Article Preview
Top(Novice) Teacher Educator Professional Development
Professional development initiatives for TEs exist in various formats and scopes. Professional organizations such as the Association for Teacher Educators, the Association of Teacher Education in Europe, and the Thematic Network on Teacher Education in Europe offer avenues for presenting and discussing research with fellow TEs (Buchberger et al., 2000; Smith, 2003). In Israel, the MOFET Institute provides coursework and workshops specifically targeted towards supporting TEs in the development of their pedagogies in teacher education (Smith, 2005). Additionally, some institutions offer programs led by expert TEs that foster collaboration, improved professional skills, and community practices for TEs seeking to engage in professional development (Shagrir, 2010). Some institutions offer a combination of formal and informal supports (Hodkinson & Taylor, 2002; Livingston, McCall, & Morgado, 2009; Smith, 2003). For example, departments may organize meetings where TEs share and discuss case studies or video-recorded teaching sessions. Or, TEs may receive feedback on their teaching formally (through course evaluations) or informally (by asking a colleague to do an observation). In spite of the relative success of these varied programs and initiatives, they are not widespread, nor do not specifically target NTEs.
Although limited, research on professional development for NTEs exists (e.g., Amador, 2016; Brody & Hadar, 2015; Dennis, Gelfuso, & Sweeney, 2018). For example, Kosnik and colleagues (2011) facilitated the development of a Beginning Teacher Educators group for NTEs at a Canadian institution. The Beginning Teacher Educators group held frequent meetings that included discussion of teacher education-related research, shared experiences, career paths for TEs, and observation of other (N)TEs. The authors of this study found that participating in this specific initiative led to NTEs developing improved skills as researchers, influenced their identity formation as TEs, and impacted their practices in the classroom. Similarly, the development of a collaborative self-study group at an institution in the United Kingdom, which was borne out of the need for improved induction for NTEs led to improved self-efficacy and positive identity formation as TEs (Jarvis, Dickerson, Chivers, Collins, & Lee, 2012). Notably, the collaborative component between the NTEs, each of whom had varying degrees of prior teaching experience, was critical towards the learning of the group. Jacobs, Yendol-Hoppey, and Dana (2015) described a context in which NTEs in the United States engaged in practitioner inquiry (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009). Through studying their own professional practice, these NTEs developed their understanding of their role as TEs and to innovate their own practices.
While there is an element of mentoring between TEs and experts that is implied in many of the above studies, there is existing research that centres on mentoring as a way to support NTEs (e.g., Draves & Koops, 2011; Smith, 2003; Smith & Ingersoll, 2004). In some institutions, NTEs are paired with experienced colleagues with whom they can discuss emerging problems, and these experienced colleagues are also available for verbal reflections, questions, and observations. Effective mentorship requires consideration of personalities and frequency of contact, and the value of the mentoring is often dependent on the quality of the relationship between the mentor and NTE (Goodwin et al., 2014; van Velzen et al., 2010). If both parties view the mentoring as part of a professional development process, it provides multiple opportunities for mutual learning. These mentoring initiatives, however, are typically in place to support NTEs as new faculty members in an institution. Thus, support that mentors provide may not solely focus on the NTEs’ role as TEs but also to support their induction to a new context/institution and a position that involves other responsibilities including research and/or service work (e.g., Greene et al., 2008; Goodwin et al., 2014; Murray & Male, 2005).