Abstract
The authors present findings from a qualitative study of an experience that supports teacher candidates to use discourse analysis and positioning theory to analyze videos of their practice during student teaching. The research relies on the theoretical concept that learning to teach is an identity process. In particular, teachers construct and enact their identities during moment-to-moment interactions with students, colleagues, and parents. Using case study methods for data generation and analysis, the authors demonstrate how one participant used the analytic tools to trace whether and how she enacted her preferred teacher identities (facilitator and advocate) during student teaching. Implications suggest that using discourse analytic frameworks to analyze videos of instruction is a generative strategy for developing candidates’ interactional awareness that impacts student learning and the nature of classroom talk. Overall, these tools support novice teachers with the difficult task of becoming the teacher they desire to be.
In a written reflection about an observed classroom interaction, Erica (a preservice teacher in a high school English classroom) reflected on the behavior of a young man. In her description, she explained he had “spotty attendance” because he had “a lot going on in his life.” During an observation with her cooperating teacher, this student put his head down on the desk. Erica elaborated,
I asked him if he was paying attention, and he said no. I asked him if he was still focused on succeeding, something that he and I have discussed. He said yes, but then shut his book and folder and put his arm out with his head on it . . . My supervisor, after his observation, criticized my handling of the situation, saying that sitting down one-on-one with him and asking him to complete a small portion of the work would have been a better approach . . . The next day . . . I asked him (along with the whole class) how they thought I performed during my observation. They said I seemed nervous, but the student who put his head down said I did a good job . . . He apologized for his behavior and said that he thought about what I asked him about success and though he was a little embarrassed, needed a reality check. He was on point the entire rest of the week.
During teacher education courses, Erica identified as a teacher who facilitated learning and advocated for her students. In this reflection, she expresses her difficulty with enacting both identities because of several constraints. First, she has difficulty facilitating learning with a student who is disengaged because of “spotty” attendance. Second, in an effort to enact a caring identity, she risked embarrassing the student by putting him on the spot. She questioned her interactions based on her supervisor’s response that she should have handled the situation differently. To further complicate the situation, her student gave her different input on the interaction in a discussion the following day and indicated that her response motivated him to participate more in class that week. At the end of the reflection, she continued to reflect about the “best” way to respond to the student during this interaction in ways that enabled her to enact her preferred teacher identities. Although she did not resolve her dilemma, we (two teacher educators) believe that this kind of thoughtful reflection about classroom interactions can help candidates enact desired teacher identities.
We begin with this excerpt to illustrate the complex ways that preservice teachers struggle to construct and enact preferred teaching identities. During the student teaching or internship experience, preservice teachers must perform identities consistent with school norms and expectations to enable others to view them as a teacher (Coldron & Smith, 1999; Haniford, 2010). Specifically, preservice teachers must learn to negotiate multiple ideologies from personal, professional, and institutional contexts to enact teacher identities that align with their teacher beliefs (Alsup, 2006).
Thus, we argue that one aspect of teacher education should include helping preservice teachers make sense of their identities by becoming “proactive and skilled in navigating places for themselves as teachers (i.e., agency)” (Fairbanks et al., 2010, p. 167). In particular, Moje and Lewis (2007) suggest that “greater attention must be given to the role of power in [a preservice teacher’s] opportunity” (p. 16) to construct and enact desired teacher identities. By opportunity to learn, we refer to the complex ecologies at work in a classroom and attend to the interplays of power among the micro- and macro-level structures operating in this space (Rex & Green, 2007). We focus the impetus for this call specifically on preservice teacher learning in the context of the student teaching experience. Opportunities to perform desired teacher identities “are both supported and constrained by the role of power in everyday interactions of students and teachers and by the systems and structures that shape the institution of schooling” (Moje & Lewis, 2007, p. 16). For example, Erica wanted to enact teacher identities connected to critical pedagogies by examining race, class, gender, and sexuality in the context of students’ everyday lives as a vehicle for building academic skills and knowledge, as stated in interviews and coursework. These desired teacher identities that aligned with her university coursework, however, were at odds with institutional constraints that demanded instructional time to be spent on test preparation. Performing teacher identities in schools involves cognitive and social performances that make one recognizable as a teacher by students, parents, colleagues, and administration. Thus, for Erica to be recognized as a successful teacher at her school, she needed to take on the identities of a test prep teacher. She worried, however, that if she took on test prep teacher identities, her university supervisor would not recognize her as a successful teacher.
When student teachers are not recognized as successful teachers when they enact desired teaching identities supported by demands such as test preparation, they often experience disjuncture between their teacher education coursework and what they may then deem the so-called realities of everyday teaching and learning. This disjuncture often relegates teacher education coursework as ideal and/or unrealistic in the context of classroom teaching. These dilemmas can cause novice teachers to quit teaching or conform to the desired teaching identities of the institution (Alsup, 2006) rather than leveraging conflicting demands in ways that allow them to construct and enact their preferred teacher identities. Such difficulties have the potential to negatively impact instruction and learning in the classroom. Thus, the identities a new teacher performs immensely impact the quality of instruction and school-wide achievement (Rex & Schiller, 2009). The job of teacher educators, then, is to not only teach future teachers about the methods and content of teaching in a disciplinary area but also engage them in analysis that examines everyday identity work in a classroom. More research needs to examine appropriate methods for facilitating this kind of identity work. We argue that discourse analysis of classroom interactions captured through video is one way for teacher candidates to critically examine how they construct and enact teacher identities. The following research questions guided our inquiry:
Discourse Analysis and Teacher Education
Informed by classroom studies that demonstrate the importance of talk and social interaction to learning (Allington, 2002; Applebee, Langer, Nystrand, & Gamoran, 2003), we note that to improve teaching and learning, teachers need to study their everyday language use in classrooms. Doing so provides teachers with a robust method for reflecting and improving upon their practice (Juzwik & Ives, 2010). An investigation of classroom interactions could help preservice teachers recognize specific interactions that enable and prohibit them from enacting preferred teacher identities (Vetter, Meacham, & Schieble, 2013). Rex and Schiller (2009) use the term “interactionally aware” (p. 155) to describe teachers who are informed about how talk impacts instruction and learning in classrooms. Interactional awareness, then, can be used to improve teaching by fostering reflection about how to construct classroom communities that reach the diverse needs of students. Specifically, preservice teachers who understand that identities are socially constructed have the opportunity to become more responsive to diverse learning identities of students because they recognize that learning is shaped by multiple factors (de Freitas, 2008). When teacher candidates recognize that learning identities are confined by classroom discourses, such as assumptions about what it means to be a “good” reader or writer, teachers can trouble those assumptions of what it means to be successful in school (de Freitas, 2008; Rex & Schiller, 2009). As a result, more research needs to examine how to engage preservice teachers in discourse analysis that fosters interactional awareness during student teaching—a time that is most crucial for understanding how to connect desired teaching identities with classroom practice due to the formative nature of the experience.
Video analysis of teaching has become a popular way for teacher educators to support candidates through reflective analysis of teaching. Such video cases have been used in teacher education to provide opportunities for teachers to take “notice” of interactions and events that were not easily observed while teaching (Sherin & van Es, 2009) and make connections between theory and practice (Brophy, 2004; Koc, Peker, & Osmoanoglu, 2009). Teacher candidates who engaged in this kind of analysis have been found to focus more on instruction during analysis than classroom management and write specific comments related to teaching and learning rather than on themselves (Rosaen, Lundeberg, Cooper, Fritzen, & Terpstra, 2008). The digital aspect of recorded lessons can also provide opportunities for preservice teachers to slow down the fast pace of classroom events and concentrate on close analysis of specific events (Sherin & van Es, 2009; van Es & Sherin, 2002). Researchers also indicate that video analysis might lead to better teaching practices, which has the potential to improve student achievement (Labbo, Kinzer, Leu, & Teal, 2004). Despite these promising findings, research on the effectiveness of examining video recorded lessons by teacher candidates is just beginning. Specifically, there are few research studies that examine how preservice teachers engage in identity work through discourse analysis and collaborative dialogue about video recorded classroom interactions.
To speak to that need, we conducted a qualitative study in spring of 2012 to explore how an assignment that required preservice teachers to use discourse analysis as an analytic and reflective tool helped with this alignment during the student teaching experience. Findings from this study suggested that this assignment uncovered how all participants struggled to enact desired identities. In this article, we demonstrate how one preservice teacher, Erica (pseudonym), used discourse analysis to reflect on how she positioned herself as a facilitator and advocate for her students’ literacy learning and aligned her desired teacher identities with her practice. We also attend to the moments of struggle and tension in the classroom that collided with her ability to enact these desired identities. The implications from this work suggest ways discourse analytic approaches help candidates examine how language in use impacts identity constructions and enactments.
Theoretical Framework
This research relies on the theoretical concept that learning to teach is an identity process. In particular, teachers construct and enact identities during moment-to-moment interactions with students, colleagues, and parents. We draw on definitions that describe identity as fluid, dynamic, and discursively constructed (Holland, Lachicotte, Skinner, & Cain, 1998). Specifically, we view identities as “self-understandings” or a “key means through which people care about and care for what is going on around them” (Holland et al., 1998, p. 5). Identities, then, are a toolkit for performing and contracting relationships with people in different social groups and situations (Gee, 2005). As a result, identity performances are dependent on the context. In other words, a student teacher might position herself as a teacher-centered instructor when teaching in front of a cooperating teacher who values such instruction. That performance is likely to change, however, when being observed by a university supervisor who values problem-based learning. Being observed by a supervisor and cooperating teacher who value competing performances causes a predicament for the student teacher who is recognized as a “good” teacher by one and not the other. Constructing teacher identities, then, is a process of understanding how social cues, linguistic codes, and appearance, for example, allow one to be a recognizable member of a social group. Taken through this lens, learning to teach is tied to the formation and production of teacher identities shaped by one’s life experiences and entrenchment within discourse communities (Moje & Lewis, 2007), such as schools.
Scholarship on teacher identities tends to focus on how educators negotiate conflicting discourses of their university and school (Britzman, 2003; Cooper & Olson, 1996) and how those negotiations shape teacher identities (Alsup, 2006; Danielwitz, 2001; Ronfeldt & Grossman, 2008). From such research, we know that to be successful at these negotiations, teachers must incorporate professional identities with personal expectations of what it means to be a teacher (i.e., borderland discourses; Alsup, 2006). Such mediations are always in flux, however, depending on the context (Sexton, 2008).
Research also shows that teacher educators can help students learn to mediate those competing discourses (Horn, Nolen, Ward, & Campbell, 2008; Ma & Singer-Gabella, 2011). Because teacher identities are an ongoing process, teacher educators can use that productive space to modify assumptions that teacher candidates bring with them about what it means to be a “good” teacher (Horn et al., 2008). Specifically, teacher educators can make new worlds visible to preservice teachers by teaching particular models of identity, such as reform mathematics pedagogy (Ma & Singer-Gabella, 2011). Teacher education courses could be places where students perform possible selves to support the construction and enactment of teacher identities over time (Ronfeldt & Grossman, 2008). When student teachers’ preferred identities are not necessarily aligned with what teacher educators want them to be, teacher candidates can also push back and shape the content and practices of teacher education courses. Such identity work is best when preservice teachers experience some tension during student teaching rather experiencing too much comfort or difficulty (Horn et al., 2008). In particular, if teacher education programs miss opportunities to help preservice teachers mediate and internalize pedagogical discourses, then candidates will likely not demonstrate that they had information or know how to use it in meaningful ways, such as making connections to the lives of students in curriculum (Haniford, 2010).
Less research, however, has illustrated how preservice teachers self-examine how they construct and enact teacher identities during student teaching. To support and examine how student teachers engage in such identity work, we use discourse analysis and positioning theory (Davies & Harré, 1990). We found that those concepts used together help candidates become aware that the structure and content of their talk is related to their identities and the way they are perceived by others (Rex & Schiller, 2009).
Positioning Theory
Positioning theory is a useful framework for understanding how teachers construct and enact identities over time and in relation to their students and colleagues. In other words, when a person takes up a position, they enact identities. If a preservice teacher positions herself as a discussion leader, she is enacting discussion leader identities at that moment in time. Positionality is defined as “the discursive process whereby selves are located in conversations as observably and subjectively coherent participants in jointly produced storylines” (Davies & Harré, 1990, p. 91). Positioning, then, is how people engage in conversation to “situate themselves and others with particular rights and obligations [and] take up or resist positions others create for them” (Rex & Schiller, 2009, p. 9). Furthermore, people position themselves either interactively (i.e., when a person positions another person) or reflexively (i.e., when a person position themselves) within a discursive interaction (Davies & Harré, 1990). These are known as first-order positionings. For example, a teacher may position her students as disengaged, and in turn students may take up that position by laying their head on the desk during classroom discussion. Dependent on issues of power and status, positions can be resisted and/or taken up during interactions, and new positions can be created, both spontaneously and purposefully.
Second-order positionings occur when first-order positionings are challenged during interactions. A student might resist the position given to him by the teacher as disengaged by participating in classroom discussion. Third-order positionings occur when first-order positions are challenged within another discussion about the first conversation. For instance, in a reflective discussion about a past interaction, a teacher might reposition students as engaged after noticing that they took notes about the discussion in their notebook. In other words, third-order forms of positioning are considered to be descriptive as they take place within talk or written discussion about past interactions. Students’ analysis of transcribed interactions and interviews about those transcriptions are examples of third-order positionings. More layers of analysis are made possible by considering first-, second-, and third-order positionings.
Teacher educators have typically used positioning theory to examine how teachers and students position themselves and others within classrooms (Clarke, 2006; Leander, 2002; Vetter, 2010). Teachers can intentionally or unintentionally position students in positive or negative ways through teaching that shapes the identity positions of learners and their membership in the classroom community (Reeves, 2009; Wortham, 2003). We know, then, that both the reflective and interactive positionings of teachers shape instructional practices (e.g., problem-based learning) and also their students’ access to identities (e.g., capable learner; Reeves, 2009). A student-led teacher might use open-ended questions to position students as participants of classroom discussions, whereas others might use recall questions as a teacher-centered technique, resulting in the exclusion of student voices. For preservice teachers, the examination of how such positions occur during moment-to-moment interactions can be helpful because it opens occasions for them to examine their identity enactments over time. In other words, positioning and identity theory can help preservice teachers think critically and purposefully about how to “become” the kind of teachers they want to become and negotiate identities within specific contexts (Ma & Singer-Gabella, 2011). Scholarship, however, has more work to do in investigating positioning theory as a tool for self-analysis with preservice teachers. We do just that in the study described below.
Research Context and Method
Data presented in this article were culled from a larger qualitative study. The study was conducted in two different English Education programs in the Northeast and Southeast United States. Participants for the larger study were preservice English teachers (n = 30) enrolled in a seminar course designed to support the student teaching experience. All participants were completing a university-based teacher preparation program toward initial certification in English (Grades 7-12), of which the seminar and student teaching were the culminating experience. Melissa and Amy were the seminar instructors for their respective course.
Student teachers video recorded their instruction 3 times at different points in the semester. For each of the three videos, candidates were required to transcribe or summarize 10 to 15 min of instruction and write a three-page reflection by engaging with the analytic tools. To study their interactions, candidates engaged in discourse analysis using the video and transcripts to examine the positions they enacted for themselves and their students and how students positioned them. Through watching three video recorded lessons at different points in time over the semester, candidates reflected in writing on how these positionings compared and contrasted with their desired teaching identities.
We wish to clarify that there exist numerous theories and methods related to classroom discourse studies (Rex & Green, 2007). For the purpose of using these tools with novice teachers, we selected elements of Gee’s (2005) broader approach to discourse analysis. Gee’s broader approach examines how everyday language practices (discourses) connect to larger ideologies and social groupings. This approach provided us, and our teacher candidates, with the methodological tools to connect micro-level practices (e.g., classroom talk) to larger macro-level ideas (e.g., constructivism). To modify the analytic process for preservice teachers, we presented candidates with a list of questions (see Table 1) and a chart to track positionings (see Table 2) across the three video recorded lessons that prompted them to apply these analytic tools without overwhelming them with theoretical and methodological constructs used by researchers.
Assignment Questions.
Chart to Track Positionings.
For example, candidates examined their video transcripts for specific language use (e.g., pronouns and content words) and made note of their non-verbal behaviors (e.g., standing at the front of the room). They then considered how these specific choices positioned them and their students in ways that either aligned or misaligned with their desired teacher identities. Students were also instructed to reflect on and analyze how specific examples of these positionings (both verbal and non-verbal) tied to the enactment of their preferred teacher identities. To illustrate, many candidates espoused theories presented in their teacher education program that valued being a constructivist teacher. To examine their enactment of this desired identity, candidates analyzed whether and how they asked open-ended questions to position students as knowledge builders in their videos. By engaging in this process a total of 3 times over the semester, candidates were able to reflect on how they did or did not enact preferred teacher identities over time.
We prepared students for this assignment by discussing several articles related to how classroom interactions shape teacher and student identities. Specifically, those readings included excerpts from Using Discourse Analysis to Improve Classroom Interaction by Lesley Rex and Laura Schiller (2009), and Choice Words by Peter Johnston (2004). As a whole group, we watched a video recorded classroom interaction from the Teaching Channel and examined interactive and reflective positionings by asking the following questions: (a) In what ways did the teacher position herself? (b) In what ways did the teacher position her students? and (c) In what ways did students position the teacher? We then discussed the advantages and disadvantages of this analysis. Topics included uncovering misalignments and the tediousness of this kind of examination.
Data Collection
Qualitative methods for data collection were used to construct an information-rich case study. Specifically, data were generated to construct an intrinsic case for each participant, which focuses on data collection within particular social, historical, and political contexts (Stake, 1995). Building an intrinsic case was most conducive to exploring our research questions because it allowed us to collect and present details important for a holistic understanding of a phenomenon. We selected one preservice teacher, Erica, as the focal participant for the case study reported on in this article. We chose Erica because she engaged in detailed reflection about the moments of alignment and tension between her desired teaching identities and her classroom practice. In addition to using the assignment tools well, we selected Erica’s case because the institutional factors that complicated her identity work, such as feeling pressure to teach to state tests, represent recurring issues that preservice teachers face during teacher preparation and into their careers. For more information on Erica, we provide rich description of her teacher identities at the beginning of the “Findings” section.
Data were generated from multiple sources during the seminar course. For each candidate, assignments were collected and photocopied. Amy and Melissa took field notes during class discussions of the assignment (six 90-min class sessions in total). In addition to the video analysis assignment, candidates in Melissa’s seminar posted weekly to a discussion forum to capture events, feelings, and questions that arose during student teaching. Although not required, candidates were encouraged to respond to each other’s posts and share their own experiences and resources as an additional form of support and reflection; many candidates responded to one another on a weekly basis despite the extra effort this demanded. For 12 consecutive weeks, these electronic conversations were archived on a password-protected discussion forum.
At Melissa’s institution, candidates (n = 15) created electronic portfolios and presented this work for a capstone graduation requirement once student teaching was completed. The portfolios were crafted using a web-based, password-protected software program housed by the university and were multimodal in design (e.g., included photos from student teaching and/or videos of instruction). Candidates’ portfolios documented the work completed during student teaching, their philosophies on teaching, and other content that demonstrated their learning. These portfolios were collected and served mainly to triangulate data from the video analysis assignment.
To collect data on participants’ perspectives in their first year of teaching, Melissa conducted 1-hr, semi-structured interviews with those who volunteered to share their insights 6 months after completing the program (n = 9). Erica was one of the participants interviewed. The purpose of these interviews was to investigate how coursework completed during the student teaching semester impacted their experiences during the first year of teaching. Each interview was audio recorded and transcribed.
Data Analysis
Analysis occurred in three phases. During the first phase, the authors organized all data sources generated by individual participants and treated each individual as an intrinsic case within the larger qualitative study. This phase of analysis helped us better understand the identities that preservice teachers constructed and enacted over time. Organizing the data corpus into individual intrinsic cases acknowledged the complexities of each teacher candidate as an individual with particular histories of participation (Rogers & Fuller, 2007) in the program. We engaged in a process of collaborative coding (Smagorinsky, 2008) to analyze the data set. Collaborative coding involves both researchers working in tandem to “reach agreement on each code through collaborative discussion rather than independent corroboration” (p. 401). Smagorinsky (2008) supports that collaborative coding allows for researchers’ knowledge and expertise to emerge in the coding process and produces a more generative and in-depth reading of the data.
Using a deductive approach, codes were initially developed based on a large-scale review of the research literature on teacher identity and the theoretical perspectives brought to the research. To examine the identity work of our preservice teachers, we used positioning theory to analyze video transcriptions and each of the three reflective assignments because it reveals identity enactments during interactions. Like our students, our first phase of analysis examined the reflexive and interactive positionings of teacher candidates. For each case, we deductively coded the data set for (a) how teacher candidates positioned themselves, (b) how teacher candidates positioned their students, and (c) how teacher candidates were positioned by others. We also noted first-, second-, and third-order positionings within these initial coding segments (Table 3).
Positioning and Identity Analysis.
We layered this initial analysis with inductive codes for how reflexive and interactive positionings constructed particular kinds of identities. For example, Erica’s talk in the transcript data and reflective writing positioned her students as in control of making decisions about their literacy needs (first- and third-order positionings). Thus, these lines in the data were additionally coded for constructing an advocate identity. We created a data matrix to merge interactive and reflective positionings with particular identity enactments to determine their frequency and also examine the contexts within which these enactments took place (a point we return to next). This analysis provided us with information about the teacher identities Erica constructed and enacted over time, which served as a foundation for analysis that addressed our two research questions. Thus, positioning theory served as a significant tool for both our students and us.
In contrast to the self-analysis of our students, we also noted places where micro- and macro-level institutional and contextual factors shaped these positionings (our second research question) and assigned these lines in the data with deductive codes generated by the authors’ experiences as English teachers and teacher educators. We defined and identified micro factors as local constraints or supports (i.e., within the classroom or school) that shaped interactions and practices (e.g., cooperating teacher expectations, school policies). We defined and identified macro factors as global constraints or supports (i.e., within the university, district, state, or nation) that shaped interactions and practices (e.g., common core standards, high-stakes exams). Analysis for these factors was applied to the codes for the first research question. In other words, if data revealed that a preservice teacher positioned herself as a critical pedagogue in her reflective assignment, we noted how micro and macro factors such as her teacher education program and/or cooperating teacher expectations in part shaped this position based on the author’s contextual understandings about the program. To give another example, when candidates wrote about feeling pressure to prepare students for state tests, we coded this line from the data as an institutional factor that constrained the teaching identities candidates desired to enact in the classroom. We then cross-checked codes from these data sources with how each individual constructed her preferred teaching identities by looking at sources that included teaching philosophies, electronic portfolios, and interview data to triangulate candidates’ desired teaching identities. Erica’s talk in transcripts of her teaching often revealed that she positioned herself as a caring advocate and her students as capable of making their own decisions about their learning (e.g., she gave them choices). Data from her teaching philosophy and electronic portfolio revealed her desire to act as a caring mentor and advocate for students in the classroom. Thus, data from these multiple sources helped us identify and code her preferred teaching identities and were used primarily to triangulate codes from the first level of analysis. We assigned inductive codes to raw data that could not be categorized by deductive codes. Examples of inductive codes for Erica’s case included positioning students as having hard lives and codes related to moments of tension and struggle such as facilitating critical dialogue with students.
From this phase, we became interested in how the video analysis assignment fostered identity work. Thus, our second phase of analysis focused on the ways in which Erica engaged in identity work through the discourse analysis of classroom interactions. For this analysis, we re-examined her reflections, discourse analysis charts, interviews, and videos for patterns related to overarching themes that indicated her identity work. From that analysis, we noted numerous instances in which Erica examined through discourse analysis how her positionings both aligned and misaligned with her preferred teacher identities. Thus, we discuss two prominent themes: (a) investigating identity alignments and (b) investigating identity misalignments (Table 4).
Identity Work.
Within those themes, we took note of instances when Erica recognized or did not recognize how micro- and macro-level supports and constraints impacted those alignments/misalignments. By this, we mean when Erica reflected on the ways in which classroom, school, university, and/or state/national policies shaped her interactions. We are not implying that there is a “right” way to recognize these issues. Instead, we argue that such awareness and reflection about the complexities of micro- and macro-level constraints open opportunities for preservice teachers to understand the complexity of identity work within a system. We then revisited the data set to select illustrative examples that we created into vignettes for the findings below.
Findings
This study illustrates how one preservice teacher used discourse analysis and positioning theory to engage in identity work related to teaching. To organize the Findings, we first begin with a rich description of Erica and her desired teaching identities. Next, we discuss how Erica investigated how her enactments aligned with her desired teacher identities through discourse analysis. To end, we explain how Erica examined the ways in which her enactments misaligned with desired teacher identities through discourse analysis. In both sections, we describe how Erica analyzed the ways in which micro- and macro-level supports and constraints impacted those alignments and misalignments.
Erica’s Desired Teaching Identities: Facilitator and Advocate
Erica, a European American female in her early 20s, was enrolled in a master’s level English Education program in a large public university in the Northeast United States. She was required to complete 60 days of student teaching at Clinton High School (CHS), which is a small secondary school in a large urban city (pseudonym). A majority of the student body at CHS is African American and Latino/a. High school students who attend this school have had difficulties both socially and academically in previous high schools, and they attend CHS to complete credit requirements to graduate and pass state exams.
Erica’s vision of herself as a teacher reflected a desire to position herself as a facilitator, learner, and advocate for her students. In her final portfolio, she explained,
As a teacher, my philosophy is to educate a whole person, one who has a past and a future, as well as who is presently in my classroom . . . [through] attention to learning for both my students and for myself.
Thus, she positioned her students as multidimensional and characterized her teaching as attending to her students’ previous life experiences and future goals. She also signifies teaching as a simultaneous learning experience and acknowledges the roles her students play in learning more about herself and her practice. As Erica came to know her students at CHS, she positioned her students as struggling in their personal lives in ways that she had not experienced. Using the discussion forum, she contemplated how to support her students through curriculum to address issues of gang violence, poverty, and depression. Early in the semester, she wrote, “Working in the [city] public schools brings a unique challenge for me, I’ve found. Almost all (with the exception of one, maybe two) of my students have HARD lives.” During her interview, Erica recounted,
A lot of the students I worked with had a lot of trouble with the law, or drugs or gangs, or things like that, so, I mean that’s a lot of baggage for someone who is 16 or 17 years old. I think it’s impossible not to consider that when you’re teaching . . . as someone who’s from a different educational background . . . I didn’t consider how much you have to consider the person at first, so once I realized that I was instantly more successful at teaching.
Consistent with her philosophy, Erica considered her students’ lives, and this informed how she positioned herself in the classroom as a facilitator and advocate for her students’ social and academic needs. To enact these identities, she stated that she made thoughtful choices about curriculum and built caring relationships with students to attend to the multiple dimensions of their lives. In the classroom, she positioned her teaching as engaging students to use writing and literacy to process hardships they experience outside of school. Early in the semester, she posted to the discussion forum: “I teach a Freedom Writer’s class and we specifically discuss and write about these difficulties, which I think is a positive outlet [for students].” Thus, Erica’s posts demonstrate that part of her desired teaching identities is to act as a facilitator who uses students’ lives as a vehicle for literacy development while being a caring advocate for their social and emotional well-being.
Erica envisioned her desired teaching identities as a facilitator of her own content knowledge with students’ disciplinary understandings, skills, motivation, and interests. She spent the previous semester completing a 36-hr fieldwork experience in this classroom. To prepare for student teaching, she also volunteered her own time the month before student teaching began to work 30 to 40 hr a week with her cooperating teacher (Bob) and the students. She wrote on the discussion forum at the start of student teaching, “spending the month [before] getting to know them, while planning, has made me very excited to teach.” A month into student teaching, she posted to the discussion forum that she hoped to “strengthen my skill at facilitating a thriving learning environment.” She contrasted these desired qualities with her own history of participation in schooling. In her third video reflection, she stated, “My school experience was based on a banking system of education. I reject that wholly for a constructivist/critical view, and have tried very hard to allow learning to be reciprocal.” Acknowledging that her own schooling positioned her as a student who was directed by her teachers, which also positioned her identities as a reader and writer in particular ways, led Erica to have a different vision of herself as an educator. She instead strived to be a facilitator and advocate, a power-sharing position grounded in a constructivist approach (also espoused by her teacher education program).
Last, Erica’s personal identities reflected her teacher identities. In her program portfolio, she described herself as “a wife, daughter, sister and soon to be a mother” and stated that these personal identities “contribute to my teaching, because just as a student is a whole person, so is a teacher.” Consistent with an advocate stance, Erica wrote about how she went back to school for education to answer a calling she had felt for many years while pursuing a career as a writer. She explained that “teaching [urban city] kids made the calling even stronger” and that she looked forward to the ability to “improve the education of the next generation” of children in the city where she had decided to raise her own family. From this description, we see Erica translate and negotiate (Alsup, 2006) her personal familial identities with her professional identities as a teacher and advocate for students whom she feels have been underserved by the city’s school system.
Investigating Identity Alignments
In all three of the assignments, Erica identified moments when she successfully aligned aspects of her practice with her desired teaching identities through her non-verbal behaviors and language choices. For example, her classroom setup was configured in a small circle of desks rather than rows, and she spoke to students in a consistently respectful manner (verified by her videos). She also maintained a calm, even tone and teacher presence, and addressed her students as adults who were capable of making their own decisions. Erica noticed this aspect of her practice in her reflection of her first video; she described how she facilitates student learning by creating a welcoming atmosphere:
In this class, and all of the time, I speak to the students in a friendly, conversational tone. I enjoy talking with them and teaching them and I try to make that clear in my tone of voice . . . so I feel as though my tone is authentic and successful toward the end of creating a comfortable classroom.
In this excerpt, Erica engages in analysis about how her tone potentially positions herself (“friendly, conversational”) as a facilitator and her students as valued contributors (someone she enjoys talking to). In addition, she states that she explicitly attempts to use her tone of voice to illustrate her desire to talk to students, which aligns with her desired identities to be a caring teacher who facilitates student-centered talk. Erica’s analysis is significant because she is aware that her tone, not just the content of her talk, has the power to position her in particular ways that shapes how she is perceived by students and how she enacts her desired teacher identities. In addition, she acknowledges that her tone also impacts the classroom community (“comfortable”), which could shape how students engage in learning. Her last statement recognizes that she attempts to listen to students’ questions and wants to ensure that they understand what is being taught.
To further explore how Erica examined her desired identities in practice, we present an extended vignette from her first teaching video and reflection assignment. For the lesson, Erica’s goal was to review a non-fiction reading previously covered on political conflict and genocide in Sudan. She then wanted students to compare this reading with a poem written by a former student. The poem detailed the hardships the author faced related to violence and poverty. The purpose of this lesson was to prepare students to use both texts to write comparatively on the theme of struggle as practice for their upcoming state language arts exam. These curricular choices were consistent with Erica’s desire to use curriculum to help students process difficulties they face in their lives.
During the lesson, a student (Jamal) expresses his need to re-read the materials. He begins by asking Erica if he needs to read both “Too Many Evils” and the poem written by the student. Erica responds to his question:
We’re gonna use “Too Many Evils Darken the Sky” and this poem?
Yep, I’ll write it on the board. We read that, and if you need to re-read it . . .
We read this right?
We read that, and if you need to re-read it . . .
Yeah, I’ll read it . . .
. . . If you need to re-read you should have plenty of time to read and to write, uh, the paragraph in the period so try to finish by the end of the period.
We gotta read both of them right?
Yeah.
Yeah, I need to re-read ’em.
In her reflection about the above interaction, Erica acknowledged how her micro-level language choices positioned the student as a capable reader who is able to make his own choices to guide comprehension of the material:
I also try to individually answer questions, for example when the student asked if we already read “Too Many Evils . . . ” I respond, “We read that, and if you need to re-read it . . . ” I think it is good that I did not issue a directive, such as “Reread it,” even though I knew he needed to. Like most people, Jamal likes to make his own decisions.
Erica engages in discourse analysis that highlights how she attempts to enact her goal of acting as a facilitator. In particular, she provides an example from the interaction that illustrates how she intentionally did not issue a directive and provided space for Jamal to make his own decisions as a reader. Specifically, Erica re-imagines how different language choices (i.e., directives) might have impacted her relationship with her student and how he positioned himself as a learner. Rather than tell him what she knew he needed to do, Erica recognizes that she carefully negotiates the classroom interaction to guide the student in applying a strategy to support his comprehension. Thus, her own discourse analysis of this event allows Erica to capture and articulate how word choices became conscious elements of facilitating in the classroom (Juzwik, 2006), supporting her preferred teacher identities.
In the next example, Erica reflects about how her language choices with her student (Alton) and cooperating teacher (Bob) shaped her enactment as an advocate. We provide the interaction first and the reflection second.
Can I have a dictionary?
No dictionaries.
We can’t?
You wouldn’t have one on the (state exam).
I don’t know what a word means.
Well, all right, (Erica), if you want to let them use it that’s your call.
I mean, it’s for my own benefit. I just don’t know the word . . .
But it’s not a true assessment if you have help.
Well, I guess I won’t know the word.
Do you agree Erica . . . or do you want to let him do it?
I disagree . . . because I think it’s an assessment . . .
Go ahead.
. . . but an exercise as well.
It doesn’t make any sense.
Well I rather that he know it so that if he wants to use it on the actual exam . . .
In Erica’s analysis of the event, she recognizes how she enacts her preferred teacher identities as an advocate for students despite the resistance from her cooperating teacher:
In this situation, we [Erica & Bob] agree through body language to have the disagreement in front of the students. As I suspected and later confirmed with him, it was a bit of a good cop/bad cop role. He initially didn’t want [Alton] to use the dictionary, but stuck with that line of thinking in order for the students to see my line of reason for defending them. I explain that I think this assignment is “an assessment but an exercise as well.” Further, I explain that I’d rather he learn the word and have it in his vocabulary for future use . . . The students went on to write their paragraphs after these discussions, and after class Alton approached me and said that he appreciated my advocacy and felt that my gentler hand in the classroom was enabling his learning . . . I think that my advocacy of Alton supports him as a student and as a reader and writer.
From her analysis, Erica acknowledges that Bob positioned her as a teacher capable of making informed decisions about teaching and learning. In addition, she states that she and her cooperating teacher situated each other as “good cop/bad cop” to allow her to build rapport with students and ultimately enact the advocate identities that she preferred. Specifically, she mentions her word choice of “assessment but an exercise as well” to illustrate how she attempted to make the assignment purposeful for her students while also satisfying her cooperating teacher. In other words, she purposefully chose those words during her teaching to try and negotiate conflicting positions. She recognizes, then, that her teacher identities are impacted not only by how students position her but also by how colleagues position her through verbal and non-verbal exchanges. Furthermore, Erica notes that Alton positions her as an advocate (“appreciated my advocacy”) through humorous exchanges, which solidifies how she successfully enacted preferred teacher identities. This kind of feedback from students is important for Erica because it confirms that students are interpreting interactions in the ways she intended. Finally, Erica acknowledges that she positioned her student as a reader and writer who can use tools (the dictionary) to support his reading and writing skills, beyond the test. Those reflective statements represent Erica’s notions that learning is more than merely assessment. As stated, this belief bumped up against the ideology of her cooperating teacher. Fortunately, Erica was able to negotiate that tension with the support of Bob and her students. This validation is important because it can guide her future behavior. Overall, Erica recognized how she used verbal and non-verbal language to navigate the conflicting beliefs between students and colleagues in ways that allowed her to position herself as an advocate.
Investigating Identity Misalignments
Erica also used discourse analysis to examine moments when she was unable to enact her preferred teacher identities. In addition, she noted how macro-level power structures challenged her ability to fully enact her desired teaching identities. As stated, we know Erica desired to be a teacher who facilitates student learning and listens to her students to inform her pedagogical decisions. This was not always easy for Erica to manage, especially as a student teacher in a school under pressure to improve student performance on high-stakes exams. Erica noted that in the following interaction related to the student-authored poem, she missed an important opportunity to talk about the meaning and relevance of the poem to students’ lives.
[Erica distributes the poem and students begin to read it silently.]
Some people really have it bad.
That’s right. It’s really well-written. It’s really nice. Poem of my life. And then we’re going to use evils. And then our controlling idea is struggle. Does anyone have any questions?
In particular, Erica wrote that she struggled to figure out how to react to Alton’s comment in response to the student-authored poem. Although the poet’s name was kept anonymous, the poem presented personal hardships that connected with the class theme of struggle. Students were very curious about the author of this poem and asked Erica whether the poet was a male or female and if the author’s school schedule was similar to their own. Erica explains that she chose the text because it connected to the lives of students and potentially garnered interest from them. Under pressure to prepare students for the test, however, Erica reflects on how she had missed an opportunity to critically discuss the student-authored poem with her students. Erica, feeling compelled to move students into writing about the controlling idea of struggle, responded briefly in agreement that the poem is “well-written” and pushed the group to continue to focus on their writing for the assessment. Reviewing her video and transcripts, Erica notices how the student personally responded to the poem and how her response contradicted with how she viewed herself as a teacher:
That was an opportunity for a discussion on so many different topics; education being just one. Sometimes, it is important to stay on task in a 45-minute class and that was my focus at that time. I probably won’t do it different for that reason, but in an ideal situation, I would engage the class in a discussion about how some people do have it bad and how we can help them and ourselves.
In this reflection, Erica recognizes that she positions herself as a teacher more concerned with staying on task than engaging in a relevant discussion with students, a misalignment with her preferred facilitator and advocate identities. Specifically, she states that she missed an opportunity to facilitate student-led conversation by choosing specific types of talk over others, such as teacher-driven talk versus student-centered dialogue. Thus, Erica was aware that her word choice shaped the direction of the conversation and had potential to shut down some student talk. Although Erica reflected on the need for more critical dialogue with students, she also retracts this by saying that kind of dialogue is only possible within an “ideal” classroom situation. Thus, Erica struggles to situate herself through her preferred teaching identities in this example. Erica’s interpretation of school-based pressures to prepare students for the state-level exam at the macro level impacted her ability to enact her desired teaching identities as advocate and facilitator. She is aware of how pressure to cover content complicated and ultimately trumped her desire to act as an instructional facilitator and allow students’ interests and needs to guide discussion. Although her awareness of these institutional issues is important, she does not discuss how she might prepare students to succeed on high-stakes exams while also facilitating student-led discussion. Thus, she appears to believe a facilitator and advocate cannot help students succeed on high-stakes exams. Overall, through discourse analysis, Erica recognized how she used her language to shut down dialogue for the sake of skill-and-drill practice.
Erica further noted from this classroom interaction, however, that she might rush students too much during discussions. She wrote,
I intend on listening more carefully and responding more thoughtfully to the students’ responses. Sometimes, I breeze past some good answers in the name of “facilitation” when slowing down and examining how the answer might better serve the discussion would be better.
Thus, Erica realized her tendency to rush past students’ talk to keep the discussion moving—noting that in the moment she thought she was acting as a facilitator, but was in fact controlling the discussion and facilitating test preparation versus student discussion. Erica also may have placed the word facilitation in quotation marks to signify that she assumed she was enacting her desired identities at the time, but the video and analysis helped her to notice this was not the reality. She recognized a misalignment between how she reflexively positioned herself as a facilitator who positions students as co-constructors of the discussion, but the video analysis reveals that she instead positions her students’ comments as less valued than she intended. This is a sophisticated reflection that as teacher educators we know to be challenging for novice (and experienced) teachers. Based on examining her vision of herself as a facilitator in practice, Erica recognized that in the future she needed to listen more to students to guide the direction and content of classroom dialogue.
Discussion
Because learning to teach is an identity process, it is essential that preservice teachers have the opportunity to engage in identity work during teacher education courses. This study examined how one teacher candidate participated in identity work through discourse analysis and positioning theory of video recorded interactions. In particular, Erica’s identity work consisted of investigating how her positions aligned or misaligned with preferred teacher identities. We believe this to be important identity work because it challenges teacher candidates to be aware that the discursive choices they make “determines whether or not all their students will be perceived as capable and recognized as worthy of having something to say” (Rex & Schiller, 2009, p. 154). Specifically, Erica reflected on the process of using positioning theory to understand her identity work in her third iteration of the assignment:
I have a record of how my relationship with my students has grown. It is important to see where you stumble, how you speak, and how your body language speaks to the class. In the first video, I appear stiff, I stumble over my words and I made some missteps in communicating and positioning myself as a teacher . . . There are definitely always things to be improved upon, but I think continually analyzing your teaching, especially through video, is an excellent tool for self-improvement. Inevitably, the way you think you teach in the moment and the way you teach when looking at it from outside the moment is different. Being able to identify and adjust the disparity is invaluable.
As stated, the project created opportunities for Erica to identify how she made sense of her teaching identities and how they matched with her practice. As Erica reported, she noticed growth across the three videos that she completed over time in regard to how her relationship with her students developed. Specifically, she noticed changes in her non-verbal language (e.g., appearing stiff) and how this impacted the classroom environment. She also noted the subtle impact that micro-level language choices (e.g., tone, various word choices) had on her ability to enact her desired teaching identities. Although Erica did not complete a trajectory of her learning throughout all three videos (that was not the assignment), she does recognize the value in examining enactments of teaching to make purposeful adjustments. This relates to Olsen, as cited by Sexton (2008), who supports that tracking such learning “reveals a process—a path, of sorts—by which individuals can become more conscious, and in more control, of the contours of their own professional development” (pp. 14-15). This statement confirms findings that Erica used discourse analysis to examine how she enacted her desired teacher identities during moment-to-moment classroom interactions. Furthermore, she recognized moments in which these enactments both aligned and misaligned with her preferred teacher identities (i.e., facilitator and advocate). When misalignments occurred, Erica recognized that macro-level influences (pressure to perform skill and drill practice for high-stakes exams) and her own language choices impacted how she envisioned her teaching and what occurred in practice. Thus, findings suggest that discourse analysis was a useful tool for Erica to engage in identity work. Specifically, the use of positioning theory enabled Erica to view how she enacted her identities through interactions over time. Because our goal as teacher educators is to develop interactionally aware teachers, we discuss how positioning theory and discourse analysis provided a systematic way for Erica to practice such awareness.
First, positioning theory and discourse analysis provided the opportunity for Erica to view how she enacted her teacher identities. Erica recognized a moment when she advocated for a student in her classroom (e.g., allowing the student to use a dictionary). Recognizing these moments is an important part of constructing teacher identities because it helps teacher candidates understand how to sustain particular identities over time. In addition, it can help teachers examine the complexities of interactions. For example, Erica had to push back against the ideologies of her cooperating teacher to enact advocate identities. Although this situation did not pose any issues for Erica, teachers might be hesitant to enact preferred identities because it may come at a cost (i.e., alienation from colleagues, low evaluation from administration). Thus, this kind of discourse analysis can not only help teachers recognize how difficult identity work within an institution might be but also open dialogue about how to negotiate those tensions and practice agency.
Second, the assignment highlighted moments when Erica examined how she positioned students. Erica wrote about a time when she shut down a student comment about a poem they read to move on to test practice. She recognized that this interactional choice positioned the students as non-participants in the classrooms. Thus, through her word choice, she told students that their personal interest in a poem is not valued in the class. What is valued, however, is test practice. Although this conflicted with her preferred goals of advocating for students and integrating relevant material into the curriculum, she recognized that institutional constraints and pressures impact the choices teachers make. Being aware of why teachers make these choices in the moment is important because students are positioned through talk in particular ways that either include or exclude them as learners (Juzwik & Ives, 2010; Rex & Schiller, 2009). For Erica, this analysis opened a space for her to be aware of students’ identities as learners and reflect on how their response to specific interactions shapes learning. Thus, the analysis of how a teacher positions students during interactions can uncover how and why students adopt particular identities over time (e.g., comedian or resistant student) so that teachers can make interactional shifts that open up new ways of positioning from students (Vetter et al., 2013). This kind of analysis may also be an interesting endeavor with cooperating teachers, teacher educators, and mentors to become more interactionally aware of how they position novice teachers in the classroom.
Third, the analysis fostered discussion about how students positioned her as a teacher. Sometimes, teachers may intend to position themselves in one way, but students interpret it differently and position teachers in ways that do not match their preferred identities. For Erica, however, her identity enactments were confirmed. For example, she recognized that one of her students situated her as an advocate when he thanked her for sticking up for his dictionary use in class. In addition, another student affirmed that her comments about his disengagement changed his behavior. Thus, Erica was able to see that students positioned her in ways that she intended. Identity work is complex. It is a negotiation that depends on the people around us. If we intend to facilitate but students situate us as lecturers by not engaging in conversation, then we have to re-evaluate how we enact that facilitator position. When we are perceived in the way we intend to be perceived, teaching and learning become more fluid and comfortable. When teachers are not, they must figure out the root of the misconnection. For example, in another case from this study, misconnections were due to cultural and linguistic differences (Vetter et al., 2013).
Although Erica’s analysis opened opportunities for her to engage in identity work, some opportunities were missed. One area we noted that needed more scrutiny was how her personal identities (e.g., White, female) were noted but needed further analysis in relation to how these influenced practice and curricular decisions. Considering the situated context of her identities, her experiences with schooling, and her students’ identities, Erica wrote in her third video reflection,
Though there are some race, class and gender differences between my students and me, I try not to let them dominate the relationship, though I remain respectful of our differences. I think it is important as a teacher to learn from your students, to pay attention to what they are telling you.
Although Erica does not name her race, class, and gender differences as related to a position of privilege working with underprivileged students, she does demonstrate critical reflection on how to equalize the power relationship by learning from her students and using their lives and experiences as a guide for building relationships and facilitating learning. Beyond acknowledging that many of her students experienced hardships in life that differed greatly from her own, Erica struggles to move from making curricular choices about readings (e.g., short stories on genocide in Sudan and student-authored poem) to facilitating the level of critical dialogue and higher order thinking needed to help students’ process these readings in relation to their lives. Using discourse analysis to reflect upon these moments can help teacher educators to assist preservice teachers to set goals and strategies for improving their practice in particular areas. Although Erica clearly became more comfortable with this kind of analysis over time by using word choice as evidence of her positions, deeper analysis using language as evidence could improve interactional awareness even more. In addition, asking preservice teachers to intentionally reflect on their growth trajectory over time with evidence from the videos could provide another layer of analysis that fosters identity work and learning.
Consistent with previous research, findings suggest that Erica’s analysis of video recorded moment-to-moment interactions highlighted for her specific consistencies and discrepancies in her teaching practices. Although some studies indicate that when preservice teachers engage in video self-analysis they notice differences between their recollection of a particular interaction and what a video segment reveals (Rich & Hannafin, 2009; Welsch & Devlin, 2006), others suggest that video self-analysis reveals consistencies (or inconsistencies) between teacher beliefs and those that appear in video recorded lessons (Bryan & Recesso, 2006; Wang & Hartley, 2003). Rosaen et al. (2008) suggest that this kind of “noticing” may foster preservice teachers’ analysis of “how conversational elements . . . impact instructional elements of a discussion” (p. 514). As discussed above, this study extends prior research in video self-analysis by exploring how positioning theory aided a preservice teacher in her analysis of the ways she positioned herself and her students through discursive interactions, how such positionings aligned (or did not align) with her desired teacher identities, and the degree to which micro interactions were constrained by larger contextual influences on her teaching practice. As evidenced, for example, by Erica’s discussion of not just the content, but also the tone of her classroom talk, video self-analysis supported Erica’s interactional awareness.
Implications
Without data of classroom interactions through modes including video, preservice teachers rely on memory and their construction of events to engage in reflection of teaching and learning (Rosaen et al., 2008). The study points to how interpretive frameworks offer candidates opportunities to assess video in structured ways. Several studies have focused on helping candidates notice aspects of their practice through video, including identifying teacher-centric practices and moving to a focus on student learning (Rich & Hannafin, 2009; Rosaen et al., 2008). We contend that discourse analytic approaches using positioning theory allow candidates to focus specifically on how their linguistic and non-verbal choices impact the enactment of identities related to teaching and learning. This type of framework helps candidates notice how they build relationships with students and scaffold academic language in the classroom in ways that invite students to see themselves as capable literacy learners and take more ownership over their learning. Rex and Schiller (2009) note,
Telling teachers to increase collaboration in their classrooms is not sufficient . . . To be able act productively to change the situation, we need to understand how to see the worlds in which we and our students have invested identities and the assumptions guiding the discursive choices we have available to us. (p. 43)
The set of questions we developed (see Table 1) could be useful for candidates across all content areas, grade levels, and contexts because they ask questions that speak to the development of teachers in general. Teacher educators could modify some of the questions to fit specific levels or areas, such as the following: How do you position your students as historians, mathematicians, or scientists? Additional questions might focus on helping novice teachers recognize how micro and macro factors impact their identity work and might include the following: How do school policies or your cooperating teacher’s expectations shape the way you position yourself and your students? Do these factors help or hinder your work to enact the teacher you desire to be in the classroom? To learn more about how these strategies work in teacher education programs and beyond, more research needs to examine how teachers’ use of discourse analysis of classroom interactions shapes practice over time. Referring to Rex and Schiller, simply telling candidates that student engagement is an area in need of improvement does little to scaffold how our candidates may actually move toward improving the problem. In particular, our study raised the following questions about the complexities of doing discourse analysis in teacher education courses: How can teacher educators best support this kind of analysis for preservice teachers? In what ways can teacher educators challenge preservice teachers to use discourse analysis to examine how identity markers shape teaching enactments? How can teacher educators help preservice teachers deal with the misalignments that occur between field placements and teacher education courses? In regard to the above questions, we hope to engage in more research that examines how specific types of small and large group dialogue in field placement seminars can foster the complex thinking required in such examinations. Answers to the above questions would offer depth to our findings that illustrated the ways in which discourse analysis and video offer tools for teachers, supervisors, cooperating teachers, and even teacher groups to identify and problem solve the questions they have about their practice in actionable ways over time.
Footnotes
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) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.