Preparing the Next Generation of Teacher Educators for Clinically‐Intensive Teacher Preparation
* CALL FOR BOOK CHAPTERS *
A volume in the series: Advances in Teacher Education. Editor: Diane Yendol-Hoppey, University of North Florida.
Manuscript proposals are currently being solicited for the next book of the Advances in Teacher Education Series. This volume focuses on preparing the next generation of teacher educators for clinically intensive teacher preparation. We are searching for conceptual pieces, research, and descriptions of programmatic efforts.
Example topics might include:
knowledge, skills, and dispositions of teacher educators; define the work of a teacher educator; methods for preparing the next generation of teacher educators; teacher educator identity; teacher educator self‐study; policy implications for preparing the next generation of teacher educators; higher education and the work of teacher educators; state of teacher educator preparation research; international perspectives on teacher educators and teacher educator preparation.
Rationale for the Book:
In 1999, Zeichner problematized teacher preparation by stating that “relat ively few people who work in teacher education programs actually read the research literature and think about it in relation to their own teacher education programs” (p.11). As Zeichner was critiquing teacher education practices, Tom (1997) argued that teacher education reform would require teacher educators to make identity shifts as faculty expanded, renegotiated, and redefined their roles in teacher education. Never has this been more pressing then today as those who work in teacher education have ever‐expanding responsibilities. Cochran‐Smith (2012) recently described the multifaceted and intensive work of teacher educators as including:
Curriculum development; program evaluation; recruitment and admission of students; participation in professional and state‐level accreditation reviews; establishment and maintenance of fieldwork sites; supervision of fieldwork experiences for teacher candidates in school and community settings; supervising and mentoring student teachers; providing professional development for experienced teachers; teaching courses with fieldwork components; collaborating with school‐and community‐based educators; providing career advice about teaching and other roles in schools; working in professional development or partnership schools; and developing, administering, and evaluating professional assessments (or assessment systems) for teacher candidates. (p. 100)
Dinkelman (2011) described these activities as elusive yet defining teacher educator professional identity as multiple, fluid, always developing, shaped by a broad range of sociocultural power relationships, relational, and strongly influenced by any number of relevant contexts. Teacher educator identities reflect an unstable and ever‐shifting weave of personal and professional phenomena. These phenomena are claimed by teacher educators and given to them through the institutional roles that frame their professio n. Ultimately, the way teacher educators learn to perceive themselves within their context influences their choices and actions (Watson, 2006). These teacher educator expectations are complicated even more by the pressure within many universities to engage in research. Murray and Male (2005) found that two of the main challenges new teacher educators faced were developing a pedagogy for teaching teachers as well as becoming productive in research and scholarship.
Given the expanding roles associated with being a teacher educator, Zeichner (2003) argued that the next generation of teacher educators should receive greater attention. He advocated that “the research universities that supply colleges and universities with the faculty who staff the vast number of teacher education programs throughout the United States need to take the preparation of teacher educators more seriously” (p.335). Indeed, the literature lacks important attention to the preparation of teacher educators. Kosnik et al. (2011) noted that in the 2008 Handbook of Teacher Education there was only one chapter and commentary related to teacher educators.
Reflecting an international teacher education perspective, Rust (2017) recently described the complexity of the field of teacher education and the implications for those individuals who work within the field:
…the very complexity of the field requires a powerful shift in practice and in thinking—a shift that enables a commitment to experimentation at every level, a tolerance for multiple, even seemingly conflicting models, and the embrace of open communication that reaches beyond higher education and acknowledges and draws strength from the uncertainties that are inherent in a robust system. Systems theory embraces complexity. It does not allow for a single answer, a best system. Rather, it invites multiple visions of possibility, multiple enactments of theory, multiple perspectives on practice, multipl e ways of learning, multiple forms of assessment—all in the service or toward the realization of the ideal of educating well both new and experienced teachers and teacher educators and ultimately all of those whom they teach.(p.9)
Today, in many contexts the lack of attention to preparing the next generation of teacher educators as well as having a critical mass of faculty who understand the current teacher education research problem lingers. In response, InFo‐TED (http://www.ntnu.edu/info-ted) has begun an international conversation related to the importance of preparing teacher educators. InFo‐TED is an international organization committed to developing and implementing a knowledge base of teacher educators including the kind of knowledge teacher educators need to have, the diverse tasks and roles teacher educators fulfill, and how these address the diverse contexts in which teacher educators work.
Although the NCATE Blue Ribbon Panel Report (2 010), the recent advent of the CAEP standards, and the new AACTE Clinical Practice Commission Report (2017) challenge those responsible for teacher preparation to rethink the design as well as their daily work within clinically rich programs, many teacher education faculty do not work beyond “their duty of teaching a course” (Ziechner, 1999, p. 11) and there is much too little discussion about how to prepare the next generation of teacher educators to work differently. Teacher education too often remains “a tangential concern for most and the major concern of only a few” (p.11). These concerns raise important questions for those who are currently responsible for pivoting, reinventing, and researching teacher preparation (including non‐traditional pathways).
Cochran‐Smith, M. (2012). Composing a research life. Action in Teacher Education, 34 (2), 99–110.
Dinkelman, T., Cuenca, A., Butler, B., Elfer, C ., Ritter, J., Powell, D., & Hawley, T. (2012). The influence of a collab‐ orative doctoral seminar on emerging teacher educator‐researchers. Action in Teacher Education, 34(2), 172–190.
Dinkelman, T. (2011). Forming a teacher educator identity: Uncertain standards, practice and relationships. Journal of Education for Teaching, 37(3), 309–323.
Kosnik, C., Cleovoulou, Y., Fletcher, T., Harris, T., McGlynn‐Stewart, M., & Beck, C. (2011). Becoming teacher educators: An innovative approach to teacher
education preparation. Journal of Education for Teaching, 37(3), 351–363.
Lanier, J. E., & Little, J. (1986). Research on teacher education. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook on research on teaching (pp. 527‐569).
Murray, J., & Male, T. (2005). Becoming a teacher educator: Evidence from the field. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 125–142.
Tom, A. R. (1997). Redesigning teacher education. Albany, NY: State U niversity of New York Press.
Watson, C. (2006). Narratives of practice and the construction of identity in teaching. Teachers and Teaching, 12(5), 509–526.
Zeichner, K. (2003). Teacher research as professional development for P–12 educators in the USA. Educational Action Research, 11(2), 301–326.
Zeichner, K. (1999). The new scholarship in teacher education. Educational researcher, 28 (9), 4‐15.
AUTHOR GUIDELINES FOR MANUSCRIPT PREPARATION
· Maximum 25 pages double‐spaced
· A 100‐150 word abstract
· Include a separate title page with author contact information
· Please use APA
Additionally, you must follow each of the following guidelines from Information Age Publishing.
Submit your revised manuscript electronically via email to Diane Yendol‐Hoppey (diane.yendol‐email@example.com) by January 2 , 2018.
Please do not hesitate to contact the editor with questions or concerns while preparing your manuscript.
Tentative Timeline for Publication:
Manuscripts submitted by: January 2, 2018
Acceptance Notification by: March 1, 2018
Final Revision Deadline: June 30, 2018
Expected Publication: Fall, 2018