then met to discuss and compare interpretations. Once satisfied with the degree of consistency between our application of each of the methods, team members divided the labour among us. Two team members worked jointly on a trajectory of analysis involving membership categorization

18

University Teacher Education

analysis (hereafter MCA). This form of analysis looks at how categories, established within and central to social life, are used to give meaning to social behaviour. A LAS (linguistic annotation strategy) and word-frequency/KWC (key words in context) were also conducted by this pair. Two team members worked jointly on a comprehensive discourse analysis. We extended all forms of analysis to each of the document types gathered for each position, treating each document as a text in itself. The MCA allowed us to comprehend how people were classifying the work responsibilities of potential teacher educators in order to interpret, order and assign meaning to their desired future actions (Freiberg & Freebody, 2009; Mandelbaum, 2013). We identified nouns, adjectives, verbs and attributions associated with each position. We noted any contradictions in these across the three types of texts associated with each position (advertisement – person/ position description – interview). We asked what is the nature of the work being described here? What characteristics and attributes are required if one is to do this work? And what is prioritized in this work? We also made lists of the most frequently occurring words (word-frequencies) and after eliminating proper nouns, identified terms of substance that described the work potential recruits to the positions would do. These terms were then identified in-context to discern their uses (key-words-in-context, KWC). From this we gained an understanding of frequently referenced concepts and work dimensions, including the extent to which these were shared and how, across the collective subject of teacher educator. Together these forms of analysis allowed us to contemplate the following questions: What is this category of academic work? What of this work represents shared labour processes with other university academics? And what distinguishes it as a type or category of academic work of its own? Furthermore, in this first phase of the study, in order to understand how institutionalized patterns of thought and knowledge were becoming manifest in constructions of the category of TE, we undertook a second reading of the data, this time as discourse analysis (Foucault, 1977; Gee, 1990). Discourse analysis seeks to show how social and political hierarchies are produced and maintained within the fields of knowledge in which they operate (Gunn, 2019). Gee’s notion of discourses would show us how those, within university settings, who were recruiting for academic positions were understanding this category of academic work and who might be suited to it. As Gee puts it, ‘each discourse incorporates a usually taken-for-granted and “tacit” theory of what counts as a “normal” person and the “right” ways to think, feel and behave’ (Gee, 1990). Adding to this, Foucault’s discourses:

A|NZ Study into the Work of Teacher Education

19

are ways of constituting knowledge, together with the social practices, forms of subjectivity and power relations which inhere in such knowledges and the relations between them. Discourses are more than ways of thinking and producing meaning. They constitute the ‘nature’ of the body, unconscious and conscious mind and emotional life of the subjects which they seek to govern. (Weedon, 1987, p. 108)

Discourses then provide ‘culturally available and shared, patterned ways for talking and thinking about’ (Braun & Clarke, 2013, p. 189, emphasis in original), in our case, teacher educators and teacher education. Language is actively designed for particular audiences and ‘how we would like our recipient(s) to be, think, feel and behave’ (Gee, 2014, p. 21). We used this approach as it helped us to identify the discursive contexts within which teacher education was operating and how that shaped teacher educators’ realities. Each document was read for taken-for-granted views evident in language used within advertisements and person/position descriptions and through the responses to the interviews. Discursive labels were applied to words, phrases and sentences by each analyst and then the results compared and refined through discussion. From this we were able to read the teacher educator position data for how they were working to constitute various TE subjectivities and demarcating the rules and boundaries of their work. The discourses identified and associated with all or some of the advertised positions were noted (see Table 2.2). All the institutions used the advertisements as opportunities to promote themselves as somewhere positive to work, to communicate a hierarchy of positions and roles, to speak to competing kinds of tertiary teaching, teamwork, working with others from diverse backgrounds and a commitment to the Treaty of Waitangi. Yet, the selectivity with which some discourses were deployed in relation to the range of positions suggested that the TE labour was being divided institutionally, in particular ways, with very different consequences for the people who would be recruited to positions. Therefore, we took the discourses identified and re-read the position description and job advertisement materials again to see how those discourses related with the range of TE positions being recruited for. Table 2.3 indicates the way the TE subject was being construed collectively and partially across the body of recruitment data. There was a clear hierarchy of power and influence signalled in the analysed materials; each set of documents indicated how the successful applicant would be positioned within this. For example, a professional practice fellow (also known

20

University Teacher Education

Table 2.2  Discourses constituting TE subjectivities Discourses

Data chunks exemplifying discourses

Found all 11 ads

Promotional (of institution)

‘picturesque campus’, ‘extensive range of services and facilities’, ‘world class academics’

X

Hierarchical (within institutions)

‘[designated position occupants] are to: assist other academic staff in their own research programmes by bringing a practice perspective’

X

Tertiary teaching

‘to encourage and support all [students] to X learn and achieve to their fullest potential’

Didactic teaching

‘course delivery’, ‘deliver lectures, deliver tutorials’

X

Self-regulatory

‘negotiate and implement an individual development plan’

X

Found in some ads

Tiriti O ‘have an understanding of the obligations Waitangi /Treaty created by the TOW or a willingness to of Waitangi acquire such an understanding’ (TOW)

X

Team player

‘team performance and the achievement of departmental, team and organizational goals’

X

Diversity/ Equity

‘evidence of an ability to work well with X staff and students from differing academic and cultural backgrounds’

Leadership functions

‘academic leadership of people in a higher education institution’

X

Financial

‘initiate and oversee revenue generating activities for the School aligned with existing and new programmes’

X

Aspirational

‘embarking on futures-oriented approaches to education’

X

Professional

‘effective links with the local education community are established and maintained by the academic community of the school’

X

School teaching

‘at least five years teaching experience in the New Zealand primary sector’

X

A|NZ Study into the Work of Teacher Education Discourses

Data chunks exemplifying discourses

Found all 11 ads

21 Found in some ads

Student centred

‘they [the students] come here because they perceive … that our classes are smaller, and that there’s quite a lot of contact with the rest of their cohort and their lecturers …’

Assessment

‘ensure that all assessments meet required standards and moderation specifications’

X

Research required

‘the level of appointment will depend on experience and the research-profile of the successful candidate’

X

Māori/ Bicultural

‘good level of proficiency in Te Reo Māori (Māori language) and tikanga (customs)’

X

community

(work with) ‘internal relationships: students, staff … and external: students’ families, potential students …’

X

Mobility

‘successful applicants will be required to work across [several] campuses’

X

Extra duties

‘from time to time all [teacher educators] are encouraged to engage in other activities outside their assigned duties …’

X

Compliance (general)

‘compliance with institutional policy and procedures’, ‘assigned duties’

X

Health and safety compliance

‘identified hazards are effectively and efficiently addressed’

X

Practicum supervision

‘expected to supervise students in centre and school contexts’

X

ICT/Online teaching

‘why would you need people face to face in a university setting when you can now deliver lectures on to a handheld device, you know?’

X

X

as a professional teaching fellow or a teaching fellow) was expected to ‘assist other academic staff in their own research programmes by bringing a practice perspective’ (03, pd) rather than being a researcher themselves. Research was highly valued in the data, therefore, signalling that a professional practice fellow would be an assistant, but not themselves a researcher, clearly indicated something about the status of the position in the university context. Another university, seeking a Head of Department, signalled high status as follows:

University Teacher Education

22

Table 2.3  Discourses in recruitment texts by position type Discourses

Vacancies advertised 01 02

03

04

05

Tutors/ senior tutors professional teaching fellows etc. Professional

X

School teaching Practicum supervision

X

Student centred

X

06

07

(Lecturers/ senior lecturers

10

11

Professor/associate professor

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Mobility

X

Assessment

X

X

X

X

X

Māori/Bicultural

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Community

08 09

X

Performative

X

X X

X

Extra duties

X

X

Research required

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Leadership

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Industrial

X

X

X

Financial

X

X

Aspirational

X

X

This position is required to make decisions, which are strategic in nature, but support the overall direction defined by the University, the … Faculty and School strategic plan … is required to represent the School and Faculty at many levels. (08, pd)

Similarly, an advertisement for an associate professor positioned this role as having ‘key relationships’ with (other) associate professors and professors, programme leaders, associate deans and other staff and did not include any relationships with students. Furthermore, the appointee at this level would ‘involve being a leader in teaching/supervision and research in education’ (09). Thus the recruitment materials themselves foreshadowed the hierarchical structures appointees would work within and the people that appointees would likely work with/for.

A|NZ Study into the Work of Teacher Education

23

After each position had been analysed along our two main analytic trajectories (MCA and DA), we brought the analyses together for comparison. As previously reported, we produced a picture of teacher education work as constructed in three major ways (see Figure 2.2). As an academic category of work, teacher education was institutionally bifurcated with most positions recruiting for people who would bring professional teaching expertise to the university or who would bring leadership and research capacity to the field (see Chapter 4 for a fuller discussion of this finding). The irony in this strategy was that in order to address the full scope of teacher education work within the university setting, neither type of recruit on their own would suffice. It was as if universities were working to recruit a kind of collective subject to service the work rather than being prepared to attract people able to address both professional and intellectual aspects. The scope of work institutionally constructed by these recruitment practices gave rise to different types of positions to be occupied. We therefore noted that the academic worker category of TE was stratified similarly (see Figure 2.3). Again, the bifurcation of ITE, this time by person and scope of role, was evident. Thus we see how teacher education work within the university is divided across several domains: work inside the university and outside it, research work and teaching work, practicum supervision work and research supervision work, and leadership and support. Tutors, senior tutors and professional practice/ teaching fellows take on the undergraduate teaching and practicum supervision work. Tenured positions at the associate professor/professor levels are envisaged as research, leadership and postgraduate teaching roles, while teacher education lecturers and senior lecturers are expected to work across all these boundaries and engage in the full scope of teacher education academic work. We argue that this bifurcation of the work and workers is deeply troubling for the development of the field of teacher education and for practices in the

Figure 2.2  Three constructions of teacher education work

24

University Teacher Education

Figure 2.3  Three types of teacher educator

teaching field. Only one of eleven advertised positions in our data set was truly representative of the DQ construction. Two of the positions we interpreted as belonging to the PE category did include some expectation of research and three other positions included elements of leadership and management, but the DQ position made it clear that successful appointees would teach (including supervising ITE students on professional placements), would research and publish and would be an active participant in the broader (schooling) community and within the university as a whole. This broad (DQ) construction of teacher education worker has been identified in England (through Ellis, McNicholl & Pendry’s, 2012, superteacher) and in Australia (in Tuinamuana’s (2016) superhero teacher/researcher). People who come to occupy such roles were expected to be both effective teachers (school/kura/ECE, demonstrated by holding credentials recognized by the professional body of jurisdiction within the context of their teaching), with high enthusiasm and resilience, but who could also engage in quality research and dissemination activities in their pursuit of research informed tertiary teaching. Such people are reified as necessary to teacher education practice and development through the professional body’s ITE programme approval and review requirements (Teaching Council, 2019). These stipulate that approved ITE programmes must have policies on staff research, that staff contribute (through research) to knowledge of teaching, that there be a demonstrable link between staff research and the programme, that teaching staff within programmes conduct research in their area of expertise and that it advances and supports the development of the programme. PE teacher educators in our sample were not required to engage in research and leadership activities. TA (traditional academic)-type teacher educators were not required to hold a teaching qualification, nor required to possess relevant curriculum expertise. Nor were they expected to supervise prospective teachers on practicum.

A|NZ Study into the Work of Teacher Education

25

The way our institutions constructed the work resulted a division of labour that officially prevented people from engaging in the full scope of UBITE. By not having an expectation to engage in research, nor any proven research track record, PEs were hampered by the university imperative to design and deliver research-informed teaching. In contrast, TA-type positions effectively gatekept some TEs out of professional practice aspects of teacher education. One result of this is to underscore the pervasive sense of theory-practice divide (Gravett, 2012; Korthagen, 2011), which in our view leaves university-based ITE vulnerable to critique from the academe and the profession. Despite clear boundaries across the Work of Teacher Education being observed within this institutional and interview data, our close observations of TEs as they went about their daily work showed quite a different picture of what they were doing as university academics on a given day. The boundaries were not quite so clear. Next we describe the work-shadowing protocol from the second phase of our study before presenting an account of TEs daily work in A|NZ university-based ITE.

Work-shadowing teacher educators in university-based ITE Phase 2 of our study recruited fifteen TEs to the interview and work-shadowing protocols. Of these, fourteen TEs participated in both activities. The participants were a purposive sample of TEs who worked within one-year programmes of early childhood, primary and secondary-based teacher education. Eight of our participants worked at East University and six at West University. Both East and West universities had merged with their local former Colleges of Education in the first decade of the twenty-first century. Each institution provided a range of undergraduate and graduate entry teacher education programmes, programmes in education studies at the undergraduate and postgraduate level and researchbased qualifications up to doctoral level. This meant that participants’ teaching within their institutions may have ranged across any number of ITE or non-ITE programmes at the undergraduate or graduate levels. We did not specify within our recruitment protocol the amount of ITE experience or work prospective participants must be undertaking to participate; rather, we recruited for academics who were working with ITE students in one-year programmes within early childhood, primary and secondary teaching sectors and left any notion of quantum of work unremarked as a criterion for selection. As it turned out, seven out of fourteen of those we work-shadowed were working as DQ TEs,

26

University Teacher Education

Figure 2.4  University-based teacher education positions by type Phase 1 and Phase 2

one in a role without a practice supervision expectation (our TA) and six as PE TEs, meaning they had no research as a requirement of their position. Figure 2.4 indicates the relative proportion of each designation type in Phases 1 and 2 of the study. In Chapter 3, we explore the pathways our participants took into teacher education. These were long, rich and varied. Their professional experience as teachers in early childhood (one participant), primary (seven participants) or secondary teaching (seven participants) ranged from five to twenty-five years, with a mean of 15.13 years teaching in the field. Twelve of the participants had worked as teacher educators within Colleges of Education prior to the merger with either East or West University and their experience as TEs ranged from two to twenty-one years, with a mean of 9.83 years. Two thirds of the participants held positional roles as a proportion of their work duties, six were doctorally qualified and another six were engaged in doctoral studies during the time of the project. Descriptive statistics for the fourteen TEs who participated in the work-shadow component of Phase 2 are included in Table 2.4. After explaining what would be required of participation, each TE consented to join the project and we set up visits with them. Working across two institutions, West University and East University, we each worked with three to four TEs. Work-shadowing in West University took place during Week 41 of the academic year and for East University it took place in academic Week 10. Week 41 is late in the academic year and Week 10 is very close to the beginning. Prior to the visits each TE completed a work diary for a week (a procedure that was

A|NZ Study into the Work of Teacher Education

27

Table 2.4  Descriptive statistics for TE work shadowing participants Participant Work ­category* East University

West University

Years teaching experience

Years working as TE

Ash

DQ

9

10

Bailey

PE

20

13

Brook

DQ

18

15

Cameron

PE

25

5

Cas

PE

21

5

Chris

TA

11

21

Riley

DQ

21

2

Sawyer

PE

7

17

Dale

DQ

16

Unspecified

Gerry

PE

10

Unspecified

Jessie

PE

Unspecified

12

Lou

DQ

11

5

Nat

DQ

15

2

Sam

DQ

19

3

*as categorised during data analysis phase-one.

ultimately undertaken twice by each participant, see Chapter 5). We conducted professional life history interviews with the TEs (see Chapter 3), and following the work-shadowing visits, we produced a one-page narrative account of each TE at work (discussed in Chapter 4). The narrative, along with data excerpts from observations of the TEs and STs working in classes, and collated workdiary data, was presented back to the TEs before we conducted a follow-up interview, post-work-shadowing. The purpose of the final interview was to check in with participants about whether the accounts of their work, as produced in the narratives and work-diary depictions, were accurate and to seek their perspectives on their objectives when teaching through the activities we had gathered data about (see Chapter 6). As we were to run a participatory workshop with the TEs, in which they would engage in some CHAT informed data analysis with us, we also took the opportunity in these interviews to confirm their willingness to participate (or not). The work-shadowing protocol involved accompanying the TEs to work for a full work day, making paper-and-pencil notes about their activities, photographing artefacts and places of work, and interviewing them and their students (as the context allowed) about what they were working on, close to

28

University Teacher Education

the time they were working on it. Uppermost in the research team’s minds as we worked in this phase of the study were questions, such as: What is being worked on here? What is the objective of the TE or the ST? What are these things (artefacts and tools) within the teacher education work mediating right now? Here the CHAT basis of the study was to the fore, and we were keen to acknowledge and observe the dynamism of context and culture as it was playing out in university-based ITE. Our methods offered us close-up and situated observations of very specific activities in TE classrooms. Through these data we have been able to discern how different participants were working with different objectives in mind, or even working in different ways towards a shared object (Engeström, 1999). As both an explanatory and developmental theory (McNicholl & Blake, 2013), CHAT allowed us to recognize both an individual’s and a collective subject’s pursuit of university-based ITE. In the accounts of TEs work presented in Chapter 4, we can perceive both. The chapters that follow delve into this second phase of our WoTE study. From our exploration of the personal/professional life histories of participant teacher educators to considerations of their daily working lives, teaching methods and tensions faced as they work to combine professional and academic aspects of their jobs, we use the affordances of CHAT to build a picture of the complexity of initial teacher education work within the contemporary A|NZ context in our commentary on the cultural historical evolution of teacher education in its present instantiation.

References Allen, J. L., Rowan, L., & Singh, P. (2018). Through growth to achievement: The potential impact on teacher education of the 2018 Gonski Review. Asia Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 46(4), 317–20. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2013). Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for beginners. London: Sage. Brennan, M., & Willis, S. (2008). Sites of contestation for teacher education in Australia. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice 14(4), 295–306. Coffield, F. (2012). Why the McKinsey reports will not improve school systems. Journal of Education Policy, 27(1), 131–49. Darling-Hamond, L., Chung, R., & Freelow, F. (2002). Variation in teacher preparation: How well do different pathways prepare teachers to teach? Journal of Teacher Education, 53(4), 286–302.

A|NZ Study into the Work of Teacher Education

29

Education Council New Zealand|Matatū Aotearoa (2017). Future-focussed ITE proposals—Summary of consultation findings. Wellington: Author. Education Council New Zealand|Matatū Aotearoa (2018). ITE Programme approval, monitoring and review requirements—statement. Wellington: Author. Edwards, A. (2009). From the systemic to the relational: Relational agency and activity theory. In A. Sannino, H. Danels & K. Gutiérrez (Eds.), Learning and expanding with activity theory (pp. 197–211). New York: Cambridge University Press. Ellis, V., & McNicholl, J. (2015). Transforming teacher education: Reconfiguring the academic work. London: Bloomsbury. Ellis, V., McNicholl, J., & Pendry, A. (2012). Institutional conceptualisations of teacher education as academic work in England. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(5), 685–93. doi:10.1016/j. tate.2012.02.004 Ellis, V., Blake, A., McNicholl, J., & McNally, J. (2011). The work of teacher education. Final research report. UK: Subject Centre for Education ESCalate, The Higher Education Academy,. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit. Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen & R.-L. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 19–38). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–56. Engeström, Y. (2005). Developmental work research: Expanding activity theory in practice. Berlin: Lehmanns Media. Foucault, M. (1977). Power/knowledge: Selected interview and other writings 1972–1977. (C. Gordon, L. Marshall, J. Mepham & K. Soper, Trans.). New York: Pantheon Books. Freiberg, J., & Freebody, P. (2009). Applying membership categorisation analysis to discourse: When the ‘Tripwire Critique’ is not enough. In T. Lê, Q. Lê & M. Short (Eds.), Critical discourse analysis: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 49–64). New York: Nova Science. Furlong, J. (2013). Globalisation, neoliberalism, and the reform of teacher education in England. The Educational Forum, 77(1), 28–50. Gee, J. (1990). Social linguistics and literacies. Ideology in discourses. London: The Falmer Press. Gee, J. (2014). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Gravett, S. (2012). Crossing the ‘theory-practice divide’: Learning to be(come) a teacher. South African Journal of Childhood Education, 2(2), 1–14. Gunn, A. C. (2019). Foucauldian discourse analysis in early childhood education. In G. Noblit (Ed.), Oxford research encyclopedia of education. New York: Oxford University Press.

30

University Teacher Education

Gunn, A. C., Berg, D., Hill, M. F., & Haigh, M. (2015). Constructing the academic category of teacher educator in universities’ recruitment processes in Aotearoa, New Zealand. Journal of Education for Teaching, 41(3), 307–20. Hales, A., & Clarke, A. (2016). So you want to be a teacher educator? The job advertisement as a construction of teacher education in Canada. Asia Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 44(4), 320–32. Korthagen, F. A. J. (2011). Making teacher education relevant for practice: The pedagogy of realistic teacher education. Orbis Scholai, 5(2), 31–50. Mandelbaum, J. (2013). Storytelling in conversation. In J. Sidness & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 492–507). West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell. Mayer, D. (2014). Forty years of teacher education in Australia: 1974–2014. Journal of Education for Teaching, 40(5), 461–73. McNicholl, J., & Blake, A. (2013). Transforming teacher education, an activity theory analysis. Journal of Education for Teaching: International Research and Pedagogy, 39(3), 281–300. Ministry of Education (2013). Request for application of provision of exemplary postgraduate initial teacher education programmes. Wellington: Author. Nuttall, J., Brennan, M., Zipin, L., Tuinamuana, K., & Cameron, L. (2013). Lost in production: The erasure of the teacher educator in Australian university job advertisements. Journal of Education for Teaching, 39(3), 329–43. OECD. (2005). Teachers matter: Attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers. Paris: OECD. OECD. (n.d.). TALIS International Teacher Preparation Study. Retrieved from http:// www.oecd.org/education/school/talis-initial-teacher-preparation-study.htm#About, accessed 1 August 2019 OEDC (2012). Teacher education for diversity: Meeting the challenge. Paris: OECD Centre for Educational Research and Innovation. Parata, H. (2012). Building a brighter future: Budget 2012—Extra $511.9 million for education. [Press Release]. Retrieved from http://www.national.org.nz/Article. aspx?articleId-38507, accessed 25 March 2013. Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training (2018). Valuing Australia’s teachers. [Press Release]. Inquiry into the status of the teaching profession. Retrieved from https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/ House/Employment_Education_and_Training/TeachingProfession/Media_Releases, accessed 1 August 2019 Stetsenko, A. (2005). Activity as object-related: Resolving the dichotomy of individual and collective planes of activity. Mind, Culture and Activity, 12(1), 70–88. Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand. (2019). ITE programme approval, monitoring and review requirements. Retrieved from https://teachingcouncil.nz/sites/ default/files/ITE_Requirements_FINAL_10April2019_0.pdf, accessed 1 June 2019 Toom, A. (2010). Experiences of a research-based approach to teacher education: Suggestions for future policies. European Journal of Education, 45(2), 331–44.

A|NZ Study into the Work of Teacher Education

31

Tuinamuana, K. (2016). The work of the teacher-educator in Australia: Reconstructing the ‘superhero performer/academic in an audit culture’. Asia Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 44(4), 333–47. Virkkunen, J., & Newnham, D. S. (2013). The Change Laboratory: A tool for collaborative development of work and education. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Vygotsky, L. (1978) Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Walker, J.M., & von Bergmann, H. (2013). Teacher education policy in Canada: Beyond professionalization and deregulation. Canadian Journal of Education, 36(4), 65–92. Weedon, C. (1987). Feminist practice and poststructuralist theory. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Yamagata-Lynch, L. C. (2010). Activity systems analysis methods: Understanding complex learning environments. New York: Springer Science+Business Media. Zeichner, K. (2014). The struggle for the soul of teaching and teacher education in the USA. Journal of Education for Teaching, 40(5), 551–68.

32

3

Teacher Educators’ Experiences of Transition and Change

This chapter is concerned with an exploration of our participant TEs’ (teacher educators) professional life histories such that they help us to appreciate UBITE (university-based initial teacher education) as it has come to be practised in A|NZ (Aotearoa New Zealand). In this chapter, we use professional life history data to better understand the collective subject of university-based TE (teacher educator), to understand how this subject has emerged in the cultural historical context of UBITE in this country and to appreciate how the activity of UBITE shapes the TE subject and is shaped by it in turn, within a dynamic, multiple, intersecting system. Following Engeström (2001), we understand the TE collective subject as representing a ‘community of multiple points of view, traditions and interests’ (p. 136). Our TEs are both key actors in the activity systems of their work and are acted on by them too. By better understanding major transitions experienced by the TEs in our study and appreciating, from their points of view, the contradictions they face at work and that they attribute significance to, we can glimpse the interrelations between individuals and their collective community activity, including tensions and challenges which, if actively worked upon, may result in positive individual change and systematic expansion and development of the activity of UBITE. As explained in Chapter 2, the second phase of the WoTE-NZ (Work of Teacher Education (NZ)) study involved purposively recruited TEs from two universities most of whom consented to participate in the following data production activities: a pre-work-shadowing professional life history interview, work diaries, work-shadowing, a follow-up interview and collaborative data analysis workshop. The TEs worked across early childhood, primary and secondary ITE. All worked within one-year teacher education programmes (but some in three-year programmes of ITE and a range of other universitybased academic programmes as well). All were former teachers who had

34

University Teacher Education

worked in ECE or schools. Their professional experience (as teachers in ECE or school sectors) ranged from five to twenty-five years, with a median of seventeen years. Twelve participants had been employed as TEs within former colleges of education prior to their institutional mergers with local universities. Years spent as a TE ranged from two to twenty-one years, with a median of ten. Six participants had completed doctorates and another six were engaged in doctorates at the time of the study. Two-thirds of the participants reported having significant university-service related leadership or administrative roles at East or West University. The fifteen TEs were invited to participate in a telephone interview prior to work-shadowing. All accepted the invitation. Each interview generated an account of their professional life histories. Our interview prompts involved asking TEs about the position they currently held and the career pathway they had followed to that point. As they explained how they had become TEs, many recalled their early days of working in the tertiary education context, including the opportunities this afforded them and challenges they faced. We asked the TEs to describe their current roles, their induction into teacher education and any mentoring they’d had for the role. Finally, we asked them to explain their expectations regarding the future of teacher education and their role within this. We analysed the professional life history interviews for significant turning points and adaptations to participants’ work lives, including changes to the material conditions of their work and how they felt about those. It is this analysis that informs the accounts of transition and change presented in Chapter 3. Career trajectories for TEs are idiosyncratic, with decisions regarding career pathways being opportunity, spatially, temporally and socially bound. As explained by Argyropou and Kaliris (2018), personality and social engagement preferences have significance for career decision-making and therefore influence variation in individual career trajectories. Nevertheless, all our participants had been members of the teaching profession before taking on roles as TEs. All had experienced changes to the fundamental activity of their teaching work – from teaching children and school- or kura-aged students to teaching adults within higher (tertiary) education and all had experienced the changed imperative to plan, conduct and report research as a basic element of work in the university system. In this chapter we pay particular attention to the professional life histories of three of the TEs from WoTE-NZ to illustrate major transitions in TEs’ careers brought about by changes in the activity of their work. We also draw from the

Teacher Educators’ Experiences of Transition

35

Chris entered ITE from primary teaching to take up a position at a college of education before moving to a university to become a senior university academic. [At the time of the interview] Chris held a university-service related senior leadership role (.2FTE) and was also an associate professor. Chris’ work involved academic leadership, oversight of budget and academic staffing, management of administrative staff, responsibility for assessment systems and practices within a university school, teaching (in ITE, postgraduate and general education), research and the supervision of postgraduate research students. As a senior academic with a leadership role, Chris also sat on faculty and university-wide committees and mentored other academics. Val was a teacher who became seconded to a teacher education position in a university. Appointment to a permanent university position as a professional teaching fellow followed. [At the time of the interview] Val had university-service related responsibility for a degree qualification in ITE which had over 800 enrolled students. For this role Val received a.5FTE workload attribution. Val’s teaching was based around professional experience papers in undergraduate and postgraduate ITE; they were also undertaking doctoral study while working at the university. Nat had worked in industry after gaining an ITE qualification, a move into secondary teaching followed, after which a period of study resulted in the attainment of a PhD. A return to teaching preceded Nat’s uptake of a part-time position in ITE. [At the time of the interview] Nat was a lecturer, two-years into the role, who worked in undergraduate and postgraduate ITE and supervised postgraduate research students. A university-service role involving the coordination of curriculum related papers took up a proportion of Nat’s time and ‘all sorts of [other] service’ filled up the.7FTE that Nat then worked. Figure 3.1  Background information for Chris, Val and Nat

accounts of other TEs who participated in the study to illustrate convergent and divergent experiences. The three participants whose accounts frame this chapter are Chris, Val and Nat and a synopsis of their professional stories is provided in Figure 3.1.

Entering initial teacher education There was little consistency in the professional journeys of participants as they entered into ITE from the teaching profession. While a few had moved directly from full-time teaching into full-time teacher education positions, most had more fractured transitions and circuitous pathways into TE roles. The practice of secondment, whereby a teacher might be released temporarily from their school, kura or early childhood teaching position without disadvantage, was frequently cited. This practice is suggestive of fragmented and temporary appointment processes within ITE but they preserve for ITE purposes a measure of currency

36

University Teacher Education

within TE appointments, ensuring a regular flow of practice expertise into the tertiary institution-based ITE workforce. For those teachers who took up such roles, the opportunity to stretch themselves in a new work environment and to try out what it might be like to step into the TE context had appeal. Sawyer explained: I had a real interest [in a curriculum area] and that was a strength, a passion, strength. I’d done a lot of leadership in [the curriculum area] in the school, so this was an opportunity to grow my understanding of the curriculum area. And I brought classroom experience as well as passion.

Whereas Bailey was grateful for the opportunity to try out the TE role before fully committing to the change. Baily was thankful that school leaders were: good enough to give me leave, so I didn’t jump in boots and all initially. I wanted to see what it would be like … I’ve come from 20 years plus of classroom teaching to an environment where I am still trying to distil down the essence of teaching … and to shortcut some of the painful processes I went through and try to help young people intending to be teachers to make sense of the complexity of the classroom.

Both Chris and Val’s appointments into ITE included initial secondments which later transferred to permanent appointments (see Figure 3.2), and several other participants explained how for them, a range of seconded or part-time, fixed-term roles, over several years had culminated in permanent TE roles. Ash, for example, had worked as a teacher, as a part-time TE, had been a tertiary student (completing a PhD), a tutor and part-time visiting lecturer  within ITE before gradually building up to a full-time permanent appointment in the university. Bailey had held a lengthy career teaching (untrained) within overseas schools, before completing an ITE qualification and beginning teaching in a local secondary school. While secondary teaching, Bailey also taught part-time in a tertiary institution, eventually taking up contract work within a college of education, a role which, over time, became permanent. Such accounts are suggestive of some serendipity in the TEs career trajectories – TE roles were taken when offered but not necessarily actively pursued. This was not the case for Nat, who’d made deliberate choices to study and to teach in the hope it would later lead to a university-based ITE career. That Nat had completed a doctorate before taking up a permanent ITE role was unusual within the participant group (although Ash’s PhD had been

Teacher Educators’ Experiences of Transition

37

Chris [described that it was] serendipitous that a position in higher education came along. I was a deputy principal by the time I left teaching. The thing about a job at the college of education was that I felt I couldn’t do that, it’d be far too hard and then I got here and go, ‘I can do this’. So, aspirations change as you go along. The opportunity presented itself, I did it, I found I could do it, I loved it, I really loved that I had this whole pool of experience, that I could pass on to people who wanted to know what it was really like… Val [explained], five years ago, I was seconded for a year from a school to come in to work in practicum. That one-year secondment moved me towards the permanent position I now hold. I had been a walking deputy principal in a decile three primary school and had become connected to the University because we were working together over new ways of partnering for practicum. I was the school-based person who became part of that project and then one thing led to another. Nat [said], I wanted to be a teacher educator for 15 years before I became one. I admired my secondary curriculum lecturer when I was training. I remember sitting in the class one day, and I said, ‘I want your job’. She told me the best curriculum lecturers are the ones who have got recent practice. So we mapped out this long-term plan. I had to get a PhD, at least five years’ experience in a classroom and experience outside the school system. We worked out what the building blocks were. So, before becoming a teacher educator I worked in industry, then I did secondary teaching for a number of years. I stopped teaching and did a PhD. We became parents about then too, which is why I took six years part-time. Then I did a bit more teaching overseas. Two years ago, I got my dream job here. Figure 3.2  How Chris, Val and Nat became teacher educators

undertaken while they1 were employed also as a tutor at part-time visiting lecturer in ITE). Most commonly those TE participants in the WoTE-NZ study who had gained higher qualifications (masters and doctorates) had done so after their appointment to a university or former college system (Val’s account was a familiar example). At the time we worked with them in the work-shadowing protocol, six of the fourteen TEs were undertaking doctoral study while working as university-based TEs. Their study was pursued outside of work, which meant it impacted on family and community involvement. The practice of this combined work/study activity had led to consequences for some TEs’ career development. For example, having been appointed to UBITE as a SL (senior lecturer) post-institutional-merger between their former college and the local university, Bailey had recently We use the generic-third person singular ‘they’ when referring to individual participants along with gender non-specific names as a means of helping preserve the anonymity of the TEs who participated in the study. While the use of the singular ‘they’ may be unfamiliar, it has been endorsed by the APA in their seventh edition (2019).

1

38

University Teacher Education

been re-deployed into what we termed a PE (professional expert)-type TE position. Bailey’s sense of this was they had been too unproductive researchwise in their role of SL, and the university had responded by redesignating Bailey and changing the parameters of their work such that research was no longer a requirement of the position. At the time of the study, Bailey had recently completed a PhD. It is possible to trace several different types of decision-making in the TEs ‘entry into teacher education’ stories. On the one hand there is evidence of career decisions that were carefully planned and worked towards. Nat’s story exemplifies this. It indicates high self-efficacy and determination, with Nat following a pathway designed to maximize the chance of winning a position in UBITE over time. Two more of our participants also demonstrated this kind of self-determined and deliberately actioned pathway into the field. In contrast, however, many of the participants entered teacher education more by chance, often following engagement with the ITE provider through teacher education partnership activities (see Val’s account in Figure 3.2). That the partnership activities of ITE providers and practice settings led to part- and eventually fulltime recruitment into ITE served both individuals and the institutions well. Teachers could try their hand at being a TE while keeping a foot in the door of the early childhood, kura, or school setting and the institutions could be assured  their TE workforce was being replenished with practice expertise. A third of the participants had been actively encouraged by colleagues to pursue fixed-term and contract roles within ITE (e.g. Val’s account in Figure 3.2). It was routine for such contract or secondment positions to become full-time permanent positions over time. Only one participant applied for and was appointed to a position that was advertised. It seems that the consumer mantle of try before you buy was alive and active in the historical recruitment of our TEs to the ITE system. As well as this the gradual take up of employment within ITE meant that our TEs were not novices to teacher education work before they took up their positions. Many had been mentor teachers in schools or early childhood centres, and some had been professional development leaders for teacher education inservice courses. Such engagement (Livingston, 2014; Murray & Kosnik, 2011) was frequently cited as significant in our participants’ reasons for becoming a TE in the former college system or university. For example, West University participants Lou and Jessie, along with Brook, Cas and Gabriel at East University, had all been heavily involved in teacher education activities before their eventual appointment to TE roles. They had run in-service or professional development

Teacher Educators’ Experiences of Transition

39

courses for teachers or engaged in moderation activities for the professional body with jurisdiction over ITE approval and review. Insights gained into the work from such activities helped individuals make the decision to step into the role. Brook commented: My reason for moving into higher education was because I had done a lot of professional development for teachers … and then a position became available for a half-time job at a college of education, and my school was splendid in allowing me to do that half-time job while doing my other job, which made it so easy to do, I think it was a natural progression.

Throughout their careers, many participants had taken years out from teaching so they could pursue study or attend to family responsibilities. Some had managed teaching and family commitments with part-time paid employment (see Nat’s story in Figure 3.2). Seven of our participants had been initially employed into positions within the colleges of education system and had transited into university employment when their institutions merged with the local university. The remainder of the TEs (eight) were employed directly to university positions from either teaching or teaching and study occupations. In the next section, we explore our participants’ senses of what it has meant to be a TE.

Being teacher educators Once employed as TEs in tertiary institutions, the participants in our study clearly enjoyed the opportunities the transition provided for personal development and professional learning. They also acknowledged that they faced a number of challenges. Their accounts highlight the complexities of transiting from one teaching sector to another when the basic work activity had changed, sometimes in unexpected ways. The participants’ experiences provided plenty of evidence of a shift in teaching career that Murray (2005) describes as stressful. A few of the TEs reflected on their perception of ITE work at the start of their (tertiary) career noting they thought it would be a narrower, simpler job, given the wide-ranging professional activities expected of teachers in ECE, at kura or school. Used to extra-curricular activities such as parent education initiatives, sports coaching, assistance with end-of-year productions and the such like, and recognizing that these would be no longer required of them, their expectations were soon dashed once the novice TE became more involved in ITE work. In fact, they came to perceive their role in ITE as a more complex enterprise overall than

40

University Teacher Education

teaching in the professional field. The scope of work activities in the tertiary setting (university) was much expanded from their former teaching roles. It brought TEs into the context of everyday academic work involving teaching, service and research, while retaining high levels of continuing engagement with the professional teaching community. Not only were new TEs learning to become academic workers, they had to now retain and increase involvement in professional associations, undertake new relationship building and maintenance with partnering schools, kura and early childhood services, supervise STs in practice and take up co-teaching opportunities with colleagues in the field as appropriate (e.g. to demonstrate methods in practice, illustrate pedagogical concepts expected of STs and so forth). While such activities kept the TEs well connected with their preexisting professional networks and immensely supported their work in ITE, and the tertiary institutions gained much from the professional expertise afforded by recent appointments from the field, the

Chris [explained], when you become a teacher educator, you’re able to stand back and go ‘so what’s this all about?’ ‘What is teaching really about?’ and then getting into doing my Master’s and [being introduced to] theory, critical theory, post modernism … big ideas, and you kind of feel like your head is just expanding and expanding as you come to understand it. So, I’ve really loved that transition from teaching young people to teaching slightly older people… and much older people in some cases with postgraduate students. I think the demands on teacher educators have changed. I think that when I first joined a college of education there was time, time to read, time to plan, time to talk, and time to think. Now there is no time. There also was a lot more administrative support in those days… I don’t think we have the recognition that I certainly felt when I first became a teacher educator. I feel I’ve lost a lot of autonomy [due to institutional restraints and requirements of the professional body]. Val [remarked], I think the expectation of the nature of my work is changing and I think that I’m going to have to keep thinking about that… The potential for us to continue to grow and strengthen is definitely there. I do think that there are some things around acknowledging that I’m a university lecturer and that this is the environment that I work in that I have to do some work on myself. I feel privileged. I think I have a wonderful job. Nat [said], here the work is different to what I expected because being a teacher [in the university] is only part of my job. There is a real difference between academic writing and research and the job of being a teacher… switching your brain over from teaching to writing is really tough. I want to hide away to write but I teach from January 5th through to December 19th so I don’t have that opportunity. I’m real sad because, although I have done other bits of writing and research, I haven’t had the time to write up from my PhD. It is not that I’ve chosen not to do it, I literally haven’t had the time and I am in mourning for that. Figure 3.3  Chris, Val and Nat on being a teacher educator

Teacher Educators’ Experiences of Transition

41

TEs were negotiating an entirely new community and institutional environment within tertiary teaching which, when at a university, normally included an expanded work remit of research. Previous studies have identified a number of difficulties or tensions associated with academic workers’ entry into higher education (e.g. Griffiths, Thompson  & Hryniewicz, 2014; Murray, 2008), especially for those in ITE who have moved into TE roles straight from the profession as the majority of our participants had. Issues around juggling different roles (see, e.g., Nat’s dilemma in Figure 3.3), managing oneself as an autonomous scholar and negotiating identity shifts were replete. In fact many of our TEs maintained and articulated a strong sense of being a ‘teacher’ rather than an ‘academic’ or ‘teacher educator’ well into their ITE careers. Interpreting and negotiating institutional rules, regulations, funding and expectations with respect to research were common themes of tension that the participant TEs spoke of in their interviews (see, e.g., Val and Chris’ comments in Figure 3.3). Additionally, many were continuing to juggle broader professional and family commitments while establishing themselves in the academy. TEs’ reflections on working in the university environment often included commentary around the difficulty in finding time for reflection in order to think about their new professional job. As many different groups of STs were studying across varying programmes in an institution, the length of the year involving ST contact was long and involved TEs working with overlapping cohorts of students in practice and in courses. Jay explained this as: The hard thing with it is that the rhythm of the year is very, there is no let up, so when teaching drops off visiting starts … It’s really hard to find protected spaces. … There are just no solid chunks to think or write. … I get quite caught sometimes. Because I really value the work of the professional practice kind of stuff, the [work] of the teaching fellows. I really value their expertise and their insights and yet I also really value research and I think it’s central to our role ideally.

At the time of our study, the length of teacher education year in A|NZ had increased significantly in many universities due to the introduction of a new postgraduate form of teacher education that was being trialled at the time. This meant that programmes started early in the calendar year (at West University it had begun in calendar Week 2) and finishing well into December (West university’s programme ended in calendar Week 50). Consequently there were few breaks during the year for TEs to be able to reflect on their role and engage in professional learning. For TEs who had come into UBITE

42

University Teacher Education

from schools, kura and some early childhood settings, this lack of non-student contact time during the year was a significant change in work circumstances. It is also different from the experiences of many other university academics as well. The relentless pace of teaching in the university and (through ST supervision, co-teaching and tutoring experiences) in the field was an enormous challenge to constrain. Understanding the policy environments of TEs’ work in the university setting also presented challenges to some of our participants as novice TEs. Policies arising from, for instance, PBRF (Performance Based Research Funding) and requirements of internal and external quality assurance systems, alongside those of the professional body, needed to be understood because they had a direct impact on the work of ITE. The necessity to address both regular university systems and processes alongside those of the professional body, which did not always align, added much complexity to the design and operation of ITE programmes within the institution. Additionally, navigating the research environment as a university worker posed some dilemmas (e.g. as explained by Nat in Figure 3.3). While several of our TEs had doctoral qualifications and research experience before coming to the role, most were learning how to become researchers as they took up work in the university environment. This is a feature of TE that academics noted in other studies from England (Harrison & McKeon, 2008) and Aotearoa New Zealand (Hill & Haigh, 2012). For those first appointed to a college of education that later merged with a university, there was an adjustment to be made to meet the demand to be research productive. Six of our participants were upgrading qualifications while working, and all the TEs faced the expectation of being research productive if they were going to qualify for funding support to attend conferences or launch research projects at East and West universities. Many of our TEs had significant university servicerelated roles incorporated into their work as well. Those TE participants whose job designations placed them in the professional expert (PE)-type TE category we had identified in the first phase of WoTE-NZ normally had no formal requirement in their positions to engage in research. However, being research active is part and parcel of being a University academic and research work was highly valued by them and the institutions alike. All our participants therefore, whether they were required to or not, were actively engaging in research that supported their teaching and the development of knowledge for teaching and for ITE overall. The constant juggle of teaching, administration and research was palpable in our TEs accounts of their work lives. Brook described it as:

Teacher Educators’ Experiences of Transition

43

You are running two jobs side by side. You have to be an excellent lecturer and deal with all the expectations of more and more administration, evaluating courses, writing long reports … because you have two jobs you are always pulled … You are wanting to spend time creating something new for your classes and you have to think now if I do that I won’t get this article in by that date and you are constantly pulled.

As well as research-related challenges, there were teaching-associated challenges for those working in the tertiary education teaching environment for the first time. This included negotiating how to practise teaching within ITE differently from their previous expertise in ECE and schooling. Ash commented that [in ITE]: We have a meta-level thing going on … we are teaching about teaching, so what we are doing is the vehicle as well as the message … everything is all tied up together because you’re teaching about teaching, but the way you are teaching is also teaching them about teaching because they’re observing your teaching and so.

Jessie too reflected on the nature of teaching and the similarities and differences of teaching adults and children. While the imperative of understanding how people learn still applied, for Jessie teaching adults was ‘very scary initially’ because the adults provided much less immediate feedback about one’s teaching practice. Jessie would have appreciated more support during the initial shift but over time found that by seeking feedback from STs in-situ, completing evaluations and undertaking self-reflection, fine-tuning to practice was possible. The imperative of getting or keeping up to date with current thinking and practice about curriculum so as to incorporate that into their university teaching, compared with simply drawing on individual experience from the field, was commented on by a number of the participants. The longer a TE had been out of the early childhood or schools sector’s, the more open to critique they were over some notion of currency regarding professional (teaching) expertise. Gabriel commented on the continuous interplay of ‘reading and researching and thinking all the time’, especially during tutorial and lecture preparation. Furthermore, in the work-shadowing protocol, we observed plenty of theory-practice negotiation occurring (see for instance, examples of teaching in Chapter 7 and our TEs work-shadowing narratives in Chapter 4). However, where TEs were asked to work across sectors within ITE, it provided additional opportunities for TEs knowledge and understanding of learning and teaching to expand. In recognition of their particular professional expertise, Jessie, an early

44

University Teacher Education

years’ specialist, for example, had been asked to teach primary and secondary STs content about children’s participation rights in learning and by doing so, Jessie’s TE colleagues benefited as well. Another challenge of working as a university academic within teacher education was a perception by our TEs of being isolated in the job. A recognized benefit of university employment is the degree of autonomy one possesses over teaching content and research interests (as commented on by Chris in Figure 3.3, although a marked reduction in this sense of autonomy had occurred for Chris over time). Many of the participants commented on the solitary nature of their teacher educators’ work compared to what they had experienced in schools and early childhood centres. The rules of teaching had changed for them as they moved into the academy. Whereas in the context of the profession teaching might have been collaborative or planned for within school syndicates or curriculum departments, within the university, individual academics typically held sole-coordination responsibility for teaching arrangements and content. This would often require the design of content that could be delivered by others as well (if tutors or other lectures were to be involved in large class/small tutorial-type teaching arrangements). Furthermore, if TEs were designated as PE-type academics, they may have needed to prepare teaching content under supervision – so the risk of not quite getting it right for those who held jurisdiction over a paper loomed large. This perceived isolation impacted on their professional learning opportunities unless deliberate steps were taken to integrate courses and cohorts (as in the example with Jessie described earlier). Lou, a TE who worked mainly within secondary sector ITE, commented: there are a lot of system’s imperatives but without the collaborative conversations. I think that has exacerbated the sharp change I have experienced from secondary to coming here because [in schools] we always had colleagues on hand to problem solve, chat, get perspectives, a feeling of being in a group and working towards it.

As well as sometimes finding their TE work isolating, participants also reported challenges with building positive relationships with their STs because they were not seeing them so often, or they only met them in large group situations. Such circumstances made it challenging to get to know individuals across the whole class. Jay commented that in large group situations, knowing the learners individually was challenging and that knowing ‘how to pitch material and help the students make connections [was] much harder to do’. This raised tensions for

Teacher Educators’ Experiences of Transition

45

TEs about actual and optimal work practice, particularly with respect to learning and teaching, a recognized issue for TEs also noted by others in the literature (Meeus, Cools & Placklé, 2018). A friction between what TEs knew about optimal pedagogical practices combined with recollections of how they may have taught in the (school or early childhood centre) field rubbed up against the structures of teaching in the university (ST expectations for lecture delivery, large classes, fixed physical spaces like lecture halls, expectations to use specific technologies, for example, power-points and to have content available for student download via online student learning systems for instance). It was an issue identified by Sawyer but reflected in the comments of many other participants too: [When I was teaching in schools] there was a lot of co-construction of knowledge [with students], which is still a key component in my teaching practice, but now we have less time for this [following new degree development].

It was clear that our participants faced a number of challenges in their work within ITE and other studies, many of them self-studies, link many of the challenges of this to the negotiation of changing professional identities (Williams & Ritter, 2010; Young & Erickson, 2011). Other research suggests that negotiating the academic work identity while simultaneously adjusting to different work environments and possibly being initially fearful of research can cause considerable stress (Saito, 2013), which we certainly heard from our participants as they talked about their work lives. However, Davey (2013) explains, after Wenger (1998), ‘A person’s identity … is essentially mediated and developed … within the context of their current social practice’ (Davey, 2013, p. 27), and whilst many of our participants still considered themselves to be teachers, there were aspects of TE role which were, over time, challenging this singular construction of themselves. There appeared to be issues around changes of status from expert (teacher) to novice (TE) that our participants dealt with. These were compounded by a lack of clear processes for induction within the tertiary institution and the time it took for TEs to use their work to help them adjust. Val summarized the lengthy process of self-identification as a primary teacher to being a TE as: I [now] think like an initial teacher educator and not like a primary school teacher. So, when I talk to student teachers about their transition to being a beginning teacher, I reflect on my own transition coming into this environment. I would say it’s definitely been a five-year transition.

Becoming, being and identifying as a teacher educator is likely to be facilitated by formal induction and mentoring processes. However, the

46

University Teacher Education

induction experiences of our participants were variable. For most participants, informal mentoring from peers was very important and helpful, with over half commenting on the usefulness and high value of such support.

Perception of role in the future As noted at the start of the chapter, the fifteen TEs in the WoTE-NZ study had hugely idiosyncratic pathways into UBITE. Many of the fifteen experienced a merger of their college of education with their local university, and this had brought with it an expanded work remit and new opportunities and challenges. The participants’ professional career stories presented a rich picture of their journey into ITE and their work within the academy. The accounts generated here present a picture of exceptional professionals, very reflective of their role and keen to make positive contributions to the professional and academic development of teaching and of ITE. As they took time with us to reflect upon their work as TEs, they also made comment on future expectations of teacher education and its potential. In Figure 3.4, Chris, Val and Nat explain the joys and rewards of their work in UBITE, while at the same time acknowledging some of

Chris [reflected], I’ve been in this job for a very long time, and it has been a great job. I have absolutely no regrets that I ever went down this road, and I think the transition from teacher to teacher educator, which is now kind of broadened into being an academic role, what a privilege, what a wonderful opportunity. Val [remarked], I think we work in an environment where we are constantly asked to be innovative, and asked to use current research to make sure that we’re really at the cutting edge etc. At the same time, constraints around funding and workload don’t make that very easy. It’s a wonderful job and a very difficult job. I feel privileged. I think I have a wonderful job … though I’m not sure that anyone really knows exactly what [it] is, what an initial teacher educator is. Nat [said], In terms of my plans, I want to work here, I want to be part of a programme with integrity and I want to ‘suss out’ the university system… I want to conquer the job I’m in. I want to be the person going away to do some writing. I think that is possible, eventually. How am I feeling about working as a teacher educator? I’m feeling a little overwhelmed but I’m still proud of doing it. I still love working with the students, but my stress levels are really high, and I haven’t felt this stressed before. Doing this job means I barely have enough time… and the job continues to impact on family life. I certainly don’t have time to keep well with good exercise and balance, have a hobby, or contribute to my community. Figure 3.4  Chris, Val and Nat reflect on the joys and challenges of being a teacher educator

Teacher Educators’ Experiences of Transition

47

the personal challenges they’ve experienced of being a TE and their thoughts about the role moving into the future. All fifteen of the participant TEs in the WoTE-NZ study expressed positive comments and clear enjoyment of their role. It was definitely a challenging work to be involved in, but plenty of opportunities were welcomed and taken by them as well. There were critiques of the systems our TEs found themselves working within at East and West universities and in ITE in A|NZ as a whole. But the affordances of being located within the university system were opening up research and scholarship (albeit with difficulty for some) to the TE practitioners and their work was changing as a consequence of it. Key factors impacting career satisfaction at the time of our study included managing a seemingly unending series of policy challenges and changes within teacher education (most of which were out of the TEs direct control), limited availability for professional reflection in order to improve performance and pursue work goals, limited administrative support and negotiation of identity changes as TEs moved across teaching contexts and between institutions and roles. The professional life history data we have presented in this chapter has helped us better understand the collective subject of university-based TE at a time of system-wide change in ITE within A|NZ. We have been able to see how this subject has emerged in its cultural historical context and how the TE subject has shaped and been shaped by the dynamic, multiple, intersecting activities and activity systems of their work. The shift of the majority of teacher education provision to the university sector effected an expansion to the TE subject and their work activities. In the chapters to come, we take a closer look at the kinds of work activities TEs are involved in, on a day, across several weeks and within ITE classrooms as we continue to turn our WoTE-NZ data to the task of exploring the promise of UBITE.

References Argyropoulou, K., & Kaliris, A. (2018). From career decision-making to career-decision management: New trends and prospects for career counselling. Advances in Social Science Research Journal, 5(10), 483–502. Committee on University Academic Programmes (2018). CUAP Handbook 2018. Wellington: Te Pōkai Tara Universities New Zealand. Davey, R. (2013). The professional identity of teacher educators: Career on the cusp? London: Routledge.

48

University Teacher Education

Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–56. Griffiths, V., Thompson, S., & Hryniewicz, L. (2014). Landmarks in the professional and academic development of mid-career teacher educators. European Journal of Teacher Education, 37(1), 74–90. Harrison, J., & McKeon, F. (2008). The formal and situated learning of beginning teacher educators in England: Identifying characteristics for successful induction in the transition from workplace in school to workplace in higher education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 31(2), 151–68. Hill, M. F., & Haigh, M. A. (2012). Creating a culture of research in teacher education: Learning research within communities of practice. Studies in Higher Education, 37(8), 971–88. doi:10.1080/03075079.2011.559222 Livingston, K. (2014). Teacher educators: Hidden professionals? European Journal of Education, 49(2), 218–32. Meeus, W., Cools, W., & Placklé, I. (2018). Teacher educators developing professional roles: Frictions between current and optimal practices. European Journal of Teacher Education, 41(1), 15–31. Murray, J. (2005). Investigating good practices in the induction of teacher educators into higher education: Research study for ESCalate, 2005. Retrieved from: https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/investigating-good-practicesinduction-teacher-educators-higher-education Murray, J. (2008). Teacher educators’ induction into higher education: Work-based learning in the micro communities of teacher education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 31(2), 117–33. Murray, J., & Kosnik, C. (2011). Academic work and identities in teacher education. Journal of Education for Teaching, 37(3), 243–6. Saito, E. (2013). When a practitioner becomes a university faculty member: A review of literature on the challenges faced by novice ex-practitioner teacher educators. International Journal for Academic Development, 18(2), 190–200. Teaching Council New Zealand|Matatū Aotearoa (2019). ITE Programme approval, monitoring and review requirements. Wellington: Author. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Williams, J., & Ritter, J. (2010). Constructing new professional identities through selfstudy: From teacher to teacher educator. Professional Development in Education, 36(1-2), 77–92. Young, J., & Erickson, L. (2011). Imagining, becoming and being a teacher: How professional history mediates teacher educator identity. Studying Teacher Education, 7(2), 121–9.

4

A University-Based Teacher Educator’s Day at Work

We recruited fifteen TEs (teacher educators) to the second phase of our project, fourteen of whom we were able to shadow for a day at work. As noted in Chapter 2, several data collection activities were undertaken during the second phase of our study. These included the work-shadowing protocol; making notes about participants’ activities; photographing artefacts; and having situated discussions about activities, tools and artefacts used during the TEs work. Where possible we also talked with the STs (student teachers) that the TEs engaged with during the day. In this chapter we examine in some depth the activity being undertaken by the cohort of university-based teacher educators, and we consider that work in relation to the institutionally constructed version of UBITE (university-based teacher education) from Phase 1 of the study. We are interested in how initial teacher education provision is being produced institutionally, as well as how it is being practised in its historically changing context. By making use of close-up and situated observations and perceiving the objectives motivating participants’ actions, we are able to consider the collective activity of teacher education in the university sector. This supports us in our task of understanding more about how specific kinds of activities and practices are sustained and how contradictions within the systems of activity that participants are working within open up the possibility for positive change and development of the system. We entered into Phase 2 of the study with a construction of UBITE from Phase 1 that looked to be bifurcating the work of teacher education within universities along professional and traditional academic lines. Such divisions of labour within teacher education work have been observed in other jurisdictions (McNicholl & Blake, 2013; Roberts & Foster, 2015) with mixed consequences. However, because the majority of teacher education provision in A|NZ (Aotearoa New Zealand) has only relatively recently moved into university provision, this apparent labour division is somewhat new here. We believe that

50

University Teacher Education

by exploring the actual work being done in UBITE and understanding what meanings TEs and others ascribe to that work, we can support progress towards the promise of university-based provision, before institutional practices become sedimented in the field and fix practices in ways we might want to resist. We recognize that in order to service the full scope of work within UBITE and to maintain standards established within the profession and academy, institutions need employees who are both professionally credentialed and research active (so-called DQ (dually qualified) in our terms). We would argue that TEs should be both because by holding both sets of credentials and working in research and practice sites, they can maintain credibility and expertise in the professional and academic fields and support the development of both through systematic research with sound practice utility. Few of the positions we identified as recruiting for academic roles in ITE (initial teacher education) during Phase 1 of our project, however, required this of prospective applicants. Hence our interpretation of a bifurcation in the work and workforce at that time. In Phase 2, therefore, we were keen to actually examine the scope and conditions of work that shaped our practising university-based TEs’ daily lives, and to see if the institutional constructions from recent recruitment drives were being actualized in practice too.

Our production of work-shadowing data and its analysis At the end of 2014 and the beginning of 2015 academic years, a purposive sample of fifteen TEs who worked within one-year programmes of early childhood, primary- and secondary-based teacher education were recruited to the study. All these participants were involved in professional life history interviews, and all but one participated in the work-shadowing protocol. Descriptive statistics for the fourteen TEs who were shadowed at work are included in Chapter 2. The protocol involved accompanying the TEs to work for a day, making paper-andpencil notes about their activities, photographing artefacts and places of work and interviewing them and their STs (as the context allowed) about what they were working on, close to the time they were working on it. At the end of the work-shadowing, we collated our notes and wrote a narrative description of each TEs’ day at work. The narrative description was returned to the participant for verification before we analysed them for evidence of the kinds of work objectives they were pursuing. We also asked TEs if the kind of day they had during work shadowing was typical, making a note of responses

A University-Based Teacher Educators’ Day at Work

51

and recording any additional kinds of routine work activity they thought would feature in a regular day but which hadn’t featured during the day we were producing data. We also took note of the TEs start and finish times of work, providing us a measure of the hours work across these fourteen days in UBITE. In this way the narrative descriptions became a new data set for the research team’s use. They stood as a close account of what was actually happening in teacher education at West and East universities at that time, and they provided us with an understanding of the tools and artefacts TEs and STs used to mediate their collective activity (see Chapter 7 for a discussion of ST and TE object motives within several teacher educators’ classes). An additional data production activity we had TEs engage with in pre- and post–work-shadowing day was to keep a week-long work diary of their work activities, on two occasions (in October and in February). A discussion of these data is in Chapter 5. The analysis of work diaries categorized the work in five major ways. Work related to service (university or profession related, e.g., time at profession functions for retiring colleagues in the profession or university, interviewing potential ITE STs, pastoral care etc.), general administration (e.g. programme meetings), teaching (preparing for, leading classes, modelling in practice sites, assessment, moderation etc.), research (planning, conducting, writing etc.) and practicum (visiting STs, liaison with partners in schools, kura or centres, administration, resolution of practice issues for STs etc.). Given we had already had used these categories for an analysis of our participants’ work diaries, we took the categories into our reading of the narrative descriptions to see what the work looked like across these fourteen days (see Table 4.1). The analysis of work activities we observed TEs engage in was clearly weighted towards administration, service and teaching (in the university). That no cohort of STs at either East or West University was on a block practicum placement during the work-shadowing reflects the university-based weighting of teaching that was observed, although Jessie did complete two professional practice visits for STs on that day. Furthermore, several TEs were arranging post-practicum interviews or visiting schedules, indicating that they had recently been involved in practicum activities or were about to be. While another four TEs were working on practicum-related pastoral care, progress and administration matters during the day, these concerned the resolution or mediation of ST progress issues. All in all, we can say that practicum-related work objectives were motivating a great deal of TEs activity during the work-shadowing. Everybody was involved in teaching to some degree. Twelve of our fourteen participants taught classes at West and East Universities on the days we observed

07:00– 20:00

05:30– 19:00

08:00– 19:00

08:00– 17:30

09:00– 15:45

08:00– 17:45

08:45– 15:15

Ash (DQ)

Brook (DQ)

Riley (DQ)

Dale (DQ)

Lou (DQ)

Nat (DQ)

Service related

Chris (TA) General admin. Teaching related

Table 4.1  Teacher educator work activities during fourteen days of UBITE

Email Telephone Unspecified Colleague meetings Meeting preparation Role related Committee work Profession related Pastoral care Prep. and admin. Teaching classes Informal (tutoring) Research students Student prof. practice Marking\ Moderation Research

Research admin. Conducting research Research writing

Practicum related

Liaison\ partnership Mediating student Progress issues Visiting students on practicum

6.5hrs

9.75hrs

6.75hrs

9.5hrs

11hrs

13.5hrs

13hrs

Hours worked

52

University Teacher Education

05:00– 20:30 07:00– 18:00 08:45– 17:45 07:00– 16:30 08:00– 16:00

Cas (PE)

Sawyer (PE)

Gerry (PE)

Jessie (PE)

8hrs

9.5hrs

9hrs

11hrs

15.5hrs

8.5hrs

8.5hrs

Hours worked

Cameron (PE)

Practicum related

08:20– 16:45

Research

Bailey (PE)

Teaching related

07:30– 16:00

Service related

Sam (DQ)

General admin.

A University-Based Teacher Educators’ Day at Work 53

54

University Teacher Education

and even though Chris and Jessie did not take a class, they both became involved in preparing for teaching during the observation (and we do consider Jessie’s practicum visiting, mentoring and debriefing a form of practice-based teaching in the programme). Furthermore, Chris and Gabriel held research student supervisions during the day, and these, along with Jessie’s STs visits, did represent forms of individual tuition. The work-shadowing protocol at East University took place during Week 10 of the academic year, and at West University, Week 41. Both these weeks were regular teaching weeks in the universities’ semesters and so courses were in full swing in both institutions. This may account for the sparse assessment activity we observed, although Gerry and Lou were observed undertaking some assessment activities and Sam’s marking load loomed large in the account of the day at work that was produced. A number of our participants had service role-related activities comprise part of their day. As will be discussed in Chapter 6, institutional service may be associated with particular committee work or role work associated with university administration, but for TEs a great deal of service work also arises from the professionally oriented nature of academic programmes that TEs work in. Much of this work is unbounded and unwieldy as the discussion in Chapters 5 and 6 will explain. Curriculum-specific professional association work; ITE selection panels, work on maintaining one’s professional credentials (e.g. teacher registration and certification so one can undertake teaching and supervision of STs in practice); mediating clashes between university and schools, kura and early childhood institutions; developing, explaining and clarifying roles of university-based and practice-based persons and the like are all examples of the kinds of activities TEs undertook during the work days we observed. Of course, some of these kinds of profession-oriented work activities are common to other university academics working in professional programmes. It is routine, for instance, for academic staff to be involved in the selection of students into professional programmes, and in some professional programmes, university academics moderate placement assessments made by colleagues in the field (e.g. in nursing and social work). However, within teacher education in A|NZ, requirements of the professional body mandate that the majority of these kinds of work activities are undertaken by university-based TEs, thus marking those activities as high priority within teacher education in the university. Recent programme approval requirements issued by the professional body, the Teaching Council (2019), indicate, for example, that a partnership development plan be developed by the tertiary institution in consultation with partnering organizations that have

A University-Based Teacher Educators’ Day at Work

55

interests in the nature of programmes and programme outcomes. The plan is a condition of programme approval and involves accounting for how key partners (such as schools kura and centres) are identified, the benefits of the partnership, how they are involved in programme design, key assessment design, selection of ITE candidates and the continuous improvement of the programme. Very strong relationships with colleagues in the field are needed to build and maintain such partnerships, due to the fact that our colleagues in practice are already very stretched by the labour demands of their own schools, kura, early childhood centres, community and Iwi-based obligations. Thus, this new work the tertiary institution has been charged with by the professional body places even more demands on TEs. Thus, service work related to professional aspects of ITE is high priority and perhaps offers an explanation for why we observed a bifurcation of UBITE work within institutional recruitment practices in Phase 1 of the project. Here in the second phase of the project we can see also that TEs were routinely involved in a great deal of profession-oriented service and teaching within UBITE. The general administration activities TEs engaged with were largely computer, desk and meeting based. The tyranny of email is an aspect of the work discussed in depth in the following chapter, but meeting preparation and many meetings were observed during the work-shadowing of our participants. Perhaps most surprising to us in this analysis of narrative descriptions was the paucity of research-related work that the TEs engaged in. Surprising because, half of our TE participants in Phase 2 of the study were those we had categorized as DQ (dually qualified – meaning professionally and academically credentialed teacher who was research active – and qualified with a doctorate). A further role, constituted as TA (traditional academic), was a role fulfilled by people who were doctorate holders with proven research and leadership in a related field. TAs had no requirement to visit or supervise students on teaching practice; hence, they may not have been required to hold a teaching qualification, which in itself excluded them from undertaking such professionally oriented work activities in teacher education. Being constituted by us as a DQ or TA-type teacher education academic meant that a portion of one’s work obligations were research related. A workload model typical of our DQ and TA participants determined that the work would comprise 40 per cent teaching, 40 per cent research, 20 per cent service – which as an academic workload within an A|NZ university would be familiar to academics across a range of disciplines. Our remaining participants were designated professional experts (PE), TEs who were teaching qualified and credentialed and who had strong connections within the profession. PE-type

56

University Teacher Education

teacher educator academics would typically hold a workload of up to 80 per cent teaching and 20 per cent service with no obligation for research. Some research administration activities by Ash and Lou, and Sam’s writing efforts, were the only research activities pursued on the days we work-shadowed. In comparison with the emphasis placed on research in Phase 1, when universities were recruiting for a number of research active leaders in the field, the research activity being undertaken at work when we were observing at East and West universities was less able to be realized than expected. Discussed in more detail in Berg et al. (2016), despite the absence of research-related activity on these days we did find, through the interviews we conducted (see Chapter 3) and from the two weeklong work diaries that participants completed (see Chapter 5), that every one of our TEs was engaged regularly in research activities. As noted by Berg et al. (2016), the degree of involvement in research activities by our TEs was a point of difference in the UBITE systems studied in the UK and A|NZ WoTE projects. While a contradiction in the sense that their employment status at East and West universities meant research activity was not an institutionally recognized element of PEs work, the investments individuals were making in research underscored the importance they placed on research as university academics as they worked to provide student teachers with research- and practice-informed ITE (Berg, Gunn, Hill & Haigh, 2016). That we have observed this contradiction between work designation and work practice regarding research underscores the utility of CHAT (Cultural Historical Activity Theory) research methods for critical analyses of the discursive and material conditions of work in the field. We return in Chapter 8 to a discussion of tensions between service, teaching and research activities in TEs’ daily lives. Furthermore, we engage with the contradiction of division of labour over research as an officially sanctioned work activity for particular kinds of TEs querying the extent to which such labour processes might be seen as undermining the promise of UBITE. To give a clear indication to readers about the work day lives of our TE participants, we turn now to the narrative descriptions of each of our fourteen participants’ days at work. Each is presented as an intact account of the TEs work activities and stands as rich description of the range and scope of teacher education provision we were privileged to observe. Some editing of the narratives for publication purposes has occurred. The editing includes the use of genderneutral language, consistent with a decision the research team made early in the reporting of the study, to help preserve the confidentiality of participants. We acknowledge that use of the term ‘they’ as a singular pronoun in reference to

A University-Based Teacher Educators’ Day at Work

57

an individual may be troubling for some readers, and we take this moment to apologize in advance for any difficulties readers may incur. Each narrative was verified for accuracy by the TE concerned. If the TE considered that there was activity that would normally take place on a work day that did not occur during work-shadowing, they reported this to us, and a note to that effect was added to the narrative description. Although these narratives make this a lengthy chapter, we include them here so that readers have a sense of TEs’ work in a direct way rather than only through our analysis.

58

University Teacher Education

Ash Ash arrived just before 8.00 am although the work day had started at home at 5.30 am. Ash sets that early morning time aside each day for research, though today (and lately) it had been used for administrative work. We discussed boundaries between elements of the job: managing teaching, administration, pastoral care and research. We also discussed the tyranny of email – answering early in the morning – evenings – when cooking – at the weekend. Ash talked of a colleague who only answered emails during office hours and considered adopting this more considered approach. At 8.30 am Ash attended a colleague’s lecture as part of the teaching team. While there they answered emails: twelve were answered before 8.50 am. At 8.45 am, as the lecture ended, Ash gave feedback and reassurance to the colleague about their lecture. At 9.00 am Ash hosted a research meeting in their office and as the named principal investigator on the project it fell to them to chair the meeting. Ash asked probing questions such as, ‘Can you think of a way of investigating that …?’ Ash reminded the group of the potential of naïve interpretations of the research findings. Pointing out the risk of outcomes that might not be in the interest of schools, Ash raised ethical dilemmas and moved the discussion forward. Ash summarized actions at the end of the meeting and volunteered to write the proposal and ethics application. Ash scribbled notes in a blue notebook throughout. From 10.30 to 12.30 pm Ash attended a private meeting regarding some other research. At 12.35 pm Ash attended a preparatory meeting with the practicum manager to discuss a series of staff meetings planned for later in the day. The subject of this meeting was sensitive and revealed tensions and complexity within ITE provision. Ash was seeking to meet the requirements of a professional body and garner the necessary support from colleagues to address these. At 12.55 pm Ash talked to me, but explained that they would normally use their lunch time to deal with emails. However, at 1.10 pm a colleague called in to seek advice about course administration. This discussion required knowledge of university systems and internal politics – who can do what? At 1.45 pm Ash returned to emails, spending time consulting an online diary and setting up meetings. At 2.00 pm Ash began to plan lessons, which included checking for suitable resources online (e.g. Ministry of Education website, YouTube). This work was interrupted by a phone call from a senior colleague at 2.20 pm. The call lasted ten minutes, after which time Ash agreed to answer some of my questions. This

A University-Based Teacher Educators’ Day at Work

59

interview was paused after a few minutes as a colleague phoned to set up a meeting. The interview was then completed. At 3.00 pm Ash attended a meeting with Māori education colleagues to explore opportunities for the provision of professional development for teacher educators. Ash then attended three hour-long meetings (from 4.00–7.00 pm), each confidential, sector-specific and important.

60

University Teacher Education

Bailey Bailey was in the office when I arrived. Prior to this Bailey had been down to set up the lecture theatre for a guest speaker. Bailey made sure the projectors were on and that a slide displaying the name of the course was showing to ensure that STs would be reassured that they were in the correct place when they arrived. We talked about some photocopied worksheets that were on the table in Bailey’s room. These sheets provided STs an opportunity to tell Bailey and colleagues about themselves. Bailey explained that large classes make it difficult to get to know STs. They told me that they believe that getting to know STs is an extremely important aspect of teaching. At 8.20 am Bailey returned to the lecture theatre and greeted the guest speaker. During the lecture Bailey interacted with the guest on a number of occasions – giving perspectives on topics being discussed and indicating the passing of time. On return to their office Bailey met with a Dance and Drama student – giving guidance about a research project. Bailey helped the student apply generic guidance they’d received about conducting the study to her subject-specific work. Bailey then answered emails for approximately fifteen minutes before planning a teaching session. This involved building a PPT (PowerPoint) presentation. Bailey took a photograph of a poster and incorporated it into the presentation, using a phone to take the photo, retrieving the photo from a cloud-based repository and downloading it to the local computer. They used YouTube to find a couple of short movie clips that illustrated a point to be made. At 12.30 pm Bailey walked to the lecture theatre and set up the computer and screen. They also wiped the whiteboard clear of information left by someone else. Bailey returned to the office and gathered more materials before returning to the lecture theatre to greet STs as they arrived. They had a name sheet and used it as a roll. During the time the STs were gathering, Bailey engaged in small talk with them. The lecture started with the use of a diagram exploring differences between equality and equity and then a video exploring the ideas of being a first leader. The topic was introduced: ‘Engaging in prior knowledge’. The lecture blended theory and craft knowledge – both were used to inform Bailey’s teaching. Lots of real-life examples were provided and solicited from STs. Useful tips for formative assessment – for example gathering words associated with the topic rather than synonyms – were discussed. At the midpoint of the two-hour lecture Bailey gave

A University-Based Teacher Educators’ Day at Work

61

the STs five minutes to stand up and stretch. After the break STs were invited to take part in an activity designed to refocus them on the lecture. At the end of the lecture Bailey invited and responded to questions. Once back in the office (3.00 pm), I asked Bailey a set of questions. At 3.30 pm they prepared for their next class by checking links in the PPT. Then at 3.50 pm Bailey arrived at their next class. Bailey encouraged STs to sit together in the teaching space which comprised two open plan classrooms. Bailey wandered around greeting STs and keeping the roll until the class began. Bailey presented an ‘e-portfolio template’ to STs. This involved delivery of a large amount of content. Bailey had decided that having the STs use their own devices to follow the lecture could result in getting bogged down with technical problems. Therefore, they made the decision to talk them through the process of e-portfolio building and maintenance on the large screen. This choice allowed Bailey to consider content – the class concluded at 4.55 pm whereupon a number of STs waited to ask questions about the portfolio.

62

University Teacher Education

Brook I found my way to Brook’s office at 8.00 am where they had just arrived. Brook was preparing for an 8.30 am class. Across the first twenty minutes of class time the STs drifted in, eventually thirty-eight STs arrived. A range of large and small group activities ensued with two major themes permeating the discussion: ‘lesson planning’ and ‘understanding the social inquiry process as part of the NZC (New Zealand Curriculum)’. The class ended at 10.15 am. Five minutes later we were back in Brook’s office and they were planning a history class for 12.30 pm. I watched Brook begin to make and gather resources that would dovetail with the previous course lecture. That session had been delivered by Brook’s colleague, and a suitable resource proved difficult to find, despite Brook knowing what it was they wanted to use. Brook’s plan was to have STs do lesson planning, with ‘nationalism’ as a topic for that work. We stopped briefly for a cup of tea (10.55 am–11.10 am). Still puzzling over the afternoon class, Brook made a decision that plans must change. Deciding on a new topic, Brook simultaneously commissioned, and ran between, three photocopiers on different floors and in different wings of the building to produce class resources. At 11.35 am Brook recommenced planning for the afternoon session. After ten minutes we slotted in a quick lunch before returning to the office to put the final touches on the class planning. The class started at 12.30 pm with a game designed to help STs become familiar with education system acronyms. This was followed by discussions of achievement standards criteria for NCEA (National Certificate of Educational Achievement) levels 1, 2, 3 and talk about ‘lesson planning for the topic of nationalism’. As STs worked individually on planning activities, Brook headed to the office to check email. Upon return, the class, led by Brook, proceeded to deconstruct and critique their lesson planning before moving on to view and discuss the use of ‘visual imagery’ in teaching. The session ended at 2.10 pm. After returning teaching materials to the office and checking on arrangements for a 4.00 pm meeting at another campus, Brook and I went to a café for a coffee. We engaged in a professional discussion about elements of Brook’s work for approximately twenty minutes (research interests and projects, university committee work, among other things) before traversing the campus to obtain a parking card for the afternoon meeting, retrieve a set of course evaluations and check the mailroom for mail.

A University-Based Teacher Educators’ Day at Work

63

The previous evening, Brook had done some baking for the meeting at 4.00 pm. When we returned to the office Brook took the baking to the kitchen and made final preparations. We gathered items for the meeting, including a set of achievement standards related to the curriculum specialism that would be discussed in the meeting, and NCEA levels 1, 2 and 3. We left the office at 3.15 pm arriving at the venue for the hui at 3.50 pm. Over the next ten minutes other meeting participants arrived. For one hour and forty minutes the meeting discussed NCEA achievement standards and the teaching of STs in relation to the senior secondary curriculum domain Brook and others taught. The meeting was led by a practising teacher Brook worked closely with from a nearby secondary school. Brook’s expertise as a teacher educator came to the fore when colleagues, lecturers in the university department that supported STs in the subject they were learning to teach, were struggling to making sense of what they wanted to teach that year, what they perhaps should, what they could realistically teach in the course and the requirements of the external assessment system of NCEA. The meeting wound up at 5.40 pm. Brook returned me to my accommodation and headed home; accounting for travel, work-shadowing ended at 7.00 pm.

64

University Teacher Education

Cameron Cameron arrived just after 8.30 am having expected to have been earlier but traffic had intervened. Cameron’s day had started at 5.00 am and had involved working at home prior to the commute. Cameron spent time chatting to me while setting up for the day. In the first ten minutes there were two telephone calls that Cameron elected to not answer. Voicemail indicated that one was from a student liaison person from a different campus and the other, a colleague. Cameron explained the need to be strategic, including managing calls and responding in their own time. Cameron then checked a number of emails, sorted through papers in a tray, and then rushed to the photocopier and prepared some A3 sheets. At approximately 8.45 am Cameron walked to the computer lab where they had offered some time to third year bachelors’ degree STs who needed support with e-portfolios. Six STs attended the session; each was greeted warmly by name. Cameron worked with each ST at their computers individually – though occasionally the conversation widened to include others. Cameron guided them through the e-portfolio process, saying things like: ‘I’m going to take you to a couple of places … ’ Cameron also problem solved emergent issues and discussed the value and significance of the e-portfolios with one ST. At 9.40 am, Cameron hurried to the next class, collecting a tray of photocopying and other resources from the office on the way. Cameron welcomed STs, set up a PPT presentation and placed photocopied sheets on tables. As the session started Cameron asked the STs to sit in syndicate groups (some STs needed encouraging to move), and then Cameron started teaching with the PPT. Moving through slides, Cameron discussed ‘language use’ and drew upon theory for example, Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. They explained that by working in syndicates, STs would be emulating teachers’ work in schools, noting the value of group based professional learning. Students were asked to read a vignette from photocopied sheets and to work together at their tables to understand the nature of the situation and to problem solve. A template to scaffold this process was provided and Cameron moved from group to group listening and asking questions. This pattern of teaching from the PPT and collaborative group-based student learning continued until the class concluded at 12.00 pm. A number of STs chatted to Cameron at the end of the class. Cameron then arrived back at their office at 12.16 pm. Here, they had a prearranged meeting with three STs who had timetable clashes. Cameron offered extra classes to accommodate their needs. At

A University-Based Teacher Educators’ Day at Work

65

this point one of the STs was asked to remain for a confidential discussion about practicum. I left the room. The meeting concluded at 12.40 pm. Next Cameron started to address the twenty-two emails that had arrived so far that day. They prioritized emails that could be answered quickly and left others for later. At 12.50 pm Cameron walked to the campus café to buy a sandwich and a drink. This was their first break of the working day. Over lunch Cameron continued to answer emails and made some phone calls. At 1.30 pm Cameron met with a colleague regarding an ST who had failed practicum and had experienced a breakdown of relationships with their associate teacher. They discussed the ST’s practicum file and associate teacher feedback. Cameron shared that they had already spent over twenty hours mediating with the ST and the placement school. At 1.45 pm Cameron met with a ST to discuss a confidential matter. Then from 2.15 to 3.00 pm Cameron met with a colleague before returning to emails. Ten minutes into this activity a colleague dropped in to share concerns about student counselling provision. The remainder of the afternoon comprised email, phone calls and a meeting with a non-academic staff member to discuss student applications for cross credits and repeat applications. Cameron then worked on until 8.30 pm on administrative tasks and emails.

66

University Teacher Education

Cas Cas and I met at 8.30 am at reception. Cas had started work at 7.00 am. Before we met, Cas had been attending to email and preparing for teaching by making teaching resources. Their office was very full of teaching resources and personal/ professional artefacts – high shelves, stacked to the roof occupied the length of one wall. Cas’ desk held a computer and other items. A small round table at the other end of the room provided space for meetings and desk-based work. Cas continued teaching preparation and attended to email for the next hour. Occasionally a colleague or an ST popped in to say good morning. At 9.30 am we headed to the campus café for a meeting with Cas’ teaching colleague for the afternoon class. After this we returned to Cas’ office for more teaching preparation and computer-based work. Several more STs and colleagues popped in for chats about various topics, for example, compassionate enrolment in a course Cas taught, STs’ overseas experiences and I left Cas’ office for an hour while they held a sensitive meeting with a colleague. We met again for lunch at 12.30 pm in the resource room, several doors along the corridor from Cas’ office. The room doubled as teaching resource room and departmental mail room/ kitchen. Two other colleagues joined us; the conversation ranged from work related matters (air conditioning, technology issues, postgraduate level ITE) to personal and joint interests. We returned to Cas’ office for more computer-based work at 1.15 pm. As Cas finished the PPT for the afternoon class we talked about their research interests and restricted capacity for research in a busy work day. Cas’ colleague from the morning’s meeting had sent some slides for class through, Cas put some finishing touches to them before we left for upstairs to teach at 2.30 pm. The teaching space Cas and their colleague were working in was a large flat room with approximately thirteen tables for groups of six STs to work at. There were several large screens in the room for STs to view. A couple of new stand-alone air conditioning units had been brought into the room to deal with heating issues. These added noise to an already large and not particularly audio friendly space (hard surface walls, floors and windows). Cas mingled with STs as they entered the room, joking with them, reminding them about signing the roll and asking them to remember to sit with new people this week so they’d make new relationships in the group. The class (mathematics) began formally just before 3.00 pm and continued until approximately 4.20 pm. Afterwards Cas and I returned to the resource room along from their office so Cas could

A University-Based Teacher Educators’ Day at Work

67

undertake administration associated with the tasks STs had done during the session. Cas also grabbed a drink of water. A colleague arrived and stopped for a conversation about the day and other matters. We returned to Cas’ office at 5.15 pm so they could think about necessary preparations for the following day, check in on email and furnish the STs they’d been in class with earlier with follow up resources. After several unsuccessful attempts at uploading resources (the web page kept timing out), Cas made a decision to take the resources home and to upload these later in the evening. Conversations about teaching matters with two colleagues ensued. At 5.45 pm Cas made a decision to head home. They planned to spend another hour online attending to email in the evening and uploading the resources associated with the day’s class. Work shadowing ended at 5.50 pm.

68

University Teacher Education

Chris At the start of the day, prior to us meeting, Chris had spent an hour responding to email and planning. I met them at 8.00 am. Chris had made time for me to conduct the ‘telephone’ interview – as this had not happened previously; Chris had been overseas. At 9.00 am Chris welcomed a PhD student into the office and looked over an ethics application. They raised questions for the student, including: ‘Why is it [this research] important’ and ‘To what extent is this [recruitment for participation] invitational?’ Chris challenged the student to think about language and consistency of language in the documents they were producing for their study. Chris also encouraged the student to make sure that prospective research participants would understand the language used in the information and consent documents. Chris asked the student to make changes to the ethics documents during the meeting. While they did so, Chris began addressing papers left on their desk by an administrator that had needed attention. This included work about staff succession and the development of an accountability matrix for Chris’ own leadership role. Five minutes later, Chris returned to the student and supported them with the editing. Much of this work involved playing with words. Chris reminded the student of earlier questions where they had not been addressed, for example, ‘Why are you doing this?’ At 10.10 am Chris met with a colleague to discuss the development of a new research ethics course. Chris and their colleague discussed a range of staff members who, in their view, were well suited to teach in the course and the approaches that they should take. They also considered the number of times the course should be offered. Some related funding and budget issues were considered. Next, at 10.30 am Chris met with a student recipient of a Summer Scholar’s award. Chris helped the student think about the latest edit of a journal article that they (the student) had written. Chris encouraged the student to explain features that readers might not understand, while also encouraging them to think about which features could be edited. At 11.00 am Chris returned to the computer and to email. Recipients included the Head of School and a visiting academic. Topics included, planning a staff meeting and research. After ten minutes, Chris moved to a large table in the room explaining that their desk was used for administration work, but the table was a space for course planning. Chris printed out the course book for a class and then used a notepad and laptop to plan. Notes were taken from readings, and Chris developed an outline for the lecture and a PPT.

A University-Based Teacher Educators’ Day at Work

69

Chris met with an education consultant at 1.00 pm who was reapplying to become an honorary lecturer member of staff. Chris asked the person to describe their research and teaching background. In response to this information Chris identified areas where the person might be interested in teaching. Chris also outlined a number of practical considerations, for example, office space and library access. Chris also described the needs of the students. Chris used 1.45 pm–2.00 pm to answer emails. Then Chris met with a new member of staff for a ‘catch-up’. Chris asked about their work goals, explained service requirements and gave general career advice. This meeting lasted an hour, at which time I was able to ask some more questions. I left before 4.00 pm when a doctoral supervision meeting was planned. A meeting, scheduled for 5.00 pm, had been cancelled, which allowed Chris to catch up with administrative work. They stayed at work until 6.00 pm and then planned to go home and work for a couple more hours in the evening.

70

University Teacher Education

Dale I met up with Dale at their office at 9.00 am. Dale was catching up with a colleague who was visiting the university to deliver a seminar. We briefly discussed the day ahead and at 9.26 am a colleague popped in to discuss the class they were to teach together between 10.00 am and 12.00 pm. The discussion then turned to a restructuring process occurring within the university, before Dale turned their attention to a backlog of emails. Dale took a phone call at 9.45 am regarding an ST who had failed an assessment Dale was responsible for. Dale said a response would come when there was time to deal with it – there were 168 emails in Dale’s inbox to attend to. At 9.50 am an alarm sounded to remind Dale to go to class. We walked there with Dale’s teaching colleague and talked to the STs as they arrived in the classroom. The class comprised 16 STs and the topic addressed the ‘professional practices of teaching’. STs were asked to sit together in curriculum specialist groups and Dale welcomed everyone to class. Dale’s colleague gave a presentation about ‘teacher registration’ including handing out a paper with key points listed. Dale and their colleague answered questions about the registration process before turning attention to planning for a forthcoming ‘teaching as inquiry process’. The STs, however, wanted to talk about practicum – including how much time they might be expected to engage in extra-curricular activities at school, and about a timetable clash in the upcoming week. This issue was complicated by exam timetables in the schools. Dale moved among groups assisting them with their planning while Dale’s colleague moved among STs organizing visiting lecturer visits for practicum. The class finished up at 11.55 am and the TEs decided they needed to meet with the programme coordinator to discuss the issues raised in class. They went directly to the coordinator’s office, alerted them to the issues and made a time to work together on these later in the day. Dale checked their pigeonhole for mail at 12.10 pm and made enquiries with an administrator about leave. We returned to Dale’s office and they continued dealing with emails. We were just heading out at 12.15 pm for some lunch when two colleagues came to talk about who among them should attend a meeting later that day. Afterwards, one of them stayed on to talk through ST assessment issues; then Dale and I left to get some lunch. We returned at 12.40 pm and over lunch Dale talked about their job, having been a former college of education staff member who had transitioned to the university after a merger. Dale believed this meant that their research was done

A University-Based Teacher Educators’ Day at Work

71

under pressure. At 12.50 pm a colleague arrived to discuss an ST issue and between them they negotiated a way forward for the ST. Dale continued working on emails until heading to a meeting about the ITE programme involving an external adviser associated with the professional body for teachers. At 2.00 pm Dale met with the programme coordinator and a colleague to clarify the guidelines for the practicum issues that had been raised by STs that morning. While they clarified what the expectations should be, the coordinator typed out a set of revised guidelines for the schools and STs. There was a great deal of discussion about how to phrase the expectations of co-curricular activities so these were clear to all parties. Copies of these requirements were then sent to Dale and their colleague so they would have them on record. We headed back to Dale’s office at 2.30 pm as they needed to work on the email backlog! Another meeting with the professional body representative followed between 3.00 and 3.45 pm and after a quick break Dale and I completed an interview (in lieu of the pre-work-shadowing interview we couldn’t have prior to the visit due to Dale being on annual leave).

72

University Teacher Education

Gerry Gerry met me at 8.00 am outside the front doors and took me to their classroom where a class involving fifteen STs was about to begin. On the board was written: Prayer, Waiata, Welcome, Karakia Kai (waiata is a song sung in support of a specific person or event, in this case, the opening of the day; karakia kai is a thanksgiving for the food people have brought for sharing in the class). Club sandwiches have been prepared by Gerry; one of the STs has made a cake. STs lead the opening of the session; they have been taking turns to do this as a way of increasing their Te Reo Māori and tikanga (Māori language proficiency and cultural practices). I was welcomed to their classroom. Using a computer and PPT, Gerry outlined the class describing the learning intentions, the goal of the session and success criteria. The focus is the concept of ‘learning’. Key competency foci are: Thinking and Relating to others (key competencies are an element of the NZC), and Gerry had STs formatively assess each other’s resource assignment work. STs used a formative assessment feedback sheet prepared by Gerry and referred to the subject curriculum and Curriculum in Action series as they worked, both of which are kept as class sets in the room. While the STs worked, Gerry described principles of experiential learning while at the same time moving around the room to discuss the STs’ work with each group. Frequently there was reference to other resources in the room – the room was rich in visual resources. After class, between 10.00 and 10.30 am we joined a regular whole-staff morning tea. Once we returned to the building where Gerry’s class was held, we washed the dishes from the breakfast class before returning to the office at 10.45 am. Initiated by Gerry, we had a discussion about how teaching in a university setting was different for Gerry from teaching experience in a college of education. To help counter Gerry’s perceived lack of interaction within university classrooms, Gerry used a lot of artefacts when teaching, indicating that a bulk of their work time was spent preparing for teaching, conducting practicum visiting and acting in a specified ST support role. On cue, an ST dropped in for a chat with Gerry and to return some money he had been lent to go to doctor. At 11.15 another ST came to collect a kite she’d made in class. We also discussed Gerry’s current master’s research, which was directly informing Gerry’s teaching and STs learning. At 11.30 am Gerry was doing emails and sending a designated ST from the class, information to share on social media on Gerry’s behalf. At 11.55 am Gerry

A University-Based Teacher Educators’ Day at Work

73

and I went to photocopy an ST’s assignment for another lecturer, but issues with the network in Gerry’s building arose and so we walked to the main office to ask an administrator to do the task. While there, Gerry collected practicum reports and talked with an ST about an assignment. By 12.20 pm Gerry is preparing for post-practicum debriefing meetings by reading STs’ folders and assessment data. Gerry is a visiting lecturer for nine STs. The work involves nationwide travel. At 12.55 pm, Gerry conducted a practicum debrief with an ST they’d recently visited. This involved use of a practicum debrief form to help the ST evaluate and set goals. Gerry also arranged to give the ST some help with job applications. Following the interview we had lunch at a local café before returning to Gerry’s office to meet with an ST at 2.30 pm about lesson planning. Between 3.30 and 4.30 pm Gerry met with two other lecturers in another block. They meet in a resource room that is about to be relocated. Between the three, resources that need to be kept, those that could be destroyed and those that need purchasing are identified. The conclusion of the task ended Gerry’s work day.

74

University Teacher Education

Jessie I met Jessie in their office at 8.15 am. Jessie was booking university cars for upcoming visiting for practicum postings of first and second year STs. Jessie is their visiting lecturer. We discussed the practicum visit that we would go on together at 9.00 am. Jessie is working with two STs at one practicum site. The STs have been sending Jessie focused reflective narrative statements about practice which Jessie has been providing formative assessment comment on. The visit today – a ‘gateway’ visit – is to assess whether these STs are on track for a final assessment visit for practicum. Today Jessie will be talking with them about the previous feedback they had received and how they have responded to it to develop practice. Criteria for passing the gateway visit are noted on a competency sheet that Jessie will bring to the visit. A duplicate book will be used to record Jessie’s notes and to document the ST interview that will form part of the visit. Jessie is hoping the interview will include the associate teacher and there will be negotiation over how and when to conduct this to ensure minimal impact on setting. At 8.50 am Jessie emailed reception to say where we would be and then we walked to the practicum site. On arrival there I was introduced to other teachers and STs (my presence had previously been cleared with them). Jessie moved quietly around the space following STs and interacting with children and others as appropriate to the setting. Jessie sat as unobtrusively as possible to observe the teaching. The STs retrieved folders of their work for Jessie to read – at 9.15 am Jessie was still going through folders while the STs teach. The observation took an hour when at 10.15 am Jessie facilitated a debrief interview with one of the STs and their associate teacher in a small staff work room. Jessie briefly led the discussion and then the ST took over – the discussion’s focus was on ‘being intentionally responsive’. On bringing the discussion to an end, Jessie set out follow-up procedures. At 10.45 am Jessie repeated the debrief discussion activity with the second ST and their associate. At 11.30 am we were back in Jessie’s office. There had been a brief discussion with a colleague, on the way back to the office, about where we have been. Then Jessie set about attending to email. These addressed the issue of a forthcoming restructure at the university, co-teaching with colleagues, a possible new research collaboration and the arrangement of a meeting to finalize the writing of an article. We had a brief discussion about Jessie’s research activities and publishing record before heading off to have lunch in the large staff room. Jessie explained that it was a deliberate choice of theirs to have lunch in the large staffroom space

A University-Based Teacher Educators’ Day at Work

75

because it allowed Jessie to build relationships with colleagues and maintain communication. Discussions at lunch ranged over education topics in general, sector-specific learning, ITE learning and a research project Jessie had initiated. By 12.50 pm we were back in Jessie’s office and replying to emails from an ST about how to attach medical certificate to documents on the university’s ST learning system, and from the New Zealand Literacy Association who were wanting a photograph of children playing; Jessie had arranged for a ‘back of children’s head’ photo to be provided. Forty minutes later Jessie was writing practicum reports for the STs visited that morning. At 1.50 pm we took a walk to the university’s bookshop to organize stocks of core texts for a paper Jessie will coordinate the following year. On the way back we called to a different practicum site where teachers will have STs during the next practicum block. Jessie’s intention was to build relationships and to check out new facilities. Back in the office, Jessie finished the ST report feedback from the morning visits before returning to email. Jessie printed out documents, took a phone call cancelling a scheduled meeting and ended the day just after 4.00 pm.

76

University Teacher Education

Lou I met Lou in their office at 8.00 am where they were catching up with emails and checking on a postgraduate students’ site (as Lou is enrolled in doctoral research). At 8.43 am we checked out facilities for a guest speaker Lou is organizing for tomorrow, noting the kinds of artefacts that they will need to bring from home to support the session. At 8.55 am we were back in office and dealing with emails again. In the room was a guitar which Lou explained they’d use to help staff prepare for mihi whakatau (a formal greeting ceremony) and to prepare STs for a marae visit. Other teaching artefacts in the office included class sets of school journals, DVDs and lots of novels. By 8.59 am Lou was printing a literature review for doctoral supervision in the afternoon while simultaneously discussing the forthcoming practicum with a colleague. Next, Lou looked for a teaching resource. Once copied, Lou started to leave the office to prepare the teaching space when another lecturer phoned to discuss a course’s assignment requirements. At 9.20 am Lou began to prepare the classroom for teaching. Before the lesson Lou wrote messages to STs on the white board, set up a PPT and placed resources on the desks: a play, NZQA (New Zealand Qualifications Authority) Achievement Standards and readings. At 9.50 am the first ST arrived. Lou handed them the pre-set reading article and talked about the course assignment. They also set up a time for a practicum debrief. There was a problem with the technology and Lou called on technical advice. At 10.03 am the technician gets the video working and Lou began teaching. There were five STs; another was absent. The STs didn’t appear to have pre-read the set text but Lou ran a discussion about it anyway; the talk was vigorous, facilitated by Lou with directed questions. Lou next directed a close reading of a play. Considerable resources were provided: these include hand-outs of a preface to a book about the play, reminders of relevant videos and a teaching strategies document. Lou facilitated a discussion about the topic of ‘motivation’ before the responsibility for the class discussion was handed over to a ST, while another typed up the class’ responses. More hand-outs were passed around before Lou brought the session to end. Between 11.15 and 11.45 am Lou and I discussed the balancing act of managing teaching, practicum visiting and research. By 11.45 am we were back in Lou’s office dealing with emails and teaching administration. A ST dropped in with some material to be laminated – Lou arranged for this and gave the ST a tutorial on the material they missed from the morning class. We walked up the road for lunch and by 12.45 pm were back with Lou preparing for their doctoral

A University-Based Teacher Educators’ Day at Work

77

supervision. At 1.00 pm another lecturer dropped by for short moderation discussion, Lou sought technical assistance with some software before attending supervision at 2.00 pm. At 3.05 pm Lou headed back to main office to pick up the laminating for the ST. We were intercepted in the stairwell by another lecturer wanting to discuss moderation of assessment. Twenty minutes later we were back in Lou’s office, sorting out examples of documentation to support judgements about STs’ achievements on practicum. Lou emailed the information to a colleague. Lou’s ST returned to collect their laminating and stayed for forty-five minutes to discuss their upcoming placement. While this ST meeting was taking place, a lecturer drops in for a meeting and Lou arranged for her to come back later. After the ST meeting Lou met with another PhD student who was using a similar methodology to Lou – they have a doctoral supervisor in common. At 5.30 pm Lou went online to look at the postgraduate student work and to access postgraduate student support material. I left at 5.45 pm.

78

University Teacher Education

Nat I met Nat at 8.45 am in their office. Nat is employed. 8 FTE and so explained that they schedule their work time in order to undertake childcare needs in the afternoons after 3.00 pm. A colleague popped in to say hello and to ask if Nat had received the university restructuring email. Another colleague came to discuss mentor reports and arrangements for ST interviews post-practicum. The discussion then moved to particular STs, mentor reports and advice about being ST referees for job applications. After their colleague left, Nat explained to me that one of their responsibilities was coordinating the curriculum specialisms among twenty-six lecturers for a secondary ITE programme. Estimating it took Nat over 400 hours of work; there were eighteen different subjects to coordinate. Nat explained that they also undertook practicum visits and associated assessment for six STs. Coupled with contributing to a new ITE programme development team, Nat explained feeling overwhelmed. Their attention turned to emails until 9.10 am when they began to prepare for a 10.00 am class. Preparation involved uploading materials to a course website. Nat explained that they had spent six hours establishing the site the day prior so it was up-to-date and ready to support teaching. At 9.40 am Nat did some photocopying. There Nat ran into a colleague and they talked about the institutional restructuring that had been announced. The conversation turned into one about two STs, their supervision and their progress on practicum. Next Nat went to the resource room to get the equipment required for the class. We were in class by 9.55 am. Nat returned a marked assignment to a ST. At 10.02 am the class began and Nat talked about practicum reports and preparation for job interviews. The lesson then alternated between Nat explaining and using the resources on the website and discussing the maths content they were teaching. Nat modelled the use of some large dice as an activity that STs could use in an emergency situation in class; then they introduced the topic of probability, demonstrated with examples and photos from Nat’s own teaching, and the STs tried the activity using the dice. Other artefacts Nat used included an article about twins, some video clips, a sheet about China’s one-child policy and probability trees. Class ended at 11.50 am and we walked back to Nat’s office. Meeting a visiting academic along the way, Nat excused us from the conversation as a colleague had arrived to discuss a clash of timetabling affecting a ST group. It was a serious issue because principals were coming to talk with the STs as prospective staff

A University-Based Teacher Educators’ Day at Work

79

members and a guest speaker had been arranged at the same time. It took over twenty minutes to discuss and propose a solution. At the same time another colleague was waiting to see Nat about a different issue. At 12.20 pm Nat ate some lunch while meeting with a pair of colleagues who had joined Nat in their office. Nat explained why they’d not been able to write articles from their PhD since joining the staff, even though it was commended by their colleagues. From 12.50 pm Nat prepped for an upcoming meeting while finishing lunch. By 1.05 pm Nat was at a meeting at which they were expected to take minutes and then act as lead author for the roles’ document the meeting was constructing. Nat made notes while the programme coordinator chaired the meeting (seventeen people). At 2.25 pm Nat got the first opportunity to use the bathroom since the day began. They then continued revising the document being prepared for the programme leader. Before leaving, Nat sent emails regarding principals’ day to STs and rechecked emails in case there was something urgent to deal with. A final call to the programme coordinator was made to check up on an urgent ST issue and then Nat raced out the door to pick up children from school about 3.10 pm.

80

University Teacher Education

Riley I began my day with Riley at 8.00 am. A short walk to Riley’s office and adjacent teaching room later, Riley set up the teaching space and STs started to arrive. The class (senior music) began at 8.30 am with a reference to the previous week’s class, achievement standards for NCEA levels 1, 2, 3 and assessment of ‘solo performance’ within music education. Using publicly available exemplars of student achievement and examples of nationally moderated assessments, Riley led the STs through several ‘assessment literacy’ activities. Lively discussions of assessment criteria interpretation, valued judgement making and criterion referenced assessment ensued. Riley shifted the location of these discussions from assessment of solo performance to assessment of ensemble. The class took a break at 10.30 am; their next session (junior music) would start at 10.45 am. Riley swapped PPT and held informal discussions with STs over the break. Class began energetically with an echo slap-rhythm game involving a graphical notation technique STs had developed together the previous week. A lively second game involving the development of an increasingly complex sasa ensued (sasa is a form of traditional Samoan group dance); Riley won – the prize, the last home baked cookie brought in by one of the STs for the class’s morning tea break that day. After briefly recalling the previous week’s class discussion, Riley moved the STs into a ‘do now’ activity that involved the task of reviewing two short extracts of text about teaching. The discussion focused on effective and less effective dimensions of teaching in each excerpt. Riley asked STs to recall the sources of their ideas. These were: a best evidence synthesis (BES), a recently read literature review from the UK, and a disciplinary specific text. The class then went on to consider the teaching of musicianship using ‘class band’ as a vehicle. Riley explained their method of experiential teaching as a pedagogical strategy for the teaching of musicianship. STs retrieved their own instruments for ‘class band’. Riley introduced the piece of music via a YouTube video. Sheet music was distributed to the trumpet player, flautist, violinist, pianists (one of which played the xylophone and triangle instead), guitarists, cellist and kitdrummer. Several play-throughs followed. Between each, Riley made subtle yet significant changes to the band, the arrangement and the performance, each time discussing the effects of these with the STs. After class band, Riley and the STs discussed ‘lesson planning’ and lesson plan templates for teaching practice

A University-Based Teacher Educators’ Day at Work

81

and course assignments. The class ended at 12.30 pm with STs watching a couple of YouTube clips of musically talented young children. Riley and I returned to the office to sort and file teaching resources from class. Over lunch we discussed the morning’s teaching and a journal article Riley had submitted for peer review. Riley then reviewed their planning intentions for the next day’s class and attended to some email. Colleagues and STs visited Riley’s office during this time before a research student supervision at 2.00 pm. It was the first meeting between Riley and a new honours student. The discussion canvassed the research topic, student’s interests and background, ethics, useful resources and writing a literature review. The supervision ended at 3.00 pm and Riley and I took the chance to visit the café. We discussed ITE in general, including recent government policy and the fact that Riley’s institution was about to begin an ITE programme at postgraduate level for secondary teaching. Riley had joined the programme committee for the new programme and had been involved in interviewing prospective STs for entry. At 3.40 pm we returned to Riley’s office and they took a moment to close up the teaching room they’d used earlier in the day. Riley then continued to plan for future teaching before a doctoral student supervision at 4.30 pm. Riley’s reflection on this work narrative noted that they had not done any writing, which was unusual.

82

University Teacher Education

Sam When I arrived at 8.30 am Sam met me in the foyer; they had been working since 7.30 am with another staff member to set up the materials for a 1.00 pm class later in the day. We went directly to Sam’s office where the practicum coordinator, Angel, was waiting to discuss several ST issues. By 8.35 am, Sam was working on emails which had built up after attending a conference the previous week. At 8.42 am, Angel returned with more information about ST practicum issues; having solved these Sam then returned to the emails. From 8.45 am Sam made several phone calls and printed out some documents. Angel returned at 8.47 am with a practicum visiting schedule to discuss. Sam needed to visit ten STs over the next two weeks in a city distant from their university campus. Sam was planning to fit the visits into a three-day time frame. Another six STs had to be visited in local schools. At 9.00 am another colleague arrived to talk about a ST’s precarious practicum and Sam agreed to visit the ST and conduct a new assessment, adding to their visiting schedule. At about the same time (9.00 am) Sam’s writing colleague arrived to work on an article they were revising. They worked for about an hour but during this time Sam also took a phone call from a colleague to talk about another issue with a ST. Sam and their writing partner talked about another ST at risk, and the ICT tech rang to check on tech support needs for teaching later in the day. Sam returned to emails when their writing partner left just after 10.00 am and at 10.15 am Angel called about a different ST issue; a course of action was agreed. From 10.25 am Sam organized teaching materials, soon after beginning, however, a ST arrived to discuss issues. Sam asked a colleague to join the discussion. Afterwards, Sam returned to teaching preparation but at 10.42 am a colleague turned up to meet with Sam and another ST who needed compassionate leave and assignment extensions. Sam got back to preparation for class just before 11.00 am. At that point, Angel returned to ask Sam to attend a meeting at a school the following day, both made passing reference to the pile of marking sitting on Sam’s filing cabinet. Sam then returned to teaching preparation managing to work until 12.06 pm. Then Sam checked emails, met again with Angel to schedule meetings and organize agendas, and Sam’s writing partner returned to touch base about their revisions. They agreed to meet again at 4.00 pm. I suggested we get some lunch at 12.20 pm. We ate on the run and arrived at the classroom where Sam was about to teach, at 12.55 pm. Sam introduced the lesson, the materials and the activities. During the two-hour session they gave a

A University-Based Teacher Educators’ Day at Work

83

short talk about the curriculum document for the area under study, introduced unit planning, engaged them in practical activities related to the unit planning task and provided various other resources they could use in lessons within the unit. The STs worked on these and discussed their planning at the same time. From 3.00 pm Sam packed away materials from the session. After getting a cup of tea, Sam was back in their office working on emails and at 3.40 pm Angel arrived to talk about another ST who was at risk of being stood down from their placement. Another colleague arrived at 3.42 pm to join the discussion. After this and before Sam’s co-author arrived at four-ish for the third go at revising the chapter, we talked about Sam’s preparation for becoming a teacher educator. Sam came straight from classroom teaching and being an associate teacher for fifteen years. Sam is on the verge of completing a doctorate, but the pressures of work and the leadership role they occupy, evidenced in this ‘normal’ day at work, the pile of marking staking up and schedule of school visits to complete, were making completion of this seem a dream rather than a reality.

84

University Teacher Education

Sawyer Sawyer arrived for work at 8.45 am after dropping children off at school. A first class for the day was scheduled for 9.00 am. Sawyer quickly checked email for anything urgent, collected up their previously organized resources and headed up to class. The session focused on the professional practices of teaching, and involved a small group of repeating or part time STs. Setting up the classroom involved rearranging furniture, setting out resources on tables (large paper, pens and sticky notes) and loading a PPT. Sawyer set out name cards for all the STs and welcomed everyone individually (either while taking the roll or as people entered the room). A mix of small and large group activities followed as the class considered key tenets of their course: good teachers’ cause learning, interest in the subject, and learner self-efficacy. The session ended just after 10.00 am. A quick turn around for the next class occurred as we called in to Sawyer’s office to swap sets of resources and begin the trek to the other side of campus for a class about ‘educational assessment’ due to begin at 10.30 am. The class was in one of the large open plan multipurpose teaching rooms; air conditioners were blasting away along the length of the room. As the seventy or so STs arrived, Sawyer set up. This preparation included setting out a class set of iPads for STs’ use at tables. The session was a tutorial as follow up to a lecture and centred on ‘reliability and assessment validity’. A series of reading tasks and reflections on key lecture concepts formed the substantive tutorial work. Sawyer worked around each of the twelve groups and then brought the discussion back to the large group from time to time. Ninety minutes into the class the drone of the air conditioning units was unbearable and Sawyer turned them off – the relief across the room was palpable. The class ended at 12.15 pm and Sawyer, with the help of a ST, packed away the resources. We headed back to the office. Class was due to begin again at 1.00 pm. Sawyer and I ate lunch in the kitchen and staff area across the corridor from their office. Several colleagues passed by and briefly stopped to chat. By 12.45 pm, Sawyer had checked a trolley of resources for the afternoon class and we were off in the elevator to the top floor of the building. Sawyer set up, putting resources on tables (paper, pens, name cards), loading a PPT, chatting with STs upon arrival and marking the roll. The session was about ‘social studies, citizenship, and social inquiry’. Several tasks had been planned, which involved STs working with readings and with resources they’d made the week before, making use of a

A University-Based Teacher Educators’ Day at Work

85

new set of resources (photographs from recent newspaper coverage of a natural disaster) and a planning template. The ebb and flow of large and small group work in the class ended with a comment about a forthcoming assessment (2.45 pm). We packed up and headed to the café for a refreshment; passing by Sawyer’s office to drop off the trolley of resources on the way. Sawyer checked in with the practicum office as we transitioned back to their room. They inquired into how much progress had been made with ST placements and then we headed upstairs. Sawyer unpacked the teaching resources trolley and checked stocks of materials for class the next day before administering the rolls from the day’s teaching. Computer work followed: teaching preparation and emails, a cup of tea at the desk and a visit to a colleague down the corridor to see how their day’s teaching had been. Upon return to their office, Sawyer uploaded resources to the online ST learning system and continued planning teaching for later in the week. At 5.30 pm they popped upstairs to visit a colleague who could change a document with a piece of software that Sawyer themselves did not have. Returning to the office at 5.40 pm Sawyer began to pack up for the day. They planned no substantial work for the evening. At 5.45 pm the workshadowing visit came to an end.

Concluding remarks In this chapter, we examined the activity of fourteen TEs from Phase 2 of our study and compared their work as it was practised during our workshadowing protocol to constructions of UBITE, as established in Phase 1. In Phase 1 we identified recruitment patterns, which sought to bifurcate the work of teacher education, by hiring predominantly PEs and TAs. Our Phase 2 participants were predominately DQs and PEs. We identified this as an apparent contradiction between how ITE was being constructed by institutions (universities and beyond) and how it was being practised. The work narratives stand as rich accounts of university-based teacher education academics’ labour activities and also tell us about the scope of work and its focus during the days we observed. We saw days filled with teaching and service but saw little evidence of, or space for, research activity despite indications of a strong commitment to research and scholarship from the participants themselves (as identified in Chapter 3). The participants reported that their research work was, for the most part, squeezed out of their regular work hours and relegated to weekends, early mornings and evenings.

86

University Teacher Education

In Chapter 5, we build on our observations here to consider to what degree this finding is evident across two full weeks of reported teacher educators’ work activity. From this we make a call for institutions to engage in expansive learning to find creative solutions to such contradictions in the systems that our participants are working in, in order to bring about positive change and move towards a realization of the promise of UBITE.

References Berg, D. A. G., Gunn, A. C., Hill, M. F., & Haigh, M. (2016). Research in the work of New Zealand teacher educators: A cultural-historical activity theory perspective. Higher Education Research and Development, 35(6), 1125–38. McNicholl, J., & Blake, A. (2013). Transforming teacher education, an activity theory analysis. Journal of Education for Teaching, 39(3), 281–300. Roberts, N., & Foster, D. (2015). January 26. Initial teacher training in England. London, UK: House of Commons Library Report. Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand. (2019). ITE programme approval, monitoring and review requirements. Retrieved from https://teachingcouncil.nz/sites/ default/files/ITE_Requirements_FINAL_10April2019_0.pdf, accessed 1 June 2019

5

The Unbounded, Busy Work of Teaching and Administration

In this chapter we expand our discussion of our second research question: What do university-based teacher educators do? In other words, what are they working on? In Chapter 4, we used the data produced from the work-shadowing protocol to illustrate the scope of work activities that fourteen teacher educators (TEs) engaged in during a typical work day. We noted that most of the work was weighted towards teaching and administration. Given that many of our TEs were employed in roles we termed DQ (dually qualified), and therefore should have involved teaching, research and service responsibilities, we were keen to understand what the work looked like over time and during different parts of the academic year to see if the bifurcation of work we had observed in Phase 1 and the work-shadowing was maintained. The TEs whose work-diary data we foreground in this chapter are Sawyer, Dale and Lou. Sawyer’s employment in ITE requires them to teach (80 per cent FTE) and undertake university service (20 per cent FTE). In the WoTE-NZ context, we identified Sawyer as an academic in teacher education of the professional expert (PE) type (see Chapter 2 for a discussion). That is, an individual with practice expertise who is professionally credentialed and with a strong track record in the profession as a teacher. Dale and Lou, on the other hand, were employed as DQ TEs. Forty per cent of their work time was constituted as research, another 40 per cent as teaching and the remaining 20 per cent service. Later in the chapter we will consider how their actual work related to these employment expectations and how this supported the development and practice of university-based initial teacher Education. Our analysis of the work-diary data began by quantifying time spent on different categories of work activities to understand what these were, and how TEs’ activities were spread across the different elements of academic work. The participants generated long, complex and fine-tuned lists of activities

88

University Teacher Education

which, once gathered together, were collapsed into five major work categories that mapped onto the major domains of work expectations we had observed as institutionally produced in Phase 1 of the project: administration, teaching related, service related, research related and practicum related. We represented each participants’ work-diary data to them in the form of two radar charts (one for each week that data had been recorded for), and we also produced a single chart combining all East University’s data and all of West University’s too. This allowed individuals to compare their own work activity with the collective TE subject at their worksite. The radar chart data representation allowed us to illustrate the relative time a TE spent on each major category of work while maintaining an overview of the full scope of what is involved in UBITE (university-based ITE). Once these data were presented to them, we discussed it together at the collaborative research workshop following which, in their post work–shadowing interview, each individual TE was asked to explain the degree to which they considered the data fairly represented the work they would typically do in day. In most cases, the participants confirmed that these data represented them well; however, several noted that the weeks during which the work diaries were completed were not weeks when their students were on practicum in schools, thus explaining the lack of practicum coded activities in the data. One participant, Chris, noted that one of their weeks had coincided with overseas travel for research purposes and so research was basically their single activity for the week. As explained in Chapter 2, we used CHAT (Cultural Historical Activity Theory) (Engeström, 2001) as a tool to make sense of the work of teacher education in universities at a time of system change. Thus, in our sense-making with participants and among ourselves, we sought to understand the meanings attributed to data and elements of the teacher education system by our participants and to identify any elements of the activity system that were manifest as rules, objects, division of labour, communities, tools and contradictions in the work. With respect to the work-diary data, our analysis led to two key observations that we go on to discuss in this chapter. These were: 1. The work objects of teaching and administration motivated a lot of TE activity with generally little evidence of research and service. 2. The work of TEs was often unbounded, fractured and messy, resulting in TEs working on multiple objects within short spaces of time. In the remainder of this chapter we consider these observations and explore  meanings for teacher education development and practice in the

Busy Work of Teaching and Administration

89

university setting. For each we review the data produced from the work diaries and we use CHAT as a tool to interpret it. Following this we discuss these observations in light of the literature about academic work. We note that TEs’ efforts to manage multiple and shifting work objects often result in them working extended working days, at an apparent cost to their work-and-life balance. However, we suggest that the double binds and contradictions such as this, which are made visible through the CHAT informed analysis of the TEs’ work activities within UBITE, cannot be addressed by individuals alone because they do not arise from the individuals – they are systems based. We suggest therefore that CHAT methods might be used by university-based TEs and their leaders to engage in the collective generation of solutions to the problems and challenges that they and their systems of work face. To help make sense of the representations of work we produced through the work-diary data, it is helpful to delve into the detail of some of our TEs’ work diaries and to discuss the different kinds of work expected of different teacher education academics. In Chapters 2 and 3 we discussed our finding that, despite all of our participants valuing research within ITE and as university workers, only some had expectations for research included in their position descriptions and workloads (see also Berg, Gunn, Hill & Haigh, 2016). Indeed, when interviewed, Sawyer, a TE of the PE category who was not allocated research time and who had decided not to pursue doctoral study, saw research-informed professional (teaching) practice as something integral to ITE: And you know the research all talks about this sort of thing … the strategies that we’re using, certainly in the practicum, that we’re supporting … visiting lecturers and associate teachers … use [these strategies] with student teachers … [they] feed into a much more positive … experience for our beginning teachers.

Prior to our study, two of the participants had experienced a reclassification of their roles and changes to their conditions of employment. In both those cases the changes resulted in the removal of a 40 per cent workload allocation for research and an increased teaching load (to 80 per cent FTE). TEs with this level of teaching component in their work (six in our study in total) were categorizable as PE (‘professional expert’) (Gunn, Berg, Hill & Haigh, 2015, p. 312; see also, Chapter 2). Four PEs submitted work diaries for our analysis. For these colleagues, a work rule that had developed through the institutional designation of them as nonresearch active academics was that any research that they wanted to pursue had to happen outside of work time; for example, Bailey used weekends for doctoral study. The institution had made research

90

University Teacher Education

Figure 5.1  Professional expert teacher educators’ work activities across two weeks at East and West universities

a highly valued work object of university workers, yet an illegitimate work activity for the PE-type teacher education academics. We identified this as a major contradiction. The PEs still had to teach in research-informed ways and ITE programmes were expected to be research based – rules established by the criteria governing university institutions and ITE programme accreditation and approval (Committee on University Academic Programmes, 2018; Teaching Council, 2019). The exclusion of some teacher education academics from research seems antithetical to the very reasons we would want teacher education programmes located in university institutions. Yet hiring practices and workload redistributions for some existing TEs were bringing such divisions of labour to the fore. Figure 5.1 shows the clear teaching focus of the work activity of the professional expert teacher education academics. Two additional categories of university-based TEs are described in Chapter 2 and by Gunn and colleagues (2015). The first of these is what we called the TA (traditional academic), someone whose work is expected to be research  and leadership focused, with a track record of university teaching. Unlike PEs and DQs, whose professional credentialing ruled them into much practice and practicum-oriented work (especially when student teachers (STs) were in practice settings during the academic year), the TAs were not expected to hold a teaching qualification nor be professionally credentialed. This meant that like the  PEs, who were systematically excluded from research, the TA teacher education academic was systematically excluded from practice elements of UBITE – they weren’t able to assess STs in practice and undertake other

Busy Work of Teaching and Administration

91

professional service-based activities. Only one of our participants, Chris, was working as a TA at the time of the study. Chris was in fact dually qualified, a teacher who had become an academic and whose current work responsibilities prioritized research and leadership. Chris had made the decision to withdraw from practicum-related aspects of UBITE due to competing work demands, explaining the judgement to withdraw from such work like this: Officially my contract is … 40% teaching, 40% research, and 20% service, but I get … extra … service to deal with the [senior-leadership role] … but I still do all the other service roles … maybe 10 editorial boards, editor of [a journal] … what I don’t do is … teacher practice visits any more … something had to go … it’s not that I don’t want to do that, but … the travel time eats into my day too much … I can’t afford to be driving all around the city, so something had to go.

Weighing up the work Chris had to manage meant a hierarchy of work motives emerged such that Chris effectively ruled themselves out of practiceoriented aspects of UBITE. Our Phase 1 TA construction was never a role that involved practice-based ST visiting and assessment. It was by virtue of Chris’ professional life course that they were qualified and theoretically able to engage in that work. Chris was motivated to move out of practice-based activities by the weight of leadership, administration and research objectives – making the strategic call to let that aspect of ITE go. It was no surprise to us that Chris’ workdiary data, representative of the TA-type ITE academic, was weighted towards administrative responsibility and a commitment to research (see Figure 5.2). In addition, Chris noted that the first of the work-diary weeks (T1) had in fact

Figure 5.2  Traditional academic teacher educator work activities across two weeks

92

University Teacher Education

coincided with a research trip overseas, meaning that much of Chris’ work that week involved only research. Significantly, even when Chris had returned to their regular worksite during work-diary week 2 (T2), a balance between research and administration work had not been struck and what was recorded, a week that was routine in Chris’ mind, saw the balance of work weighted towards administration above all else. The third category of TE that we identified in Phase 1 of the study was named DQ (Gunn, Berg, Hill & Haigh, 2015; also see Chapter 2). This category, as the name implies, described TEs who were professionally credentialed teachers from the early childhood, primary or secondary sectors and who were also expected to be active in producing research and scholarship (and likely doctorate holders, hence the notion of both professionally and academically qualified). The DQ categorization of teacher education academic was evident in only one of the positions universities were recruiting for in Phase 1 of the study. There, we had observed a bifurcation of teacher education work and workers through the fact that universities were recruiting mainly TA and PEtype personnel using ‘research’ and ‘practice’ activities as aspects of labour to reify the divisions we observed. Amongst our fifteen participants, eight were identifiably working as DQs. However, working as DQs didn’t actually mean they were dually qualified. They were all qualified and registered teachers with current practising certificates, but not all held doctorates. The roles they were employed in encompassed research, teaching and service work (40/40/20 FTE). The DQs’ work was doubly governed by rules originating from the profession and the academy. They were subject to university expectations around research productivity, teaching load and service, but if they were to maintain their professional credentialing (which was critical for much of the teaching and service components of work the university expected), the PE and DQ academics were also bound by the professional body for teachers’ processes for teacher registration and certification. Lou and Dale were included in this classification of TE. Both were former school teachers with many years of experience. However, Dale had worked as a TE in a former college of education prior to its merger with the local university, whereas Lou’s entry into ITE was in the university environment. These TEs also differed in their experience as researchers. Lou was currently involved in doctoral study, whereas Dale’s doctorate had been completed some eight years prior. Since then, Dale had won a number of research grants. The DQ work-diary data are presented in Figure 5.3. The TEs’ work comprised general administration, teaching and research during the two work-diary periods. Furthermore, the balance of work activities

Busy Work of Teaching and Administration

93

Figure 5.3  Dually qualified teacher educators’ work activities across two weeks at East and West Universities.

across the five major categories in each period was different. The T1 data were produced during Week 41 of the academic year, close to the end of regular teaching semester, which is one possible explanation for the weighting towards teaching. Conversely, Week 10 of the academic year, which is when the second workdiary data were produced, falls right at the beginning of the academic year and follows the traditional summer period in A|NZ (Aotearoa New Zealand), a time when many research-active university academics pursue research and writing goals. Furthermore, it may be also that the T2 data in Figure 5.3, which is spread between general administration and research-type work activities, represents that shift in the academic year when student enrolments, the preparation and administration of course materials and teaching activities are just beginning after a research-intensive period of work. The residual summer research focus is gradually being replaced by more of an emphasis on administration and teaching. One participant, Brook, explained this very phenomenon and the consequences, saying that as a result of teaching responsibilities at the time of the interview (just prior to Week 10), research work would be on hold for the next four weeks. The patterns of work activity reported by TEs reflected the categories of teacher education work (and workers) we noted being institutionally produced in Phase 1 of the study. This provided us some confidence in the conclusion we had drawn about the bifurcation of the work and workforce. It also gave us pause to reflect upon the promise of teacher education in the university setting, given this is where most of the ITE provision in A|NZ currently sits. For us,

94

University Teacher Education

the affordances of UBITE reflect an opportunity to develop and design research and evidence-based teacher practice to transform teaching within the A|NZ education system. The graduation of research-informed and scholarly teachers is an aim that universities, the profession, we and our participants share. Teacher education academics as university workers should (and are expected to be) practice-centred and research-capable. Yet we had observed a clear division of teacher education work along professional and academic lines, brought about by institutional hiring and workload distribution practices that used research and professional activities as sites of differentiation. This division was experienced by TEs as a tension between addressing academic (meaning research) and professional (teaching and service, including service within the teaching profession) demands. Nevertheless, our participant TEs were committed to research, reflecting the high value of that work objective within the university system, and many of the TEs were reportedly engaged in research activities whether they had this recognized by their institutions in workload or not. So to understand this tension more, we took a closer look at the nature of the research activity taking place during the work day at East and West universities.

Observation 1: The work objects of teaching and administration motivated a lot of TE activity with generally little evidence of research and service Our initial readings of the participants’ work diaries left us wondering about the place and nature of research and service activity in their work, given that the majority of the TEs in this study were expected to spend 40 per cent of their work activity researching and institutions had upheld service (in the university and the profession) as work priority in their constructions of ITE from Phase 1. We have discussed the service issue elsewhere (Gunn, Berg, Hill & Haigh, 2015 and Chapter 6) so here we continue to take a closer look at the kinds of research activities being undertaken by TEs during the work-diary weeks. Closer examination of the research activities recorded in the work diaries of all our participants indicated that the work categorized as research mainly involved attending research meetings and working with others on developing and conducting research projects, including, for one of our participants, a full week of data collection. What was absent, for the most part, in the work-diary data were blocks of time spent writing and producing research outputs. There were exceptions to this, notably, from Dale, who recorded ‘writing chapter for

Busy Work of Teaching and Administration

95

edited book’ from 9.00 am to 5.00 pm in the work diary, for one day (although from 8.00 to 9.00 am that day, Dale answered emails). This absence of writing activity is consistent with findings from the other data sources, from which we noted a collective angst and sense of failure to produce research outputs by our TEs. This sentiment was captured by Nat, who explained, ‘I differentiate [research] from writing … I’m really good at collecting data and doing lovely research projects’. However, for Nat, finding time to write for publication was a significant issue. The prioritizing of meetings, planning, administrating, collaborating and so forth makes sense to us in three ways. First, it brings TEs into contact with their colleagues, something many of the participants said they valued because it guarded against the solitary nature of much academic work, which was fundamentally different from their previous worklives as teachers, where much activity is collaborative (see Chapter 3 for a discussion). Second, many of the TEs were novice researchers or doctoral students, and so they collaborated with colleagues and were mentored by them, activities that would normally take place during the day. Third, organizing, administrating and conducting research drew upon skills and expertise that any successful teacher had readily to hand. Further, it was likely that data-gathering activities would bring TEs into practice sites, where they had already been expert teachers and valued colleagues, deeply interested in the workings of schools, kura and early childhood settings and with a desire to improve practice. So, that we saw research meetings, working with others, planning and the like prioritized in the work activities of our participants, with few making time for the more solitary act of writing, wasn’t that much of a surprise. However, it is work that the institution does not necessarily measure and so the lack of writing productivity was considered a failure and was a cause of distress for some of our participants. As discussed in Chapter 2, the rules mediating the activity of our participants are drawn from the two policy environments of tertiary education and ITE and the evolving activity systems of both (see also Gunn et al., 2016). These systems have overlapping but often significantly different rules, objects, divisions of labour, communities, tools and outcomes. Some of the rules that controlled the environment that our participants operated within stemmed from the teachers’ professional body (the Teaching Council). This body determines the criteria upon which tertiary institutions will develop programmes of ITE; it also evaluates programmes for approval. An example of a ‘rule’ from the ITE activity system that impacts on the tertiary education system is, for example, that the lecturers who assess ST performance in schools, kura and early childhood education settings must themselves hold teacher registration and

96

University Teacher Education

a current practising certificate. The holding of a current practising certificate relies upon a three-yearly assessment of the teachers’ fitness to teach. Holders are also required to demonstrate to the profession that they can teach in ways that address professional standards for teachers. Other rules were a direct result of Aotearoa New Zealand’s PBRF (Performance-Based Research Fund), which funds universities, in part, as a result of the research output of their academic staff. Thus, for the majority of the TEs in this study, an explicit rule within the activity system was that they must publish research. When we considered the research objective for these TEs, rules were clearly evident. These were both explicit and implicit. Rules governed who was given time to research in their workloads and who was not but revealed expectations that all ‘use research to make sure we are really at the cutting edge’ (Cameron). Sawyer explained how TEs not allocated research time were placed in somewhat of a double-bind in relation to engaging with the wider research community: there’s conference funding set aside for PEs to go to conferences … But if you’re a PE … you actually have to be presenting or invited to … speak … as part of a panel at a conference. There’s two problems with that, one is that teaching load that we’re currently … meeting … doesn’t give you time to go to things … and secondly … you don’t have any allocation in your workload to produce anything that you would then be presenting about … it becomes a catch 22 situation.

Brook identified explicit institutional rules that senior lecturers publish five articles in two years, but it seems that other implicit rules resulted in behaviours that prioritized more immediate teaching to the detriment of research. Indeed, Dale explained how teaching requirements impacted on the production of research publications: We have been understaffed in [named subject] for years. I have pretty high teaching loads and this [named programme] over the past year has been really over the top. So those sorts of time conflicts for me are preventing me from writing up stuff that I know is definitely good data.

As explained earlier in the chapter, Dale is one of the more experienced researchers among the participants. The research activities that Dale reported being engaged in comprised: Two main areas of research, one is [subject removed-learning] of university students, but in particular teacher education students. I’ve been developing growth models of assessment … as opposed to deficit models … But prior to that and still going on is my work on [subject removed]. I am very interested in conceptual development of [subject removed] thinking.

Busy Work of Teaching and Administration

97

The kinds of teaching and curriculum-focused research that Dale reports seem to be exactly the sorts of research that can support the advancement of UBITE. It informs not only TEs’ practice and ITE curriculum planning; it serves the education sector more broadly by helping universities develop their programmes to effectively progress student learning. Yet, Dale’s teaching commitments had, in Dale’s eyes, resulted in a reduced output of research publications, much to their dissatisfaction. We consider that future research into ITE work would be well placed to explore the explicit rules of workloads and labour divisions and the implicit rules motivating TEs management of their work. In particular, we are interested to understand more fully about how hierarchies of work motives may inhibit TEs pursuit of private scholarly work. Given that we understand from CHAT perspectives that engagement in complex activities with common objects of concern supports learning and identity construction, we wonder if implicit rules about being a teacher, carried from previous and successful work lives (e.g. rewarding effort and working collaboratively), clashed with rules of the academy (e.g. rewards for accomplishment (in publishing) and the imperative to develop world standing (individual expertise) to impede writing and publishing oriented academic work. TEs prioritized work that they were already successful at rather than finding ways to pursue both professional and academically oriented work objectives sustainably. Future CHAT-informed work with TEs could collectively address this relationship between the professional and academic work demands within UBITE and envision resolutions of contradictions through an expansive generation of new activity (Engestrom, 1987). For most of our participants, teaching appeared to be prioritized above research (writing), and while this may, in part, be explained as a response to very demanding workloads, other, more fundamental issues, like the fact that being a teacher educator (in a tertiary setting) is not the same as being a teacher (in a school, kura or early childhood education setting), may yet need to be reconciled.

Observation 2: The work of TEs is often unbounded, fractured and messy Lou and Sawyer’s experiences at work illustrate our second observation from the work-diary data: The work of TEs is often unbounded, fractured and messy, resulting in TEs working on multiple objects in short spaces of time. During the work-shadowing we had found ourselves trailing the participants as they

98

University Teacher Education

traversed campuses, visited practice settings, went into and out of meetings, answered emails, planned classes, checked facilities, read, tutored, taught, talked to students, to colleagues and so forth. The days were very full and wide ranging but approximating normal (in our experience as TEs working under the same conditions as the DQ participants in the sample). It wasn’t until the work diaries were analysed that we began to question the sustainability of the work that had been observed and documented – especially when we could see that a significant proportion of many TEs’ work objectives (research and service related) weren’t featuring to the extent we might have expected.Table 5.1 is an excerpt from Sawyers’ work diaries that illustrates our observation of TEs unbounded, fragmented and messy work days. While the work diaries did capture that sense of pace, change and fragmentation of TEs’ work over multiple, shifting objectives through the day, the observational data collected during the work-shadowing of the TEs suggested that the work diaries did not do justice to the frantic nature of the TEs work; indeed, we think the work-shadowing accounts told this story much more forcefully. An abridged version of Lou’s work-shadowing narrative is illustrative (Table 5.2). Alongside the account of activities we observed Lou engaged in during the day, we have proposed the sorts of work objectives that we think were motivating Lou’s actions and activities. One activity that was ubiquitous across all the participants’ work diaries and was clearly evident in the accounts provided of Dale, Lou and Sawyer’s work, was responding to email. Interestingly, email, though a tool, appeared in these work diaries more like an object of work. Emails were a clear work priority for our participants, who reported spending up to twelve hours in a week working on them; emails had to be done – they seemed to have taken on a life of their own. As already reported in this chapter, Dale noted an email inbox containing 168 items to answer as a result of taking leave prior to the work-shadowing day. In this regard, strong parallels are evident from the UK WoTE study. Indeed, Spencer (2013), a participant in that study, initially noted feeling concerned about being either ‘too assiduous or too slow in responding’ to email and that the ‘amount of time it consumed must be anomalous, either that or evidence of my poor working practices’ (p. 304) only to find it ‘very much in line with the averages noted across the sample of participants’ (p. 305). The importance of email work was discussed at our collaborative data workshop with the participants, who described the utility of email as a tool and that it allowed them to model professional behaviour to their students. Answering all emails was seen as a rule; an anonymous participant in the collaborative data

Busy Work of Teaching and Administration

99

Table 5.1  A day from Sawyer’s work diary Time

Description of activity

9:00

Arrive 9.30 – Respond to emails Meet with … to discuss plans for xxx session on Monday. Touch base with Practicum Manager and Practicum Administrator

10:00

Phone interview with …

11:00

Respond to emails Plan rest of day – make a ‘must do’ list 11.30 meet with student re leave from practicum. Send Moodle message to … students re preparation for Monday class

12:00

12.00 meet with student re leave from practicum (5 mins) 12.05 meet with student re leave from practicum (5 mins) Respond to emails Meet with … programme leader re implications of decisions made about school placement issue that arose on Thursday (15 mins). Answer Year 1 student question about practicum. Practicum discussion with colleague (10 mins)

13:00

Eat lunch while emailing students re practicum leave decisions Discuss practicum arrangements for students with leave with practicum administrator Corridor conversation with First Year Mentor coordinator about ways of engaging mentors in … (5 mins)

14:00

Revise slides and lecture notes for … lecture (Monday) and related tutorial

15:00

Revise slides and lecture notes for … lecture (Monday) and related tutorial Email slides to course director Pick up laptop for Monday’s lecture Reply to emails Check rolls from … tutorials Discuss actions re absent students with co-administrator

16:00

Print updated rolls for … Ascertain actual absences, identify students of concern Conversation with colleague (3 mins) Discussion with Practicum Manager re practicum materials Check Week 1 roll for … tutorial

17:00

Check Week 1 roll for … Create slides for … session (Monday)

18:00

Create slides for … session (Monday) Respond to emails Organize materials for … session (Monday)

University Teacher Education

100

Table 5.2  An activity-object analysis of a day from Lou’s work diary Time

Activity: What was Lou doing?

Object: What appears to be motivating Lou’s activity?

8:00

Lou was catching up with emails …

Uncertain – depends on subject of email; relationships and professional etiquette (for timely responses); doing email

8:43

Checking out facilities for a special invited guest session that Lou is organizing for STs tomorrow …

Teaching; professional etiquette; reputational (for institution – adequacy of facilities for guest)

8:55

More emails

Uncertain – depends on subject of email; relationships and professional etiquette (for timely responses); doing email

8:59

Printing Lit Review/ talking to colleague about practicum requirements

Doctoral research; practicum; relationships and professional etiquette (Lou stopped to talk)

9:00

Looking for teaching resources

Teaching

9:15

Telephone call from colleague regarding practicum requirements

Practicum; relationships and professional etiquette (for timely response – Lou answered the phone)

9:20

Prepares classroom for teaching

Teaching; modelling teacher practice

9:50

Briefs student on assessment and answers questions related to practicum

Teaching; pastoral (student preparedness for assessments), assessment (for the course and the practicum)

10:03

Seeks IT support – video problems/starts teaching

Teaching; technology proficient for teaching

11:45

More emails – manually typing in individual student’s addresses to send them information

Practicum – subject of email; relationships and professional etiquette (for timely responses to students); doing email

12:10

Discussion with student about practicum/ agreed to arrange for the laminating of student’s resource

Practicum – ethic of care for student (individual tutorial and support for teaching resource production).

12:20

Buy lunch. Chat to colleagues while walking from shop

Collegial relationships

12:45

Prepares for doctoral supervision meeting

Doctoral research; professional etiquette (preparedness for meeting)

Busy Work of Teaching and Administration

101

13:00

Discussion with colleague regarding practicum moderation

Practicum; assessment; professional etiquette (for timely response to unplanned moderation request – Lou responded in the moment)

13:05

Preparation for supervision meeting – notes that this isn’t normally done in work hours

Doctoral research; professional etiquette (preparedness for meeting)

13:45

Rings for Endnote software support

Doctoral research; technologically proficient for research writing

14:00

Supervision meeting

Doctoral research

15:05

Collects laminating for student – discusses assessment moderation issue with colleague in corridor

Practicum – care for student; assessment; professional etiquette (for timely response to unplanned moderation request – Lou responded in the moment in the corridor)

15:25

Sorting out examples of documentation required for making judgements about students achieving on the practicum. Emails information to colleague

Practicum; collaborative teaching and assessment, course leadership and administration

15:35

Sent similar emails to others in the secondary group to ask if they had any questions about the forms to use

Practicum – collaborative teaching and assessment; course leadership and administration

15:45

Student returns to collect Practicum – care for student; teaching laminated material and (individual tutorial) discusses her teaching … Discussion concludes with setting a time for student to come back with examples of activities that she is planning

16:30

Meets with another Doctoral research person doing a PhD using a similar methodology and who has a supervisor in common

17:30

Goes online to look at the Doctoral research PG week and to access PG student support material. I leave at 5.45

102

University Teacher Education

workshop shared, ‘if someone sends me an email, I need to reply’. Nevertheless, finding time in the day to answer emails was problematic for these TEs and led to fragmented activity, as evident in the opening note in Ash’s work-shadowing narrative: 8am: arrives at office … started work at home at 5.30 am sets that time apart for research, though today (and lately) … used it for administrative work. We discussed emails – ‘the tyranny of email!’ Answering early in the morning – evenings – when cooking – at the weekends.

Most of the work diaries revealed that the TEs, like Ash, found it necessary to answer email at home, and in several cases while managing other responsibilities. For example, Jay, our TE who wasn’t work-shadowed, entered, ‘7:00: Check and reply to emails; feed animals, self, and kids’. A clear pattern of email use was evident between both universities and across both weeks of data collection. Emails were commonly answered before 7.00 am, during lunchtime and after 8.00 pm. In addition, emails were answered at brief moments throughout the day. This can be seen in Sawyer’s work diary in Table 5.1. The tool/object of email work illustrates and contributes to the unbounded, fractured and messy work of teacher education. The accessibility of the technology allows for email to cross boundaries in a way that other aspects of TEs work cannot. Email is always on – it can be dealt with at home, during lunch, on the road and while attempting to gain traction with research (writing) work – unless of course our TEs decide to turn it off. Thus, a clear contradiction has emerged in the work-activity of universitybased TEs as result of a technological and cultural shift. Further CHAT research exploring this could make strong contribution to the study and practice of UBITE. Those responsible for UBITE and TEs themselves would benefit from a better understanding of what is motivating the ubiquitous uses of email and an appreciation of how the tool can better serve TEs work, rather than establishing itself as an object of their work. The two observations that we have discussed are interrelated: 1. Research and scholarship are not as evident as objects of the TEs collective activity as teaching and administrative work. 2. The work of university-based TEs is often unbounded, fractured and messy, resulting in TEs working on multiple objects within short spaces of time. We go on next to discuss connections between these two observations and propose individualistic and collaborative approaches to resolving them.

Busy Work of Teaching and Administration

103

It takes many years to produce a TE who is capable of engaging in the full scope of UBITE practice. The dual mandate of research and teaching is upheld as foundational to universities as institutions (and is increasingly so for other providers or tertiary education in A|NZ). A key benefit of locating teacher education within institutions where research is prominent is the opportunity to develop a localized and robust systematic evidence base for the profession of teaching that is fit-for-purpose and oriented towards advancing and improving teaching and learning in A|NZ. Universities share a goal with the profession: to graduate teachers who will work in schools, kura and early childhood education settings in evidence-informed ways. We are invested in the production of teachers who recognize and use research practice-based problems to improve teaching and learning – teachers who will be able to read research, interpret and apply it to improve the everyday situations they find themselves in. The workforce in universities must be both professionally and academically minded to support such outcomes. We also see advantages in them being both professionally and academically credentialed (DQ in our study’s terms). The TEs in Phase 2 of our study had previously all served as school or early childhood education-based teachers and the majority of them were becoming academically credentialed (through doctoral study and research productivity) later in their worklives. Collectively, our participants’ experience as teachers was significantly greater than their experience as researchers. It is useful to consider these TEs’ research experience in the light of Anders Erikson and colleagues’ (1993) much-cited research, which suggests that 10,000 hours of deliberate practice is needed to gain expertise. If this claim is accepted, almost five years of forty-hour weeks of such focused work are necessary to achieve it. For TEs who are allocated 40 per cent of their workload for research and scholarly activities, allowing for leave and presuming that they can protect this time from the expansion of teaching and administration, this comes to just under fourteen years of employment. Thus, even for those TEs who have completed doctoral study, extensive and supported postdoctoral deliberate practice of research would need to be engaged in to gain expertise. It is possibly the case that such expertise is not required for TEs to function effectively as researchers. Some may argue that achieving competence is a more reasonable goal. Nevertheless, it seems fair to assume that the conditions needed to achieve competence and expertize are overlapping. Furthermore, our CHAT perspective would have us argue that participation in the complex activities of research (including writing over and above planning, administration and organizing) is needed for learning and identity development as a researcher to occur. A more

104

University Teacher Education

deliberately scaffolded induction to research aspects of academic work may be warranted to support the development of UBITE. The notion of deliberate practice is important. In order to gain expertise, an individual must overcome constraints of resources, motivation and effort (Erikson et al., 1993). For the busy TEs who participated in this study, one often-cited resource constraint is that of available time. For the majority of participants, 40 per cent of their workloads were designated for research; however, our multiple data sources revealed a picture of TEs with very little exclusive time for independent research work, and in particular writing, and who were often engaged in frequent task switching. This is likely to act as a barrier to learning and attainment of competence. Erikson and his colleagues (1993) have argued that other conditions should be in place for deliberate practice. These include ‘immediate, informative feedback’ (p. 367) and guidance in the use of appropriate strategies. While we did see evidence of mentoring activity by senior TEs towards more research-inexperienced colleagues, TEs working independently and submitting research for publication are unlikely to receive immediate feedback about their work in order to learn from it. On the other hand, and more positively, for some of the participants in this study, their work in research teams, as reported in their work diaries, is more likely to facilitate such immediate, informative feedback and guidance. Guidance for individual academics seeking to produce and publish quality research abounds. Publications such as How to Write a Lot (Sylvia, 2007) emphasize the importance of regular focused writing time, where email is switched off and distractions are limited. Sylvia describes his routine of writing at home each morning until 10.00 am, prior to starting his working day at the university. In a similar publication, Deep Work, Newport (2016) introduces his readers to Adam Grant, the youngest professor to be given tenure in the history of the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton Business School. Grant, it seems, has gained large numbers of research publications in leading journals. He achieves this as a result of blocking out long, noninterrupted periods of time. For example, he contains his teaching into one semester to allow him to focus on research in the other. Furthermore, he places an out-of-office message on his email for three-day periods at a time, thus minimizing distractions. Sylvia and Grant’s approaches to academic work have much to commend them, but it is hard to imagine how the participants in our study would be able to unilaterally adopt such working practices without considerable institutional support.

Busy Work of Teaching and Administration

105

Authors such as Sylvia (2007) and Newport (2016) offer academics useful guidance and are likely to provide valuable advice for those wanting to improve their academic productivity; however, their focus, unlike ours, does not attempt to understand institutional communities, rules, tools and divisions of labour that may inhibit such work. We suggest that expecting individuals to work independently on raising their productivity is likely to be less effective than addressing the systemic conditions that seem to be motivating TEs work activities. We argue that a shared appreciation of the historically evolving activity systems of UBITE may lead to transformative learning in the sector. Such learning may result in the creative adaptation to practices before they sediment and fix UBITE in particular ways. We suggest TEs and leaders with some influence over the conditions of practice for ITE within universities would do well to engage in expansive learning exercises and to re-engage with the promise of a practice-oriented, research-informed ITE. Just ten years into the shift of the majority of ITE into the universities sector, it seems timely to take stock of what has been accomplished and what might need to change if we are to grasp and advance research and evidence-based teacher practice to transform teaching within A|NZ education system.

References Berg, D. A. G., Gunn, A. C., Hill, M. F., & Haigh, M. (2016). Research in the work of New Zealand teacher educators: A cultural-historical activity theory perspective. Higher Education Research & Development, 35(6), 1125–38. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit. Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–56. Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., and Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363–406. Gunn, A. C., Berg, D., Hill, M. F., & Haigh, M. (2015). Constructing the academic category of teacher educator in universities’ recruitment processes in Aotearoa, New Zealand. Journal of Education for Teaching, 41(3), 307–20. Newport, C. (2016). Deep work: Rules for focused success in a distracted world. London: Piatkus. Silvia, P. J. (2007). How to write a lot: A practical guide to productive academic writing. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

106

University Teacher Education

Spencer, I. (2013). Doing the ‘Second Shift’: Gendered labour and the symbolic annihilation of teacher educators’ work. Journal of Education for Teaching, 39(3), 301–13. Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand. (2019). ITE programme approval, monitoring and review requirements. Retrieved from https://teachingcouncil.nz/sites/ default/files/ITE_Requirements_FINAL_10April2019_0.pdf, accessed 4 June 2020

6

The Hidden Work of Teacher Education in Aotearoa New Zealand

This chapter examines the expanded and sometimes hidden teaching and service for TEs (teacher educators) as academics, where they are expected to combine professional roles within the academic aspects of their job. In addition to the work that falls to all university academics, TEs often have new professional tasks added to their work. For example, as a TE it is common to receive many emails like this one: We need your help with selecting our new students. As you know it is a requirement of our accreditation to provide ITE that current staff are part of the selection process as well as our colleagues from schools. We have had a great response from schools and are grateful to our panel chairs who will oversee the interview process. Each session (a morning or an afternoon) now needs an ITE staff member to be part of the team. Please click on the link for your sector below and find a time that suits you. Thank you to those who have already volunteered.

As is clear from the tone of this email, this work is expected of TEs, but it is not part of the workload descriptions for TEs and is assumed under the teaching and service general headings. Half a day, for this one invitation among many, is a considerable amount of time to commit on top of a fully committed and agreed workload. Drawing on the data from our study and, in particular, the cases of three TE academics, this chapter illustrates and critically analyses how and why TE academics teaching and service contributions work both with but mostly against the promise of UBITE (university-based initial teacher education); that is for TEs to become scholars internationally active in their field. Since 1990 in A|NZ (Aotearoa New Zealand), and dating back further in other contexts, TEs in UBITE have reflected the so-called dual mandate underlying their work where they face what Knowles et al. (2000) describe as

108

University Teacher Education

an impossible balancing act. On the one hand, the professional and community roles of interfacing with the teaching profession, preparing novice teachers to meet the continuously shifting professional standards, contributing to new curriculum initiatives and serving the demands of the profession take energy, commitment and time. But they do not carry prestige nor even much weight within the university. In the academy, it is the intellectual endeavours, highquality research outputs, financial efforts and international prominence that lead to promotion and acclaim. Compounding this clash of roles, the university sector and society in general are of the view that teaching is relatively easy. Thus, within universities globally, teacher education is regarded as a low status discipline. Davey (2013) points out that ‘it is little wonder that (a profession) such as teaching, which serves stigmatised populations defined by gender, class and age, is not judged as serious academic work’ (p. 23). As we have noted, our project took place at a time when teacher education had been university-based for around a decade. In this time teacher education had become a routine part of universities’ work and the faculties/colleges/institutes of education were funded substantially by their preservice teacher preparation functions. Thus by 2014 TEs had become an embedded kind of academic worker within the A|NZ university sector, subject to the workload, performance, promotion and research policies (among others) governing academic work. As earlier chapters, and other research (Middleton, 2006; Nuttall et al., 2013), have indicated, however, transitioning to teacher education work in the university sector has not been experienced consistently by all. In this chapter we address the often hidden work of TEs in A|NZ universities, usually service and teaching work that is expected and perceived by TEs as important but not factored into role descriptions and workload allocations. This work constantly interrupts and derails TEs’ best intentions to complete their scholarly work, holding back the potential for teacher education scholarship to thrive. After briefly introducing the nature of service work in A|NZ, we turn to an examination of what we have termed the ‘hidden’ work of teacher education. Service, in terms of academic work, includes such aspects as academic citizenship, for example, attendance at and contributions to, meetings and events. All academics are expected to attend department, school and faculty meetings; take part in graduation ceremonies; and participate in faculty and university promotional activities. They are expected to contribute to the academic functioning of the university through committee work: such as participating on working parties; being members of department, school and faculty committees; participating in reviews, including external reviews for other universities;

Hidden Work of Teacher Education in A|NZ

109

mentoring colleagues; and coordinating events. Academics also contribute significantly to disciplinary and professional organizations connected with their expertise. This work is expansive and could take the form of advice, innovation, or leadership to the group concerned or administrative, teaching, or research links that are of benefit to the university. Examples of contributions to a disciplinary group might include organizing an annual conference, chairing a curriculum planning committee and editing a disciplinary publication or journal. Examples of contributions to professional groups could include leadership of a subject committee, participation in professional development, or chairing a curriculum initiative. Additionally, as do most academics, TE academics contribute to their discipline through editing journals, peer-reviewing publications submitted to academic journals, and reviewing chapters and books submitted to publishers. For TEs, service work includes community engagement in education. This work can include participation in and leadership of cultural networks; leadership in professional/curriculum development projects; membership of governance bodies for community organizations; input into the development of campuscommunity partnerships; and involvement with international communities through research collaborations, consultancies and international bodies. Policy influence is another category of academic service work and TE academics might influence and/or provide direct input into structures and processes that determine policy at regional, national and international levels. Examples include membership of government statutory and advisory committees participation in policy formulation for government, local authorities, NGOs and other public good organizations; policy advisory roles in bodies such as the Ministry of Education (MOE), the Education Review Office (ERO), the New Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA) and the Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand, social work agencies and health organizations and contributions to conventions and policy with international bodies (such as the World Bank, UNESCO, WHO, United Nations, UNICEF). Service work also includes sharing the outcomes of research and teaching activities with communities, key organizations (e.g. government ministries, local authorities) and individual citizens; responsive practice in activities that contribute to meeting Te Tiriti o Waitangi (A|NZs founding document entered into by representatives of the Crown and Māori) objectives; and responsiveness to equity groups through such activities as working to prioritize exploring more diverse curricula and implementing innovative access and retention strategies for equity groups. Furthermore, in line with the Education Act (1989), university academics in A|NZ are expected to make a contribution to the strength and

110

University Teacher Education

vibrancy of modern democracies through acting as ‘critic and conscience’ by questioning and challenging current thinking and orthodoxies, at regional, national and international levels. This can include such activities as prominent involvement in social justice movements, regular media contributions associated with community advocacy, critical perspectives presented in widely read publications and concerted efforts at challenging questionable ethical practices. Normally, service work is expected to be about 20 per cent of an academic role, with 40 per cent allocated to each of teaching and research. We were interested in how the DQ (dual qualification) of TEs as both professionals in teaching and academics in the university workforce influenced, and was influenced by, their academic role. Thus, one strand of our project investigated the nature of TEs’ work in relation to their research, teaching, service and leadership functions, and the impacts of each of these roles. As we have already explained, in Phase 1 we analysed the promotional materials advertising the work new appointees in education faculties would be required to do, and we interviewed those responsible for hiring TEs to find out what they saw as the nature of the work (see Chapter 2 for more details of Phase 1). In Phase 2 we took a deep and careful look at the TEs’ actual work. As explained earlier, we interviewed TEs in two institutions about what they did in their daily work. We shadowed each of the participants for a full day, observing them at work, capturing their activities, recording what they did and talking with them about their motivations, frustrations and achievements. And as discussed in Chapter 5, the TEs also kept a work diary for us over two different weeks during the year. We went back and interviewed each of the TEs again, following our observations. And towards the end of the project we held a full-day collaborative participatory workshop to further clarify and understand the nature of their work. In this chapter, we draw from the data collected across the entire data set, Phases 1 and 2, to build a picture of the institutional expectations of TEs and we examine the actual work captured in action, in interviews, in the TEs’ diaries, and in their own reflections on their work. Using the entire corpus of the data as a backdrop, this chapter illustrates the often hidden teaching and service work of TEs. That is, the work which may not feature in advertisements for TE roles, or even be acknowledged in their official workloads or listed specifically anywhere in the scope of their work expectations. In particular, this chapter critically analyses how and why TE academics’ roles work both with and against the imperatives to research and publish. First, we turn to the expectations universities in A|NZ have of TE academics, before turning attention to the TEs’ own accounts of their work.

Hidden Work of Teacher Education in A|NZ

111

Expectations of teacher educators’ work from the institutional perspective As the earlier chapters have explored, TE work in university-based initial teacher education (UBITE) crosses and blurs the professional and academic boundaries. Since 1990 in A|NZ, as part of the move of teacher education into the university sector, TEs have been required to carry out the work previously expected of them in colleges of education, and they have needed to take on a full academic role in order to be or remain employed on the lecturer-professor track within the academy. This may not appear problematic on the surface. From a managerial perspective it seems clear that the solution is to bifurcate the TE workforce into professional educators and academics. The current titles of TE roles reflect this bifurcation. PTFs (professional teaching fellows)/PPFs (professional practice fellows)/tutors, PEs in our categorizing of the work are TEs who need to be registered and certificated as A|NZ teachers. They are employed on a contract that does not require or support them to undertake research. As our analysis of the advertisements for, and interviews with persons responsible for appointments (in Phase 1 of our study) made clear, these workers were to teach the bulk of curriculum and professional courses; ensure the institutional links between schools, kura, early childhood centres and the university are well oiled and functional; and also carry out the majority of in-school supervision of preservice teachers on practicum. In contrast, those TEs employed on the lecturer-professor scale were to prioritize their scholarly work in order to meet the academic standards and measure up to research performance required to progress through the hierarchy. Our deeper investigations with TEs themselves, however, revealed the complex and fraught work-life sometimes brought about by this bifurcated job structure. As demonstrated in Chapter 3, a major route into teacher education as a career has been, and still is, through the teaching profession. TEs who work in schools, kura and ECE centres supervising preservice teachers on practicum must be A|NZ registered and certified teachers. Moreover, they need experience as teachers and must be able to build strong links between the university and schooling sectors. As one participant responsible for recruiting new TEs explained: [We are] looking for someone who either comes with, or has the ability to develop and maintain, service networks by working with schools and kura and ECE centres. So, somebody who already has some sort of connections either in the local community or the wider community. (02, Interview)

112

University Teacher Education

In the PE positions, it was almost always clear that research was not part of the role and, in some, that postgraduate supervision was also not expected. For example, ‘Senior tutors are not required to undertake any research or complete higher degrees as part of their role and as such are not eligible to apply for research funding. Supervision of postgraduate students is not required’ (02, Position Description). However, applicants with postgraduate qualifications were sought and considered for these positions, and the teachers who were attracted had clearly engaged in postgraduate study and some held doctoral degrees. And as demonstrated later in this chapter, teachers appointed as PEs do consider this to be a pathway into an academic career. In fact, it is the main route to become dually qualified TE academics. Despite the fact that these PE positions are not lecturer positions that require the incumbent to undertake research as part of the role, if teachers wish to pursue the academic career they have begun by taking on postgraduate and doctoral study, most need to do this through the nonresearch track in order to be appointed to a university position. Competition for lecturer positions is fierce and teachers who have juggled part-time postgraduate and doctoral study alongside teaching simply do not have the time and resources to accumulate the publications and university teaching experience needed to win entry-level lecturer positions. Compounding this situation is the fact that entrylevel lecturer positions are generally remunerated below the levels experienced teachers can earn in schools. In order to unpack the nature of TE work and how it impacts on career progression, this chapter now turns to the data collected in Phase 2 regarding the actual work of our TE participants; in particular, this chapter focuses on the cases of three TEs who all entered teacher education through the PE route. While two were still in these roles at the time of our project, one had entered through a contract position as a senior tutor but has since navigated to become an associate professor and leader in teacher education. First, we introduce each and then move to a discussion of the hidden teacher education work that our participants argued, at the final participatory workshop, inhibits their ability to undertake the research and publication activities essential to moving into the research-active lecturer academic scale.

Jessie Jessie arrived in A|NZ after having been a teacher for seven years in England. Jessie’s experience as a teacher in A|NZ, prior to taking on the College of Education

Hidden Work of Teacher Education in A|NZ

113

job, was mainly as an early childhood educator. Jessie is particularly passionate about literacy learning and children’s participation rights. Having both Post Graduate Diploma and Master of Arts in Child Advocacy (undertaken a year after becoming a TE) demonstrates Jessie’s interest in pursuing both academic and professional work. However, at the time of the study, Jessie was a TEF (Teaching Education Fellow; PE in this study’s categories), meaning that their workload was organized around teaching and service, with no time allocation for research. Jessie explained: ‘As a TEF I was originally allocated 20% workload for research, however this was removed a number of years ago’. At the time of this study, their work involved coordinating and teaching a number of professional practice and curriculum papers for both the undergraduate bachelor’s teaching degree and the graduate diploma programmes and supervising preservice teachers on practicum in schools.

Bailey Bailey became a TE before the College of Education amalgamated with the university. For twenty years prior to appointment in the College of Education, Bailey had been a secondary school teacher in a range of curriculum areas. Their original qualification was an MA in Languages and Literature, followed by a year as a teaching assistant in France, then a Diploma in Teaching from a teachers’ college. Bailey decided to apply for a position in the College of Education on the recommendation of a former teaching colleague who had themselves worked there but had decided to move on. Before the amalgamation with the university occurred, Bailey was a senior lecturer and practicum coordinator within the College of Education. As amalgamation loomed, Bailey understood that an academic role in research and publications was part of TE work and enrolled in a doctoral degree at another university. This came about as a result of a negative response to doctoral study from the university at which Bailey would be employed (following amalgamation). When Bailey was canvassing possible postgraduate study options, a much more promising response was received from a university that specialized in distance learning. Bailey undertook a Postgraduate Diploma in Adult Education with the distance learning university, which then led to full PhD study with that same university. Although previously being a senior lecturer and the leader of the practicum aspect of a teacher education programme, restructuring within the university had meant Bailey chose to change to a PTF employment contract (PE in this

114

University Teacher Education

study’s categories) and workload for research as part of this role was removed. As Bailey explains: yeah so I was a senior lecturer before … I’m a kind of legacy staff member dating from the days when we were the College of Education and then we were merged, amalgamated with … University … there wasn’t a particularly good match between the nature of the work we did and how that fitted into a very research oriented university, so for a time I was on a contract that included … research time, but the difference between that and a [PE] contract is … I’m no longer entitled as a right to a research component in my workload. (Bailey, pre-work-shadowing interview, l.34–46)

Ash Ash’s teacher education work followed a career as a primary school teacher. Ash completed masters and doctoral study and began working part time for the university as a tutor alongside this. At the time when the university and the nearby college of education amalgamated, Ash participated in the work to design new teacher education qualifications over the transitioning years. Throughout this time, Ash was employed on annual contracts. Although doctorally qualified, Ash began permanent employment in a part-time senior tutor role with teaching responsibilities straddling curriculum teaching and professional practice supervision, but with no research time. Ash had to apply to transfer to the lecturer scale, a process which took several years and demanded a strong research publication record, which had to be achieved outside work time as a part-time senior tutor. After nearly a decade of part-time work, Ash was appointed to a leadership role in teacher education. This role included increased service responsibilities and led to a workload pattern of 40 per cent service, 50 per cent teaching and 10 per cent research. Even though now an associate professor, Ash finds keeping up with the research and publication demands requires regular study-leave periods because the everyday work allows little space for scholarly activity.

Tensions between research and providing exemplary initial teacher education provision As our analysis of the institutional data in earlier chapters predicts, the drive in faculties/colleges of education within universities for research productivity is in

Hidden Work of Teacher Education in A|NZ

115

tension with the professional preparation role of teacher education. This tension appears to be driving a bifurcation of TE work (Gunn, Hill, Berg & Haig, 2016). In other places this collision of aims has resulted in shifting major aspects of teacher preparation away from universities. For example, in 2012 in the UK, allocations for PGCE (postgraduate certificate in education) teacher education were drastically reduced and new, school-based teacher education routes were established, such as School Direct (Loughran & Menter, 2019; Torrance, 2019). In Aotearoa New Zealand this tension has been wrestled with inside the universities themselves. The redesignation of Bailey and Jessie’s roles as nonresearch work is an example of how this has been achieved and is consistent with similar approaches elsewhere. For example, McNicholl and Blake (2013) noted that some Scottish universities changed the job designations of TEs if they were deemed to be underperforming in research, as measured by the lecturer track standards. But redesignating the nature of the role in A|NZ does not appear to have reduced PEs commitment to research. Bailey elucidates: ‘I’m getting to the end of … a lengthy period of part time doctoral study, so I’m writing a doctoral thesis at the moment … I’m interested in continuing my own learning and my own qualifications’ (pre-work-shadowing interview, l.764–771). Jessie too continued to be research active, albeit by working on publications outside of allocated workload. Thus, like many others in these PE-type roles, they were working on research on top of the 80 per cent teaching 20 per cent service the position description requires. In addition to the fact that PEs have no allocation for research as part of their academic role, our participants provided ample examples of the ways in which the hidden work of teacher education impedes the imperative for research and publication. This is a critical issue because TEs cannot become research active academics on the lecturer scale unless they are meeting the research expectations for promotion through the university ranks. By keeping TEs in PE positions and out of the professorial ranks, teacher education itself continues to be undervalued within a two-tier system (Ellis, Blake, McNicholl & McNally, 2011; Spencer, 2013). Furthermore, even for those TEs on a research track, the hidden teaching and service work of teacher education keeps them constantly involved in urgent, time-consuming relationship maintenance (Ellis et al., 2011) and professional work that prevents them having the time and space to also conduct the research work highly valued by the university. Drawing on the three cases of Bailey, Jessie and Ash, next we explore the rules and norms TEs perceive as guiding their work and how they navigate these within the constraints of their institutions and their lives. Across the evidence we collected, the hidden work of

116

University Teacher Education

TEs appeared to nestle within the tensions between the rules and norms seen as guiding university work, and those norms and rules the TEs saw as professional responsibilities imposed by their ITE (initial teacher education) role. The tensions existed across the entire scope of their work, but here we present and exemplify those that were common across our entire data set, namely TEs’ commitment to their students’ learning, academic availability, the professional requirements for teacher education, pastoral care and coordination responsibilities.

Commitment to students’ learning Our participants spoke about the competing nature of the expectations they saw as guiding their teaching work. Bailey exemplified this by comparing a university-wide course with teaching teacher education: I have taught a Stage 1 course open to all students across the university. This work was interesting for me in that I found I had to switch off the contextualising part of my usual class content as these students were from many faculties and would pursue many different qualifications. Consequently, my task was made relatively simple – how best to help them make sense of the content, and to ensure they were well prepared for the course assessments. Any conversation about the implications of the material for their future practice was immaterial – I had no clue what that future practice might be. This was in complete contrast with my work in ITE, wherein ALL my students are intending teachers – I know what their future practice will be and how the course content meshes with that. The content is no longer the crux, it is much more important that we understand the implications and context for its implementation. My engagement with ITE students, then, is not limited to merely making sure they have a good grasp of the content, but that they understand how the content or material or research or ideas or thinking aligns with their future professional environment. My professional ethical standpoint as a registered teaching practitioner means I have to care about this; I am engaged in the progress, development, well-being and ethical growth of these ITE students in a way that was not present when was a tutor in a content-focussed course.

Jessie, too, finds the nature of early childhood education and the norms of caring lead to an intensity within her teaching role specific to teacher preparation: Preparing paper outlines and ensuring currency of content; preparing and delivering lectures and workshops (including work related to constant updating of the content to ensure currency) up to six papers per semester. A great deal

Hidden Work of Teacher Education in A|NZ

117

of time is spent on this at the front end of each semester, but is also ongoing throughout, as I respond to the students’ learning. Accessing and using upto-date research on children’s learning and ECE curriculum, and related approaches and strategies is crucial to the integrity of the course and the ECE sector. I have had to reduce the time I spend providing written feedback as the time the university allocates in the workload in no way reflects the time I really need to spend on this.

Being teachers, first and foremost, led both Bailey and Jessie to go the extra mile in terms of their teaching and, as Bailey’s example demonstrates, knowing and caring about the professional context of teaching made it impossible for these and other TEs in the project to simply go through the motions of teaching. They were compelled by their identities as teachers to provide excellent teaching no matter the energy, effort and time this required.

Academic availability Another university norm our participants experienced as being in conflict with their ITE culture was in relation to what Ash termed the ‘don’t come in’ strategy – the strong message that in universities, academics are expected to have research days where they work on research and publications either behind closed doors or away from campus. Ash, Bailey and Jessie all found their ITE roles mitigated against their ability to achieve this. Ash explained that meetings, often needed spontaneously, impeded research time: I meet three-weekly for half an hour with each sector leader and with all the sector leaders together monthly for half an hour. These are meetings timetabled from the beginning of the year to ensure we have space to regularly connect and deal with issues. I would also meet at least one sector leader for an hour every week-fortnight dealing with things that come up. I do this because otherwise it is hard to make times to meet on the run and we tend not to connect – then I don’t know what is happening in each sector and when things cross my desk they are (usually) unpleasant surprises. I think it is important for me to support staff in these roles and give them someone to talk to – and to recognise their work and make them feel that it is valued. It is also a space where I can raise concerns/ make queries, as we share the agenda for these meetings. I am also trying to build a sense of ‘team’ across the sectors, which are currently very siloed. I can respond to queries in senior staff meetings because I have been engaged in conversations about what is happening in all these regular meetings.

118

University Teacher Education

This work takes a lot of time (and it usually results in action items for me, carrying things forward to other meetings, or communicating with the Dean or Head of Schools) which puts it in tension with other parts of my work. It also means I need to be at work to conduct the meetings so I can’t use the ‘don’t come in’ strategy.

Jessie too struggled with the university norms of regulating time for students to contact their teachers. Jessie believes that pastoral care for students is a critical aspect of teaching in TE work, stating, ‘Despite the advice not to have an opendoor policy, sometimes students need to see and talk to someone urgently. I have frequently been thanked for ‘being there’ for them when they are in need’. ‘Being there’ was also an ITE norm in conflict with the ‘don’t come in’ norm for Bailey: Being available all day and all week via phone or email throughout practicum periods for school-based emergencies which might involve health and wellbeing of students, student attendance or performance issues in the host schools, mediating prickly relationships between students and host school staff. The university needs a liaison person to fit in the space between students on practicum placement and the university itself. The time commitment for this is hours, but especially during placements, when my (non-teacher education) colleagues are free from their teaching duties, by and large, and can then use the blocks of time for writing, conference travel etc. This ITE role impedes or conflicts with other aspects of my professional life; it obliges me to be close to phone, laptop, ‘on call’, and makes it impossible to plan for anything else.

All TEs with a practicum supervision role in A|NZ will relate to Bailey’s comments here. As TEs in these roles ourselves, all of us have wrestled with the desire to relinquish the practicum role in order to find more time to write and publish. There has been a trend for TEs who aspire to promotion within the academy to relinquish this role. As noted in Chapter 5, another participant in this study at the associate professor level explained, ‘I have no time to be driving all over this large city so I no longer supervise students on practicum’.

Professional requirements for teacher education Perhaps ironically, the increasing governance of teacher preparation accreditation and teacher registration by various government agencies is another cause of tension for TEs. Furthermore, government and university policies interact and cause TEs to attend to structural and practical issues that arise as a result. For

Hidden Work of Teacher Education in A|NZ

119

those in ITE leadership positions, this can add huge amounts of work to their role that almost no one else would realize. Ash describes why this is: I have to implement policy changes in ITE. The more obvious ones are compliance procedures for accreditation, which have been in a state of flux for several years. This is time consuming work because it requires a lot of consultation amongst staff, making sure all voices are heard, providing transparency through making materials available to others, all of which requires time (minute taking, uploading to intranet spaces, attending meetings to explain requirements, receiving and compiling material etc.).

Ash provided two examples of many that had recently occurred: The introduction of the Vulnerable Children Act 2014 (VCA) produced a whole new stream of work. It would take me half a day to list it comprehensively. We had to work out a process to do VCA checks on all existing students, plus staff and students entering the faculty. This involved lawyers, professional staff, practicum staff, academic staff and schools/centres. I had to coordinate the implementation, including writing to all schools/centres, troubleshooting their inquiries and problems, helping design the processes to be followed by professional staff, making sure ITE leadership understood the act and what we needed to do to comply, vetting Police reports, and dealing with students who were second/third years who failed the check. Making sure entry to teacher education courses is robust and comprehensively meets the requirements is very time consuming. I instigated and led a change to our interviewing system, which involved liaising with university colleagues and programme leaders, professional staff and colleagues from schools to develop new protocols across all three sectors, monitoring and evaluating the outcomes after the first-year pilot and implementing further changes. We interview large numbers of prospective students and the decisions are high stakes, so interviews are both expensive and important. I enjoy tasks that demand working with academic staff, professional staff and school colleagues together as the multiple voices make for better outcomes, but it takes a lot of time and energy.

These are not isolated examples of the issues that arise in ITE, and they affect not just the ITE leadership but all TEs. Bailey explained the downstream effects of these types of policies on the practicum supervision role: I need to ensure university documentation [handbooks, reports etc.] aligns with the course outcomes and with the requirements of the governing body of the profession [TCNZ (Teaching Council of A|NZ)]. Writing, re-writing practicum handbooks, editing, updating, printing, circulating all of these. This is part of my

120

University Teacher Education

work, no-one else has oversight of this and it is very time consuming. It absorbs time that can then not be put to other purposes; it is not a measurable output, and invisible to the university at large.

And Jessie, too, concurred that ensuring documentation was aligned with current policies took time from other academic expectations. These tasks, while not allocated or included in university descriptions of service work or teaching, are essential to the smooth running of the nation’s teacher preparation process. TEs see this as essential work that they need to undertake because they recognize the consequences for their institutions and their students if these tasks are not addressed and managed.

Pastoral care We observed many of our participants involved in the time-consuming work of student pastoral care as we shadowed their working days. In the collaborative workshop, pastoral care was also a prominent topic of discussion. While all academics have some role to play in the pastoral care of their students, TEs in this study demonstrated how extensive this work is and how it can be both urgent and time-consuming. In part, pastoral care in ITE is strongly related to the professional role of practicum supervision. Preservice teachers cannot seek registration as teachers unless they successfully complete this aspect of their programme. Therefore, practicum carries very high stakes for preservice teachers and TEs understand this very well. Thus, as Bailey informed us, ‘preparing students for, and debriefing them following, periods of practicum is a critical part of the job’. Bailey explained that ‘meeting with individual students to explore the sometimes very complex situations in which they found themselves, with a view to providing useful professional advice for them’ was part of the TE role. This often takes hours of work hours, even though it’s with a minority of students, as Bailey stated, ‘it’s the 80:20 rule’; 80 per cent of students are fine, but we spend 80 per cent of our time with the 20 per cent who are not. Ash also related ways in which student issues took up an inordinate amount of her TE role: I am the academic head with respect to practicum courses and I also have a role when student concerns are taken to the university level. Programme leaders and sector leaders deal with issues to a point in the complaints policy, after which they come to me. This means that by the time they get to me they are usually complex and time consuming. In most cases I have to meet with the students and

Hidden Work of Teacher Education in A|NZ

121

their support people, and then with the staff involved and sometimes with other staff, such as disability services. Once I have decided on my recommendations, I have to write a report outlining the steps I have taken, what has happened in the investigation, what I am recommending and why. These usually run to 5–10 pages. They are sent to the student so they need to be carefully written. These investigations can take 20–30 hours altogether and I probably do 3–4 a year. I am also involved in following up complaints about students, which is different to complaints about staff that go to Heads of School. Because of the nature of the issues (incidents happening in class) I often need to follow up with all the staff involved. This means interviews of about an hour each with the staff involved, plus interviews with the students concerned, their parents in many cases, as well as others at the Faculty and University levels. I have also consulted with the faculty lawyer for most of them. This work is in tension with research work because it is so time consuming and ‘brain consuming’, and it’s unpredictable. When these things happen, they are highly charged and therefore cannot be ‘parked’ until I have time.

As these examples demonstrate, as with the issues raised above, much of the work of TEs is not amenable to time management. This pushes the rest of the work to the margins. TEs’ research work, and much of their preparation and marking, becomes weekend work. As argued by Spencer (2013) in the UK WOTE project, TEs need to work a second shift just to keep pace with their job. In turn, scholarly work gets put aside to make time for the urgent and timeconsuming tasks ITE demands.

Programme care and coordination responsibilities Other tasks that Ash described as time-consuming were those connected with, but not necessarily in the role description, for example, external requests for information and involvement in staff appointments. For TEs who are also in leadership positions, such as directors of ITE and coordinators of programmes, these matters can also require much time and attention to detail. Ash described some of the types of external requests. I deal with media requests and requests from Police, the ombudsman, Child, Youth and Family Services (CYFS) and the like. This work is not a constant problem but it is time consuming when it happens. It might take 6–7 hours per request for the Police for example. My role includes an external element and I think it’s important for universities to contribute their knowledge to public

122

University Teacher Education

debate when needed, so I feel I should answer media queries. I would also rather supply accurate information than be written about without accurate information. I have responded to requests for evidence for trials and to Official Information Act requests. These processes need to be attended to consistently and accurately and in a timely fashion. As a leader I don’t feel I should delegate this work because it is time consuming and part of what senior staff should do for the Faculty. An example of this is responding to Official Information Act requests when students want all the correspondence and documents we hold in relation to them. Finding these, liaising with staff to obtain their emails, collating them and liaising with the legal team takes a lot of time – and the Official Information Act specifies a turnaround time, so it needs to be done immediately. These are things that can’t be planned for, so they tend to arise and need trouble shooting and completing on short time frames which shunts other work backwards – no amount of time management can stop them getting in the way!

Ash also explained how staff appointments caused tensions with the academic work. In order to appoint staff to leadership in ITE we have at times advertised roles outside the university. I was the key person for two of these appointments, was required to provide the job description, write the advertisement, screen the candidates, make up a panel, conduct the interviews, make a selection and communicate to the applicants whether or not they got the role. This involved liaising with HR (who supply some support – they will list applicants on a spreadsheet and forward their CVs to you), liaising with colleagues, working to find times that suit everyone (this is the hardest part sometimes), writing interview questions, briefing the panel and so forth. I had to do this because the staff were going to be working in my area, although I don’t actually have any responsibility for staffing (allocation or appraisal). Again, this is work that reduces time and brain space for research work – it has to be meticulous because if you do it wrong it has legal consequences.

Professional and academic tensions: The hidden and expansive nature of teacher educator work As the examples of the often hidden work of TE in this chapter demonstrate, TEs struggle to manage the tensions between the cultural norms of the university and the professional norms of their ITE work. While all of our participants aspired to be teacher education academics with strong research, teaching and service records, even those who have managed to complete doctoral degrees and climb somewhat

Hidden Work of Teacher Education in A|NZ

123

up the promotion ladder towards professorship constantly battle to find the time and energy needed to be excellent teachers, researchers and contributors to their academic discipline due to the hidden work of TE. For those in PE roles, the intensity and complexity of teaching 80 per cent of their time coupled with the professional responsibilities they and their TE colleagues see as rules of their work mitigate against serious progress in furthering research and a healthy work-life balance. Consistent with WOTE studies in the UK and in Australia, TEs in A|NZ are often unable to engage in the academic labour that leads internally and externally to promotion through an academic career, due to the fact that so much of their time is demanded by the immediate and repetitive tasks (Spencer, 2013). As the evidence in this chapter attests, even those in ITE leadership positions wrestle with tensions between the urgent, energy-sapping tasks they need to assume due to their professional roles, often at the expense of continuing to progress through the university hierarchy. Furthermore, while this hidden work might be classified by the academy as service work, the examples we have fleshed out here are seldom if ever listed in descriptions of academic service work, nor are they found in the advertisements for TE positions as evidenced in our Phase 1 findings. Thus, our analysis found that TEs carried out the teaching and service work activities universities expected of all academics. This includes, but is not limited to, their teaching, service (and where relevant), research activities. University-based TEs serve on department, faculty/college and university committees; they peer review article in their discipline; they serve on national committees/boards; and they work on accreditation committees and peer evaluate other ITE programmes. And these tasks are in addition to, not instead of, the professional tasks described in this chapter. Even just listening to and documenting this work made us realize how much of ITE work is not even visible to academic heads, deans, or the other academics TEs work with on a daily basis. As Ash pointed out earlier in this chapter, transferring to the lecturer scale from a contract position took several years, and even with a workload balance of 40 per cent service, 50 per cent teaching, and 10 per cent research, Ash found it extremely challenging to contain the ITE work within the 40 per cent allocated. Moreover, workload formulas and allocations provide broad guidelines but do not necessarily make the divisions of work fair within universities for those working in ITE programmes. As our data also indicated, it is very challenging for those appointed to teacher education in PE roles to forge what is for them a second career, given the need for doctoral qualifications as an entry-level criterion for a full academic position. This is resulting in a looming crisis of ITE leadership within the universities. Since the study that generated this book concluded, there has been a steady loss of TEs due to restructuring at all A|NZ universities.

124

University Teacher Education

There has also been an increased turnover of ITE programme directors and coordinators. In short, the hidden work of TEs, while critical to sustaining the infrastructure of teacher preparation and ensuring high-quality teachers for A|NZ schools, kura and ECE centres, mitigates one of the important reasons for siting ITE in universities. TEs need to be research-active scholars in order to advance teacher preparation to ensure world-class quality teachers in A|NZ. But the hidden work of these same TEs works against research engagement and a full academic career. Urgent attention is needed to change the structure and norms of education schools and faculties to redress this critical issue.

References Davey, R. (2013). The professional identity of teacher educators: Career on the cusp? London: Routledge. Ellis, V., Blake, A., McNicholl, J., & McNally, J. (2011). The work of teacher education. Final research report. UK: Subject Centre for Education ESCalate, The Higher Education Academy. Gunn, A. C., Hill, M. F., Berg, D., & Haigh, M. (2016). The changing work of teacher educators in Aotearoa New Zealand: A view through activity theory. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 44(4), 306–19. 10.1080/1359866X.2016.1174815. Knowles, G., Cole, A. & Sumison (2000). Modifying conditions of researching in teacher education institutions. Teacher Education Quarterly, Spring, 7–13. Loughran, J. & Menter, I. (2019). The essence of being a teacher educator and why it matters. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 47(3), 216–29. McNicholl, J. & Blake, A. (2013). Transforming teacher education, an activity theory analysis. Journal of Education for Teaching, 39(3), 281–300. Middleton, S. (2006). Researching identities: Impact of the performance-base research fund on the subject(s) of education. In L. Bakker, J. Boston, L. Campbell, & R. Smyth (Eds.), Evaluating the performance-based research fund: Framing the debate (477 –500). Wellington: Institute for Policy Studies, Victoria University of Wellington. Nuttall, J., Brennan, M., Zipin, L., Tuinamuana, K., & Cameron, L. (2013). Lost in production: The erasure of the teacher educator in Australian university job advertisements. Journal of Education for Teaching, 39(3), 329–43. Spencer, I. (2013). Doing the ‘second shift’: Gendered labour and the symbolic annihilation of teacher educator’s work. Journal of Education for Teaching, 39(3), 301–13. Torrance, H. (2019). The research excellence framework in the United Kingdom: Processes, consequences, and incentives to engage. Qualitative Inquiry, 1–9. Advance online publication. 10.1177/1077800419878748.

7

A CHAT View of Teaching and Learning in University Classrooms

In this chapter we discuss teaching and learning in UBITE (university-based initial teacher education) classrooms through the lens of CHAT (Cultural Historical Activity Theory). Data produced in and after classes planned and led by Brook, Cas, Riley and Sam are presented in turn and then used to address three main chapter intentions. First, we want to illustrate the kinds of work that is actually occurring within ITE classrooms. This is an important motivation because Alcorn’s (2013) claim of a long-standing ambivalence in Aotearoa New Zealand (A|NZ) about the location and level of ITE provision resonates strongly with us as a research team; without much evidence of actual practice of UBITE having been published, it’s difficult for people outside the context to know what to support. Relatedly, we are often faced with criticisms of a perpetual ‘us and them mentality’ (O’Neill, Hansen, Rawlins & Donaldson, 2013, p. 5), a so-called theory and practice divide (Gravett, 2012; Smith, 2013; Whatman & MacDonald, 2017), and a perceived disjuncture between what gets taught in ITE compared to what is needed for teaching (Alcorn, 2013; Gunn & Trevethan, 2019). In order to test the veracity of such claims, evidence of the kinds of activity occurring within A|NZ-based UBITE classrooms is presented. Such evidence can help people evaluate prevailing deficit views. A second intention of the chapter is to illustrate how CHAT analyses can help explain what gets taught and learned in a given situation, including in these cases. The data here examines relationships between TEs’ (teacher educators’) intentions and meanings that student teachers say they made of their involvement in particular activities with artefacts and teaching tools, thus gaining insight into the effectiveness of teaching and learning within UBITE. Finally, we focus on how, when working within an activity system, student and TEs’ object motives may or may not align, illustrating how when teachers plan activities and experiences for learners with a sense of what’s motivating participation, they may use CHAT to improve outcomes of teaching for students and themselves alike.

126

University Teacher Education

Using CHAT to understand teaching, learning and relations between the two As explained in Chapter 2, CHAT provides a means of understanding human activity in ways that take account of its ongoing, socially distributed and artefact-mediated nature. We understand teaching and learning to be bounded, social and situated, but as Toiviainen (2007) observes, many studies of teaching and learning ironically persist with a focus on the individual. With an activity system’s lens, we can work at the level of the collective, making use of the activity system, to learn how to improve and change. CHAT supports us to move analyses of teaching and learning beyond the individual and their actions alone to include the community of practice in which people are operating. It provides a means of working on teaching and learning from the perspective of community, the community’s context and the community’s learning. The complexity and dynamism of the system within which one is situated is foregrounded. In recognizing that people do not act in a vacuum, CHAT posits that human activity is mediated by concrete and abstract things – artefacts and tools, among which, language is key – artefacts and tools are a central consideration in any analysis of human activity; hence our focus in this chapter on artefact and tool use within UBITE and what people say about these. Examining artefacts and tools can reveal the more tacit elements of activity. It can also illuminate historical continuity and change within human life, because as Daniels (2004, 2010) describes, as people work with tools and artefacts, they change them and also change themselves. Tools and artefacts have influence on how subjects (people) and objects (the motivating purpose) interact within an activity system. Focusing on artefacts, Daniels suggests, ‘should attempt to provide a means of relating the social cultural historical context to the artefact’ (2004, p. 122), hence their utility in comprehending historical continuity and change. By closely examining activity, listening to talk and engaging with materialist analysis, we worked to make individual actions comprehensible and to observe how change and learning were evoked, imposed, resisted and by whom.

Producing data about teacher educators’ teaching In our work-shadowing protocol, when we sat with TEs and students in their classrooms, the questions the research team held in our minds were: What is

CHAT View of Teaching and Learning in University

127

being worked on? And why? The first work-shadowing protocol occurred very late in the academic year, following student teachers’ final practicum experience and in the second, very early in the new academic year, within the programmes’ third weeks. As TEs introduced specific tools, artefacts or objects – such as those discussed in this chapter: a lesson planning template, a set of dice and card, assessment exemplars and a technology template – we observed how these were introduced and used. After class we asked the TEs to explain why they’d planned these activities and to reflect on what they’d asked students to do. Those interviews were audio-recorded and aspects reproduced as transcripts for analysis later. During classes we took paper-and-pencil notes, and where possible, made audio recordings of the talk. We photographed the artefacts, tools and objects being worked with, and when student teachers were using these, we asked them what they were doing and why. In some instances where it wasn’t easy or appropriate to interrupt students’ work, we emailed them the same questions and received their responses in return. Later, elements of this data were brought together as mirror data (evidence from work practice used to represent and examine work experiences) for the participatory workshop involving the TEs in the project. We selected our best examples of artefacts and tools, constituted by the range and quality of mirror data able to be produced from transcript excerpts, photographs and the extent to which the artefacts and tools were novel or shared. They were presented to participants (see Appendix) and collectively discussed. We sought to understand from the conversations about mirror data, the types of motivations and purposes such artefacts and tools served in UBITE classrooms. We were also interested in possible contradictions within activity systems of UBITE and relationships between the artefacts and tools, the cultural-historical practices of teaching and ITE. Next, we introduce four examples and discuss them. For each, we share data and analysis from the project (from the research team, the participatory workshop involving participants and the team together, or both), and then we discuss how this evidence can help us make sense of teaching and learning in UBITE.

Brook’s lesson planning Brook had provided the class with a lesson planning template, examples of lesson plans that had been completed, and associated curriculum support materials. The task Brook set was to practice planning lessons within a particular curriculum domain, in this case, social studies (see Figure 7.1).

128

University Teacher Education

Figure 7.1  Brook’s lesson planning template

CHAT View of Teaching and Learning in University

129

Brook had informed the student teachers (STs): I’m … giving you a … thinking structure, and it may not suit you, in which case you can leave it and do something else, but it may be that this helps you…. You’re to design a lesson that allows you to introduce the concept of [X] to a class. And if you can remember something that [a previous lecturer on the topic said] that’s good, but you can also draw upon your own knowledge of [X]. What are the ideas? How are you going to explain it in an introductory lesson? It’s … brainstorming things … in that box … what concepts? How am I going to do it? You write your learning outcomes. And then you think, what are some possible activities? Brainstorm as many as you can in that box. And then you have to make decisions … you are actually writing your lesson plan on the back. Do you think that structure will work? If it doesn’t seem to quite fit you, you can do it a slightly different way for you…. Feel free to work in groups or individually, whichever suits you best for this activity.

TEs in the participant workshop were very familiar with this kind of artefact, and indeed Brook was asked during an interview if other academics would use that kind of resource with STs at university. Brook said yes, commenting: Mine’s probably simpler than most templates but then we don’t have the requirement in my particular subject to do more than brief curriculum links, you know, it seems like some subjects have got to jump through a lot of hoops.

Wanting to understand more about a possible relationship between the lesson planning template and teaching about the professional practices of the subject to which Brook had referred, a question was asked about the particular template the STs had been asked to work with: Researcher: And … [the brief curriculum links are] … because the LOs and the achievement standards are quite broad? So, there’s a lot of scope for individually negotiated curriculum? Brook: Yes, … and because there aren’t strands attached to our LOs, I mean [my subject] fits into this much of the curriculum (indicating a small amount) and everybody else has this much space (indicating a larger amount) per level and it makes a difference.

Reflecting on what the student teachers had said about what they were doing when using the lesson planning activity in class, Brook spoke about the advantages, in the sense of value and purposes, of using such a tool with student teachers:

130

University Teacher Education

Brook: It does what it needs to do as far as I’m concerned. It has your learning outcomes which are critical, it gets them to think, it has the activities … Researcher: There’s two sorts of purposes for its use isn’t there? One, partly because they [the STs] turn in an assessment [for their course] eventually … Brook: Yes, the main one for them is to have a way to, to have a process through to actually plan … it’s a bit like that critiquing today, it’s the clarity, it’s having a logical sequence, having alignment between your LOs and your activities, it’s for creativity too …

Continuing and commenting on the second purpose for doing lesson planning that had been identified, Brook mentions other skills and knowledge STs will be expected to demonstrate by engaging with the tool: Brook: … ultimately I mean they have to have an element of variety in their lessons, I mean usually I get them to do three lessons that they have to submit, … so they have to attach any of the resources or any of their task sheets or anything to it, … then that means that all of those things have to fully align. So the lesson plan might be very short if it’s referring to a power-point or if it’s referring to a task sheet, or it might be very long if all the activities are embedded in. As long as they’re somewhere. As long as the lesson is effective and workable …

During Brook’s class, student teachers had been asked about the activity of lesson planning: Researcher: So, you’re working on lesson planning; why are you doing this lesson planning activity? ST1: Oh well because it’ll be very helpful for actual teaching, just to organize work and also our first assignments will pretty much be a lesson plan. Researcher: Oh, okay so, you’re getting to practise the kinds of work you’re going to be expected to hand in as well? ST1: Yeah. Researcher: … so do you know if this kind of tool is used in schools? Do you think teachers would use this kind of, [trails off] ST2: I know from family who are teachers that they do it … I didn’t understand it though. Researcher: Okay, so what are you understanding about it now? ST3: All the work that’s going into it, I mean it shows; there’s quite a

CHAT View of Teaching and Learning in University

131

lot that goes into it. Researcher: Yeah because it looks like quite a simple sort of exercise on the surface, but there’s actually a lot underpinning what you’re, [trails off] ST3: Yeah. [ENDS]

Like their teacher, these STs had identified key objects of the lesson planning activity as relating to both learning how to plan lessons and learning how to do an up and coming assignment. A hierarchy of motives was evident in Brook’s talk about the activity – the learning of a process for planning being key; for the STs, it seemed the different objectives (learning about lesson planning and doing an assignment) were of equal value. Brook’s description of the lesson planning template and the way the activity was explained to STs in class suggested also that creativity and logic in the process of lesson planning were important objectives. Furthermore, Brook was keen to teach that the scope of any planning activity should be commensurate with subject expectations within the national curriculum. The complexity of the planning process and what was involved in the task of lesson planning was commented on by a student. The more tacit objectives spoken about by Brook were not raised in the student’s sense of what they were doing or working on in the lesson planning activity. Within a classroom setting like this, the activity systems analysis can make visible the various objectives motivating people’s actions within a given learning community. It can also provide us with insights into the degree to which individuals may engage with the full scope of intended outcomes and the way teaching may relate  with this. For Brook and the STs spoken with, it seems as if major objectives were largely understood – the activity they were engaging in sought to effect learning about planning; it also served in regard to assessment preparation for the university course. However, without direct explication of the other valued objectives, logic, creativity and planning considered fit-for-purpose relative to NZC (New Zealand Curriculum), the additional aspects of what Brook has intended to communicate remained tacit. Had we followed up with Brook’s class and observed the actual lesson planning they went on to do when on practicum later in the year, or observed the assessments they submitted as part of their course, that is, had we followed the tools further in the study, we may have seen those objects actualized in the longer term.

132

University Teacher Education

Cas’s dice in a corner In the context of a class with students who were intending to apply for ITE and who were enrolled in a pathway to degree study programme, Cas was teaching mathematics the day of the work-shadowing protocol. The focus of the class was preliminary mathematics and statistics. A problem solving learning objective was to be mediated with a ‘dice in a corner’ activity. Cas described this activity as ‘simple addition with whole number’ (post–work-shadowing interview). However, many other objectives were being served through the activity as well: Cas: … so that was the maths of it … but the bigger picture with the problem solving every-day was just to get them collaborating

Figure 7.2  Cas’ dice in a corner

CHAT View of Teaching and Learning in University

133

in groups, to encourage greater mathematical discourse, and conversations. So that’s why I just did it in the smaller groups of three … when we do all those problem solving tasks there’s always a maths element to it but the greater thing is just the opportunity to collaborate and to develop those communities of maths inquiry really. Researcher: Okay tell me a little bit more about this ‘communities of maths inquiry’. Cas: So the whole thing for me is I want them, really (pause), a lot of them have come from high school and haven’t had any opportunity to do any group collaboration. It’s amazing how traditional many of our secondary school classrooms are, and so this is about just giving them an opportunity to really sit and work things out in a group. And the focus isn’t on getting it right instantly, the focus is on working through the process to be able to get a solution … they’re so used to solving equations as opposed to solving problems … Researcher: So that’s an interesting additional purpose or object of that activity, it’s getting them university ready, to attend and be there? Cas: Yeah, absolutely yeah.

Students who were working with the dice made use of the resources to explain what they were working on and with some involvement of Cas in their group

134

University Teacher Education

work, they gradually tuned in to some of the objectives Cas held for the activity (illustrated here through underlined portions of text): Researcher: How come you’re doing this task? What are you working on? ST3: According to that (indicating a card with the task instructions) it’s problem solving strategies … so how we get to (pause) this point. Researcher: Yeah [trails off Cas approaches the table and group]. Cas: How did we go? Done? (pause). So what were some of the things you thought about when you were doing it? Or was it just lucky, guess and check the first time? ST1: (inaudible) Cas: Oh, okay, so tell me what you were doing. ST1: Oh we added (inaudible) two sides (inaudible). Cas: Was there any particular strategy you thought of? ST1: Um (pauses) Cas: When you thought about the numbers on the dice (makes a side comment to one about putting their cell phone away and listening) what were you thinking? (pause) What did you know? What was the total you needed? ST1: Eighteen. Cas: Eighteen, yeah. How many dice did you have? ST1: Three. Cas: So if you saw a six and a five, a six and a five, and a six and a five (pause) ST2: Too many. Cas: It’s going to be too many. ST3: Yeah too many. Cas: So the strategy might be to do what? ST2: Get a smaller number. ST1: Yeah, a smaller … Cas: You could eliminate the sixes. How might you eliminate the sixes? All: (inaudible) Cas: Yeah, so that might be one strategy you could use. So if we changed this and say ‘make 22’ or ‘make 42’ then we want the sixes and we would eliminate the (pause)? ST1: Smaller numbers. Cas: The smaller numbers (pause), okay? So they’re all the things that you’d be wanting to think about. And you know, some, one group down there, they found that they were two, they had two too many, so they left their touching numbers and just found

CHAT View of Teaching and Learning in University by rotating one at a time that they could get to the twenty, get to the eighteen. And they put, so that was another strategy they applied. (Cas moves away.) Researcher: So, what’s the problem solving for? Like, why are you learning about problem solving? ST1: Yeah, the thinking behind the problem. Researcher: Right … Okay, and so do you think this is something that you’ll do again? That you’ll find useful again? … Are most of you going to, are most of you thinking about applying for teaching? All: (murmuring – some agreement) … ST1: (inaudible) Strategies she said? Researcher: Pardon? ST1: Which were the strategies she said? Researcher: The elimination strategy? ST1: Yeah. Researcher: How did you know how to use that? ST1: I just did. Researcher: Yeah, okay … ST2: ‘Cos yeah, ‘cos you kind of learn that, in year 10 at school as well. ST3: Yeah. Researcher: Right, so you’ve done this kind of thing before at school? ST1: Yeah. Researcher: Okay. ST2: We’re just going back and, I think they’re just making us, think harder, because you know how we learned all of this in like year ten or nine? Researcher: Yeah. ST2: And so obviously like we’re going to forget … and so they’re probably revising us so we get used to it again. Researcher: So you get back, back, back to it? ST2: Yeah so, instead of going like to the high level, they’re giving us the background so that it’s easier for us so that we’re not just straight away like going to that higher level, and like, because that’s going to be hard for us. Researcher: Yep … ST2: So we … Researcher: so when you get into the next … ST2: … next year. Researcher: … next year, yeah. ST2: So it’s probably making it easier for us. [ENDS]

135

136

University Teacher Education

Several object motives served by the dice in a corner activity were made visible in Cas’ discussion with students. They included problem solving (what were some of the things you thought about?), listening (side comment to cell phone using student), making strategies explicit (was there any particular strategy …?), verbalizing strategies/thinking (direct questioning, e.g., how many dice did you  have?) and devising or identifying strategies (you could eliminate …, by rotating …). Over time it’s possible to see also how the students were actively navigating their way towards the same. Starting with the instructions card as a means of explaining to me what they were doing, the group eventually came to take up some of the same words used by Cas to explain their work (the elimination strategy). And later students made comment on the usefulness of the activity for supporting their transition to future degree level study, so that despite these kinds of artefacts and activities being familiar to them (‘… we learned all of this in like year ten or nine …’), they held value now because they served a new purpose. The exchange between Cas and the students brought them into gradual alignment, Cas’ teaching labour, cohering around questions designed to have students explain concrete actions in order to connect with abstract strategies, and the student’s listening out for and tuning into the identification of those problem-solving strategies of elimination and rotation brought the teaching and learning together.

Riley’s music assessment exemplar The dominant activity in Riley’s senior music class the day of the workshadowing was assessment literacy. It involved STs working with video exemplars of senior secondary students’ solo and group/ensemble performance in music and using nationally developed moderation resources designed to support teachers’ assessment of the relevant NCEA (National Certificate of Educational Achievement) achievement standards numbers 91090 and 91091. The previous week Riley and the class had discussed, in general terms, achievement standards for music at each of the three levels of NCEA. This class was intended to move the STs into a more in-depth consideration of how to apply the actual standards they would be working with as music teachers. Riley began the class by having STs read through the objectives for the day: ●●

Thinking about group performance, searching for guidance, working through examples and assessment resources, looking at exemplars with two eyes.

CHAT View of Teaching and Learning in University ●●

●●

137

Continue to develop assessment capacity by relating assessment in group performance to ideas about how to teach ensemble skills. STs will have a sense of the potential of group performance for developing musicianship, key competencies and meeting assessment criteria.

Next, Riley asked the question, ‘Do we teach solo performance?’ and the answer was ‘no’. Therefore the puzzle of how to integrate the assessment of solo performance within whole classroom music teaching was raised. The STs were provided with copies of the achievement standards from an online source and informed that the centrally (nationally) developed moderation resource for those standards would be of help (copies were provided). Online video exemplars of solo performances were viewed next and the ensuing discussion roamed across the achievement standards, moderation resources, the videos and student-teacher judgements. Riley continued with the class and shifted the focus assessment from solo performance to teaching ensemble. The work-shadowing notes recorded: The achievement standard 91091 is handed to each student for reference and discussion. The NZC is consulted for ideas about how one might teach group music performance. Riley advises the STs to first consult NZC, then the standard, then centrally developed resources from the Ministry of Education, on TKI. (Te Kete Ipurangi, the Ministry of Education’s Online Curriculum Resource Website for schooling and early childhood education)

The classes’ structure and sequencing mirrored the stated objectives, which  had been displayed at the start. The teaching moved the focus from assessment – to teaching – and onto student teacher learning. Another video assessment exemplar was watched, this time an ensemble, and Riley asked the class to pay particular attention to the player of the snare drum. The class was then asked about the drummer’s performance (as referenced against the standards). This process was repeated for several other individuals on the video before Riley finished the class by reminding STs of a forthcoming class assignment. What was Riley working on during this university-based senior music class? In Riley’s terms, key motivations for the assessment-oriented activities were development of assessment capability and literacy, developing assessment out of holistic music programmes, assessment for learning, consciousness raising in decision making and opening teaching up (through good assessment practice):

138

University Teacher Education

Riley: Well I think it would be important to say, whether we like it or not, assessment drives a lot of the curriculum experiences of teachers in secondary schools. And … through my work as a national moderator I see a lot of teachers who are not assessment literate, so I want this class to be assessment literate, and to have capacity to know what’s happening in that process. But I’m aware that I, that it’s going to be a focus of this course. I don’t entirely agree that it should be, but we are going to identify and talk about developing holistic programmes and assessment drives everything … I did mention it in passing today, but something that we’re actually going to spend time talking about, near the end, [is] you know the problem of how can you create an holistic programme where assessment comes out of it … not the other way around … Researcher: Yeah, I’m interested in the motives around why you’re doing this type of experience? Riley: I also think, well it turns into assessment for learning as well … by bringing it all to the surface and exploring how we make decisions like that, it’s very enabling I think. It opens up teaching as well, … it might be the way to open up things more, through getting really competent, … thinking about what the limits and the positives … of assessment can be.

The notion of developing assessment capability in order to improve the quality of assessment was also a key objective of the activity recognized by the student teachers: Researcher: … Can anyone give me your sense of why you’re doing this work? ST ‘Ah well we discussed that one of the problems with music is that a lot of it is subjective, especially where it comes to marking and things. Researcher: Interpretation? ST: Yeah, you get a feel for the standard, to get us all to the same level, otherwise all the excellence people will be given to the drummers (class laughs). Researcher: Does anyone else have some ideas about the purposes of this sort of activity? Are you doing it in other classes yet? ST: It keeps you on the same page. Researcher: It keeps you on the same page, yep, and you’re not doing it in other classes yet? ST: No …

CHAT View of Teaching and Learning in University

139

Researcher: Yeah, okay, so thinking about this activity that you’ve been involved in, what are you learning from it? ST: That it’s always important to come back to achievement standards. Researcher: Achievement standards, yeah, what else? ST: The holistic part of it, it’s really important too to try not to be too harsh or as the case may be too open on your individual areas. Researcher: Yeah, you’ve been using some particular resources from NZQA, TKI and NZQA; is there anything you want to know more about from those sorts of tools? Like Riley suggested, you go back and watch some more, will any of you do that do you think? ST: Yeah. ST: (inaudible side conversation) ST: It’s also like important for, giving feedback can be, ‘cos it’s like break it or make it sort of, we can only observe … Researcher: Okay are there any more comments about how that assessment task is helping you make sense of learning how to become a teacher? ST: It’s giving us a sense of reality … what it’s really like in the real world not just in theory. ST: But also how you can see how our class is going to be. (murmuring of agreement around the room) ST: Yeah, students in classes and things. ST: How classes are going to be and what you’re going to have to mark and such, like everything won’t just fall into achieved, merit, or excellence, it doesn’t happen like that.

Having had a chance to contest interpretations, to look at student solo and ensemble performance through various eyes and to test out judgement making with the achievement standards, the STs were strongly connecting this university classwork with their future teacher practice. In doing so they were developing a nuanced appreciation of the complexity of doing assessment relative to established national standards from the professional community of which they were becoming part. Indeed, the kind of assessment moderation work being conducted in this ITE classroom mirrors practice in schools when teaching teams come together to moderate assessment or establish standards for assessment before marking. Should Riley’s STs find themselves in music departments where internal assessment of secondary student performance was occurring during practicum, they’d be able to take their experiences from Riley’s class directly to practise and contribute at school.

140

University Teacher Education

Riley’s broader professional objective of helping improve teachers’ assessment literacy was also motivating this activity. By sending well-prepared student teachers into music departments and having them able to contribute to professional discussions about interpreting national achievement standards and evaluating solo and ensemble performance relative to these, Riley’s teaching would potentially influence the quality of assessment of secondary students’ achievement in local schools.

Sam’s technology template for making pop-up cards The technology curriculum activity of making pop-up cards was the substantive activity taking place in Sam’s ITE classroom during work-shadowing (see Figure 7.3).

Figure 7.3  Sam’s pop-up cards activity

CHAT View of Teaching and Learning in University

141

The class was taking place right at the end of the academic year, after the STs’ most recent block practicum; they were not going into school again for another few months. During the post–work-shadowing interview, Sam had described why the class had been prepared and planned: Templates scaffolded the student teachers into building confidence before teaching about design activities such as this with children in their own class. Without the templates it would not work as well. They also get a copy to take away as well … It’s a great deal of materials to prepare and the technician works with kits that can then assist in the set up and take down for each class.

The kits of resources that Sam referred to were indeed complex and full (see Figure 7.4).

Figure 7.4  Resources for Sam’s pop-up cards activity

142

University Teacher Education

They comprised sets of instructions, a template for STs to use when making their own cards, cutting boards, craft cutters, pens, rulers and so on. Mirror data indicate that Sam deliberately allowed the student teachers to make mistakes as they followed the written instructions. The objective was for them to see how risk-taking and design understandings worked out in practice. Safety practices (e.g. with craft cutters) were described to the student teachers during the activity.

In discussion straight after class, STs reflected with the researcher on the activity; their notes from the discussion indicate that STs believed the template materials helped them to understand and fill in parts of the technology process, with one student commenting that this was what they don’t see in schools: ‘It’s the hidden work of teaching’. Another said they had thought this kind of activity was ‘art and craft’, but doing the activity in the university class within the context of technology was helping them to see the technology aspects. Towards the end another student critiqued the use of class time for this activity, stating that they would have liked to have had ‘take home’ activities, such as this one, as this would leave more time in class to talk and ask questions about processes of planning and so on. Despite feeling that ‘squashing curriculum areas into the end of a course after practicum had finished’ was not helpful, many STs stayed after class to discuss and debate what they had been learning. Like the example of Brook’s lesson planning, there was a hierarchy of object motives operating in this activity system and motivating the activity. Unlike Brook’s class, where the teacher and the STs seemed to recognize two major objects relatively equally, Sam’s STs were more divided over their interpretation of the class and its activity. It is the experience of the student who critiqued the use of class time for the pop-up cards activity that is of interest here. Clearly what was on top for that student after recently finishing practicum was a desire to learn more about planning. Their sense of relatedness between the professional practices of teaching that Sam had intended them to be learning about (risk taking, design process, safety practices, building confidence for teaching design) and the tool was diminished in comparison to others who could see how the pop-up cards template helped them understand teaching’s hidden work and aspects of the technology process. Had Sam been able to discover what was motivating this student’s engagement in class that day, it may have been possible to draw their attention more closely to the range of resources associated with the activity, which included national curriculum and achievement objective information and to discuss planning in more depth, as part of completing the

CHAT View of Teaching and Learning in University

143

task. The analysis of teaching and learning with CHAT helps to make visible a whole range of articulated and tacit motives for individuals’ actions. By asking oneself as a teacher, ‘What is motivating these students‘ actions?’, it is possible to move beyond one’s own perspective and intentions for a given task and to interact with additional objects of interest in a given learning community.

Improving teaching and learning with CHAT in mind This chapter has allowed us to illustrate how activity theory analyses can help us build understandings about UBITE and the teaching-learning dynamic. The approach makes us pay attention to tools and in this instance how these have mediated activity in the interests of student teachers learning to teach. We have seen in these few examples how, for instance, the words spoken in an interaction may orient a learning community towards the same objects; how lesson planning and technology templates, video resources, assessment exemplars, dice and card have present-day and long-standing cultures and practices of schooling in A|NZ inherent in them; and how tools carry meaning across activity systems of teacher education and the profession of teaching more broadly serving to underscore relationships between them. This activity systems analysis of the teaching and learning dynamic can show us that there is sometimes a difference between intended outcomes and actual ones, made visible by the CHATs attention to the tools. Sam’s planning-oriented student and the characterization of the pop-up cards template as a take-home activity is a case in point. Hierarchies of motives, as observed in this evidence, can influence engagement in teaching and learning activities and perceptions of the value of certain activities and events. Thus, if teachers were to check in with students frequently about their sense of what they were doing and why, it is possible to see how teaching may be adapted in response to emergent and alternative objects held by members of the learning community. This is not to say that a teacher would or should give away their learning intentions for a class or a task, but it would mobilize the teaching and learning dynamic to bring to the fore everyone’s awareness of the diversity of learning happening in any given teaching event. The data in this chapter have also addressed the kinds of labour involved in teaching and learning work as students and TEs in these cases have oriented towards shared objectives. Brook’s STs, some of Sam’s STs and Riley’s STs were quick to identify the same sorts of objects being mediated by the tools as their

144

University Teacher Education

TEs, and through Cas’ deliberate uses of questions, wait times, observation and words, students in a preliminary maths and statistics class were able to effect and recognize problem solving. Furthermore, the broader objectives of building student confidence and likelihood of success as students and teachers were recognized by students and TEs alike in all the examples here. Riley wanted strong teacher assessment literacy, Sam, good design teaching, Brook, sound lesson planning, and Cas, confidence with mathematics and statistics – all objectives likely to be held by teachers working in schools as well as in the context of university-based ITE. We can see, therefore, that much of the work occurring in these ITE classrooms actually mirrors very closely various aspects of professional practices of teaching, but more than this, how the universitybased teaching works to directly support quality teaching practice in schools.

References Alcorn, N. (2013). Teacher education policy in New Zealand since 1970. Waikato Journal of Education, 18(1), 37–48. Daniels, H. (2004). Activity theory, discourse and Bernstein. Educational Review, 56(2), 121–32. Daniels, H. (2010). Implicit or invisible mediation in the development of interagency work. In H. Daniels, A. Edwards, Y. Engeström, T. Gallagher, & S. R. Ludvigsen (Eds.), Activity theory in practice. Promoting learning across boundaries and agencies (105–25). London: Routledge. Gravett, S. (2012). Crossing the ‘theory-practice divide’: Learning to be(come) a teacher. South African Journal of Childhood Education, 2(2), 1–14. Gunn, A. C. & Trevethan, H. (2019, September). The problem of initial teacher education in Aotearoa New Zealand: Policy formation and the management of teacher risk, 2010–2018. Paper presented to the European Conference on Educational Research, Education in an era of risk – The role of educational research for the future, Hamburg, Germany, 3–6 September. O’Neill, J., Hansen, S., Rawlins, P., & Donaldson, J. (2013). Reclaiming and reframing a national voice for teacher education. Waikato Journal of Education, 18(1), 3–6. Smith, L. F. (2013). What evidence-base do we need to build a stronger theory-practice nexus? Waikato Journal of Education, 18(1), 121–30. Toiviainen, H. (2007). Inter-organizational learning across levels: An object-oriented approach. Journal of Workplace Learning, 19(6), 343–58. Whatman, J. & MacDonald, J. (2017). High quality practica and the integration of theory and practice in initial teacher education. A literature review prepared for the Education Council. Wellington: NZCER.

8

Localized Lessons for Teacher Education Policy and Practice

Our study of teacher education work occurred at a particular time in the cultural and historical evolution of initial teacher education in A|NZ (Aotearoa New Zealand), within the first decade of the final mergers of former standalone Colleges of Education with their local universities. The first merger had occurred as early as 1990 (between the University of Waikato and the Hamilton Teachers College), the final two in 2007, when mergers between the University of Otago and Dunedin College of Education and the University of Canterbury and Christchurch College of Education took effect from 1 January that year. Our fieldwork occurred six and a half years later, between October 2013 and November 2015, providing us a unique opportunity to consider how universitybased provision might be shaping the activity of teacher education anew. While acknowledging not all teacher education students are completing universitybased programmes in A|NZ, the majority of provision sits there. Government statistics from 2017 (Education Counts, 2019) note that for secondary teaching just under 1 per cent of equivalent FTEs (full-time students) were studying outside of the university sector, and in primary the percentage was 15 per cent. In early childhood education, where private training establishments proliferate, 50 per cent of the teacher education cohort was studying at university. Therefore, our study was a timely opportunity to understand how universities were working on ITE (initial teacher education) as we built from the WoTE (Work of Teacher Education) studies in England, Scotland and Australia occurring around the same time (Ellis, Blake, McNicholl & McNally, 2011; Nuttall, Brennan, Zipin, Tuinamuana & Cameron, 2013). This chapter steps back to look at the complexity of the research findings produced in the study in order to draw our thinking together and learn from evidence generated in A|NZ for localized policy, practice and knowledge development. As teacher education researchers who are also practising teacher educators within the universities sector, we have vested interests in the longevity

146

University Teacher Education

and sustainable development of teacher education work in A|NZ. By taking the time to consider potential implications of our work, we hope to contribute to teacher education development and scholarship in A|NZ and beyond.

The discursive construction of university-based teacher education work In Phase 1 of our project, we examined the category of academic work to be undertaken by people appointed to positions within university-based teacher education. We were interested in contemplating how this relatively new work, within long-standing university institutions, was being constituted. What labour processes within the work were shared with other university academics? And what, if anything, distinguished it as a new category of work within the academy? Furthermore, a discourse analysis of interview data and official documents sought to understand how any social and political hierarchies may have been produced within the work and any consequences for people as a result. Our analysis produced several major insights. In the sections that follow, we discuss why we consider each to be remarkable and how they might inform the field in its future instantiations. We found that: 1. The work was bifurcated along professional and academic lines with research acting as a key site of differentiation of labour processes. 2. The workforce was being bifurcated similarly with research and practice acting as sites of differentiation within the labour force. 3. The forms of service expected of teacher educator academics expanded into professional domains and, we argue, to a greater degree than for most other university academics due to professional credentialing requirements for the field. 4. The teaching done by university-based teacher educators occurred as much in practice (within schools and early childhood education services) as it did in university classrooms and therefore raised the stakes of teaching beyond typical university-based practice. 5. Later in the second phase of our work, we were to learn from the cases of fifteen TEs who worked at either East or West University that they were all interested in and actually doing research, despite not all of them having this kind of work recognized institutionally; furthermore, that the high priority placed upon research meant it became a major site of tension within teacher education and for university-based ITE workers.

Localized Lessons for Teacher Education

147

Why does the bifurcation of teacher education work across a traditional theory/practice divide matter? The theory/practice divide within teacher education is a long-standing theme within the field that many contemporary scholars and teacher TEs (educators) have worked hard to explain, resist and counteract (see, e.g., Ellis, McNicholl & Pendry, 2012; Grossman, Hammerness & McDonald, 2009; Livingston, McCall & Morgado, 2009). The integration of theory and practice is viewed as a goal and achievement of high-quality teacher education programme design (Allen & Wright, 2014; Ord & Nuttall, 2016; Whatman & MacDonald, 2017), with advocates recognizing that evidence-based and principled, systematic decision-making (required of a highly valued professional workforce) leads to more trust and confidence in systems and the individuals within them. We argue that conceiving of practice and theory separately in teacher education and in teaching practice hinders the development of professional practices we can develop high confidence in. TEs whose work integrates and informs theory and practice recursively are well placed to help STs (student teachers) learn to explain and explore practices from multiple points of view. They can assist STs to inquire into problems of practice, generating local evidence to help address problems and evaluating evidence from elsewhere for its ability to help transform teaching practice. A theory and practice divide within teaching and teacher education increases the possibility that teaching may be considered as simply the application of craft knowledge and routine practice. Such a characterization of teachers’ work is insufficient for reflecting the complexity of teaching and expectations of teachers in the present day. A central task of any university-based education is to support graduates to read, interpret and apply research findings within their field of study and for university academic workers to inform teaching and development in those fields, with their research. Without the ability to interrogate practice through the application of different ideas or to test decision making in teaching by critically evaluating evidence used to advocate for particular practices, teachers are vulnerable to critique of their work. Furthermore, they are less likely to be able to challenge and address social inequity and educational disadvantage through the application of new ideas and approaches; we need teachers and TE academics to be advancing the field through theoreticallygrounded inquiry and practice (see, e.g., the work of Cochran-Smith, Ell, Grudnoff, Haigh, Hill & Ludlow, 2016, regarding teaching for equity). An aim of teacher education, and indeed university education, is to produce graduates

148

University Teacher Education

who are systematic and conscious about their decisions, who can use evidence, apply ideas, communicate the basis for practices within a site of practice so these can be understood, contested, advanced and shared. Without the capability to make one’s teaching explicit, teacher decision-making is less defensible than it might be. The rigorous application, interrogation and critique of research learned through deliberate practices of TEs as they interweave theory, practice, research and method together in high quality ITE is critical for the development of transformative teaching practice. However, in our project, we found the development of university employment practices in recent years that resulted in some TEs being prevented from engaging in research as a work objective; for us, this undermines universities’ capacity to innovate, lead and teach beyond the traditional theory/practice divide. For STs to have confidence in the decision-making they need to practise in order to succeed, they must be able to generate evidence about practice, interpret it locally and in relation to expected standards and adapt teaching to suit. This expertise has to be enacted in contexts where every individual is recognized as unique: someone who holds a particular education history and future that is neither predictable nor wholly controllable. As decision makers for teaching and the pedagogical approaches to be used at a given time, individual teachers, even if they work closely with others, need to learn to evaluate ideas, test their veracity and offer and consider alternatives. Theory plays a major role in confirming and transforming teachers’ ideas. Furthermore, many teachers will, over the course of their careers, act as mentors to novice colleagues and STs. In those roles, they will regularly have their ideas tested and their practices closely scrutinized. To be classified as a teacher of the proper kind (registerable and able to hold a professional credential allowing them to teach), the recursive relationship between theory and practice is what teachers have to rely on if they are to be accepted as trusted professionals at work. We argue that the separation of theory and practice in the TE workforce and in the work of UBITE (university-based initial teacher education) exacerbates issues of trust and confidence in the teaching profession, if an enforced separation of work objectives, such as research and teaching, academic and practice and so forth, occur. Across the national sample of teacher education positions being recruited for in Phase 1 of our study, we saw the reification of a divide between professionally oriented and academically oriented work, which in our view is likely to sustain the theory/practice binary concern. Interview participants in Phase 1 of the study talked about the emergence of teaching only positions in their universities. Such positions would leave incumbents with no work opportunities

Localized Lessons for Teacher Education

149

to engage in research. A similar narrowing of the work of teacher education was observed in many of the advertisements we analysed that were recruiting for academic, research and leadership positions in teacher education. Such roles did not require applicants to be involved in any of the practice elements of ITE programmes such as supervision and assessment of STs in practice, teaching in professional experience papers, or maintaining involvement in profession related associations or networks. In Phase 2 of our study, we saw the reification of this theory/practice divide through the designation of TEs considered nonresearch productive into teaching only roles with ITE. This was despite the fact that each of the participants valued and pursued research within their work, even if it meant that the research was undertaken outside their normal hours of work. By perpetuating structures within UBITE that sustain divisions between theory and practice, or establish boundaries between so-called academic and professional workers, we believe there is a risk that the potential for transformative teacher education, through practice-centred and research-based ITE is undermined. We argue that such practices are undermining progress towards the promise of UBITE. Within UBITE, we have an opportunity to make use of the broad expertise of university institutions to extend an evidence base for teaching and teacher education itself that is truly reflective of and aligned with a broad vision for teaching held in A|NZ. By identifying practices within the system that indicate universities may be struggling to move beyond the traditional theory/practice divide, we have an opportunity to take stock and move in a new direction. We aspire to ITE that helps sustain and extend an evidence base for effective teacher decision-making generated through inquiries based in practice. With such we expect that the substance of teaching and teachers’ practice may become more robust and public, which we argue increases confidence in the system and strengthens judgement making within it. In this way we can appreciate how theory making, through research and scholarship involving real problems of practice experienced by teachers, STs and TEs, works to enhance professional practice and extend it. Likewise, practice-based research in teacher education programmes within institutions where research is highly valued serves to build an evidence base for the development of the field of ITE and supports relevant, effective and contemporary teaching practice in the tertiary sector. Therefore, the divisions of labour and work rules that bifurcate the TE workforce and activities within UBITE appear to us as a major contradiction in the field to be addressed through future research and contemplation of how systems might change to advance high-quality and sustainable ITE.

150

University Teacher Education

Why might university-based TEs be engaging in expanded forms of service in their work? A second finding emerging from Phase 1 of the WoTE-NZ study concerned the teaching-profession service-work some TEs were employed or expected to conduct. It is routine for tertiary academics of all kinds to find themselves involved in service commitments for the institutions they work in. Participation in meetings and leadership work; qualification, programme and course review; administration and development activities; and marketing and community engagement are all regularly expected elements of the job in an academic workload. The participating TEs in our study all mentioned work of this nature in their interviews and during the collaborative data workshop we conducted. Though few of them recorded work of this nature in their work diary data, we did however observe many TEs, fulfilling service obligations within East and West universities, during work-shadowing. Bailey, for instance, visited colleagues in another university department to update them in relation to changes within the national secondary schools’ curriculum that related to their teaching; Chris signed and sorted papers related to the HOD role; Dale attended a meeting associated with external monitoring of an ITE programme they worked in; and Jessie provided a curriculum association a photograph of a child for their use. We found that a measure of .2 of an FTE workload was a standard amount of service work expected of TEs in their work. In Phase 1 when we were examining constructions of teacher education work as institutionally produced through recruitment materials and in interviews, we noted an additional layer of service commitment placed upon TEs, especially those being recruited to PE (professional expert)-type roles. These included, for example, advising schools, providing education to associate teachers, attending school-based staff meetings, working with the Ministry of Education and maintaining membership in professional curriculum associations and networks. This professionally oriented service was brought about in part by TEs continuing membership of the teaching profession and associated requirements for registration and certification (the universities require both credentials to be maintained by TEs so they could conduct the work of visiting and assessing STs in practice within an ITE programme). Some TEs also had specified professionoriented service activities detailed as part of their specific work responsibilities. For example, a position advertised by West University during Phase 1 of the study was for the type of TE position we have called ‘professional expert’. Applicants were expected to ‘be current with the NZ Curriculum’ and ‘have strengths in

Localized Lessons for Teacher Education

151

mathematics, including the numeracy project’ (West University JD,1 Week 5). Another position, in a different university’s ITE programme, noted a key position responsibility was to ‘provide service to the wider teaching profession and the local community’ (Institution 1, Job Description, Week 4). As discussed in Chapter 6, these professional responsibilities were commonly in addition to the regular academic service expectations, sometimes causing stress by reducing any research time these TEs had, if any. Like many other professional programmes in universities, ITE qualifications are subject to external approval and monitoring to satisfy approval and accreditation requirements laid down by a relevant professional body. Clinical programmes in health-related disciplines, for example, nursing, clinical psychology, physiotherapy and social work are all dually approved between the university and relevant professional body. Similarly, law programmes are dually approved by the universities and the Council of Legal Education. As noted earlier, the Teaching Council holds jurisdiction over ITE programmes that lead to registration. Teachers in A|NZ must be registered if they’re to take up employment in a state school, and while it is not compulsory to be a qualified or registered teacher in early childhood education, at least a minimum of one of the teachers who are present at any time must be qualified and registered if the early childhood education service is to maintain its license to operate. Professional registration for teachers, mandated by the Teaching Council, involves making a professional commitment to a code of professional responsibility, committing to obligations related to Te Tiriti o Waitangi (inclusive of forthcoming language and practice obligations around the Māori language and bicultural teaching practices) and demonstrated teaching capability consistent with a set of standards for the teaching profession. The standards relate to teaching, design for learning, professional relationships, professional learning and so on. They require TEs to remain current in their curriculum and pedagogical content knowledge with evidence of this curated and assessed within formal appraisal systems within the university. Employment of registered and certificated teachers as TEs allows the university to design and deliver ITE programmes that maintain acceptability within the profession. For most other professional programmes, an institution can meet such obligations with a minimum of professionally credentialed academic staff, but for teaching, the commitment is higher. A basic requirement of staffing in an approved programme for ITE is for JD refers to a Job Description document type collected during Phase 1 of the study.

1

152

University Teacher Education

the majority of formal observations and assessments of STs in practice to be undertaken by TEs who work in the ITE programme and maintain their professional registration and certification. In our data set for Phase One of the project, a mix of professionally credentialed and noncredentialed staff was being recruited to positions, whereas among the TE participants from East and West universities, fourteen of the fourteen TEs had retained their professional credentials while still in the university’s employ. Arguably this supported East and West universities’ programmes of ITE because it meant that their academic staff were active in the profession and visible to STs and practitioners (in practice). Yet the burden of this profession-oriented work, even in just the time it took in the day to get from the university to sites of practice as Chris has found, meant other university-based activities were difficult to sustain during periods of teaching practice, which in some cases because a TE might have worked across multiple programmes of ITE in an institution, stretched from January to December across the year.

Teaching requirements for university-based TEs The teaching commitment of TEs is also shaped by requirements of the professional body that dictate some of the expected character and content of teaching within ITE programmes. For example, requirements concerning the integration of theory and practice within ITE include a requirement for TEs’ own research to be contributing to programme development (Committee on University Academic Programmes, 2018; Teaching Council NZ, 2019). Furthermore, a demonstrable link between staff research and a programme is a requirement of ongoing approval of university degrees. An assumption herein is that TEs will be research active so as to inform teaching, but as our evidence showed, universities were all seeking to employ at least a proportion of TEs who would be required to engage in no research activities during their tenure. Across a given institution or programme, therefore, the balance of teaching only and research active TEs needs very careful management, or those we called DQ TEs would need to be employed. The scope of TEs’ teaching, especially where the supervision of STs on professional practice is involved, may also reflect an expanded work remit for TEs. Professional programmes typically include a requirement for professional experience as a component of the qualification. The professional experience may be concurrent with other coursework, during the programme, or undertaken

Localized Lessons for Teacher Education

153

post–initial qualification, in an internship-type arrangement. Furthermore, different professional bodies hold differing views about who is fit to determine the professional expertise of a student member. A suitably qualified and professionally certificated member of the profession is usually involved, for example, a registered pharmacist, a member of the register of lawyers or a registered psychologist. The institution through which the qualification is being undertaken will have academic staff associated with such judgement making/ assessment too. Within ITE programmes in A|NZ, the requirement is for regular professional experience during the qualification. Furthermore, and as already noted for teaching qualifications, programme approval criteria dictates that the majority of observations and assessment decisions about the professional competence of an ST must be made by TEs who work in the programme rather than the practice site. This requirement means that TEs must routinely work in practice sites supervising and mentoring students, discussing, evaluating and guiding their practice in partnership with associate and mentor teachers. This teaching work within the profession can involve TEs being expected to teach in those practice sites as they mentor and guide student teachers, model teaching techniques, illustrate points of advice and interact with professional colleagues and student teachers and learners. This is very different and high stakes teaching in comparison to that accomplished within the university classroom where the setting is known; the learners are familiar; and resourcing, goals, aims and objectives are clear. Teaching how to teach while in a site of practice, acting both as a teacher to children or students, a teacher of an ST and mentor-colleague to an associate or mentor is a very high-stakes activity. Not only does the TE need to perform teaching to the benefit of their student teachers, they are also potentially co-teaching with teachers whose classrooms and early childhood settings students are placed in and directly shaping learning opportunities through their teaching for children and learners in early childhood education and at school. The management of multiple audiences, teacher roles and objectives is complex teaching work with considerable risks and rewards. If the TE gets it wrong in practice, they run the risk of colleagues in the profession regarding them and their programme as poor quality; if another teachers’ class gets unruly while being guided by a TE who is being watched by their ST, the ST may lose confidence in their teacher and the school students learning experience compromised. Issues with a TEs professional practice will inevitably lead to reputational damage to programmes and institutions – TEs teaching in practice

154

University Teacher Education

sites have to benefit the student teacher and support the professional setting at one and the same time.

Opening up ITE to more research work The shift of ITE into universities resulted in an expansion to the conditions and activities to be included in teacher education work. Research became both an activity and an object of the UBITE system, and in our study it is observed as both a major tension and a tool of potential within the system with major consequences for TEs identities and work. As we have discussed elsewhere (Berg, Gunn, Hill & Haigh, 2016), the objects of ITE in A|NZ have been shaped by historical processes. Activity systems are dynamic and constantly changing; as one element of the system changes, others shift in response. Six years prior to our study beginning, the majority of ITE provision in A|NZ had moved into the university sector, opening up research as a new object and activity within the field. In Phase 1 of our study, we saw indications that the shift to UBITE was resulting in changes to the work, differentiating it along academic and professional lines, with consequences for recruitment practices and work activities delineated across people working in programmes. We interpreted the bifurcation of work as a short-term response to institutions’ abilities to meet the research requirements of the academy and the professional requirements for programmes established within the profession. In this chapter we have argued that this response is not a particularly sustainable or desirable one in the longer term. We think it is insufficient for long-term maintenance of accreditation requirements of programmes and degrees, that the development of the field of teacher education will be more difficult to pursue, and that the promise of robust, research and practice-informed ITE will be difficult to attain. In Phase 2, however, we saw evidence of a different TE subject working in the field. Most of our participants were working as DQs who had or were working towards doctorates, were research active – even if their workloads did not recognize it – and who had retained their professional credentials for teaching. The individuals in Phase 2 of our study were for the most part TEs who had become university academics by virtue of institutional mergers between colleges of education and universities. They had been motivated to varying extents to work on new objects as university academics, with different rules, tools, division of labour, in an expanded community of academic workers and

Localized Lessons for Teacher Education

155

with new outcomes expected of their work. By engaging in new (research) work activities (or not), they had transformed themselves or been transformed in response to elements of the system. Scholarship and research had become part of all of their professional identities, but not in the same way. For some it had reified the TEs as academics in the university (e.g. Nat’s careful career planning); for others it had helped them become constituted as failed academics, and consequently their conditions of work and position designations had changed. Research was a significant object and activity through which teacher education subjects and their work were delineated and transformed as ITE moved into the universities sector. We gained insight into the tensions associated with research by the way TEs in our study were making sense of the implicit and explicit rules that governed their work activities, within this time of change. Interviews suggested that the TEs retained a strong sense of themselves as teachers and a deep commitment to the profession. However, the understanding that research was a work activity expected of university academics – whether it was formally included in TEs’ role descriptions or not – also pervaded the sense of what it meant to be TE; hence we saw evidence that all of the TEs valued and undertook research, even if it was difficult for them to do this during regular hours of work. When we looked at the work-diary data from the TEs, we saw a strong focus on teaching

Figure 8.1  Teacher educators’ work activities across two weeks at East and West universities

156

University Teacher Education

and administration activities recorded. Some evidence of research activities and writing was noted but to a much lesser extent. This can be seen in Figure 8.1, which presents the combined work diary data and indicates a clear weighting of work in the direction of teaching and administration. In the work-diary data, exemplified in Chapter 5, we saw TEs deeply immersed in busy work that was highly responsive to the needs of others. During the work day, the TEs were typically working on several objects within activities across the same day, sometimes within the same hour. For example, one TE, Cameron, recorded multiple individual hours spent engaged in combinations of ‘writing, organizing, email, drop in problems’. Furthermore, we witnessed regular task switching, interruptions, busy teaching loads, and lots of time spent on administrative tasks. Research was often relegated to outside of normal working hours and the research activities undertaken at work were related to planning, collaboration and administration of projects rather than writing and the production of outputs. Leakage of work activities into periods outside of normal work hours made it challenging for TEs to engage in scholarly activity and maintain a reasonable work life balance. We think this is an area for future research in the field. We consider the DQ teacher education academic central to the cultural historical evolution of ITE in A|NZ. Being able to address both academic and professional elements of teacher education work is, we think, critical for advancing the promise of UBITE and to the pursuit of transformative teaching in the education system more broadly. Finding ways to help TEs corral their work objectives so they are more achievable and sustainable in the longer term is an urgent research priority that we think institutional leaders and their TE workers may advance through CHAT (Cultural Historical Activity Theory) methods in the future.

What we hope university-based teacher education in A|NZ might evolve to be The findings of our WoTE-NZ study are challenging, but not insurmountable. In fact, from the perspective of CHAT research, they act as points of generative potential, providing us with a timely opportunity for reflection and rebalancing in UBITE. We want to get to a point where UBITE is achieving more to help shape the system overall and research is key to this goal. Throughout our study, we have maintained the position that UBITE offers potential for the development of teaching practice and scholarship alike. Universities’ research

Localized Lessons for Teacher Education

157

and knowledge building expertise provides an extraordinary opportunity for scholarly practitioners to help generate a relevant, fit-for-purpose evidence base for teaching and teacher education that could see our education system performing for everybody in equitable and meaningful ways. Finland serves as an international example of how research-informed ITE can contribute to the development of a teaching profession that is able to deal with a fastchanging and complex educational world. According to Toom et al. (2010), Finland’s ITE involves research-based teaching and a systematic analysis of education. Furthermore, preservice teachers are scaffolded in the practices of ‘argumentation, decision-making and justification while investigating and solving pedagogical problems … [and] learn[ing] academic research skills’ (p. 333). UBITE facilitates the building of a teaching profession that is responsive to all learners. We argue that reflective, theoretically grounded graduate teachers, supported by TEs with rich insight into practice and the capabilities to generate new evidence for transformational teaching, are likely to be best placed to meet the challenge of teaching in the complex and diverse world of A|NZ schools and early childhood centres. If our participants are indeed representative of the greater population of TEs who are working in ITE in the A|NZ system, then there is clearly cause for optimism. Many of these experienced and professionally credentialed teachers are embracing the potential of research in the face of considerable obstacles. Their professional insight and responsibilities put them in a good place to critique, develop and use educational research to support ITE. These TEs are research-informed active enquirers (Cochran-Smith, 2003), most of whom are working to bridge the theory-research gap that remains ‘an abiding issue in education’ (Loughran, 2011, p. 280). Nevertheless, employment practices and the material conditions of TEs work must be addressed if our vision of UBITE is to be fully realized. Both of these require investments by universities and the profession. A useful starting point for this would be evidence of a more adequate recognition by institutions of the full scope of ITE work in the university. The profession needs to recognize that university-based TEs’ work objects routinely involve research and service activities – working in teacher education as a university academic rarely means one is only teaching within ITE. On the other hand, an appreciation by the university that the professional requirements of ITE places additional teaching and service commitments upon academic workers would go some way towards reconsidering how structural elements of the system, rules, divisions of labour and so on might be changed to accommodate the full scope of UBITE. This

158

University Teacher Education

recognition should involve an appreciation of the significance of the professional histories of university-based teacher educators and an understanding of the importance of their school-based work to the university programmes being delivered. The WoTE-NZ study has shed light on the historical and cultural evolution of teacher education in A|NZ during a time of change and potential development. As scholars and practitioners of UBITE, we remain committed to the promise of UBITE and to using research such as ours to help advance the field. Practicecentred and research-based ITE has considerable promise for graduating teachers whose work will transform teaching and learning in A|NZ so as to better address persistent issues of inequity and educational disadvantage in the education system. As UBITE moves into its second decade, we have a timely opportunity to take heed of the material and discursive conditions of TEs work, as observed in this study, and to develop teacher education practice for now and the future. In the next and final chapter we discuss this study’s findings in the context of current knowledge about teacher education practice internationally, contributing these cases’ insights to global story of teacher education systems development and change.

References Allen, J. M., & Wright, S. E. (2014). Integrating theory and practice in the pre-service teacher education practicum. Teachers and Teaching, 20(2), 136–51. Berg, D. A. G., Gunn, A. C., Hill, M. F., & Haigh, M. (2016). Research in the work of New Zealand teacher educators: A cultural-historical activity theory perspective. Higher Education Research & Development, 35(6), 1125–38. Cochran-Smith, M. (2003). Learning and unlearning: The education of teacher educators. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(1), 5–28. Cochran-Smith, M., Ell, F., Grudnoff, L., Haigh, M., Hill, M., & Ludlow, L. (2016). Initial teacher education: What does it take to put equity at the center? Teaching and Teacher Education, 57, 67–78. Committee on University Academic Programmes (2018). CUAP Handbook 2018. Wellington: Te Pōkai Tara Universities New Zealand. Education Counts (2019). Initial teacher education statistics. Retrieved from https://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/statistics/tertiary-education/initial-teachereducation-statistics, accessed 4 June 2020 Ellis, V., McNicholl, J., & Pendry, A. (2012). Institutional conceptualisations of teacher education as academic work in England. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(5), 685–93. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2012.02.004

Localized Lessons for Teacher Education

159

Ellis, V., Blake, A., McNicholl, J., & McNally, J. (2011). The work of teacher education. Final research report. Subject Centre for Education ESCalate, The Higher Education Academy, UK. Grossman, P., Hammerness, K., & McDonald, M. (2009). Redefining teaching, reimagining teacher education. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 15(2), 273–89. Livingston, K., McCall, J., & Morgado, M. (2009). Teacher educators as researchers. In M. Swennen & M. van der Klink (Eds.), Becoming a teacher educator. Theory and practice for teacher educators (pp. 191–203). Dordrecht: Springer Science+Business Media. Loughran, J. (2011). On becoming a teacher educator. Journal of Education for Teaching, 37(3), 279–91. Nuttall, J., Brennan, M., Zipin, L., Tuinamuana, K., & Cameron, L. (2013). Lost in production: The erasure of the teacher educator in Australian university job advertisements. Journal of Education for Teaching, 39(3), 329–43. Ord, K., & Nuttall, J. (2016). Bodies of knowledge: The concept of embodiment as an alternative to theory/practice debates in the preparation of teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 60, 355–62. Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand. (2019). ITE programme approval, monitoring and review requirements. Wellington: Author. Toom, A., Kynäslahti, H., Krokfors, L., Jyrhämä, R., Byman, R., Stenberg, K., … Kansanen, P. (2010). Experiences of a research-based approach to teacher education: Suggestions for future policies. European Journal of Education, 45(2), 331–44. Whatman, J., & MacDonald, J. (2017). High quality practica and the integration of theory and practice in initial teacher education. A literature review prepared for the Education Council. Wellington: NZCER.

160

9

Aotearoa New Zealand Teacher Education in an International Context

In this final chapter we consider teacher education work in A|NZ (Aotearoa New Zealand) in relation to that of teacher educators (TEs) in other contexts. As Loughran and Menter (2019) remind us, ‘who a teacher educator is, and what the role entails, is influenced by the context in which the work occurs’ (p. 217). And we would add that context can include, among other things, historical embeddedness and the policy context more broadly, such as the societal discourses in play as well as the policy regulations and requirements that shape the profession. Moreover, context also refers to how ITE (initial teacher education) is funded and where it takes place. In Loughran and Menter’s (2019) article, context is referred to mostly in terms of whether teacher education is carried out through an apprenticeship model in schools or through an integration of theory and practice in university-based teaching in partnership with schools. In this chapter the findings of the WoTE-NZ (Work of Teacher Education New Zealand) study are discussed with respect to the historical and international contexts, with particular focus upon policy and institutional aspects. We do this in order to highlight how TE (teacher educators) work in A|NZ has come to be and to explore how A|NZ might address the tensions in TE work that this study has highlighted in order to meet the promise of UBITE (university-based initial teacher education). Our project, reported in this book, investigated UBITE because this is by far the dominant model of teacher education in current use in A|NZ. This is not to say that A|NZ does not educate its teaching workforce in non-university programmes. Furthermore, we have recently introduced an employment-based programme for preparing secondary school teachers (Teach First NZ); but as we noted in earlier chapters, most school teacher preparation in A|NZ is conducted through UBITE and about half of early childhood teacher education occurs in university settings. Should the current teacher shortage continue or increase, or elements of the policy

162

University Teacher Education

context shift, we too could be presented with more employment-based or schoolled models. Nevertheless, our arguments around ITE echo that of Loughran and Menter, and others (e.g. Labaree, 2008; Orchard & Winch, 2015) who argue for continuing and expanding UBITE rather than the take up of apprenticeship, employment-based or school-led models. UBITE can, and routinely does, encompass field-based models of practice that intertwine study with work for ITE students. To continue expanding and strengthening teacher education so it can help transform teaching, we urge the building of a stronger place for ITE within universities where the scholarship and practice of teacher education can thrive. Furthermore, TE contexts influence who TEs are, what they do and how they (and others) conceptualize their work. TE roles within large multidisciplinary institutions like universities work to shape the identities of TEs. In this chapter we compare and contrast findings about TE roles and identities internationally to further examine the promise of UBITE. We therefore use the historical, policy and institutional contexts to structure our discussion and situate the WoTE-NZ findings within broader teacher education trends reported in the literature.

The ‘change over time’ historical context As Furlong and Smith (2013) put it, ‘(o)ne principal difficulty – and in many ways a chief point of interest – in writing about higher education (HE) and the training [sic] of teachers is that none of the parts will stand still’ (p. 1). The shifting and changing picture over sometimes even short time frames is clearly present in A|NZ ITE as it is elsewhere. As briefly summarized in Chapter 1, over the past fifty years of teacher education in A|NZ, changing demography and social contexts, changing governmental policy and teacher education monitoring processes have all influenced the nature of teacher preparation programmes and thus the work and professional standing of TEs. A brief overview of these changes, building on the summary in Chapter 1, demonstrates how much change has occurred and how this influences the work of current ITE, that is, the work of the TEs in our project. In the 1970s, programmes for prospective primary and secondary teachers were offered in stand-alone colleges of education with two-year kindergarten teacher training offered in specialized kindergarten teacher training colleges. Students were considered to be ‘training’ to be teachers, and the TEs had largely been appointed from positions within the schooling or kindergarten sector, bringing with them practical professional knowledge developed over many

A|NZ Teacher Education in International Context

163

years within the practice setting. However, given that TEs were also expected to train student teachers to have ‘some capacity to discriminate between assured knowledge and mere opinion, and between ephemeral stunts and real educational advances’ (Department of Education, 1951, as cited by Alcorn, 2013, p. 38), they needed to bring more than simple practical experience to their role. An ability to critique and future plan was necessary. However, at the start of the 1980s, under a conservative National-led government, teacher education was subject to the Department of Education’s insistence on more structured, nationally determined programmes with school sector TEs losing a great deal of professional autonomy at this time. But, under the Labour government beginning in 1984, alongside huge changes in all education sectors, the directions and content of initial teacher education changed again. Alcorn (2013) notes: Lange [then Minister of Education and Prime Minister] commissioned major reports on the administration of education and of postsecondary education. The Picot Report (Department of Education, 1988) and the Hawke Report (Hawke, 1988) were followed by government responses, then by legislation to implement reforms … Teacher education was to be affected by both [reports]. (p. 40)

Reflecting the more autonomous philosophy embedded in these reports, a new, relative autonomy prevailed for ITE providers and TEs once more enjoyed more self-direction as to programme design and assessment, although they were largely nationally directed by expectations of the skill set of graduating student teachers. This was to change again through the 1990s as a new right ideology increasingly prevailed and a competitive funding model for ITE was introduced concurrently with a new regulatory context. The NZQA (New Zealand Qualifications Authority) was established by the Education Act of 1989. From July 1990 it afforded external quality assurance through approval, monitoring, moderation and re-approval processes for tertiary-level, non-university, programmes. Early childhood, primary and secondary teacher education was established as Level 7 diploma or graduate diploma programmes with programme and assessment requirements associated with Level 7 benchmarks. As a result of these shifts, colleges of education became autonomous and a previously collegial, collaborative national system became increasingly competitive. Alcorn (2013) suggests that, at this time, colleges ‘saw an opportunity to enhance the professional status of teacher education’ (p. 40). However, a concurrent move to improve school staffing ratios brought about a staffing crisis with ITE being challenged by the appointment of ‘untrained’ teachers to fill the gaps produced.

164

University Teacher Education

In 1997, a Green Paper, Quality Teachers for Quality Learning (Ministry of Education, 1997), was published. This recommended a professional body of teachers, triggering the formation of the New Zealand Teachers Council in 2002, although significantly, there was no initial teacher education representation on their governing body. The major part of the role of the Teachers Council was to approve and monitor ITE programmes, a move seen by the ITE providers to have significant constraining impact on the work of TEs. Following the Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand) Amendment Act, 29 September, 2018, the current iteration of the Teachers Council, TCNZ (Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand), includes an ITE representative on the Council for the first time. TCNZ have recently updated the professional standards for teaching, introducing a seamless progression across the standards from graduate teacher (able to address the standards with support) to fully certified teacher, implemented from 1 July 2019, expecting graduates to be able to demonstrate these in a supported environment. These changes impact TEs work as they require an even closer partnership between the ITE providers and teaching sectors than currently exists (Grudnoff, Haigh & Mackisack, 2017) and will significantly increase the time TEs already spend on relationship building and administration, as demonstrated in earlier chapters, with paper work being identified by our participants as a major part of their work. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, ITE in Aotearoa New Zealand largely moved into the universities, though early childhood teacher education maintained about 50 per cent of provision in the non-university sector. The Tertiary Education Advisory Commission (2001) urged universities to ‘examine how they can best utilise their resources to develop and support teacher education programmes suited to the needs of a knowledgeable and critical minded workforce and citizenry in the 21st century’ (p. 75). This move is reflective of the earlier exhortations in 1951 to train teachers with a critical view of their work. However, the question has been posed as to whether initial teacher education provision can accommodate academic freedom and practice compliance (O’Neill, 2013) at the same time. Juggling these two opposing requirements certainly adds both richness and complexity to a teacher educator’s job. TEs in the WoTE-NZ study were clearly juggling these requirements and this question prompts debate internationally (Furlong & Smith, 2013). However, it is precisely this juxtaposition of HE (higher education) and the school sector faced by TE that we view as the promise of UBITE. Relegating TE to a school-based task risks de-professionalizing teaching. Teaching needs scholarly leadership. Just as engineers, doctors, business leaders and scientists are university educated,

A|NZ Teacher Education in International Context

165

A|NZ students deserve university-educated teachers equipped with both theoretical and practical knowledge and skill. Therefore, it follows that ‘TEs need to be seen as scholars with the knowledge, skills and ability to shape policy and practice in ways that will move us beyond the status quo’ (Loughran & Menter, 2019, p. 226). In order to ‘move us beyond the status quo’ (ibid), however, TEs need the academic scope and support to be scholars and, simultaneously, have professional credibility with the capacity to prepare large numbers of teachers to fill the needs of the education system. Labaree (2008) wrote about similar tensions caused by the shift of TE into university sector in the United States. He argued that this shift has not been a smooth process of evolution. He states that the relationship has been, and we would argue in A|NZ continues to be, ‘an uneasy one for both parties’ (2008). As he states: The university offers status and academic credibility, and teacher education offers students and social utility. But in maintaining this marriage of convenience, the university risks undermining its academic standing, and teacher education risks undermining its professional mission. (p. 290)

As the chapters in this book have demonstrated, some TEs struggle to balance the research and scholarship imperatives with the professional demands that must be met in order to meet regulatory requirements and prepare teachers to be ‘classroom or practice ready’. One driver in A|NZ has been the fact that the move of ITE into the university sector coincided with the introduction of the PBRF (Performance Based Research Funding) model for universities, requiring academics and most TEs to be researchers as well as teachers (Hill & Haigh, 2012). Scholarly research is assessed in A|NZ at the individual level. DQ (dually qualified) and TA (traditional academic) participants in our study found this both rewarding and demanding. Many categorized as professional experts (PEs) – those employed on a teaching and service only contract – also engaged in research, often in their ‘own’ time, with some being recognized in the PBRF exercise as research active. If we cannot reduce and refocus the effects of the research imperative, we may face a shift away from UBITE in the future, at least in some of our universities. This has already played out in the much larger context of the United States. Labaree’s (2008) work explored the central issues that have led to the uneasy relationship of TEs in universities in the United States and the UK (Torrance, 2019), charting the movement of TEs over time as a two-tiered system: from state normal schools and colleges of education into state universities

166

University Teacher Education

and, through the need for teaching credibility and economic reasons, into the prestigious universities. Unlike the A|NZ experience, within this twotiered system, UBITE in state universities where large numbers of teachers are prepared is less at risk due to the low status of these universities and the economic imperative to educate large numbers of teachers. These regional universities maintain strong links with local schools, focus primarily on the professional preparation and development of teachers and do not have a strong focus on doctoral education or research scholarship. In the US topranked universities, research scholarship and doctoral students are sought after and proportionately less time is spent on teacher preparation. Usually these universities only offer graduate education for teaching to small numbers of students. Moreover, similar to the A|NZ context, these universities operate in a highly competitive environment in which they must constantly strive to maintain their place in the academic hierarchy. Evolution within the highstatus university suggests UBITE in these contexts is at risk. As Labaree explains, ‘compared with their counterparts at the former normal schools (now regional universities), they are in a situation where the university has more status to lose from its association with education and the education school has more to gain from this arrangement’ (2008, p. 303). Over time, education faculties at Yale, Johns Hopkins, Duke and Chicago have been disestablished, and Berkley, Stanford and Michigan have all faced the possibility that their education schools would go (Labaree, 2008). Thus, holding on to UBITE is not a given in high-status university contexts. Another major force for change over time is constant development of technology. As one of our interview participants in Phase 1 of the WoTE-NZ study argued, the development of electronic communication and information tools, in combination with the competitive forces discussed above, has reshaped UBITE at one A|NZ university. This participant predicted a future of schoolbased teacher education for graduate students, with universities increasing their efficiency by providing only concurrent online programmes. While there are several online and blended UBITE programmes already in existence in A|NZ, these are presently university-led; and this brings us to the crux of our argument for retaining UBITE given the forces at work that could disrupt this balance.

The policy context We argue that UBITE enables transformation of teaching from a form of telling (Loughran & Menter, 2019) and teacher preparation as training (reproducing

A|NZ Teacher Education in International Context

167

the status quo) to teaching as a professional enterprise informed through taking an inquiry stance (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009). Unlike training models in schools, in the UBITE model, teacher education is conceptualized and can be practised as the professional development of pedagogical expertise (Timperley, Wilson, Barrar & Fung, 2007). This is because within a university context, teacher education is informed by ‘a research stance through which inquiry shapes practice and offers evidence of quality in teaching and learning about teaching’ (Loughran & Menter, 2019, p. 225). Our project revealed, however, while some TEs are positioned to bring together their academic and professional expertise in the scholarship of teaching (Boyer, 1990) and teacher education (Loughran & Menter, 2019), others are frustrated and, one might even argue, obstructed by employment structures and professional pressures. DQ-type TEs employed on academic tracks have the professional and scholarly expertise to pursue scholarship of teacher education, albeit within the pressured ITE system. In contrast, PEs (professional expert) find themselves officially restricted to professional teaching. Without a doctoral degree and scholarly publications, they are unable to be appointed to (and our data suggests are sometimes removed from) academic positions which carry a scholarly research workload component. This means many study part time towards doctoral qualifications outside of work time, even though their work is expected to be ‘research informed’. Our data also suggested that the status of TE scholarship in the academy and the nature of their professional work presented significant challenges for TE scholars forging academic careers. As explained earlier in this chapter, and in Chapter 1, moving ITE into the university sector in A|NZ arguably arose though economic and political forces supported by the ethos to increase the scholarly potential and ensure teaching remains a professional enterprise. The expanded work of TEs, in terms of service to the profession, supervision of student teachers, and co-teaching with schools, kura and in early childhood settings, means that there are demands beyond those of other academics in the education discipline that compete with the research agenda. As our findings demonstrate, due to the need to build an academic TE workforce, it has been a struggle for many TEs to meet the academic and professional demands. Internationally, too, TEs often struggle to remain in the university setting (Trippstad, Swennen & Werler, 2017), but there are places where teacher education has become more securely established in the university sector while still grounded in practice. Finland is a good example of this, and Norway is currently striving to support professionally qualified teachers to gain doctoral

168

University Teacher Education

degrees as they transition into TE roles. Finland shifted teacher education from teachers’ colleges to universities in 1974, and from 1979, the basic qualification for primary and secondary teaching has been a master’s degree requiring five years of study to complete but is grounded in practice through teacher training schools (Jenset, Klette & Hammerness, 2018). In fact, Tirri (2014) states that ‘(t)oday it is easier to be admitted to the faculties of law and medicine at the University of Helsinki than it is to gain admission to the classroom teacher education programme’ (p. 602). In Finland, the teacher educator role is founded on the philosophy of the autonomous professional who uses research-based thinking. In line with this, each student teacher must complete an independent research thesis at the culmination of their teaching qualification (Tirri, 2014). Thus, since the 1970s most Finnish TEs have held a doctoral degree and today, ‘all faculty at the teacher education departments are required to have pedagogical competence in the school or adult education sectors in order to qualify for a position in teacher education’ (Tirri, 2014, p. 605), a situation very different from that in A|NZ. In combination with other aspects of the Finnish education system, it can be argued that UBITE is an important reason for Finnish educational success. In Norway, due to the decision that all teachers should hold master’s degrees, the government has funded a national graduate school for teacher education, NAFOL (National Research School for Teacher Education in Norway), in order to support new TEs appointed from schools into universities and ‘to qualify and thoroughly transform rather practice-based teacher education into researchbased teacher education on a national level’ (Østern, Smith, Ryghaug, Kruger & Postholm, 2013). The graduate school is a consortium of twenty-three participating network institutions within teacher education. In 2016 there were 140 research fellows within NAFOL, all of whom were there to complete a PhD suitable for work in teacher education. Norway’s case is useful in thinking about a way forward for A|NZ. Both have a population of around 5 million people, and although Norway has thirty-two teacher education institutions across both universities and university colleges and many of these are small, this policy initiative provides a model of a viable pathway to increasing the number of DQtype TEs for the A|NZ context. Other policy changes bringing complexity and demands to the role of TEs that were noted by our participants included the policy initiative aimed at raising the standard of beginning teachers by moving to graduate entry to teacher education programmes (EWAG, 2010, p. 7) and a ‘redefinition of the nature of professionalism, accountability and standards’ (Alcorn, 2013, p. 45)

A|NZ Teacher Education in International Context

169

as it purports to teacher education. Added to these are changes impacting on A|NZ TEs’ work in UBITE, but beyond the scope of this chapter, such as the immense shifts over the last two decades in understandings of the purpose and practice of assessment; the embedding of ICT into all programmes; and renewed ministerial support for sector-based models such as Teach First New Zealand (Budget 2019, Growing our Teacher Workforce, http://www. education.govt.nz/our-work/changes-in-education/teacher-workforce/) with consequential possible dangers of instrumentalism (Early, 2009). All challenged our participants and continue to challenge TEs’ understandings of their role and place within education in A|NZ.

The institutional context Both historical and policy influences, such as those attended to above, impact the institutional contexts in which TEs work. In other words, what institutions do follows pretty much from the political, regulatory and economic environment they find themselves within. Institutional processes develop in response to factors such as the competition they are facing for students and funding. For example, in the WoTE-NZ study it was clear that teacher educator roles had been shaped in response to the research imperatives of PBRF. In contrast, the Australian WoTE study found that when job advertisement and recruitment documents were analysed for the ways the academic category of TEs was constructed, the category of teacher educator was all but rendered absent by institutional processes (Nuttall, Brennan, Zipin & Tinamuana, 2013). Advertisements for new staff foregrounded the beneficial factors of working within the institution as an academic, rather than describing what their work as TEs would be. In contrast, in A|NZ, teacher educator was prominent in recruitment advertisements, but the category was reified in three related but quite different ways (Gunn, Berg, Hill & Haigh, 2015): a PE, a DQ, or a TA-type TE. Additionally, we found that the nature of the ‘service’, ‘research’ and ‘teaching’ work undertaken by TEs in A|NZ was explained as being different from academics in other parts of the university. This division of professional and academic components of TEs’ work was very obvious in Phase 2 of our study. It was experienced by TEs as a tension between meeting academic (research) and professional (teaching and service) demands. In a discussion of major contradictions in the activity system of UBITE, for instance, TEs repeatedly described difficulty in meeting their professional and academic work demands.

170

University Teacher Education

As shown in detail in Chapter 5, research, interpreted narrowly as writing and publishing outputs, was a troublesome dimension of the TEs’ work, often being put aside by the TEs in our study as they met the often time-demanding tasks of administration, teaching and professional community involvement. Our analysis of TEs’ work lives showed that as with studies in other countries (see, e.g. Robinson & McMillan, 2006), the university-based TEs’ work was complex and demanding. The interviews, work diaries and workshadowing data presented a picture of academics who were expected to ‘do everything’ and is consistent with US studies where TEs’ work is ‘multifaceted’, located as it is ‘inside a unique space’ at the intersection of two worlds whose demands are often ‘in tension with each other – the university and school and centre classrooms’ (Olsen & Buchanan, 2017, p. 9). Other studies characterize TEs as having ‘a foot in many camps’ (Kosnik, Menna, Dharamshi, Miyata & Beck, 2013, p. 1) and making ‘multiple border-crossing[s]’ (Trent, 2013, p. 262). Becoming a teacher educator has been described as a ‘rocky road’ (Wood & Borg, 2010, p. 17). All of these metaphors could equally apply to the experiences of the TEs in our study. They were ‘multi-citizens’ challenged with ‘undoing the divide’ (Birmingham, Pineda & Greenwalt, 2013, p. 45) between higher education and the schooling and early childhood sectors. As with the participants in Olsen and Buchanan’s (2017) US study and Robinson & McMillan’s (2006) project in South Africa, and in line with other A|NZ studies (e.g. Grudnoff et al., 2017), the WoTE-NZ TEs had to negotiate the ‘particular affordances and constraints, influences and effects, confirmations and contradictions’ (Olsen & Buchanan, 2017, p. 11) found in the two worlds that they navigated within and between. As Robinson & McMillan (2006) argue, ‘[t]he restructuring of the work of teacher educators will have little lasting impact if it is not interwoven with teacher educators’ existing strands of identity, so that new and the old blend in a reconceptualized view of what is ‘normal’ in teacher education (p. 328). The varied and demanding work shapes TEs’ identity (Loughran, 2011). As Davey (2013) indicates, ‘A person’s identity … is essentially mediated and developed … within the context of their current social practice’ (p. 27). Given the fluid nature of social and professional practice in university ITE schools/ faculties, it follows that teacher educator identity is likely to be dynamic. Our study was conducted at a time of considerable change in UBITE in A|NZ, and this brought ever-changing challenges requiring responses from our participants, with consequential likely changes to their understanding of themselves as TEs. Identity changes also resulted from personal responses to new situations for

A|NZ Teacher Education in International Context

171

the TEs. Many of our participants indicated their awareness of how they were changing and becoming comfortable with their identity maybe changing from an identity as school teacher to another as teacher educator, maybe from having a primarily professional stance to becoming a recognized researcher in the field as their research outputs increased – perhaps following research conducted for qualifications or within teams in the faculty. However, as our analysis of the TEs personal professional histories reported in Chapter 3 demonstrated, the individual’s biography, career history and formal educational studies also contributed to their identity: a finding that concurs with many international studies (see, e.g., Olsen & Buchanan, 2017; Robinson & McMillan, 2006).

Conclusion In this chapter and across this volume, we have acknowledged that the practice-based versus university-based debate is not unique to Aotearoa New Zealand. Recent policy changes in England have reinforced the practice-based apprenticeship model, with more than half of all trainees now entering the profession through school-based and school-led routes to teaching (Loughran & Menter, 2019). As we have acknowledged, this route is possible for some student teachers in A|NZ, but presently UBITE is the predominant approach to preservice education. Despite the challenges faced by TEs in their work, the increasingly stipulated and regulated TE curriculum (Teaching Council, 2019) and bifurcated approach to teacher education we have observed, we have argued that UBITE holds great promise for helping to transform A|NZs education system. Programmes in A|NZ have demonstrated that it is possible to produce new teachers with quality degrees ready to teach in diverse settings at all levels of the system. However, as discussed, in A|NZ universities also face constant challenges meeting the demand for staff who can address both the professional and academic components of ITE work. We estimate it takes approximately twentyyears to produce a doctorally qualified and professionally credentialled teacher educator who can meet the full scope of university-based teacher education work. Yet, no nationally coordinated efforts are currently proposed that will ensure the development and sustainability of such a workforce. In our view, and as a matter of policy priority and planning, there needs to be. As discussed in this chapter and elsewhere in this book, given that teaching in the twenty-first century is increasingly complex and challenging (Menter, 2009),

172

University Teacher Education

incorporating evidence-informed practice, the opportunities inherent in digital and virtual educational technologies and the need for teaching scholarship, TEs need to be scholars rather than simply experienced teachers. As Bridges (2013) indicated, ‘there is something distinctive which the university contributes to initial teacher education which the school or school consortia cannot adequately emulate’ (p. 51). That is that, TEs as scholars have the knowledge, research skills and abilities to move teaching practice and policy beyond the status quo (Loughran & Menter, 2019). UBITE promises scholarly teacher education in partnership with the profession through relationship building with teachers in the field. Moreover, scholarly teacher education can inform teaching practice through research partnerships that build reflective inquiry-based professional learning into the work of schools alongside the ITE roles that both TEs and teachers play in building the way ahead.

References Alcorn, N. (2013). Teacher education policy in New Zealand since 1970. Waikato Journal of Education, 18(1), 37–48. Berry, A., & Van Driel, J. (2013). Teaching about teaching science: Aims, strategies, and backgrounds of science teacher educators. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(2), 117–28. Birmingham, D., Pineda, B., & Greenwalt, K. (2013). Undoing the divide: Teachers and teacher educators as multicitizens. Teacher Education Quarterly, 40(1), 45–63. Bridges, D. (2013). Initial teacher education and the reconstruction of the university. In J. Furlong & R. Smith (Eds.), The role of higher education in initial teacher training (pp. 50–64). London: Routledge. Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Endowment for the Advancement of Teaching. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (2009). Inquiry as stance: Practitioner research for the next generation. New York: Teachers College Press. Davey, R. (2013). The professional identity of teacher educators: Career on the cusp? London, Routledge. Early, P. (2009). Instrumentalism and teacher education in the United States: An analysis of two national reports. In J. Furlong, M. Cochran-Smith & M. Brennan (Eds.), Policy and politics in teacher education: International perspectives (pp. 83–94). Abingdon: Routledge. EWAG (2010). Discussion document: Education Workforce Advisory Group. Retrieved from https://www.beehive.govt.nz/sites/default/files/11.pdf, accessed 2 June 2020

A|NZ Teacher Education in International Context

173

Furlong, J., & Smith, R. (2013). Introduction. In J. Furlong & R. Smith (Eds.), The role of higher education in initial teacher training (pp. 1–7). London: Routledge. Goodwin, A. L., Smith, L., Souto-Manning, M., Cheruvu, R., Tan, M. Y., Reed, R., & Taveras, L. (2014). What should teacher educators know and be able to do? Perspectives from practicing teacher educators. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(4), 284–302. Grudnoff, L., Haigh, M., & Mackisack, V. (2017). Re-envisaging and reinvigorating school–university practicum partnerships. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 45(2), 180–93. Gunn, A. C., Berg, D., Hill, M. F., & Haigh, M. (2015). Constructing the academic category of teacher educator in universities’ recruitment processes in Aotearoa, New Zealand. Journal of Education for Teaching, 41(3), 307–20. Hill, M. F., & Haigh, M. A. (2012). Creating a culture of research in teacher education: Learning research within communities of practice. Studies in Higher Education, 37(8), 971–88. doi:10.1080/03075079.2011.559222 Izadinia, M. (2014). Teacher educators’ identity: A review of literature. European Journal of Teacher Education, 37(4), 426–41. 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), 184–97. Kosnik, C., Menna, L., Dharamshi, 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, 10, 1–18. Labaree, D. F. (2008). An uneasy relationship: The history of teacher education in the university. In M. Cochran-Smith, S. Feiman Nemser & D. J. McIntyre (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education: Enduring issues in changing contexts (3rd ed., pp. 290–306). Washington, DC: Association of Teacher Educators. Loughran, J. (2011). On becoming a teacher educator. Journal of Education for Teaching, 37(3), 279–91. Loughran, J., & Menter, I. (2019). The essence of being a teacher educator and why it matters. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 47(3), 216–29. Martinez, K. (2008). Academic induction for teacher educators. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 36(1), 35–51. Menter, I. (2009). Teachers for the future: What have we got and what do we need? In S. Gewirtz, P. Mahoney, I. Hextall & A. Cribb (Eds.), Changing teacher professionalism: International trends, challenges and ways forward (pp. 217–28). London: Routlegde. Ministry of Education (1997). Quality teachers for quality learning: A review of teacher education (Green Paper). Wellington: Government Printer. Murray, J. (2005). Investigating good practices in the induction of teacher educators into higher education: Research study for ESCalate, 2005. Retrieved from https://

174

University Teacher Education

www.advance-he.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/investigating-good-practices-inductionteacher-educators-higher-education, accessed 2 June 2020 Murray, J. (2008). Teacher educators’ induction into higher education: Work-based learning in the micro communities of teacher education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 31(2), 117–33. Murray, J., & Kosnik, C. (2011). Academic work and identities in teacher education. Journal of Education for Teaching, 37(3), 243–6. Murray, J. & Male, T. (2005). Becoming a teacher educator: Evidence from the field. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(2), 125–42. Nuttall, J., Brennan, M., Zipin, L., Tuinamuana, K., & Cameron L. (2013). Lost in production: The erasure of the teacher educator in Australian university job advertisements. Journal of Education for Teaching, 39(3), 329–43. Olsen, B., & Buchanan, R. (2017). Everyone wants you to do everything: Investigating the professional identity development of teacher educators. Teacher Education Quarterly, 44(1), 9–34. O’Neill, J. G. (2013). Is initial teacher education a profession? Waikato Journal of Education, 18(1), 21–32. Orchard, J., & Winch, C. (2015). What training do teachers need? Why theory is necessary to good teaching. Impact 22: Philosophical Perspectives on Education Policy. Pamphlet, Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/ journal/10.1111/(ISSN)2048-416X, accessed 2 June 2020. Østern, A., Smith, K., Ryghaug, T., Kruger, T., & Postholm, M. B. (2013). NAFOL yearbook 2012: Teacher educational research between national identity and global trends. Trondheim: Akademika Publishing. Robinson, M. & McMillan, W. (2006). Who teaches the teachers? Identity, discourse and policy in teacher education. Teaching and teacher Education, 22(3), 327–36. Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand. (2019). ITE programme approval, monitoring and review requirements. Wellington: Author. Tertiary Education Advisory Commission (TEAC). (2001). Shaping the system: Strategy, Quality, Access (2nd TEAC Report). Wellington: Ministry of Education. Timperley, H., Wilson, A., Barrar, H., & Fung, I. (2007). Teacher professional learning and development: Best evidence synthesis iteration. Wellington: Ministry of Education. Tirri, K. (2014). The last 40 years in Finnish teacher education. Journal of Education for Teaching, 40(5), 600–9. doi: 10.1080/02607476.2014.956545 Torrance, H. (2019). The research excellence framework in the United Kingdom: Processes, consequences, and incentives to engage. Qualitative Inquiry, 1–9. Advance online publication. DOI:10.1177/1077800419878748 Trent, J. (2013). Becoming a teacher educator: The multiple boundary-crossing experiences of beginning teacher educators. Journal of Teacher Education 64(3), 262–75.

A|NZ Teacher Education in International Context

175

Trippestad, T. A., Swennen, A., & Werler, T. (2017). Reform as a state of exception. In T. A. Trippestad, A. Swennen, & Werler (Eds.), The struggle for teacher education: International perspectives on governance and reforms (pp. 185–91). London, England: Bloomsbury Academic. Wood, D. & Borg, T. (2010). The rocky road: The journey from classroom teacher to teacher educator. Studying Teacher Education, 6(1), 17–28.

Appendix: Mirror Data Produced for Participatory Workshop Phase of WoTE-NZ Mirror data: TE/ST object motives – Pop-up card templates [tool] The student teachers have been provided with templates to make pop-out greeting cards as part of a technology lesson.

Appendix

177

In the post–work-shadowing interview the teacher educator explained their objective in using this [pop-up cards] tool as: The templates scaffolded the student teachers into building confidence before teaching about design activities such as this with children in their own class. Without the templates it would not work as well. They also get a copy to take away as well … It’s a great deal of materials to prepare and the technician works with kits that can then assist in the set up and take down for each class.

The teacher educator allowed the student teachers to make mistakes as they followed the written instructions. The objective was for them to see how risktaking design understanding worked out in practice. Safety practices (e.g. with craft cutters) were described to the student teachers during the activity. Talking with the student teachers about this activity it was revealed that: The students believed that using the template materials helped them to understand and fill in parts of the technology process. One said that this is what they don’t see in schools. It’s the hidden work of teaching. Another student teacher said that she would have thought that this activity was art and craft but the activity in the context of technology was helping her to see the technology aspects. Towards the end another student critiqued the use of class time for this activity, stating that she would have liked to have takehome activities (such as this one) as this would leave more time in class to talk and ask questions about processes of planning etc. Some other students felt that ‘squashing curriculum areas into the end of a course after practicum had finished’ was not helpful. But many stayed after class to discuss and debate what they had been learning.

Mirror data: TE/ST object motives – Assessment exemplars and NCEA Achievement Standards The student teachers or university-based curriculum specialists who’ll be teaching student teachers have been provided with assessment exemplars from NZQA relative to NCEA and its associated Achievement Standards (in their specialist curriculum domain). They have been discussing what to teach (ITE students in the case of the university-based subject curriculum specialists) and how they’ll be expected to assess (in the case of student teachers who are learning to teach).

178

Appendix

Tool: NCEA achievement standards and assessment exemplars documentation

Appendix

179

Teacher educator and school-based teacher educator explaining NCEA achievement standards [tool] to university-based curriculum experts SBTE: It’s pretty streamlined, so your four bullet points for your literature, your first standard at level three, you have to have an understanding of the following themes: beliefs, identity, literary conventions and relationships. UBCE: Well, literary conventions actually comes close to what we use to [inaudible] SBTE: Yes, but is the convention strictly ideas and values? UBCE: No. UBCE: No. SBTE: It might illuminate ideas and values but I think it’s a pretty dodgy question to have on a standard that’s meant to be about ideas and values. But again, the most, but again, four questions, most external exams, pick one, teach anything you like, answer any one question you like, um, the most common text is [X, ‘Y’], ah, the second most common, is [D], ‘E’ is almost dead, because none of the questions, despite the fact that they’re meant to be able to be answered on any text, can’t actually be answered on ‘E’. UBCE: … it’s actually quite difficult to design a targeted contribution under this kind of rubric, and that’s what I figure I’d like, I don’t know how exactly they’re [NZQA] are going to move forward with this. UBCE: But that sounds exactly opposite what whoever organized this [the achievement standards] had in mind. SBTE: Who organized this? UBCE: Yeah, they wanted something that wasn’t an organized unit. SBTE: Yes. UBCE: [inaudible] rubric, they wanted something that everyone could do. SBTE: Yes, that teacher over there with their background would be able to teach [C] and that teacher would be able to teach [M]. UBCE: So, that’s what I’m saying, this [the achievement standards] are clearly designed with the opposite in mind. SBTE: Yeah, but I see your point, you might have a student who has done ‘F’ to graduate level and you might have a student whose done history all the way through and they’re in the same class, how do you pitch it to your teacher trainees? TE: I guess it’s these themes, knowing how to frame the discussion, and these themes in that, that helps. I mean it’s sort of a bit different for

180

Appendix

[a curriculum subdomain] because it’s a natural sort of thing to talk about form and function, style, techniques, isn’t it? I mean it’s just a natural, um, whereas these are a bit more forced. I’ll send through a thing that I give to the students which plots the themes and the contexts on it for level two and three, so you can just glance at it. Yeah, it’s tricky, some it’s, as you say, just plain silly, so you know, two of these don’t really work very well. SBTE: If I take you to, if you flick about half way through, you will see [recording ends].

Student teachers’ interview (assessment exemplars) Int.: So pretty much over this lesson, the major activity has been around assessment of [J] across levels one, two and three standards, reflection on elements … I want you to think about the activities you’ve been involved in, watching exemplars, looking at standards, having discussions about criteria, making judgements about [J] and students’ success … can anyone give me your sense of why you’re doing this work? ST: Ah, well, we discussed that one of the problems with [curriculum domain] is that a lot of it is subjective, especially where [J] is concerned and things, Int.: Interpretation? ST: Yeah, you get a feel for the standard, to get us all to the same level; otherwise all the excellence people will be given to [a certain group of students by a certain group of teachers]. Int.: Does anyone else have some ideas about the purposes of this sort of activity? Are you doing it in other classes yet? ST: It keeps you on the same page. Int.: It keeps you on the same page, yep, and you’re not doing it in other classes yet? ST: No. ST: Ah, no, I mean it’d be interesting to ask, [to another student] are you doing that in any of your other classes? ST: Sorry, what was that? ST: Are you doing that in any, oh no you weren’t here in the other class. ST: No. Int.: No, [to the new student] they’ve been doing interpretation of [J], making judgements, standards for assessment of student learning.

Appendix

181

ST: No. Int.: No, not yet, it’s still early days. ST: I think it depends on what other subjects you might be teaching, I’m not studying any other subjects, so, um I think the other classes that we’re taking are all general education and techniques that you can use to any class I think rather than assessment in the curriculum area you’re teaching. Int.: Yeah, okay, so thinking about this activity that you’ve been involved in, what are you learning from it? ST: That it’s always important to come back to achievement standards. Int.: Achievement standards, yeah, what else? ST: The holistic part of it, it’s really important too to try not to be too harsh on [an aspect of the achievement standard] and too open on [another aspect of the achievement standard]. Int.: Yeah, you’ve been using some particular resources from NZQA, TKI and NZQA; is there anything you want to know more about from those sorts of tools? Your lecturer suggested you [follow up with some more in your own time]; will any of you do that do you think? ST: Yeah. ST: [inaudible] ST: It’s also like important [inaudible] giving feedback, ‘cos it’s like, we can only observe, and if we [inaudible] about it now we can [inaudible]. Int.: Okay, are there any more comments about how that assessment task is helping you make sense of learning how to become a teacher? ST: It’s giving us a sense of reality … what it’s really like in the real world not just in theory. ST: But also how you can see how our class is going to be. ST: It’s not so easy to [inaudible] and such, like everything would just fall into achieved, merit, or excellence, it doesn’t happen like that.

Teacher educators’ interview (assessment exemplars) Int.: I talked with the students this morning about the assessment exemplar activity you had them do in class … and so I wanted to ask your perspective on that … so a major theme of this morning’s class was that of assessment literacy, … so what’s made you make that a feature of that class, or any class really? How come that’s become an important thing that you do? Or is it an important thing that you do?

182

Appendix

TE: Well, I think it would be important to say, whether we like it or not, assessment drives a lot of the curriculum experiences of teachers in secondary schools. And my work as a national moderator, through my work as a national moderator I see a lot of teachers who are not assessment literate, so I want this class to be assessment literate, and to have capacity to know what’s happening in that process. But I’m aware that I, that it’s going to be a focus of this course, I don’t entirely agree that it should be, but we are going to identify and talk about developing holistic programmes and assessment drives everything. So that’ll be, what we already talked about, I did mention it in passing today, but something that we’re actually going to spend time talking about, near the end, you know the problem of how can you create an holistic programme where assessment comes out of it at the other end, not the other way around. We sort of did it today with that diagram of the [XYZ], as a model for everything could come out of one [experience], but um and then the assessment gets attached to it, which in my experience is not so much how teachers work anymore in most subjects. Maybe in some subjects, the arts for instance aren’t like that sometimes, but often it’s like, ‘okay for the next four week’s we’re doing assessment standard number three’, you know, that’s what we do. Which is not very holistic. Int.: Or sophisticated at all. TE: Not really, well, it might have some sophisticated elements in it yeah; does that answer your question? Int.: Yeah, I’m interested in the motives around why you’re doing this type of experience. TE: I also think um, well it turns into assessment for learning as well, it’s not just, by bringing it all to the surface and exploring how we make decisions like that, it’s very enabling I think, it opens up, it opens up teaching as well, it’s not just, I don’t feel it’s going to be just a narrow, necessarily just a narrow experience for them all in fact it might be the way to open up things more, through getting really competent in thinking about what the limits and the positives um of assessment can be.

Mirror data: TE/ST object motives – guided reading template [tool] The student teachers have been provided with a ‘reading worksheet’ to accompany a required reading for a tutorial. They have been asked in groups to discuss the reading (see Figure A.1). The excerpts following are from interviews with student teachers and teacher educators about the activity and tool.

Appendix

183

184

Appendix

Teacher educator interview regarding guided reading template [tool] Int.: … the reading artefact that accompanied the reading, that’s the artefact I wanted to talk to you about. So you think the students were more engaged with the reading and had got more out of it? TE: Well put it this way, my comment was largely around the fact that when I moved around and talked with all the groups … I could see evidence that the majority of people had first of all done the reading. Int.: Done the reading. TE: Yeah, done the reading, Int.: That’s good. TE: And those that hadn’t were getting a strong message, ‘cos this was the first time that had more than one very short reading to do, so they were getting the message, I could see in their eyes, ‘oh, I need to have done this’ … you know there’s that sort of ‘oh, I’m not coping, oh hell’, I could see where this was going. So, it’s the sort of course where they, where you find that by about session three of their course, of the tutorial. Int.: ‘Cos they’ve learned the pedagogy? TE: Yeah, they’ve recognized that it’s up to them, and we emphasize that in lectures too … that it’s, and we’ve talked to them about um, AL [cocourse-lecturer] talked about it in the first lecture, and I talked about it on the Monday, in this week’s lecture about the fact that um, that good research that Alton-Lee, um, that Nuttall, Alton-Lee research that talks about, learners need to meet things at least four times in, you know, a reasonably short space of time. This is how we structure the course, this is the way, and this is your role in it, … so they realize that, so those that haven’t yet done it will either cotton to it, or they’re going to find their assignments, their understandings, they’re just not, Int.: They’re surface level? TE: That it’s pretty surface, yeah. Int.: The actual ah, reading, the reading, what do you actually call that? I would call it a, it’s not really a reading rubric, but it’s a reading … TE: It’s just like a guide, it’s more like a guided reading task actually because they’ve got a little worksheet that’s got a question, actually a couple of them actually said to me today as I walked around, they said, ‘oh this is actually really good, because it asks the question, you really have to look for the information, … and so that you note that down’, I said, ‘yeah, and then what does that give you when you’ve done that?’, ‘Oh that gives us a really good overview of what we, you know, of the reading, we’ve

Appendix got a summary’, … I said, ‘exactly, so now when you come to do your assignment you’ve got some summaries, you’ve got some big ideas’, and now you’re, they’re going to be able to interpret, elicit and shape their own. Int.: So, was that one of the purposes of that, of that um, guided reading task then do you think? TE: Yeah, because, I think for something like this, it’s different probably, it’s different from how we do things in say social studies because there we’re drawing a lot from their own lives. Int.: Their own interpretations? TE: Their own interpretations as well as drawing on the reading. Int.: Yeah … so the guided reading form then, ah, who developed, do you develop them for every reading? And who develops them? TE: No not for every, they’re not for every reading … but the core reading, and we’re in the process, we’ve got a new course director … and a sort of a slightly changed teaching team and it’s been taught by the same person for a number of years … and she inherited many of the readings and so there needs to be an updated readings. So where I’m getting to with this is, the people who initiated this course … did those wonderful sheets. Int.: Okay, okay, so you’ve inherited them? TE: And we are about, and we inherited them, and we are about, at this point, we haven’t had to adapt them much or largely, but what we do have to do is update our readings … so we’re going to have to reconsider if we’ll still go down that track. I think we probably will … for the core readings. But later on in the course, like these are kind of fundamental concepts, but later on in the course not every reading will have a worksheet. But in terms of scaffolding them towards being able to articulate a definition, an explanation for their assignment … it’s one way along with power-points, and the discussions they have in class, and the examples they might use, and their experience in analysing the scenarios. All of those things help them to be able to articulate. Int.: Okay, thank you

Student teachers’ interview regarding guided reading template [tool] Int.: Okay, so the reading templates for this class, are they useful for you? ST: Yeah.

185

186

Appendix

ST: I think they are because they help you to break it down in each section so you fully understand [inaudible] what’s looking at you. ST And it’s not like you’re going to zone out, ‘cos when you have a reading you can easily zone out and you’re like, ‘oh I’ve actually done the reading’, but you haven’t taken much out from it. Int.: Yeah, so what does it do for you as you’re reading it? ST: It means that you get the important parts of it in one place and you can study like, that to that, instead of like reading where like you can … ST: Yeah, you can, if you’re looking for a specific part you can easily find it in a worksheet and then go find it in the reading. ST: Especially like when your brain’s just like, ‘no I’m done’, and then at least you’ve got it all there and then you can go back through the reading. ST: Yeah, instead of going like through hundreds of pages. Int.: Yeah, okay, so the questions that are on it, are they given to you or are they? ST: Yeah. Int.: Oh they are? ST: Yeah, we consistently get them. Int.: Yeah, okay, is that a good thing do you think? How does that help you? ST: Um I think it draws your attention to the main parts of the reading. ST: ‘Cos there’s a lot that we don’t actually need to know, ‘cos sometimes I know I’m guilty of kind of going through everything with a highlighter and thinking it’s important, so when you look at the worksheet and see what’s important you can go like, ‘well I thought this was really important but it’s really not so’. ST: Or it’s less important. Int.: Important from whose point of view? ST: I assume that what is pulled out will be used in terms of what is important for our knowledge and what will be used for our assessments. Int.: Yeah, okay. ST: And it’s used to highlight for, then for us to link to other things, these points are then going to link to other things in the future. Int.: Okay, and um when you use this kind of thing when you’re reading, does it make you kind of read the article differently or … ST: Key words. Int.: … understand it, oh, key words, you’re nodding? ST: I read the reading, then read the worksheet, and then go back to the

Appendix

187

reading, so as to make you re-read the readings. Int.: Oh, okay so you use it to focus your reading first read through, you read it generally and then come back to it. ST: Back to it, yeah, so for me it’s making me re-read. Int.: Okay. ST: Which is good. Int.: Does it make you want to follow anything up or um. ST: There are times when I think oh, that’s interesting, I just want to get into it but don’t, so I have the intention. ST: It’s like, in this sort of situation when you’re kind of discussing it we’re kind of getting that as well. Int.: Yeah, right. ST: Because it’s like if [student name] was like, oh yeah, I didn’t quite get this question and we discuss it then you have like multiple people’s different points of view and their understanding of the question. Int.: Great, okay, I’ll let you get back to it.

Mirror data: TE/ST object motives – lesson planning The student teachers have been provided with lesson planning templates, examples of lesson plans and curriculum support materials. The task they’ve been set is to practise planning lessons within particular domains of curriculum (see, e.g., Figure A.2). The excerpts following are from interviews with student teachers and teacher educators about the activity and tools, and an instruction by a TE when describing the lesson planning activity to students in the universitybased ITE class, followed by the post-activity debrief.

188

Appendix

Lesson planning [tools] (Note: These images are extracted from more comprehensive texts)

Appendix

189

190

Appendix

Appendix

191

192

Appendix

Appendix

193

194

Appendix

Appendix

195

Student teachers’ interview regarding lesson planning [tools] Int.: So you’re working on lesson planning; why are you doing this lesson planning activity? ST: Oh, well, because it’ll be very helpful for actual teaching, just to organize work and also our first assignments will pretty much be a lesson plan. Int.: Oh, okay so, you’re getting to practise the kinds of work you’re going to be expected to hand in as well? ST: Yeah. Int.: Yeah, have you done this kind of work before? This kind of lesson planning type activity? ST: Not before this week. Int.: Yes, okay, yes we’re still very early in the year, of course … have you been in school yet? ST: Not formally. ST: Um I’ve made a school visit just not one that’s a part of Int.: Yeah, so do you know if this kind of tool is used in schools? Do you think teachers would use this kind of … ST: I know from family who are teachers that they do it. Int.: Yeah, okay, so you’ve seen it? ST: Yeah, I didn’t understand it though. Int.: Yeah, okay, so what are you understanding about it now? ST: All the work that’s going into it, I mean it shows, there’s quite a lot that goes into it Int.: Yeah because it looks like quite a simple sort of exercise on the surface, but there’s actually a lot underpinning what you’re, ST: Yeah.

Teacher educator interview regarding lesson planning [tool] Int.: … [the lesson planning template] you make your own, was it based on something that you used to do? TE: No, because when I trained … it was way back in about 1980 … and then I didn’t teach … [for a number of years] because there were no jobs, so I didn’t remember what the lesson plan template was. So really that’s developed. When I first began teacher training, because I started, yeah, I started at Massey then I went to Auckland, you know I moved backwards

196

Appendix

and forwards, really so almost everything was mine and nobody else’s really. Int.: Do you know if other academics would use that kind of resource with the, TE: Yes, actually they actually look very similar … they do, so I mean it’s just a natural thing, they evolve and it’s nothing stunning. Mine’s probably simpler than most templates but then we don’t have the requirement in my particular subject to do more than brief curriculum links, you know, it seems like some subjects have got to jump through a lot of hoops, Int.: And that’s because the LOs and the achievement standards are quite broad? So there’s a lot of scope for individually negotiated curriculum? TE: Yeah, … and because there aren’t strands attached to our Los, I mean [subject] fits into this much of the curriculum (indicating a small amount) and everybody else has this much space (indicating a larger amount) per level you know, and it makes a difference. Int.: What’s the kind of advantage of using that kind of resource with your students? TE: It does what it needs to do as far as I’m concerned. It has your learning outcome which are critical, it gets them to think, it has the activities, I haven’t seen any one that I think is better. Int.: … there’s two sort of purposes for its use isn’t there? One, partly because they [the students] turn in an assessment eventually, TE: Yes, the main one for them is to have a way to, to have a process through to actually plan. Int.: Okay, … and that’s the purpose that the students adhered to the most as well, so, when you are doing your assessment work with the lesson planning, what are the things that you would look for that would the mark of a really good, TE: It’s a bit like that critiquing today, it’s the clarity, it’s having a logical sequence, having alignment between your LOs and your activities, um it’s for creativity too, I mean they have to have an element of variety in their lessons, I mean usually I get them to do three lessons that they have to submit … so they have to attach any of the resources or any of their um, task sheets or anything to it … then that means that all of those things have to fully align. So the lesson plan might be very short if it’s referring to a power-point or if it’s referring to a task sheet, or it might be very long if all the activities are embedded in. As long as they’re somewhere. As long as the lesson is effective and workable … so that’s the criteria really.

Appendix

197

Teacher educator description of lesson planning activity to the ST class TE: … so what I’m doing is giving you a structure as a sort of thinking structure, and it may not suit you, in which case you can leave it and do something else, that doesn’t actually matter, but it may be that this helps you, alright? So you’re to design a lesson that allows you to introduce the concept of [X] to a class. And if you can remember something that [a previous lecturer on the topic said] that’s good, but you can also draw upon your own knowledge of [X] I guess, so, what are the ideas? How are you going to explain it in relation to [X] in an introductory lesson? So it’s kind of just brainstorming things possibly in that box. Then have a brainstorm where you go and select which bits? What concepts? How am I going to do it? And you write your learning outcomes. And then you think, what are some possible activities? Brainstorm as many as you can in that box. And then you have to make decisions and so you are actually writing your lesson plan on the back. Do you think that structure will work? If it doesn’t seem to quite fit you, you can do it a slightly different way for you. Now, I printed off a sheet on [X] just to get your brains into gear on [X] a little bit. And by the way feel free to work in groups or individually, whichever suits you best for this activity.

Teacher educator debrief of lesson planning activity within a university-based ITE class TE: Any comments about designing lessons? Are they challenging? Are they straightforward? What are the pitfalls? What have you noticed? ST: I think it’s really hard to get the timing correct, like, out of context, so like you’re trying to put all this stuff into a lesson but you might have like three or four lessons on this topic … TE: Okay, so, when you’ve gone out in schools you’ll be able to sort of judge it much better I think. ST: I think when you’ve done it well it should look straightforward. TE: Yes, indeed it should. So that’s good, it’s not complex and if you can read it, that sounds like a good clear lesson plan … ST: Just comparing [inaudible] and activities, it’d be hard to do everything you want in one lesson, it’s like, [inaudible] I could do that but I’ve only got an hour or like,

198

Appendix

TE: Right, so you’re always making decisions of culling this and making the focus on this, you can’t do everything ST: That’s what I mean, like there are so many ways to do it, that, I mean to do each learning outcome [inaudible] TE: Yes, it’s choosing which one is going to be the most effective and experience will probably help there, but it will be experimentation for a while, which one? … The only other thing I thought I would clarify is that section on the learning outcomes and content and skills. They are still learning outcomes that you’ve got to phrase your skills in, if you use them. All I do it, if I put there, content and skills, is to remind you that some lessons might be that you’re trying to concentrate on skills and other times it might be only content and some other time it might be both. So it’s there more as a reminder that sometimes you may be writing a skill learning outcome, ‘students will learn how to use topic sentences in paragraph writing’, or something of that nature, in there. So if you do deliberately targeted things, so you don’t just think, ‘oh what skills they might come out with’, by luck, at the end of the lesson, like critical thinking, it’s only if you’re actually targeting critical thinking and you’ve got some activity that will get them to do that, that you’d actually put it in the learning outcomes, okay?

Index Boldface locators indicate figures and tables; locators followed by “n.” indicate endnotes academic availability 117–18 academic citizenship 108 academic work 108–9 categories of 24 constructions of 18, 24–5, 146 negotiating 45 policy influence 109 and professional workers 97, 149, 169 teacher education as 7, 11, 23 tensions with 122 activity system (CHAT) 15, 88, 95, 126, 127, 143 community 16 division of labour 16 object 15–16 rules 16 teaching and learning 143 tools 16 Alcorn, N. 4, 125, 163 Aotearoa New Zealand (A|NZ) 1, 1 n.1, 107. see also Work of Teacher Education, New Zealand (WoTENZ) appointment processes (fragmented, temporary) 36, 38, 122 Argyropou, K. 34 artefacts/tools (examples of) 127, 129, 132–3, 140–3 artefacts/tools (in CHAT) 28, 125, 126 Ash (DQ) 36, 114 administration activities 56, 58–9 ‘don’t come in’ strategy 117 examples 119 external requests 121 nature of teaching 43 policy changes 119 student issues 121–2 tensions with academic work 122 work-shadowing narrative 102 The Auckland College of Education 4

Australia ERA measures 5 job advertisement and recruitment 169 teacher education in 5, 12 WoTE projects 12–13 Bailey (PE) 113–14 80:20 rule 120 appointment 36, 38 doctoral study 89 ‘don’t come in’ norm 118 policies on practicum supervision 119–20 pre work-shadowing interview 114 redesignation as nonresearch work 115 university-wide course and teaching teacher education 116 work-shadowing data 60–1 Berg, D. A. G. 2, 56, 90 best evidence synthesis (BES) 80 bifurcated/bifurcation of TEs work 9, 23, 49, 50, 55, 92, 111, 115, 147–9, 154, 171 Blake, A. 6, 11, 13–14, 115 Brennan, Marie 6 Bridges, D. 172 Brook (DQ) 38 institutional rules 125 job designations 42–3 lesson planning (see lesson planning (Brook)) reason for higher education 39 teaching responsibilities 93 work narratives 62–3 Buchanan, R. 170 Byman, R. 157 Cameron (PE) 64–5, 156 Cameron, Leanne 6 Cas (PE) 38

200

Index

mathematics and statistics 132, 132–6, 144 work narratives 66–7 Chris (TA) appointments into ITE 36 background information 35 being teacher educators 40, 46 as teacher educators 37 work-diary data 91, 91–2 work narratives 68–9 Cole, A. 107 collective subject 18, 23, 28, 33, 47 colleges of education. see teachers’ colleges community engagement in education 109, 150 context 161 change over time 162–6 institutional 169–71 policy 166–9 WoTE-NZ study 12–13, 87 contradictions (CHAT) 8, 14, 16, 18, 33, 56, 85, 89, 97, 102, 127, 169 Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) 7–8, 11, 27–8, 56, 88–9, 97, 102–3, 125, 156. see also activity system (CHAT) principles of 14 teaching and learning (see teaching and learning (CHAT)) theoretical concepts in 126 two-year two-phase project 13, 14 Dale (DQ) 70–1, 87, 92, 94–8, 150 Daniels, H. 126 Davey, R. 45, 108, 170 de-professionalizing teaching 164 Deep Work (Newport) 104 degree level qualifications 4, 6 discourse analysis (DA) 11, 13, 17–23, 146 divisions of labour 13, 49, 56, 90, 95, 105, 149, 157 doctoral study 36–8 ‘don’t come in’ strategy 117–18 ‘dual mandate’ of teacher education work 103, 107–8, 122, 169 dually qualified (DQ) TE 13, 24–5, 50, 55, 87, 92, 110, 152, 154, 165, 167–8. see also specific DQs work activities 92–3, 93

e-portfolio process 61, 64 early childhood education (ECE) 3, 4, 24, 34, 39, 43, 103, 111, 113, 116–17, 124, 145, 151, 153 Education Act (1989) 3, 109, 163 Education Amendment Act 164 Education Review Office (ERO) 109 education system reforms 4 electronic communication and information tools 166 Ellis, V. 6, 11, 13–14 email work, importance 98, 102 employment-based programme 161–2 Engeström, Y. 14–16, 33 activity system 15, 15–16 entry into higher education (challenging transition) 41 entry to teacher education work 38, 119, 168 Erikson, Anders 103–4 evidence-based practice 145 Excellence in Research Australia (ERA) 5 expansive learning 105 Finland 167–8 research-based teaching (ITE) 157 teacher educator 168 UBITE 4 full-time students (FTEs) 145, 150 Furlong, J. 162 Gee, J. 18 gender-neutral language 56–7 Gerry (PE) 54, 72–3 Grant, Adam 104 guided reading template (tool) 182 activity 183 STs interview 185–7 TE interview 184–5 Gunn, Alexandra C. 2, 56, 90 Haigh, M. 2, 56, 90 hidden work (teaching and service, TE) 107–8 academic work 108–9 Ash (DQ) 114 Bailey (PE) 113–14 community engagement 109 institutional expectations 111–12 Jessie (PE) 112–13

Index outcomes of research, sharing 109–10 professional and academic tensions 122–4 research productivity, tensions (see research productivity, tensions) higher education (HE) 162, 164, 170 entry into 41 funding 5 institutions 12 Hill, M. F. 2, 56, 90 historical context academic credibility 165–6 competitive funding model 163 Labour government 163 National-led government 163 programmes (1970s) 162 workforce and citizenry 164 historicity 14 How to Write a Lot (Sylvia) 104 initial teacher education (ITE) 1, 35–9, 50. see also university-based ITE (UBITE) future teachers, education 1–2 government policy 81, 95 and motivations to study WoTE 2–3 pastoral care in 120 research tensions 114–16 research work 154–6 work allocation 115 institutional context 169–71 institutional expectations of TEs 110, 111–12 institutional mergers 5, 6, 26, 37, 46–7, 70–1, 92, 145, 154 interview (STs and TE) guided reading template (tool) 184–7 lesson planning 193–4 NCEA and assessment exemplars 179–82 pop-up card templates (tool) 176–7 Jessie (PE) 43–4, 74–5, 112–13, 115–18, 120, 150 job advertisements 1, 17, 169 and interviewees 17 language 19 recruitment texts by position 19, 22 Job Description (JD) 151, 151 n.1 Jyrhämä, R. 157

201

Kaliris, A. 34 Kansanen, P. 157 key words in context (KWC) 18 Knowles, G. 107 Krokfors, L. 157 Kynäslahti, H. 157 Labaree, D. F. 165–6 lesson planning (Brook) 62, 127–31, 128, 144, 187 activity to ST class 195 activity to UBITE class 195–6 images 188–92 STs interview 193 TE interview 193–4 linguistic annotation strategy (LAS) 17–18 Lou (DQ) 54, 87 activity-object analysis 100–1 as ITE 44 work narratives 76–7, 98 Loughran, J. 161–2 Maslow’s hierarchy of needs 64 mathematics and statistics (Cas) 132, 132–6, 144 McMillan, W. 170 McNally, J. 6, 11, 13–14 McNicholl, J. 6, 11, 13–14, 24, 115 mediated activity (in CHAT) 15–16, 126, 143 membership categorization analysis (MCA) 7, 11, 17–18 Menter, I. 161–2 Ministry of Education (MOE) 4, 109 mirror data (TE/ST object motives, CHAT) 127 assessment exemplars and NCEA 177–82 guided reading template (tool) 182–7 lesson planning 187–96 pop-up card templates (tool) 176–7 Murray, J. 39 music assessment exemplar (Riley) 136–40 Nat (DQ) 95 background information 35 being teacher educators 40, 46 as teacher educators 37 work narratives 78–9

202

Index

National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) 62–3, 80, 136. see also NCEA achievement standards and assessment exemplars National Research School for Teacher Education (NAFOL), Norway 5, 168 NCEA achievement standards and assessment exemplars 80, 136–7 documentation 178 STs interview 180–1 TE and school-based TE 179–80 TEs interview 181–2 New Zealand Curriculum (NZC) 62, 131, 137 New Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA) 76, 109, 163 New Zealand Teachers Council (NZTC) 164 Newport, C. 104–5 Norway, NAFOL 4–5, 167–8 Nuttall, Joce 2, 6

professional experts (PEs) 13, 24–5, 38, 42, 44, 55–6, 89, 112, 150, 165, 167. see also specific PEs work activities 89–90, 90 professional identity 45 professional life histories (TEs) 33 background information 35 being TEs 39–46, 40, 46 extra-curricular activities 39 interviews 34, 50 as ITE 35–9, 37 Professional Practice Fellow (PPF) 19, 21, 111 professional practice of teaching 3, 70, 84, 142, 144 professional programmes 54, 151–2 professional requirements 116, 118–20, 154, 157 Professional Teaching Fellow (PTF). see Professional Practice Fellow (PPF) programme roles 121–2 promotion barriers 123 purposive sampling 33

Objects/object motives (in CHAT) 14, 126 Objects/object motives (teaching and learning activities) 131, 132–6, 137–9, 142, 143 Official Information Act 122 Olsen, B. 170 online and distance education programmes 4, 166 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) 12

Quality Teachers for Quality Learning (Ministry of Education) 164

pastoral care 51, 118, 120–1 Pendry, A. 24 Performance-Based Research Fund (PBRF), A|NZ 5, 42, 96, 165, 169 person’s identity 45, 170–1 policy and practice 145, 165. see also university-based TEs policy context 166–9 pop-up cards activity (Sam) 140, 140–3, 141 postgraduate certificate in education (PGCE) 115 PowerPoint (PPT) 60–1, 64, 66, 72, 76, 80, 84 professional development of pedagogical expertise 167

research demands 5 Research Excellence Framework (REF) 5 research productivity, tensions 114–16 academic availability 117–18 commitment to students’ learning 116–17 pastoral care 120–1 professional requirements, teacher education 118–20 programme care and coordination responsibilities 121–2 Riley (DQ) music assessment exemplar 136–40 work narratives 80–1 Robinson, M. 170 rules (activity system) 7, 16, 88, 95–6 safety practices 142, 177 Sam (DQ) 54 pop-up cards activity 140, 140–3, 141 work narratives 82–3 Sawyer (PE) as ITE 36, 45 research time 96

Index work-diary data 97–8, 99, 102 work narratives 84–5 self-identification (TEs) 45 service work (examples of) 108–10 shared objects/object motives 143, 144 Smith, R. 162 South Africa, teacher education 5, 170 Spencer, I. 98, 121 status of teacher education in universities 163, 167 Stenberg, K. 157 student teachers (STs) 1. see also interview (STs and TE) ‘do now’ activity 80 ‘e-portfolio template’ 61, 64 formative assessment feedback sheet 72 lesson planning (Brook) 129–31 overlapping cohorts 41 teaching and learning activities 8 Sylvia, P. J. 104–5 Te Kete Ipurangi 137 te reo Māori (the Māori language) 1 n.1 Te Tiriti o Waitangi 109, 151 Teach First New Zealand 169 teacher education 7. see also work of teacher education (WoTE) as academic work 7, 11, 23 academic worker category 23, 23 hidden work of 8 history (New Zealand) 3 professional requirements 118–20 work (see work of teacher education (WoTE)) teacher educators (TEs) 1 academic worker category 23, 24 career trajectories (idiosyncratic) 34, 36 career transitions 34–5 change and challenge 7–8, 33 identity 45 in colleges system 6 currency of practice 43–4 induction to higher education 46 institutional expectations of work 41 involvement in the teaching profession 9, 13, 21, 23–6, 34, 40–1, 51, 54–5 perception of role (future) 46–7 professional life histories (see professional life histories (TEs)) recruitment texts by position 19, 22 research work 47, 56, 85

203

as scholars and professionals 172 service work 54 subjectivities 19, 20–1 teaching and learning activities 8 teaching work 51, 54 types of 13 work in the profession 55 work lives 170 work-shadowing 8, 25–8, 26, 27 teacher registration 70 teachers’ colleges 3, 26, 34, 39, 42, 46, 111, 145, 154, 162–3, 165 funding 4 online/distance education programmes 4 Teachers’ Training Colleges. see teachers’ colleges teaching and administration 87, 156 work objects of 88, 94–7 teaching and learning (CHAT) improving 143–4 lesson planning (Brook) 127–31, 128 mathematics and statistics (Cas) 132, 132–6 music assessment exemplar (Riley) 136–40 pop-up cards activity (Sam) 140, 140–3, 141 producing data 126–7 relations 126 Teaching and Learning Research Initiative (TLRI) 1–2 Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand (TCNZ) 54, 109, 119, 151, 164 Teaching Fellow. see Professional Practice Fellow (PPF) Tertiary Education Advisory Commission 164 Tertiary Education Commission 5 tertiary education system 34, 43, 95 theory/practice divide 125, 147–9 Tirri, K. 168 Toiviainen, H. 126 tools (activity system) 7, 13, 16, 28, 126, 143 Toom, A. 157 traditional academic (TA) 55–6, 90–1, 165. see also Chris (TA) in university 13, 24–5 work activities 91, 91–2

204

Index

transition to ITE 45 Tuinamuana, K. 6, 24 two-tiered system 165–6 United Kingdom (UK) BES 80 PGCE 115 REF 5 universities in 165 WoTE projects 12–13, 121 United States of America (US) 4, 12 universities in 165 university-based ITE (UBITE) 1, 49, 157, 167 activity system 15, 15–16 in A|NZ 3–5, 7 dual mandate 107 field-based models 162 scope of work 50, 88, 103, 157 work-shadowing TEs 25–8, 26, 27 university-based TEs bifurcation of 147–9 development 156–8 research work, ITE 154–6, 155 service commitments 150–2 teaching requirements for 152–4 work, discursive construction 146 university expectations of TEs’ work 111–12 university provision of ITE 3 Vulnerable Children Act 2014 (VCA) 119 Vygotsky, L. 15–16 Weedon, C. 19 Wenger, E. 45 word-frequency/KWC (analysis) 17–18 work-diary data 51, 87, 156 key observations 88, 102 teaching and administration 94–7 unbounded, fractured and messy 97–8, 99, 100–1, 102–5 work narratives (TE) Ash (DQ) 58–9 Bailey (PE) 60–1 Brook (DQ) 62–3 Cameron (PE) 64–5 Cas (PE) 66–7 Chris (TA) 68–9

Dale (DQ) 70–1 Gerry (PE) 72–3 Jessie (PE) 74–5 Lou (DQ) 76–7, 98 Nat (DQ) 78–9 Riley (DQ) 80–1 Sam (DQ) 82–3 Sawyer (PE) 84–5 work of teacher education (WoTE) 1–2, 12. see also Work of Teacher Education, New Zealand (WoTENZ) ITE and motivations 2–3 as TEs 3 in universities 6 work diaries, data 8 Work of Teacher Education, New Zealand (WoTE-NZ) 2 changing nature of 6–7 context of 12–13 data analysis 17–19, 21–5 employment practices 9 historical and cultural evolution 158 ITE and motivations to study 2–3 methods 16–17 research questions 13 theoretical framework 14–16 work diaries, data 8 work-shadowing (protocol) 25, 27–8, 37, 43, 50–1, 126–7. see also work narratives (TE) activities 52–3 DQ and TA 55 at East/West University 54, 56 gender-neutral language 56 lesson planning (Brook) 127–31, 128 mathematics and statistics (Cas) 132, 132–6 music assessment exemplar (Riley) 136–40 narrative description 50, 56–7 pop-up cards activity (Sam) 140, 140–3, 141 practicum-related 51 pre- and post 51 professional programmes 54–5 Zipin, Lew 6 

205

206

207

208