Teacher Educator Professional Learning in the Third Space

Abstract

This article reports on the results of a research project in which 18 teacher educators in three countries—Australia, The Netherlands, and United Kingdom—were interviewed about their experiences of working in the so-called “third space” between schools and universities, particularly in relation to the practicum, or field supervision. Most teacher educators have previously worked as teachers in schools or other educational settings, and when they become teacher educators in universities, they are often involved in the supervision or mentoring of preservice teachers in the field. The research reported in this article examined how university-based teacher educators manage the challenges inherent in working with mentor/cooperating teachers after having been or when still practicing as teachers in schools. Findings from the study showed that for teacher educators, working in the third space involves managing shifting identities between teacher and teacher educator, responding to changing perspectives on learning and teaching, and negotiating sometimes finely balanced and difficult relationships.

Keywords

teacher educators professional learning third space professional identity practicum supervision mentoring

Introduction

The professional learning of teacher educators has received increasing attention in the research literature in recent years (Murray & Male, 2005; Swennen, Shagrir, & Cooper, 2009; van Velzen, van der Klink, Swennen, & Yaffe, 2010), after many years of being seen as under-researched and poorly theorized (Davey, 2013). While the work of teacher educators is becoming more clearly understood in respect to the transition from teacher to teacher educator (Williams, Ritter, & Bullock, 2012), one aspect of their pedagogy that is still relatively unexamined is that of working in schools with mentor or cooperating teachers and preservice teachers, particularly during professional experience programs. It is easy to assume that this dimension of teacher educator practice is relatively straightforward and unproblematic for former schoolteachers now working as teacher educators. However, just as the literature on the transition from teacher to teacher educator has revealed (Boyd & Harris, 2010; Williams et al., 2012; Wood & Borg, 2010), the work of teacher educators in the space between universities and schools is anything but straightforward and unproblematic. It is an area of professional practice that is increasingly revealed as complex and challenging, even for experienced teacher educators (Cuenca, Schmeichel, Butler, Dinkelman, & Nichols, 2011; Martin, Snow, & Franklin Torrez, 2011).

The importance of understanding the nature of working in this third space is underlined by the changing educational policy context of many governments in relation to teacher education programs and teacher quality. For example, in Australia, the Federal government has allocated extensive resources to assist universities and schools to work together in partnership to develop models of teacher education that involve closer links between teachers in schools and teacher educators in universities. In Victoria, the School Centres of Teaching Excellence, and the more recent Teaching Academies of Professional Practice, require schools and universities to form innovative partnerships where teachers, teacher educators, and preservice teachers work together to “facilitate strong school-university partnerships to deliver a quality professional experience for pre-service teachers; [to] adopt an onsite learning approach; [and to] foster a community of practice on pre-service education” (Department of Education and Early Childhood Development, 2014). Similarly, in the United Kingdom, the Schools Direct program is the latest step in the gradual shift of initial teacher education from tertiary providers to schools. Teacher educators in universities are increasingly required to work closely with schools in the provision of preservice programs. Such shifts of policy direction, requiring closer collaboration between teachers and teacher educators, make it essential for teacher educators to be well equipped to work effectively in these newly emerging third spaces and to recognize and manage the challenges that this brings.

As a former primary teacher and mentor of student teachers for many years, and now working as a teacher educator in university-based professional experience programs, I was interested to examine my own experiences in the third space created by practicum supervision in schools and the impact of this work on my evolving professional identity and practice as a teacher educator (Williams, 2012, 2013). After undertaking a self-study to this end, I was prompted to find out whether or not other teacher educators had similar or different experiences to me and to explore what could be learned from their experiences to inform the professional learning of teacher educators into the future. This article reports on the results of that research project, involving teacher educators from five different universities in three different countries (Australia, United Kingdom, and The Netherlands).

Literature Review

The concept of a third space derives from the boundary crossing work of Bhabha (1994) and later of EngestrÖm. Viewing learning from the perspective of activity theory, EngestrÖm (2004) argued that horizontal movement between sites of professional practice was a key element in the learning that takes place in each site, as well as in the spaces where these sites overlap or interact. EngestrÖm claimed that it was this “theory of expansive learning that puts the horizontal and inter-organizational dimension of learning in the center” (p. 15) and that working in these in-between spaces “puts a heavy emphasis on bridging, boundary crossing . . . and negotiation . . .” (p. 16). In addition, EngestrÖm, EngestrÖm, and Kärkkäinen (1995) argued that learning in this space was not unproblematic. They claimed that when experts are engaged in parallel activity, they are exposed to diverse contexts and ways of enacting practice and that as a result “experts face the challenge of negotiating and combining ingredients from different contexts to achieve hybrid solutions . . . [and] demands for dialogical problem-solving increase” (p. 319).

In recent years, attention has increasingly been paid to the work of teacher educators in the third space where activity systems of schools and universities intersect and overlap (Bullock, 2012; Cuenca, 2010; Cuenca et al., 2011; Martin et al., 2011; Tsui & Law, 2007; Williams, 2012, 2013; Zeichner, 2010). A clearer picture of this aspect of teacher educator work is beginning to emerge as researchers, including teacher educators studying their own practice, examine the intricacies and implications of this work for the ongoing development of professional identity and pedagogy. Martin et al. (2011), for example, explored the challenges faced byuniversity-based teacher educators working in school-based teacher education programs, claiming that working in this third space is essentially about “negotiating a web of relationships” (p. 305). They concluded that “redefining the nature of university-based teacher educators’ work adds further dimension to its complexity as processes of building and negotiating complex relationships are central to the work” (p. 308). Zeichner (2010) argued that working within what he referred to as the hybrid space between schools and universities was an essential dimension of teacher education and

involve[s] a rejection of binaries such as practitioner and academic knowledge and theory and practice, and involve[s] the integration of what are often seen as competing discourses in new ways—an either/or perspective is transformed into a both/also point of view. (p. 92)

Korthagen, Loughran, and Russell (2006) highlighted the complex and relational nature of work in the third space by suggesting that teacher educators working in this space hold “three different perspectives simultaneously: the perspective of the individual learning to teach, the perspective of the teacher in a school, and the perspective of the teacher educator in the university setting” (p. 1034).

The tendency to revert to previously held classroom teacher identity and practice when working in the third space has been documented by teacher educators when examining their own experiences of practicum supervision. For example, Ritter (2007) realized that in his early days of supervising student teachers on practicum, he experienced feelings of inadequacy and uncertainty and

invoke[d] my classroom teacher identity as a source of expertise in my new role as teacher educator. I yearned for the security that comes with a well-defined role to play. I naturally assumed that I was supposed to be the expert over my student teachers and that it was my responsibility to deposit into their minds appropriate information about effective teaching. (p. 11)

Likewise, Cuenca (2010) had to find appropriate ways of being a teacher educator during practicum supervision. He documented the struggles he experienced when his initial tendency was to instruct student teachers to teach in the way he used to teach. He realized that to be effective as a teacher educator in this space, he had to reorient his thinking to allow students to find their own answers to their teaching challenges, rather than to rely on him to be the expert teacher showing them how it might be done. Bullock (2012) also found that during practicum supervision, rather than taking on an advisory role, he needed to problematize the teaching situation and to support student teachers to find their own answers rather than take the easy option of adopting his. Bullock recognized that being a teacher educator in a school classroom was not the same as being the classroom teacher and concluded that

the process of learning to teach teachers necessarily involves reconceptualising my identity from a successful teacher to a teacher of teachers, a process that is made even more difficult when required to “be a teacher educator” in a K-12 school setting. (pp. 153-154)

The results of my self-study (Williams, 2013) revealed that working in the third space created many challenges and rewards and essentially involved three key dimensions: (a) shifting identities between related but distinct professional selves, that is, former classroom teacher and teacher educator; (b) changing perspectives as different understandings of learning and teaching emerged during practicum supervision; and (c) negotiating relationships that were sometimes fraught, and which involved a delicate balancing act between the different needs and perspectives of supervising teachers, preservice teachers, and teacher educator. Using the notion of boundary crossing, the self-study revealed that

[boundary] practices are not static, but dynamic, fluid and evolving. They highlight the importance of dialogue between me and others to bridge external boundaries . . . and of the dialogue within me as a self-study researcher, as I traverse the internal boundaries between shifting professional identities and changing perspectives on teaching . . . The boundary practices of the third space require a delicate balancing act of acknowledging and respecting the personal and professional identities of all involved . . . The challenges and tensions involved in developing these boundary practices are essential elements of my evolving identity and practice as a teacher educator. (p. 128)

A review of the literature has revealed that the work of teacher educators in the third space involves crossing and re-crossing, and negotiating and re-negotiating, professional and personal boundaries between different but closely connected sites of professional practice. If we accept that the work of teacher educators in the third space is complex, as the emerging research-base seems to suggest, then it is important to understand the implications of this for professional learning, identity construction, and practice.

Boundary Spaces, Boundary Crossing, and Professional Learning

The work of Akkerman and Bakker (2011) was used in this research to frame an understanding of the nature of the learning that is possible in the boundary spaces, or third space, between these different but related professional contexts. Akkerman and Bakker argued that the spaces created when different sites of professional practice connect or overlap provide the potential for rich professional learning for those engaged in the diverse practices of these sites. They also argued that boundary spaces are inherently ambiguous and often belong to both sites of practice simultaneously, although potentially in different ways. Boundary spaces are “a nobody’s land, belonging to neither one nor the other world” (p. 141). This ambiguity means that people working in this space “enact the boundary by addressing and articulating meanings and perspectives of various intersecting worlds [and] move beyond the boundary in that they have an unspecified quality of their own” (pp. 141-142).

Akkerman and Bakker (2011) maintained that there are four mechanisms of learning found in boundary spaces. These four mechanisms of learning are (a) identification, (b) coordination, (c) reflection, and (d) transformation. Identification is evident where “previous lines of demarcation between practices are uncertain or destabilized because of feelings of threat or because of increasing similarities or overlap between practices” (p. 142). In the process of identification, the core identity of each site is interrogated and seen in the light of how it is different from or similar to the other. Identification leads to new insights into areas of practice, problems, or issues of concern and contributes to learning and individual identity development as participants explore their own work in relation to others. Different identities within the boundary space do not always coexist harmoniously, and in some cases, there is a need for “legitimating coexistence” (p. 143) by acknowledging and accepting difference rather than trying to overcome it. Akkerman and Bakker argued that “the learning potential resides in a renewed sense-making of different practices and related identities” (p. 143).

Coordination occurs when particular processes or procedures are put in place within boundary spaces that help to establish and maintain an effective working relationship. Communication is a key ingredient and dependent on dialogue and the creation of artifacts or “boundary objects” (e.g., policies and procedures), which facilitate such communication. Akkerman and Bakker (2011) maintained that the potential of coordination between different sites of practice lay in “overcoming the boundary, in the sense that continuity is established, facilitating future and effortless movement between different sites” (p. 144). Reflection involves boundary crossers “coming to realise and explicate difference between practices and thus to learn something new about their own and others’ practices” (pp. 144-145). Akkerman and Bakker argued that reflection within boundary spaces enables participants to see their own and others’ practices in a new light (perspective-taking) and to make explicit their understanding and knowledge of particular practices and beliefs (perspective-making). Looking at the world through the eyes of others can lead to the generation of new ideas and ways of being and is essentially a dialogic and creative process.

Transformation is perhaps the most powerful of the four mechanisms of learning in the third space. Akkerman and Bakker (2011) argued that “transformation leads to profound changes in practices, potentially even the creation of a new, in-between practice . . .” (p. 146). However, this process is not necessarily one of smooth or unproblematic change. The boundary crossing literature suggested that the source of true transformation of practice requires some degree of confrontation, or a problem that necessitates a rethinking of current practices and relationships. A negotiation of (new) meaning is required, and although this can sometimes be fraught, it may lead to the recognition of a “shared problem space” (p. 147) in which participants can work together to create new and shared understandings and practices. While new practices may be appropriate and valuable for each respective community, it does not mean that existing practices are made redundant. In some cases, reinforcement of existing practices is also important because “it is precisely the difference . . . that upholds the relevance and value of the intersecting practices to one another” (p. 149).

The work of Akkerman and Bakker (2011) proved helpful in identifying and understanding the ways in which school–university interactions can be critical spaces for teacher educators’ learning about themselves and their practice. With this in mind, the framework was used to examine the data from the study to explicate the learning processes and potential of the third space and to further understand the work of teacher educators in this context.

Method

The research questions for this study were as follows:

Research Question 1: What challenges do teacher educators face when working in the third space between university and schools?

Research Question 2: How does previous experience as a classroom teacher contribute to teacher educator identity and pedagogy when working in the third space?

Participants

Interviews were conducted with 18 teacher educators in Australia, The Netherlands, and the United Kingdom who were nominated by colleagues of mine in each university as suitable for interview. The criteria for selection were for each participant to be working in field supervision of preservice teachers in schools and to have previously been teachers in schools and mentors to student teachers. This would ensure that they had experience in both university-based and school-based teacher education programs. Although diverse in location and background, the participants worked in an area that is regarded as an essential component of teacher education programs, that is, field supervision. Their experiences are, therefore, likely to be common to many teacher educators in a range of teaching contexts and the findings relevant to teacher educator professional learning and practice more broadly.

My colleagues in each university contacted their respective peers and provided them with an explanatory statement on my behalf. Those who were interested in being interviewed contacted me directly, and arrangements were made for me to conduct face-to-face interviews during my visit to their university. The teaching background, including years of experience as schoolteachers and as teacher educators in universities was diverse, ranging from classroom teaching of 2 or 3 years to 20 or more years. Several participants in The Netherlands were working simultaneously as teachers in schools and in university on a part-time basis, while the British and Australian teacher educators all worked full-time in the university. The role of each teacher educator in this study included visiting student teachers in schools during practicum, observing and evaluating lessons taught, liaising with mentor teachers, and providing advice and support for students and their mentors when intervention was required. Each participant was given the opportunity to provide a pseudonym and four chose to do so. Only first names and country have been identified in this article. Details of the participants and their teaching backgrounds are found in Table 1.

Table 1.

Participants.

Name	Sex	Country	Years as teacher	Years as teacher educator
Adam	Male	Australia	25 years since first teaching appointment	5-6 over that period as a teacher educator
Arthur	Male	The Netherlands	22	3 (also teaching in a school)
Christine	Female	The Netherlands	2	14
Evelien	Female	The Netherlands	2 years primary, 8 years university	13
Geertje	Female	The Netherlands	13	14
Jackie	Female	United Kingdom	11	9
Jane	Female	Australia	5	6
Janneke	Female	The Netherlands	8	14
Kathy	Female	Australia	25	2
Kelly	Female	Australia	17	4 (2 years part-time combined with school teaching)
Anna	Female	The Netherlands	17	10 (also teaching in school)
Loes	Female	The Netherlands	16	3
Marijane	Female	The Netherlands	20	2
Mike	Male	United Kingdom	15	9
Nigel	Male	United Kingdom	23 years in mainstream and special schools	9
Rose	Female	The Netherlands	0	9
Rosie	Female	United Kingdom	15	3
Ton	Male	The Netherlands	27	14 (also teaching in a school)

Data Collection

This qualitative project involved collection of data through semi-structured interviews. The questions asked in the interviews were as follows:

Please tell me about your background experience as a schoolteacher.

How did you become a teacher educator?

What involvement do you have in field/practicum supervision of student teachers?

Tell me about the artifact/metaphor that you have brought to the interview. How does this represent yourself in your work in schools?

What challenges do you face as a teacher educator working in schools?

How does your previous experience as a teacher impact on your work as a teacher educator in schools? How does this affect your relationships with teachers in schools?

Interviews were chosen as the approach for data collection because they enabled participants to discuss aspects of their identity and pedagogy in an open and supportive environment. Interviews are one of the most common ways in which to collect data in qualitative research as they are a “very good way of accessing people’s perceptions, meanings, definitions of situations, and construction of reality” (Punch, 2009, p. 144). Although there are limitations in the extent to which a single interview can explore such a personal notion as identity, having a professional conversation with participants is of great value, particularly when interviewer and interviewees share similar professional and personal backgrounds. As Davey (2013) noted, these types of conversations between colleagues “allow for elaboration, digression, [and] personal expression of feelings” (p. 36). They also facilitated the participants’ exploration of ideas that, as several interviewees commented, they had not taken the time to consider before.

All interviews were conducted face-to-face in a location within the university that was convenient for participants, such as their office or a meeting room. Interviews were conducted on an individual basis, although two were paired due to availability and time. Each interview lasted approximately 45 min and was digitally recorded. In addition to audio recording, notes of key information were also taken by me during the interviews, and seven interviews that contained particularly rich data were fully transcribed so that accurate quotes could be extracted. Participants were asked to bring to the interview an artifact or idea of a metaphor that represented how they saw themselves as a teacher educator in the third space. A photograph or copy of the artifact/metaphor was collected for reference. For the purposes of reliability, the draft of findings was shared with all participants who provided corrections or clarifications as required.

One particular challenge encountered during the interviews in The Netherlands was the fact that they were conducted in English, and this was not the first language of the participants. Care was taken to ensure that participants understood the questions (e.g., by rephrasing the question) and that they had time to respond in a way that conveyed their intended meaning.

Data Analysis

Digital recordings of the interviews were transferred to a computer and were available for review by me, as were the interview notes and transcriptions. The interview data were analyzed using a deductive approach (Punch, 2009), using the findings of my self-study (Williams, 2013) as the organizing frame to display the data (Miles & Huberman, 1984). These frames were shifting identities, changing perspectives, and negotiating relationships. During examination of the data, information from the interviews was organized in table form using the headings “identity,” “perspectives,” and “relationships.” Other significant information that emerged was also added to the table in the column “Other.” An example from one interview (Kelly) is presented in Table 2.

Table 2.

Example of First Stage of Data Display and Analysis.

Name	Identity	Perspectives	Relationships	Other	Artifact
Kelly	Struggle—sees herself very much as classroom teacher—only just left the classroom (1 year full-time at uni) Teacher talk—portrays self as teacher rather than TE Wears academic hat too Id as TE based on work in schools 1 day per week—still teach in schools; wants to keep working in schools—keeps relevant, real Draws on own exp teaching in uni Teacher colleagues see her as not being “brainwashed” yet—“still one of us” Automatically “be the teacher” when working with children Wears both hats (half hat on)	Sees both sides Has friends who are teachers, understands their points of view Sees self in middle space Working in uni gives time to reflect on teaching Aware of theory/practice divide in schools—artificial but teachers see the difference • Perception of TEs being out of touch—use own exp to show that academics know real world of teaching • Teachers do not see theory in their own practice Different expectations—PSTs should be able to . . .	Importance of dialogue in building relationships Explain academic program to teachers—bridge practice/theory divide, different expectations of uni program		Drawing of school/uni—bridge. Venn diagram included but did not explicitly include uniHave not settled on either side—comfortable on bridge, best of both worlds

Note. PST = preservice teacher; TE = teacher eduactor.

In the next stage of analysis, three new tables were developed—labeled “identity” “perspective,” and “relationships”—to enable common themes across all the interviews to be displayed. Data in Table 2 were examined to identify key aspects of the participants’ work in the third space, and these were noted in the first column of the relevant new table. The names of participants who shared similar experiences or views were recorded in the second column. This enabled experiences common to several participants to be displayed together. These data were then synthesized into coherent findings. An excerpt from one of these tables (Identity) is presented in Table 3.

Table 3.

Example of Second Stage of Data Display and Analysis: “Identity.”

Key ideas	Participants
• Use of teacher talk• Always say “I was a teacher”• Street credibility; authenticity; empathy, establish relationships with mentors• Narrative, back story• Need experience to give advice	ChristineGeertjeArthurAnnaLoesKathy, AdamKellyMike, Nigel, Jackie
• Use practical knowledge as teacher to inform practice as TE	KathyKellyMikeArthur
• Some did not want to identify as a teacher• Power relations• Superficial, polite conversation	AdamRosieJane
• Not a teacher now, moved on• Different role, purpose• Some distance good• Stronger identity as TE	MikeJannekeEvelienJaneGeertje

Findings

The findings are presented under the three themes that were identified in the self-study and used as the organizing themes for data display in the current study.

Shifting Identities

The interplay between different professional identities of teacher and teacher educator were clearly evident as the teacher educators acknowledged that these different aspects of their professional identities affected upon their work in the third space. Some of the interviewees explained that they always made it clear to teachers in schools, and to their teacher education students, that they were (or still are) schoolteachers. It was important to them that others should know this because as Adam pointed out, this creates a “back story” to why they are there in schools. A teaching background appeared to provide many of the teacher educators with a professional narrative that they believed gave them a degree of credibility, empathy, and/or authenticity. For example, Mike argued that having experience as a schoolteacher gave more authenticity to his role as a teacher educator because “you need experience in order to give advice about practice.” Geertje explained that she always tells mentors and student teachers that she is a teacher “otherwise they think I only know the theory. For our relationship it is important that they know I am a teacher, otherwise they think you are from a different planet.” Anna sees mentor teachers as fellow teachers, and she uses this to establish a relationship built on trust and understanding. She introduces herself as a teacher and a teacher educator and asks for suggestions from mentors about what they want to gain from this professional relationship, rather than establishing the parameters of the relationship herself.

Jackie maintained that a connection to her own teaching experience gives her credibility as a teacher educator and that being a former teacher gives her insights into practice that she can share with her student teachers so that she can give them “authentic advice.” She believes that this enables her to directly teach about teaching, based on her experiential knowledge and ability to model good teaching practice. Others also use their practical knowledge as a teacher to inform their practice as a teacher educator. Kathy, for example, stated that she hopes her identity as a visual arts teacher in schools will always be there as it provides the foundation of her teaching as a teacher educator in university. Kelly, Jackie, and Anna all explained how they often default to the role of teacher when visiting student teachers in schools. Jackie related that when watching student teachers working in a classroom, she is “dying to get up and show them how to teach . . . I am the teacher there.” Anna felt that in schools, her teacher identity is stronger than her teacher educator identity because “when I am in a school and the lesson is not going well, that’s when my teacher-self steps in. I just want to take over—she is stronger than the teacher educator.” Kelly explained that

on a personal level I have struggled with [being a teacher and a teacher educator] . . . Even though I’m at Uni, I still very much see myself as a classroom teacher, which is very interesting, even though I’m not there. I find when I teach that I use a lot of my own background in my own teaching here [at Uni].

The artifact that Kelly chose to represent her identity as a teacher educator was a drawing of a school with children in the playground, separated from the university by a river. Kelly was standing on a bridge over the river, representing the role she played in connecting the two sites of teacher education practice. She also drew a Venn diagram, in which the three circles represented “me (Kelly),” “PSTs (preservice teachers),” and “school.” Interestingly, the university was not represented in the Venn diagram at all.

While experience and up-to-date knowledge as a teacher was considered important by many of the participants in this study, for some, there was also uncertainty or ambiguity about the role that this prior experience had in their current work as teacher educators. Rosie revealed that she had an “internal debate about credibility” and that she felt anxious about not knowing everything about teaching. After 3 years or so away from school teaching, she felt that she was moving away from the content knowledge of teaching, and this caused her some anxiety. Anna had similar concerns, although her anxiety was about the level of theory that she knew. She stated that “I have a bit of a complex about not knowing enough theory. My colleagues are much better at knowing things such as psychology.” Others felt that not having recent classroom teaching experience was not necessarily a problem. Mike, for example, explained that he believes the role of a teacher educator is not just about providing the content of teaching but about providing an education about learning and teaching. Facilitating student teachers’ own learning about teaching, therefore, does not necessitate recent classroom teaching experience, although this knowledge base does underpin many aspects of his identity as a teacher educator. Nigel had a similar view, and he evoked the metaphor of teacher educator as a Sherpa. For Nigel, being a teacher educator meant being a “respected guide” and doing the “heavy lifting” so that preservice teachers might be alerted to the possible “dangers, slips, [and] falls” of teaching, rather than merely telling them how to teach (climb).

While some teacher educators still had very strong connections to their teacher identity, others did not identify as strongly with this part of their professional selves, and they felt that they had moved on to a different role and purpose in teacher education. For example, Adam does not actively promote the fact that he is a former teacher and believes that identifying as a teacher is not always appropriate and can actually lead to unhelpful power relationships. Rosie argued that being seen in schools as an academic or expert can be limiting and that identifying herself as a teacher can appear as superficial or as merely polite conversation. She prefers to call herself an educationalist rather than academic or teacher, and to focus on the teaching that is required, regardless of the context. Mike stated that he does not position himself as a teacher—“I used to be a teacher”—and that he now makes a different contribution. He sees his role more as an advisor than an expert, and as a former teacher, he offers empathy and understanding rather than “telling them how to do it.” He feels comfortable working in schools with students and teachers, but he stated that “I don’t want to be a teacher again.”

Similarly, Janneke explained that although she is a former schoolteacher, her role as a teacher educator means that she has different priorities.

I know what it is to be a teacher, but I don’t feel it anymore . . . I’m always aware that I am a teacher, but I think that my role is a different one as a teacher educator. As a teacher, I sometimes disagree with an approach a student teacher takes, but as a teacher educator, I find it important to establish why the student teacher chose a particular task or approach.

Janneke believed that she does not need to be a practicing teacher to be a good teacher educator, but, like Mike, she is able to empathize with student teachers and their mentors because she has done the work herself. She sees teachers and teacher educators as a team, working together to support the learning of student teachers, by making different contributions. Discussion of her artifact showed that Janneke felt a certain responsibility to protect her students in the school environment, and she likened herself to a drink coaster. She said she was the “in between protector” in the third space, and part of her role was to create a buffer between student and mentor teacher in the sometimes sensitive situations that arise. Evelien believed that because she has much more experience as a teacher educator than as a teacher, she is a teacher educator first and foremost. As a teacher educator, Evelien still sees herself as a member of the teaching profession, but she does not identify as closely with schoolteachers as she once did. She also believes that as she has become older, she is more appreciated in her work at the university and that

teachers in schools look to me with more status . . . [It] used to matter that I was less experienced as a teacher, but it doesn’t matter now. I bring in knowledge that they don’t have. I have something to offer but I had to prove it.

Evelien likened her role to that of a gardener, seeing her students as many different plants with different needs. Her role as a teacher educator is to give them the care and nurturing that they need to grow and blossom.

For some of the teacher educators in this study, there was little or no difference between being a teacher in a school and being a teacher educator in a university, as they are both about teaching, just with a different audience and purpose. Ton stated very clearly that he sees himself as a teacher first—“That’s what I am, that’s what I do”—although being a teacher and a teacher educator is practically the same thing. Anna claimed that as a teacher educator, she is not very different from being a teacher:

teaching is still teaching . . . One of my strengths at university is being a teacher. I can relate to students and to mentors [and] I always tell them I am a teacher . . . [For me] it is important to still have my own teaching job.

Anna likened having two different but related professional identities as acknowledging the “two monsters . . . I [am] trying to find a middle path—I don’t want to be one or the other . . . I can’t be one or the other.” It appeared that for these teacher educators, the distinction between teacher and teacher educator is a false one and that they are, as Zeichner (2010) observed, rejecting of binaries of practitioner and academic. Being aware of both aspects of their teaching experience is perhaps a way in which these teacher educators were able to legitimate the coexistence (Akkerman & Bakker, 2011) of these two aspects of their professional identities.

Perhaps more than any other participant, Jane felt much more an academic and researcher than a teacher. She stated very firmly that she “doesn’t want to be that person anymore.” Jane explained that the importance of her role as a teacher educator is to provide student teachers with knowledge about learning and teaching gained from academic scholarship and research, which will assist them in their own learning about teaching. She clearly sees herself as a researcher, and her identity as a teacher educator is strongly grounded in her work as an academic, rather than her relatively brief career as a schoolteacher. The artifact that Jane chose to represent herself as a teacher educator in the third space was her university name badge. This object contained the university logo and Jane’s title as Dr. and was a solid reminder of where she was situated personally and professionally.

For most participants, their previous/other identity as a schoolteacher was an important foundation of their work as teacher educators in the third space. Many were able to shift the focus of their work between the practical aspects of teaching and the more theoretical dimensions that inform teaching practice in schools as was required, to make a fairly seamless transition. Being a teacher is important to most, but they are also aware that they are now a different type of teacher and that their contribution to student teachers’ learning involves seeing and doing things in new and different ways.

Changing Perspectives

While it could be argued that changes in perspective are a logical development in teacher educators’ professional learning as they transition from teaching in schools, it was apparent that dealing with these differences can cause some tension and anxiety. For example, the frustration of seeing students default to the practices of their mentor teachers, when these practices contradicted those advocated at the university, was evident in several of the interviews. Different perspectives on teaching practice were keenly felt by Geertje, who believed that the influence of the school environment or culture on student teacher practice is powerful, although not always for the better. She stated that the role of teacher educators is to build a bridge between the two learning environments so that different perspectives can be identified and utilized as a basis for student teacher (and mentor teacher) learning. She believed that the most effective way to bridge the divide between different perspectives is to engage the student teachers in a three-way dialogue with mentor teachers and teacher educators so that the student teachers become the impetus for change.

Having student teachers in schools changes the culture of the school but this takes time. Students ask questions, and make teachers think about why they do that. [We can] change the culture of the school through teaching student teachers. [It is] creating a culture of learning in schools.

Geertje identified that a “big struggle inside myself is that what we do at university is of very little importance.” She worries that field experience in the school has much more influence over her students than does her own teaching at the university, citing the example of creative students who lose the determination to teach in innovative ways when they work in schools that have a more conservative approach to teaching. Such situations are not only frustrating for Geertje but they also reinforce for her the importance of her work as a teacher educator. “We have to go deeper so students are convinced of the importance of certain things . . . [We are] teaching students to be themselves.” Geertje emphasized the importance of collaborative teacher education in which the perspectives of all participants need to be acknowledged and valued. Her artifact was a picture of a ring of interlocking hands, each representing a contributor to student teachers’ learning—students themselves, teacher educators, subject coach, school coach, and peers. She maintained that as a teacher educator, you “can’t do it by yourself. [It] has to be a joint effort.” Geertje sees herself as one of the many hands and as a link “between schools and university by working with students and teachers. Students are the key part of the bridge.” Like Geertje, Loes also saw herself as a link between different perspectives and that a three-way conversation between mentor teacher, student teacher, and teacher educator is the most effective way to engage with, and in some cases challenge mentor teacher practices. To achieve this, Loes always speaks with student teachers when the teacher is present “and lets them know there is another way.”

Having a different perspective from that of mentor teachers can create tensions for teacher educators because they understand from their own teaching experience why a mentor teacher might think and teach in a particular way. One of the greatest frustrations for Kelly is the fact that mentor teachers do not always see themselves as teacher educators. Kelly has had to remind teachers that they are, in fact, using the theories that student teachers learn about at university:

[Teachers say] all you do is teach them theory out there at University. And I’ve gone back to visit the school where I used to work and I’ve said, “But, you know, you guys use Vygotsky all the time. Of course you’re using theory. You might not call it that, but that’s what you’re doing.

Janneke discussed her frustration when some teachers are too rigid in their approach, and when “mentor teachers often focus on the mechanics of teaching—what to do with Joey because they need to face Joey again the next day. I want to focus on [student teachers’] thinking and doing patterns, not specific behaviors.” While fully understanding the mentor teacher’s position, Janneke clearly has a different view of her role in student teachers’ learning. She looks for patterns of behavior over time and focuses on learning from experience rather than merely technical proficiency in, for example, classroom management. For Janneke, these different perspectives on how student teachers learn can not only cause frustration but also bring some degree of clarity around her role and purpose as a teacher educator. She recognizes that the procedural knowledge of classroom teachers is important and that this is a significant part of what is learned during the practicum. However, the bigger picture about learning and teaching provided at university is also essential.

Marijane explained that the theoretical ideas she has gained from university help her to understand essential aspects of teaching, although she feels that these can sometimes be too idealistic.

I know what it is to be in a classroom at three in the afternoon . . . Theoretical ideas seem unrealistic then. I can’t always do what the university expects me to do because I understand the reality of the classroom.

Marijane sometimes feels torn between the expectations that the university has for student teachers and the realities of the classroom that she knows from personal experience as a teacher. She is aware of the so-called theory/practice divide and finds that she is constantly shifting between practical and theoretical perspectives. Other teacher educators commented on the importance of their role to provide insights into teaching and learning that students may not gain in schools. They believed that as teacher educators they are able to see a wider context of teaching and learning, something that mentor teachers may not always share. For example, Nigel argued that teacher educators can provide a counter view to that of mentor teachers, and where necessary, like a Sherpa, guide student teachers so they do not succumb to policy imperatives in schools that Nigel believed are often politically rather than educationally driven.

Several other teacher educators, who were not simultaneously teaching in schools, commented that some distance from the day to day practice of classroom teaching was actually an advantage. Janneke and Christine both commented that having some distance from classroom teaching helped them to clearly focus on the purpose of their work as teacher educators, which is to support the learning of the student teachers rather than to provide tips and tricks on how to teach. Christine felt that after limited experience as a schoolteacher but extensive experience as a teacher educator, her expertise lay in her ability to support student teacher learning about teaching. She explained that going into schools as a teacher educator is

a good thing because it is different. I feel a bit awkward because I am going into a world that is clearly not mine . . . This is sometimes good because I am there for [my] students, I don’t have any obligation to [the] children or teachers.

Janneke believes that “distance is useful to be clear about what is happening here, not just [to] look at my own teacher perspective.” Mike stated that working as a teacher educator involves developing and nurturing a community of learners where all participants have something different but equally valuable to offer and to learn. Within this community, it does not matter that he is no longer a classroom teacher. He stated that mentor teachers, student teachers, and teacher educators are all there ultimately to improve the education of children. It is important that they work collaboratively, providing different types of knowledge, experience, and perspectives to achieve this end. Mike’s artifact was a pair of glasses, representing the different perspectives, clarity, and focus that he brings to his work—as student, teacher, mentor teacher, teacher educator, and academic researcher. Being in a school is important to Mike as it helps him to keep up with changes in, for example, curriculum and pedagogy: “I don’t want to get too far away from it . . . [It] reminds you why you are here.” Despite this, he is confident that he does not have to be a practicing classroom teacher to make a valuable contribution.

Negotiating Relationships

A common theme in the interviews was that language and dialogue were essential for establishing and maintaining professional relationships in the third space. Kathy stressed that she is very careful to “tread the middle ground” and to avoid taking sides when differences of opinion emerge between teachers, teacher educators, and/or preservice teachers, and that for her, working as a teacher educator in the third space involves managing relationships and being a “co-professional.” She tries to be fair to both sides and sometimes has to “smooth the waters” when differences arise. Adam, Marijane, Janneke, and Nigel also saw their position as co-professionals, partners, or colleagues with mentor teachers rather than as supervisors, or as remote and out-of-touch academics from the “ivory tower.” The focus of much of their professional dialogue was on analyzing difficulties, discussing problems, and clarifying expectations. Kelly highlighted the importance of dialogue in building productive relationships, and she emphasized the need to clearly explain the university’s academic program to teachers. She also ensured that she refers to placement manuals and that she clarifies university requirements and expectations. Mike and Jackie also commented on the importance of having university protocols and publications such as fieldwork manuals and assessment reports to call on, especially when a student teacher’s teaching performance is called into question. Like Kathy, Mike and Jackie maintained that it was not a matter of taking sides with mentors or with student teachers but of making an objective assessment based on university protocols and requirements. These boundary objects (Akkerman & Bakker, 2011) provide an objective framework as the basis for discussion and to enable common ground to be established. They are an example of what Akkerman and Bakker referred to as “efforts of translation . . . [which] relate to finding a balance in the . . . ambiguity of boundaries” (p. 144).

The importance of using the language of teachers to help build relationships was raised by several teacher educators. Ton suggested that because he knows the language of teachers, he also knows “how far I can go, know where it stops. [I] know teachers’ reactions during dialogue, [so it] makes the conversation easier.” One of the most challenging situations for Ton is when he sees things happening in schools that he thinks should not be happening. The subsequent conversations are much more difficult to have, even when he “makes a little joke to reduce tension.” He observed that sometimes teachers agreed with him just to be polite and to avoid conflict, but in reality, nothing really changed, and this caused him great frustration. Rose and Christine both saw themselves as facilitators of student and mentor teacher learning through dialogue, and they stressed that honesty is an important basis of their relationship with teachers. Rose saw herself as a facilitator when working with groups of mentor teachers and as someone who does not make the decisions for them but who helps them to make decisions for themselves in regard to mentoring student teachers. She likened herself to a conductor whose purpose it was to inspire players (students, teachers) to keep the rhythm and facilitate the tempo of mentoring relationships so that “together we make music.” Rose explained that she sometimes does things to bring conversations together and that she

doesn’t know everything but I can facilitate . . . [I] support the team, [but don’t have] more expertise than the players on their instrument, but more ideas about where the music needs to go . . . [The] conductor can’t necessarily play every instrument but knows the potential for each, and brings them together to flourish.

Like Kelly, Mike, and Jackie, Christine always ensures that she has a conversation about expectations of the teacher education program, although she is also aware of the need to “walk on eggshells” during these discussions. She believes that honesty in communication with teachers is essential and that as a trained coach “I have the social skills to do this delicate work . . . Sometimes when there is more tension, [I need to] be clear to all parties about what our different roles and responsibilities are.” Christine’s metaphor for herself was a mirror, saying that as a teacher educator she was “holding a mirror when I visit a school [and] I help them to reflect . . . I am part of the reflection process, I am present.”

Discussion

The learning about their professional selves that the teacher educators in this study were experiencing, as they shifted between identification as teachers and as teacher educators, highlighted Akkerman and Bakker’s (2011) contention that “what is typical in identification processes is that the boundaries between practices are encountered and reconstructed, without necessarily overcoming discontinuities. The learning potential resides in a renewed sense making of different practices and related identities” (p. 143). Most of the teacher educators were able to move quite easily between the worlds of school teaching and university, but some were also aware of the tensions and differences between these two professional contexts. Although sometimes a source of anxiety, this awareness helped them to make sense of their place in each community of practice, and to at least understand, if not resolve, any conflicts that may occur. Such boundary crossing and re-crossing is evidence of how the “lines of demarcation between practices are uncertain” (Akkerman & Bakker, 2011, p. 142) with teacher educators constantly shifting between being a teacher and being a teacher educator. For many, the line between these two professional identities is indistinct, and they see themselves as both one and the other, depending on the teaching context. These changes in positioning lead to the evolution or reframing of beliefs and understandings over time as teacher educators move into and between new professional spaces and develop different perspectives on teaching and learning.

Davey (2013) contended that being a teacher educator involves “an ongoing negotiation or dialogue among one’s past history and experiences, one’s values and ideologies and one’s current socio-cultural and politico-historical context” (p. 143). As teacher educators engage in professional practice in the third space, they are often stimulated to reflect on what teaching and learning can and should be for student teachers, and on what constitutes their role in this learning. Akkerman and Bakker (2011) argued that reflection about beliefs and understandings occurs in boundary spaces and that this encourages recognition and understanding of differences between practices and leads to new perspectives on one’s own and others’ practice. As former, or in some cases current schoolteachers, many teacher educators in the current study felt torn between knowing and understanding the mentor teachers’ perspectives and being exposed to new and different views about teaching and learning from their work as teacher educators. It was apparent that after working in universities, they were aware of changes in their own perspectives, and this led them to seeing a “bigger picture” of education rather than being limited to the perspectives of classroom teachers, however much they might understand and empathize with those views.

Despite the frustrations, however, the study revealed that many teacher educators value dialogue and engagement with mentors and student teachers and that many use these interactions to further develop their own practice. Akkerman and Bakker (2011) claimed that “where identification represents a focus on a renewed sense of practices and a reconstruction of current identity or identities, reflection results in an expanded set of perspectives and thus a new construction of identity that informs future practice” (p. 146). The different perspectives that teacher educators encountered in the third space clearly had an impact on their views of themselves and encouraged deep reflection on their pedagogy and its underlying beliefs and assumptions and on their contribution to student teacher learning. This learning and reflection sometimes occurs in complex situations that necessitate carefully constructed dialogue and professional conversations that acknowledge and value the range of perspectives and experiences brought to the discussion. This coordinating work (Akkerman & Bakker, 2011), or building of professional relationships through dialogue and engagement, is a central element of teacher educator practice in the third space. The ability to work effectively in this space appears to depend very much on the skills of teacher educators to traverse the sometimes tricky terrain of different professional worlds. Effective communication between teacher educators and mentor teachers is essential if productive learning for all participants in the third space is to occur.

Conclusion

The results of this study show that there are three essential dimensions of teacher educator learning and practice in the third space. These are (a) managing shifting conceptions of their professional identities as teachers and teacher educators, (b) identifying changing perspectives on teaching and learning, and (c) negotiating complex and sometimes difficult professional relationships. It was apparent from the study that shifting teacher and teacher educator identities and perspectives on learning are integral to the work of teacher educators in the third space. Being a teacher appeared to be an essential building block on which to develop an identity as a teacher educator, although the strength of this foundation differed between individuals. As teachers transition to become teacher educators, it is clear that their views on learning and teaching broaden and deepen, even though they maintain a strong empathy for the work of teachers in schools. New perspectives on learning and teaching develop, and this sometimes creates tensions within teacher educators when teachers in schools have different beliefs and priorities. These different perspectives can cause frustration, but the ensuing tensions can also lead to new understandings and the development of new and stronger pedagogical practices.

Part of managing these different perspectives is the need to negotiate potentially difficult relationships between teachers, teacher educators and, at times, student teachers. All participants in this study commented on the need to build trusting and respectful relationships through dialogue and that this could sometimes be a challenging task. Despite this, they overwhelmingly perceived themselves to be colleagues and peers of the mentor teachers and wanted to be seen as equal partners in the education of student teachers. Encountering and managing different beliefs about how this should happen appears to be part and parcel of the work of teacher educators in this third space. Although there were clearly frustrations and challenges, there were also significant benefits for teacher educators in relation to the ongoing development of their pedagogy and their sense of self and purpose. Some commented that they would be better teachers now if they returned to the classroom than they were prior to their work in universities.

Williams et al. (2012) noted that many beginning teacher educators feel a sense of institutional and professional isolation when they transition from teaching in schools to teaching in universities. One benefit of working in the third space is that it may help teacher educators maintain connections to their former communities of practice and professional identities while gaining new insights into their work as university-based teacher educators. Working in the third space, and reflecting on the implications of this work on their pedagogy and identity as teacher educators, is likely to be a significant factor in enabling teachers to make the transition to teacher educator. Collaboration in the third space provides an opportunity for all participants to work together to gain new knowledge and understandings about teaching and learning and to develop boundary practices that enhance the learning of teachers, teacher educators, student teachers, and ultimately school students.

Implications for Teacher Education

The findings from this study have important implications for teacher education. Current policy directions in many countries requiring greater cooperation and collaboration between universities and schools will necessitate ever-increasing professional interactions between teachers and teacher educators in this evolving third space. Knowledge of the complexity of working in this space makes it essential for leaders in teacher education faculties to recognize the importance and the challenges of this work and to provide adequate support and professional development for teacher educators taking on these roles. This should include opportunities to examine their personal and professional identities and beliefs and to understand how this impacts on their practice in university and in schools. Teacher educators also need to consider how to build and maintain complex professional relationships with mentor teachers for the mutual benefit of those working together in these boundary spaces. This is challenging and multifaceted work and needs to be prioritized by teacher education providers.

Increased collaboration in the third space provides learning opportunities not only for teacher educators but for teachers in schools as well. For example, there is the potential for them to become more involved in the development and delivery of university-based programs, which, in turn, can lead to new boundary practices and knowledge emerging from these collaborative professional endeavors. Future research might focus on the learning of others within this third space that was not considered in the current study, namely, mentor teachers, administrators, student teachers, and school students. There is also the potential to examine the role that others might play in the education of student teachers in collaboration with universities, such as community-based organizations and educators, which may create yet more diverse and dynamic boundary spaces and practices.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

I would like to acknowledge and thank the Monash University Faculty of Education for their support of this project.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The research reported in this article was funded by a Monash University Faculty of Education Small Grant 2012 Total funds: AUS$13,905.

Author Biography

Judy Williams is a senior lecturer in primary education in the Faculty of Education, Monash University, Australia. She has worked as a primary teacher for approximately 25 years and teaches in the professional experience program and professional studies at undergraduate and graduate levels. Her research and teaching interests are the professional learning of preservice teachers, self-study of teacher education practices, and professional experience.

References

Akkerman

Bakker

(2011). Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 132-169.

Bhabha

H. K.

(1994). The location of culture. London, England: Routledge.

Boyd

Harris

(2010). Becoming a university lecturer in teacher education: Expert school teachers reconstructing their pedagogy and identity. Professional Development in Education, 36(1-2), 9-24.

Bullock

S. M.

(2012). Creating a space for the development of professional knowledge: A self-study of supervising teacher candidates during practicum placements. Studying Teacher Education, 8(2), 143-156.

Cuenca

(2010). In Loco Paedagogus: The pedagogy of a novice university supervisor. Studying Teacher Education, 6(1), 29-43.

Cuenca

Schmeichel

Butler

Dinkelman

Nichols

(2011). Creating a “third space” in student teaching: Implications for the university supervisor’s status as outsider. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 1068-1077.

Davey

(2013). The professional identity of teacher educators: Career on the cusp? London, England: Routledge.

Department of Education and Early Childhood Development. (2014). Teaching academies for professional practice. Retrieved from http://www.education.vic.gov.au/about/programs/partnerships/Pages/tapp.aspx

EngestrÖm

(2004). New forms of learning in co-configuration work. Journal of Workplace Learning, 16(1/2), 11-21.

10.

EngestrÖm

Kärkkäinen

(1995). Polycontextuality and boundary crossing in expert cognition: Learning and problem solving in complex work activities. Learning and Instruction, 5(4), 319-336.

11.

Korthagen

Loughran

Russell

(2006). Developing fundamental principles for teacher education programs and practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 1020-1041.

12.

Martin

Snow

Franklin Torrez

(2011). Navigating the terrain of third spaces: Tensions with/in relationships in school-university partnerships. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(3), 299-311.

13.

Miles

Huberman

(1984). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

14.

Murray

Male

(2005). Becoming a teacher educator: Evidence from the field. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 125-142.

15.

Punch

(2009). Introduction to research methods in education. London, England: SAGE.

16.

Ritter

J. K.

(2007). Forging a pedagogy of teacher education: The challenges of moving from classroom teacher to teacher educator. Studying Teacher Education, 3(1), 5-22.

17.

Swennen

Shagrir

Cooper

(2009). Becoming a teacher educator: Voices of beginning teacher educators. In Swennen

van der Klink

(Eds.), Becoming a teacher educator: Theory and practice for teacher educators (pp. 91-102). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

18.

Tsui

A. B. M.

Law

D. Y. K.

(2007). Learning as boundary-crossing in school-university partnership. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 1289-1301.

19.

van Velzen

van der Klink

Swennen

Yaffe

(2010). The induction and needs of beginning teacher educators. Professional Development in Education, 36(1-2), 61-75.

20.

Williams

(2012). Exploring the third space between schools and universities: Implications for a teacher educator’s identity and practice. In Young

Erickson

Pinnegar

(Eds.), Extending inquiry communities: Illuminating teacher education through self-study (Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on the Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices, Herstmonceux Castle, UK, pp. 293-296). Provo, UT: Brigham Young University.

21.

Williams

(2013). Boundary Crossing and Working in the Third Space: Implications for a teacher educator’s identity and practice. Studying Teacher Education, 9(2), 118-129.

22.

Williams

Ritter

Bullock

S. M.

(2012). Understanding the complexities of becoming a teacher educator: Experience, belonging and practice within a professional learning community. Studying Teacher Education, 8(3), 245-260.

23.

Wood

Borg

(2010). The rocky road: The journey from classroom teacher to teacher educator. Studying Teacher Education, 6(1), 17-28.

24.

Zeichner

(2010). Rethinking the connections between campus courses and field experiences in college- and university-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1-2), 89-99.