“I remember being aware of how I was being positioned by my school”: How early experiences with deficit views of education influence the practices of literacy teacher educators

Teaching and Teacher Education 77 (2019) 90e99

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

“I remember being aware of how I was being positioned by my school”: How early experiences with deficit views of education influence the practices of literacy teacher educators* Pooja Dharamshi Simon Fraser University, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby, BC, V5A 1S6, Canada

h i g h l i g h t s
Direct connections between the LTEs' early life experiences and their current practice.
Developed broadened conceptions of literacy teaching and learning.
Understood in and out of school literacy practices as equally important to the meaning making process.

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 17 April 2017 Received in revised form 19 September 2018 Accepted 21 September 2018

This paper explores how the practices and pedagogies of U.S. literacy teacher educators with a critical stance were influenced by their early life experiences. Findings from this study revealed that early life experiences directly informed their broadened conceptualizations and enactments of literacy pedagogy. Teacher education programs need to provide teacher educators with opportunities for collaboration to learn from one another, while broadening the experiences from which they construct their literacy education curriculum. Crown Copyright © 2018 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Teacher education Literacy teacher educators Critical literacy

1. Introduction Literacy teacher educators (LTEs) play a key role in student teachers’ development of the skills, knowledge, and dispositions required to be effective classroom teachers for diverse classroom settings (Rogers, 2013). They introduce student teachers to new ideas about teaching and learning, and encourage them to unpack their own assumptions and embrace practices they may not have encountered during their own schooling (Kosnik, Dharamshi, Miyata, & Clevoulou, 2014; Williamson, 2013). Above all, LTEs have the potential to guide student teachers in re-imagining literacy education as a place “fundamentally about equity, access and justice” (Lytle, 2013, p. xvii). (see Tables 1 and 2) Emerging research, however, on equity and justice in teacher education has revealed that although there has been a push

* This work was supported by the Social Sciences and Research Council (SSHRC) of Canada. E-mail address: [email protected].

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.09.015 0742-051X/Crown Copyright © 2018 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

towards addressing critical issues of diversity and multiculturalism in teacher education courses, this effort is often artificially implemented (Dixson & Dingus, 2007; Evans-Winters & Hoff, 2011; Williams & Evans-Winters, 2005). Researchers have identified several reasons for this, including: teacher educators who don't identify with this work are being forced to teach it (Ladson- Billings, 2005a; Williams & Evans-Winters, 2005) and teacher educators are using an “add-on” approach to teaching because they are simply appeasing a call to action (Williams & Evans-Winters, 2005). Ladson-Billings (2005) argues these tensions are a result of “disconnections between and among the students, families, and community and teachers and teacher educators” (p.229). There is a need for rethinking practice in teacher education. This calls for research focused on teacher educators' beliefs about teaching and learning in relation to their own critical literacy practices. Focusing on one aspect of a research study, this paper aims to examine the ways in which LTEs draw on their early life experiences when negotiating a critical stance into their current practices and pedagogies in their teacher education classrooms. A critical stance has been described as the attitudes and dispositions essential to

P. Dharamshi / Teaching and Teacher Education 77 (2019) 90e99

91

Table 1 Overview of Three Participants as of February 2015 (all are faculty at U.S. universities). Participant

Racial Background

Years Teaching in the Classroom (K-12)

Grade Level (Primary: 1e5; Intermediate: 6e8; Senior: 9e12)

Years in Teacher Education (Tenure-track Faculty)

Faculty Position

Sample Research Topic

Maya

Latina

2

Early Childhood Education, Primary

4

Assistant Professor

Paul

White

5

Intermediate, Senior

6

Associate Professor

Misa

Black

2

Intermediate

6

Associate Professor

Ethnographic study on first-grade writing practices Literature discussions in High School English courses Ethnographic study of Black and Latina student teachers

Table 2 Samples codes which emerged from analysis. Sample Codes & Sub-Codes Early Childhood Experiences

Pedagogies

Family Classroom Cultural Community Goals for Course Knowledge Dispositions Skills Educational Background Graduate Ph.D. Topic Continuity of Ph.D. in current work

Texts
Digital
Bilingual
Multimodal Assignments Community Building Course Format
Pre-set curriculum
Organic curriculum Theorists which inform course Bridging theory and practice
university-school partnerships

“way[s] of knowing and being in the world of educational practice that carries across educational contexts … that links individuals to larger groups and social movements intended to challenge the inequities perpetuated by the educational status quo” (CochranSmith & Lytle, 2009, p. vii). A deeper exploration of the intersection of teacher educators’ backgrounds, beliefs, and practices will allow for development of theoretical understandings of the unique professional group. Gist (2014) notes: The teacher educators' sociopolitical consciousness in praxis (e.g., confronting the inequitable distribution of power and privilege in the teacher education classroom through commitment and pedagogical action) offers a window through which to see the culturally responsive [teacher] educators as a construct (p. 279). LTEs as a unique professional group need to be understood and thus a more widely researched (Goodwin & Kosnik, 2013; Loughran, 2011; Martinez, 2008). The research questions that guided this aspect of the study are:
What are the defining early life experiences of literacy teacher educators with a critical stance?
How do literacy teacher educators draw on their early life experiences to inform their views, practices and pedagogies?

2. Teacher educators: A unique professional group 2.1. Teacher educators Researchers have raised concerns regarding the absence of sustained and systematic research on the preparation, knowledge and practices of teacher educators (Berry, 2007; Cochran-Smith, Davis, & Fries, 2004; Goodwin & Kosnik, 2013; Ladson-Billings, 2005; Loughran, 2006; Martinez, 2008). Goodwin and Kosnik (2013) argue that quality teacher preparation depends on quality

teacher educators (p. 334). Yet, we know relatively little about what teacher educators should know and do as a professional group. Scholars of teacher education have responded to the call for better understanding this group of professionals. There has been a growing body of research on teacher educators as a professional group, including: their transition from the classroom context to the university context (Goodwin & Kosnik, 2013; Loughran, 2006; Murray & Male, 2005; Zeichner, 2005) their knowledge, practices and pedagogies (Goodwin & Kosnik, 2013; Korthagen, Kessels, Koster, Langerwarf, & Wubbels, 2001; Loughran, 2011) and their role in enacting critical literacy practices (Mosley, 2010; Rogers, 2014; Skerrett, 2009; Vasquez, Tate, & Harste, 2013). Further, significant contributions to the literature on culturally relevant pedagogies and teacher education have been made, which have direct implications on the work of teacher educators. LadsonBillings (2006) has suggested pedagogical considerations for teacher educators which consider and respond to “disconnections” in teacher education mentioned above:
Giving prospective teachers an opportunity to interact with children in non-school settings and seeing students in places where they are likely to be experiencing success (e.g., community centres, clubs, teams)
Structuring experiences and activities for student teachers to closely look at their cultural systems and begin to recognize the cultural underpinnings of their own beliefs, attitudes, and practices
Considering and valuing the global dimensions of teacher education in order to give student teachers a chance to see schooling in other parts of the world and help student teachers see the commonalities in human learning coupled with the specifics of culture in various settings (Ladson-Billings, 2006, p. 109). With scholarship on teacher educators as a professional group increasing, there has been an emergence of knowledge of the subgroups of teacher educators, including literacy teacher educators. In their study of literacy teacher educators, Kosnik, Dharamshi, Menna, Miyata, and Clevoulou (2015) argued literacy teacher educators have their own set of expectations, skills, and consequently unique needs. Their knowledge base, backgrounds, career trajectories, and visions of teacher education are unique, and they face specific challenges and so had to adopt “spheres of knowledge” specific to their content area (e.g., literacy research, pedagogy of teacher education). These expansive and over lapping spheres reveal the complex work of LTEs because they “span two disciplines, literacy and teacher education” (p. 138). What remains understudied in the landscape of research on this group is an understanding of their experiences prior to entering teacher education. 3. Lives of teacher educators While extensive research has been conducted on the lives of

92

P. Dharamshi / Teaching and Teacher Education 77 (2019) 90e99

teachers and student teachers; including their beliefs, identities; approaches in the classroom; and life histories (Benevides & Stagg Peterson, 2010; McGlynn-Stewart, 2016; Nathanson, Pruslow, & Levitt, 2008; Smith, 2005), relatively little has been documented about the early lives of teacher educators. Studies of early life experiences of K-12 teachers revealed that both inside and outside classroom activities profoundly affected the development of the educators' beliefs and practices (McGlynn-Stewart, 2016) and that the out of classroom experiences were potentially more influential than teachers' formal classroom experience in shaping teachers’ guiding beliefs about teaching and learning (Smith, 2005). A few studies exploring the early lives of teacher educators have indicated that a link exists between early experiences and conceptualizations of teacher education and enactments of pedagogies. Stenhouse (2012), who explored the relationship between lives of teacher educators and their understanding of diversity education, found that teacher educators had pivotal early experiences (e.g., mentor teachers; childhood experiences in the classroom; involvement in community events) that shaped their stance towards teaching and teacher education. Similarly, in an earlier study, Merryfield (2000) examined the backgrounds of teacher educators with a multicultural stance and found their home life, community environment and family experiences informed their conceptualization of multicultural teacher education. Gist (2014) notes that while there is a growing understanding of teacher educators’ instructional approaches, teacher educators as a theoretical construct have not been systematically explored (p.267). She argues that examining the background, experiences, and practices of teacher educators with a critical stance will contribute to both conceptual and practical understanding of teacher educators (p.279). Scholars such as Ladson-Billings, Stenhouse, and Gist bring important perspectives to the literature on teacher education and teacher educators. Their work illuminates the conversation of critical stance because it centres on cultural, racial, and linguistic diversity in teacher education. These perspectives are used to frame the research questions in this study. Of the few studies that do address teacher educators’ influences on practice, the focus is a general one on teacher educators as a whole (Merryfield, 2000; Stenhouse, 2012). To continue our growing understanding of teacher educators as a heterogeneous group we must continue to study them. Studying their early life experiences and how they draw on them to enact a critical stance helps to fill a gap in the literature. 4. Theoretical framework Lewison et al.’s concept of critical stance (2008) is used as a framework for understanding the influence of early life experiences on literacy teacher educators. Lewison, Leland, and Harste (2008) identify four qualities of a critical stance: consciously engaging; entertaining alternate ways of being; taking responsibility to inquire; and being reflexive. A critical stance has been described as “deliberate choice made by educators” (Kosnik et al., 2015, p. 136), which is a “lifelong and constant pursuit” (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009, p. 28) in becoming critically literate. 4.1. Consciously engaging The first quality involves educators consciously engaging to develop a critical stance. Educators achieve this by monitoring their use and interpretation of language and actions (Kosnik et al., 2015). Deciding how to respond to events in the classroom is as important as responding to them (Lewison et al., 2008, p. 13). The concept of naming (Freire, 1970) and Lakoff's reframing (2004) are two ways in which to respond to events. Naming includes defining concepts in

ways which move beyond or challenge what is considered as natural while articulating power relationships that privilege certain groups while marginalizing others. Reframing is a practice of developing an awareness of our unconscious frames and then deliberately using new language to define new points of view (Lakoff, 2004). These approaches are pertinent to this study because teacher educators are called on to model to student teachers not just questioning commonly held ideas, but modeling how to meaningfully question the status quo while recognizing the role we play in maintaining or disrupting the status quo. 4.2. Entertaining alternate ways of being This quality of a critical stance is described as “creating and trying on new discourses” (Lewison et al., 2008, p. 16). Entertaining alternate ways of being calls on educators to modify their teaching when they recognize what they believe about teaching, learning, and curriculum may not be working. This quality calls for “tension” to be used as a resource, which supports alternate ways of being. Viewing tension as a productive resource in the classroom helps student teachers grapple with difficult issues and develop an appreciation for the complexity of teaching and learning. 4.3. Taking responsibility to inquire The third quality of developing a critical stance involves the educators’ responsibility to inquire. Inquiry, interrogation, and investigation need to be placed at the forefront when adopting this quality of a critical stance. Lewison et al. (2008) further elaborate on what it means for educators to take responsibility to inquire: “we push our beliefs out of their resting positions and engage in a cycle where new knowledge provokes new questions and where new questions generate new knowledge” (p.17). Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1999) coined the phrase “inquiry as stance” which they describe as “Working from and with an inquiry stance involves a continual process of … questioning the ways knowledge and practice are constructed, evaluated, and used” (p. 121). 4.4. Being reflexive The fourth quality educators must adopt and develop for a critical stance is being reflexive. This means, “being aware of our own complicity in maintaining the status quo or systems of injustice” (Lewison et al., 2008, p. 18). Kamler (1999) elaborates on this quality of a critical stance as: “catching ourselves in incongruent and contradictory behavior is hopeful. It is a sign that we are engaged in the struggle of trying on new identities and discourses” (as cited in Lewison et al., 2008, p. 18). In turn, (like student teachers) teacher educators are able to “outgrow” themselves problematize their conceptions of what good teaching looks like (p. 154). 5. Methodology A qualitative methodology approach allowed for in-depth exploration of the backgrounds, visions, and practices, which suited the purposes of this research. As noted earlier, there is a limited body of research on the influence of early life experiences on teacher educators’ practices. Although the research in the area of critical literacy studies is robust, the theoretical foundation on which to base this particular research was lacking. For these reasons, a modified grounded theory approach was used. The understanding of grounded theory is based in the work of Strauss and Corbin (2000), Bryant and Charmaz (2007), and Punch (2009) who note that the primary purpose of the grounded theory

P. Dharamshi / Teaching and Teacher Education 77 (2019) 90e99

approach is to generate theory from data rather than verify theory from data. A modified grounded theory approach was appropriate for the study, as an existing framework of critical literacy practices was used to analyze data collected. Contributing to the understanding of a modified grounded theory approach, Denscombe (2003) argues grounded theory should allow researchers to incorporate existing theories into their analysis by adding or expanding on them (p.124). The three participants in this study were selected from a group of 28 LTEs who were already participants in an externally funded study entitled, Literacy Teacher Educators: Their Backgrounds, Visions, and Practices. For participant recruitment, after receiving ethical review approval for the study from the Research Ethics Board (REB), 15 invitations were issued to LTEs who were a good fit for the study (i.e. teaching literacy courses). This led to “snowball” sampling as the invited LTEs suggested colleagues who might be interested in the study. Merriam (1998) describes “snowball” sampling as a process when researchers select participants for the study; they then suggest other suitable participants from their network to be part of the study. In total 34 invitations were sent, and in the end 28 accepted. The three participants in this study were chosen from the larger group using purposive sampling. Berg (2004) notes that researchers develop purposive samples when they hold “special knowledge or expertise about [a] group to select [participants] who represent this population” (p. 36). For participant selection, three qualifiers were identified. First, the participants' pedagogical practices illustrated a critical literacy approach as defined by Lewison et al.’s (2008) framework of dimensions of critical stance. Questions in the first two interviews, which were helpful in identifying possible participants were What are the particular goals for this course? and Tell me about your teaching style. Second, the participants’ publications and research considered issues such as social justice, relationships between language and power, and culturally relevant pedagogy. Third, the theorists who resonated with them came from a critical perspective (e.g. Allan Luke, Gloria Ladson-Billings, Paulo Freire, Celia Genishi). For the purposes of consistency, all participants had earned their PhD, were tenured or tenure-track faculty, and were working at U.S. institutions. Below is an overview of the three participants reported on in this paper (pseudonyms used throughout). Although not a criteria for selection, it is important to note that all three participants had first- and/or second hand experiences with tracking in their early schooling lives. Given the focus of the study being LTEs’ early life experiences and their work as teacher educators in the United States, it is important to convey contextual information. Tracking refers to separating students based on academic ability into groups, classes (for all or a few subjects), and schools. While tracking can help educators accommodate for the differing needs of their students, it has been argued the practice is a type of segregation (Oakes, 1985; Wheelcock, 1995). Research on tracking has revealed that low-income students are explicitly and implicitly routed into classes with lower time on task and weaker instructional quality (Oakes, 1985). For this paper, there was a an interest in individual cases that foregrounds real-life situations and emphasizes what can be learned from a single particular case, as well as across multiple cases. The in-depth exploration of three LTEs each form a case in which detailed description and analysis is provided (Merriam, 1998, p. 27). This approach allowed for this professional group to be studied in depth while exploring the phenomenon of the ways in which early experiences affected them as LTEs. Data collection consisted of interviews with LTEs and a review of their course syllabi (provided by each participant). Each participant was interviewed three times between April 2012 and February

93

2015. Each interview lasted approximately 60e90 min and had several parts, including: background experiences; identity; research activities; and pedagogies. Using a semi-structured format, interviews began with pre-determined questions for all participants in order to gain insights into the similarities and differences of participant experiences. When “something” unexpected and of relevance came to light, probe questions were asked which were unique to each participant. The interviews were conducted via video conferencing tools (i.e. Skype) or face to face whenever possible. All interviews were audio recorded then transcribed. Following each interview, data was recorded in an Excel spreadsheet to capture quantifiable data (e.g., Years as a classroom teacher) and qualitative data (e.g., Ph.D. research topics). After each interview was transcribed, the participant was sent their transcript to review and confirm reliability and representation of data. For data analysis, the transcripts and course syllabi were read several times. After a few interviews from the first round of interviews had been transcribed the analysis process began. At this point the cycle of alternation between data collection and data analysis was initiated (Punch, 2009). A systematic approach to data analysis was followed, employing practices of continuous coding using qualitative software NVivo9. The first level of analysis, “open coding,” (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, p. 61) was used to examine properties of the data (Creswell & Miller, 2000) by identifying salient words and phrases, relating to the research questions and any other category or theme, which were emerging. With each round of analysis new codes were added, merged, and collapsed. Overall, 55 codes were developed after merging, collapsing codes and sub-codes. Below is a table of a sample of codes which emerged from analysis. As the study continued, I engaged in “axial coding” (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, p. 96), using the analytic principle of constant comparison (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) and making connections between the core categories were determined. For example, I generated the axial code “connection between early schooling experience and teacher educator emphasis.” From my analysis, I created a common set of categories for each of the three cases which encompass the main findings in the study (personal and educational background; early childhood and schooling experiences; and the influence of life experiences to their work). Throughout the data collection and analysis period I frequently reviewed the materials for clarification, continuing to add, delete, modify, and establish themes. In the final level of analysis, “selective coding” (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, p. 116), efforts were made to systematically relate core categories to other categories, “validating those relationships by searching for confirming and disconfirming examples, and filling in categories that needed further refinement and development” (Strauss & Corbin, 2000, p. 111). Strauss and Corbin (1990) refer to this stage as articulating a “story line” for the study, a “conceptualization of the story … the core category’ (p. 116). An example of a selective code that I used is, “Participants who experienced deficit views of education focus on challenging assumptions made of pupils as LTEs.” 6. Findings This paper presents cases of three LTEs with a critical stance. During the first interview, participants were explicitly asked to draw on influences to their practice by answering questions such as: Thinking about your educational experiences, what do you see as being most useful in your current work as a literacy teacher educator? The participants in this study vividly recalled their early life experiences as influences on their practice, particularly referring to their childhood experiences both in and out of the classroom. Thus, for the purposes of this paper, “early life experiences” is

94

P. Dharamshi / Teaching and Teacher Education 77 (2019) 90e99

defined as experiences in and out of the classroom prior to postsecondary schooling. While it is recognized that there are several factors that influence the views and practices of LTEs (e.g., graduate school, classroom teaching experience), this paper reports on the significant relationship between early life experiences and views and practices described by the LTEs. In the cases below, I present examples from LTEs practices that illustrate the dimensions of critical stance. Several examples could be categorized under more than one dimension. This overlap is accurately representative of the critical literacy framework as conceptualized by Lewison et al. (2008) noting the four dimensions are interrelated and cannot stand alone. For the purposes of reporting, particular examples were used to best demonstrate the nuances of the dimensions. Although participants shared many commonalities such as academic degrees, geographical context (U.S.), classroom teaching experience, and research and teaching interests, their early life experiences and prior work history offered contrasting experiences for them to reflect on and use to shape a critical approach to literacy education in the teacher education context. 6.1. Maya Maya is a Latina scholar in the Department of Curriculum and Teaching at a large research-intensive university in the Northeast region of the U.S. She has been a tenure-stream faculty member at her current institution for four years. 6.1.1. Personal and educational background Maya was born in a large city in South America. As a young child, Maya moved between the United States and South America, but finally settled in New York City before entering the sixth grade. Her English was limited and as a result she was placed in a “very low tracked sixth grade classroom.” Maya completed her undergraduate degree in Latin American Studies followed by a Masters of Arts in Early Childhood Education (ECE) with a focus on bilingual education. She spent two years teaching pre-school in a private school setting. She spent the following two years teaching in a dual-language (Spanish and English) ECE classroom in the public-school system. Maya returned to university to complete her Ph.D. in the area of reading, writing, and literacy. She conducted an ethnographic study of writing practices in a first-grade classroom. During her doctoral journey, she was involved in professional development work with teachers in the areas of language learners and literacy across a variety of contexts (e.g., rural high-school, inner-city elementary school). 6.1.2. Early childhood experiences Maya described her schooling experiences in the U.S., as a new immigrant, to have greatly influenced her understanding of schooling practices. As a non-native speaker of English, Maya was placed in a low-tracked classroom. She recognized the implications of this: “I knew what kind of curriculum I was getting.” She remembers the curriculum making assumptions about her intelligence and lacking in rigor: “It was very worksheet driven, it was very remedial.” Although she was only in the sixth grade, she understood the deficit views the teachers had of her because of her English Language Learner status: “I remember being aware of how I was being positioned by the school.” Maya had a very different schooling experience on Saturdays when she attended cultural classes taught in Spanish. On Saturdays, she was regarded as a top student who experienced a great deal of success because she was in the “majority” where her discourse was the dominant discourse and elements that aligned with her cultural and linguistic identity were included. From Monday to Friday, however, in public school she felt her intelligence “just was not

recognized.” These experiences revealed to Maya the “stratification” students experience in schools. Commenting on her own experiences, she noted, “My lack of English was really matched with a lack of intelligence, [and] I just got a sense of how school structures perceive and label students and give very unequal types of educational opportunities.” In the seventh-grade Maya was moved to a higher-tracked class. She recognized that the school's perception of her had changed: “My intelligence quote-unquote was discovered.” When applying for high-school, she further understood stratification in schools. Maya began to understand how the “power of networks,” a form of social capital, could determine schooling opportunities. She remembered, A friend of mine in middle school really helped me. I didn't know that you have to apply to high schools and we didn't have the money for any of these things … she helped me with the forms and she told me which tests to take. Maya experienced first-hand how school structures could stratify pupils and the ways in which education could shape pupils’ life opportunities. 6.1.3. Influence of early life experiences Maya felt her early life experiences significantly informed her work as a LTE. When asking what previous life experiences were useful to her as an LTE, she explained: “I would say my own experiences as a student in the public-school system.” Maya's schooling experiences in the U.S. revealed to her the political nature of schooling, as well as the power structures in place (e.g., whose knowledge counts in schools?). This was a turning point because she experienced what it felt like to be left out of the dominant discourse and the implications her status as an ELL had on her personally and academically. She makes direct connections between her early schooling experiences and her focus as an LTE: “So that was a lot of what drew to me bilingual education and to language and literacy teaching in the US.” Maya draws upon her personal schooling experiences to help student teachers challenge their conceptualizations of literacy, which are often narrowly defined when entering teacher education. She described a central goal for her course as “disrupting the idea of literacy as autonomous and literacy as a school-based skill.” Maya described literacy as a practice, which is “expansive” “complex” and “shifting.” By conceptualizing literacy broadly, Maya enacted the first dimension of the interpretive framework, consciously engaging. She routinely invited student teachers to unpack the deeply rooted assumptions they held about literacy and literacy learning as well as consider how their practices may work to disrupt or maintain the status quo (Lewison et al., 2008). She explained, “the goal is for them to understand that literacy is not neutral … and for them to disrupt hierarchies.” Ultimately, she wanted them to recognize that “pupils’ are constantly engaged in complex literacy practices,” although these practices are not always recognized and/or valued in school contexts. Maya felt her experience with being labeled by her school shaped her literacy education courses including the delivery of courses, assignments, and course texts. Maya aimed to unpack issues of language, power, and class with her student teachers, and help them develop the tools to challenge and disrupt language hierarchies inherent in the curriculum. She wanted them to recognize how school practices often work to privilege some while marginalizing others. To demonstrate this, Maya included teaching strategies, which de-centreEnglish. In her practice, she valued and integrated alternative texts to entertain alternate ways of being (Lewison et al., 2008) and modeled “creating and trying on new

P. Dharamshi / Teaching and Teacher Education 77 (2019) 90e99

discourses” (p. 16) by having student teachers view issues around language and literacy through a new lens (Lewison et al., 2008, p.383). She taught one lesson entirely in Spanish to give student teachers another perspective on language and power in schools. This lesson has become part of her repertoire, which she uses in her current practice because she believed it made transparent unequal power relationships between language and power. This exercise allowed her student teachers to gain first-hand experience of being on the other end of the language hierarchy, a reality many of their pupils would face on a regular basis in the classroom. Maya described this particular lesson as “one of the most powerful experiences that student [teachers] have commented to me about often.” Further, Maya challenged traditional notions of texts (i.e. printbased texts) by engaging with a variety of print and multimodal texts, including: photographs, maps, social media and invited student teachers to expand their understandings of what literacy is and where literacy can happen (e.g., community centres, subways). Maya also used multicultural and multilingual texts in her course such as Borderlands/la Frontera: The New Mestiza (Anzaldua, 1999). This text aims to highlight and honour difference by examining competing narratives, specifically the “invisible borders” that exist between Latinas/os and non-Latinas/os, men and women, heterosexuals and homosexuals, and numerous other opposing groups. Using a text, which is “partly written in Spanish and not translated” was used to “trouble dominant assumptions … about whose knowledge counts.” Using this text garnered various responses from student teachers. She shared, Some feel uncomfortable. Some people might feel indignant that it’s not English so they turn to Google translate. It makes us ask a lot of questions like: Are you the primary audience for this?..Whose perspectives are included, excluded, who's privileged? Through follow up prompts (i.e., who's privileged?) after the lesson, Maya encouraged student teachers beliefs out of their resting place, thus demonstrating importance of taking responsibility to inquire (Lewison et al., 2008). Although de-centring English was sometimes met with resistance, Maya explained she wanted student teachers to realize, “everything has to do with equity and power,” including language, and so she believed immersing student teachers in such experiences was vital to the learning process. By highlighting the relationships between language and power, Maya demonstrated her commitment to addressing issues non-native speakers of English often face and also “supporting students in the diversity of their experiences.” These opportunities created space for student teacher reflection and engagement in the process of naming (Freire, 1970) and retheorizing (Lakoff, 2004) their assumptions: “I want [student teachers] to arrive at new understandings of literacy on their own.” 6.2. Paul When the interviews took place, Paul was an Assistant Professor in the Department of Teacher Education at a teaching focuseduniversity in the Southwest region of the U.S. Paul was a faculty member at his university for six years. 6.2.1. Personal and educational background Paul is a White male who was born and raised in the U.S. As a young boy, he was labeled with several learning disabilities, including dyslexia. As a result, he said he experienced obstacles in school until a teacher uncovered his potential. Paul completed his undergraduate degree in English Literature with a minor in

95

Outdoor Education. He was a classroom teacher for five years with students labeled as “at-risk” who had been historically underserved. He then enrolled at a research-focused university to earn his teacher credentials. Paul returned to the classroom and taught English Language Arts in urban intermediate and secondary settings. Five years later, Paul returned to school to earn a Ph.D. He examined the ways in which literacy teachers led classroom discussions. Once graduating he remained at his institution in an administrative role as the Director of the residency teacher education program. Soon after, he secured a tenure-stream faculty position at a teaching-focused university in California. 6.2.2. Early childhood experiences Paul described his early schooling experiences as “life-shaping,” as they informed his understanding of schooling practices and the long-lasting influence of teachers. Paul struggled during the early years of his schooling. He described his schooling experiences in the elementary years: I was a rotten student. I flunked second grade. I was [labeled] with a learning disability. I was pulled out of my classes. I was diagnosed with all sorts of things, including dyslexia. As an elementary school student, I was branded as someone who would never read and write. Although Paul had “well-intentioned teachers,” he recalls developing his love of reading and writing outside of the classroom. He explained, “I had to do that on my own. That was not a school activity, that was an underground literacy.” In school, he was positioned as a “struggling” student who was in “constant need of remedial instruction.” Reflecting back on his schooling experiences, Paul said, “As a Ph.D. from XX University that was an inaccurate diagnosis, which is infuriating as someone who came up through the system.” It was not until high-school that Paul felt his intelligence was realized. He fondly remembered the high-school teacher who invested time with him. He explained: She saw that I was not the student I had cast to be, and she and I started a literary magazine … And I became what she called a “scholar” … But it took her making me one, because I wasn't able to do that on my own. Paul's high-school teacher viewed him as a writer and made him believe in himself. He recognized that she did not view him in a deficit light; rather, she built on his knowledge and strengths. As a LTE, Paul modeled the same disposition for his student teachers he hopes they will embody with their pupils. 6.2.3. Influences of early life experiences Reflecting back on his early life experiences, Paul identified being labeled with learning disabilities to be a major influence on his current views of schooling and literacy. From being placed in special education classrooms he began to see “different forms of literacies,” and understood “the notion of literacy being a cultural practice as well as a cognitive practice.” As an LTE, Paul's course goals were directly informed by his own understanding of literacy. He is always modeling the kind of literacy educator he wanted his student teachers to be: I'm trying to do a number of things that help [student teachers] broaden their view of what counts as Literacy … It means that I must always be honoring the assets that students bring to class with respect to language and with respect to other forms of literacies.

96

P. Dharamshi / Teaching and Teacher Education 77 (2019) 90e99

To achieve this, Paul modeled the practices and dispositions of being a consciously engaged (Lewison et al., 2008) educator and demonstrated the importance of recognizing and responding to social inequities, particularly related to race and culture-key issues in more deeply understanding literacy as a practice and how social inequities can translate into their teaching. Paul invites them to see themselves as inquirers and develop an inquiry stance. He assigned his student teachers the task of interviewing pupils to understand the literacy practices they bring to the classroom. Paul felt his experiences as a student influenced him to avoid seeing pupils in a deficit-light the way he was seen, and so he aimed to have student teachers develop dispositions that value students existing literacy practices. He further explained: the teacher is the detective that when literacy skills present themselves in the classroom, that the disposition that I want my student teachers to take up is not one of correction or saving the student. He encouraged student teachers to look for pupils' out-of-school literacies beyond language: “what their musical abilities are and various ways that the child is literate in the world, all the basketball that they play and all the prayers that they've memorized and all the square-dancing they know how to do.” To provide student teachers with an opportunity to develop an inquiry stance, Paul created a culminating inquiry assignment entitled Literacy Case, which asked student teachers to holistically consider the pupil and their needs. This capstone assignment required them to study the literacy environment in their classrooms. Specifically, they were to “describe how this environment is organized to draw upon and develop students’ literacies.” This assignment positioned student teachers as inquirers into their practice that foregrounds on the strengths of the pupil and builds a curriculum, which meets their needs, thus exemplifying the dimension taking responsibility to inquire (Lewison et al., 2008). He engaged student teachers in an important cycle where new knowledge provokes new questions and new questions generate new understandings (Schreff, 2012, p. 205). It is important to note that Paul shared his pivotal early experiences from elementary school with his student teachers. He felt it was important for them to recognize that he was once a student labeled with learning disabilities and positioned as “struggling.” He emphasized to them that while his teachers had “good intentions,” their practices did not position him as knowledgeable. This experience is reflected in an assignment Paul developed entitled Literacy History. Student teachers were asked locate their own literacy history and make connections between the literacy history of a pupil in their classroom during their practice teaching placement. This assignment is an example of Paul negotiating the fourth dimension of critical stance into this course, being reflexive. When student teachers reflect on their own literacy history and compare and contrast it to a pupil, they began to move beyond their initial understanding of their own early schooling experiences (Schreff, 2012, p. 205). Asking student teachers to identify their own relationship to literacy brought them closer to “stepping outside of themselves” (Lewison et al., 2008) and better understanding diverse settings outside of their own cultural world. 6.3. Misa Misa is an Associate Professor in the department of Reading and Language Arts in the School of Education at a university in the Northeast region of the U.S. She has been a faculty member at her institution for six years.

6.3.1. Personal and educational background Misa is a Black teacher educator who comes from a “family of educators.” Her grandmother, mother, and several cousins are teachers. Misa was born and raised in a working-class household in the inner city of a town in the Mid-West. She completed her undergraduate degree in English and teacher education. After graduating, Misa was an English Language Arts teacher for the eighth and ninth grade for two years. She then pursued her Masters’ degree in Education. Upon completion, Misa joined a community college as an instructor of composition for five years. In her time at the college, Misa also assumed an administrative role as a student advisor. She returned to school to pursue her doctoral degree in the area of Curriculum Instruction and Teaching where she conducted an ethnographic study of the language and literacy practices of Black and Latina student teachers. While completing her Ph.D., she continued to teach composition courses at the community college, and worked as a curriculum development consultant for a nonprofit educational organization. 6.3.2. Early childhood experiences Misa was born and raised in a working-class household in the inner city of a town in the Mid-West. In the 1960s her grandmother lived through the “war on poverty; ” 1a time when children of color in the U.S. were not receiving quality classroom instruction. These experiences and lessons were shared and passed down in her family. Misa said, “She saw her own children-she had nine-weren't offered quality education.” Understanding schooling inequities from a young age, Misa was acutely aware of her own schooling experiences and those of loved ones around her. As a young girl, Misa described herself as a very shy child with a passion for reading. She learned how to read while in the first grade, and once she started, “there was no turning back.” Growing up in a working-class family with very young parents, Misa spent her summer holidays enrolled in reading programs at the local library. She recalled, “I spent the days in the stacks at the library.” For Misa, the library was a place of refuge: “Having a library and access to books really saved my life.” She recognized that the library “provided an outlet and a space to move beyond the present and escape into all kinds of places.” Misa's experiences at the library shaped her understanding of literacy as “being more than just reading a book.” She explained, “[i]t was more about reading the world and defining it.” Misa, along with most students from her community, attended high-school in the suburbs. She recalled, “We were bussed to a suburban school for high-school where we were tracked.” Misa was placed in a high-track and had an overall “good experience” with her own education. However, her friends and cousins from her neighborhood did not share the same positive experiences; many of them were placed in low-tracked schools. She commented, “Depending on where you were placed, you received a certain type of education.” Misa began to understand how practices like tracking could lead to inequitable schooling experiences. Her firstand second-hand experiences in high-school revealed the influence teachers have on a student's relationship with schooling. While Misa fondly recalls her teachers who made a difference, she explains that her cousin did not have similar experiences with teachers: “One cousin can remember all his teachers and how some

1 In 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson declared “unconditional war on poverty” in the U.S. The initiative included the creation of the Elementary and Secondary School Act (ESEA). Title I of the ESEA was established channel federal resources toward high-poverty and high-needs schools. The initiative has since been criticized for depicting the issue of poverty to one that was confined solely to only inner-city neighborhoods within racial and cultural minority populations (ascd.org, 2015).

P. Dharamshi / Teaching and Teacher Education 77 (2019) 90e99

of them were so terrible in terms of shaping his self-esteem and his identity.” 6.3.3. Influence of early life experiences Misa's early experiences growing up in the inner-city influenced her understandings of literacy, as well as her views on teacher education. She draws on her experiences to inform her practice as a LTE. Misa views literacy through the lens of communities: school community, local community and global community. Consequently, she is continuously “engaged with parents” and the community and delivers her courses in local schools. Misa believes her community-based approach and focus on students and teachers of color is closely tied to an understanding of her family history. Motivated by her grandmothers' experiences with the schooling system, Misa views her role as a privilege with a great deal of responsibility: I don't just see my job as working with [student teachers], I see it as working with the hundreds of students that they will one day educate … I take this very seriously. It's a part of my history. Misa identified her early literacy practices as a turning point because she experienced literacy as a social practice, a way of “reading the world,” rather than a set of autonomous skills such as simply reading a book. Growing up in a working-class family in the inner city, Misa recognized that her community's literacy practices were not valued in schools. Her friends and cousins, who were placed in low-tracked schools, felt the negative implications of that practice. As a LTE, she strives to remain engaged in the community so she can stay current with community literacy practices, as well as model a pedagogy that she values for her student teachers. Misa aimed to have her student teachers think deeply about teaching and learning beyond what happens in classrooms. She explained, “I think too often teachers think it's just about them and the students. They don't think about how it is part of a larger community, a larger context.” Through discussion and sharing personal stories, she reminds her student teachers of their responsibility: “Do not underestimate the potential of what we [teachers] do to really define someone's existence … What you do is serious.” Her experiences have informed her decisions, as well as guided the ways in which she views literacy education today. She encourages student teachers to be engaged with parents, and with the community at large. To accomplish this Misa intertwined her course with the community. She worked to blur lines between university, school, and community as she understood the role in the larger learning community. Misa invited student teachers to take part in the community by serving as mentors in the writing program she directs, which aimed at celebrating and developing the writing practices among urban youth in the community. Further, to authentically interact with the community in which they would complete their practice teaching placements, Misa asked student teachers to participate in community walks. Student teachers were asked to identify places and sites where literacy was taking place. Student teachers recognized literacy practices occurring in a variety of places outside of the school context: Laundromats, subway stations, churches, and community centres. Misa felt student teachers often come into the teacher preparation program with narrow definitions of what counts as literacy. To help students broaden their views of literacy and teaching, she recognizes opportunities must be created for student teacher to “unlearn” what they know about literacy and schooling. The notion of unlearning shows Misa's enactment of a critical stance, in particular entertaining alternate ways of being (Lewison et al., 2008). By situating literacy and schooling in the community, she

97

demonstrated to her student teachers inclusive literacy practices and thus helped to shape new discourses about literacy in teacher education. By helping student teachers view themselves and their classrooms as a piece of the “larger learning community” she hoped they would see “young people as having capital and skills that they bring to their learning processes.” Beyond engaging with the local community, Misa helped student teachers engage with the broader community using the affordances of digital technologies. For example, Misa spoke emphatically about her course curriculum mirroring “very much what's going on in the world today.” She included the perspectives of not only research scholars, but also of community stakeholders whom were directly being affected by a particular issue. By doing this Misa modeled a critical stance because she problematized whose voices counted and were included in the telling of a community narrative (consciously engaging). Further, she demonstrated Taking Responsibility to Inquire (Lewison et al., 2008) by designing opportunities for student teachers to understand that knowledge is constructed from particular perspectives (Schreff, 2012). She included social media posts (e.g., Twitter) and readings from local papers on the Black Lives Matter movement and the civil unrest related to the Mike Brown2 case. She invited her student teachers to question: “What are these local community folks saying and how is their knowledge legitimized within the work that we have to do?” By positioning the community members as knowledgeable and including voices from beyond traditional media outlets, Misa enacted a critical stance in her course. 7. Discussion The LTEs in this study each shared pivotal moments in their early years that were transformative and shaped the ways in which they conceptualized literacy and literacy education. Maya, for example, who had experienced being positioned in a deficit-light by her school now focuses on having her student teachers interrogate their assumptions of students, curriculum, and schooling. While in his early schooling years Paul was positioned as a “struggling” student and labeled with multiple learning disabilities, and he now consciously designs opportunities for students to recognize and value the literacies pupils bring into the classroom. Through reflection of defining experiences, they understood literacy to be a social practice in which we “make sense of the world” (Misa) and so the community in which they taught was viewed as an important consideration when conceptualizing their courses. Misa who understood first-hand the complex literacy practices which occurred outside of the classroom now has a strong focus on engaging student teachers in a variety community literacy practices. Understanding from experience how schooling and curriculum can work to position students as “struggling” or “successful”, the LTEs structured opportunities for student teachers to recognize and value students’ literacy practices beyond classroom contexts, a practice Ladson-Billings (2006) argues is essential for shedding deficit perspectives. All named early schooling experiences as a turning point in their life because they understood the inherent relationship between schooling and power. Each of the participants either personally experienced or observed friends and family experience deficitbased approaches to education. In contrast to the literature presented earlier on teacher educators addressing issues of diversity (Dixson & Dingus, 2007; Williams & Evans-Winters, 2005), the LTEs

2 During the time of the second interview a top news story in the country was the fatal shooting of Mike Brown and the protests, which occurred after in Ferguson, Missouri.

98

P. Dharamshi / Teaching and Teacher Education 77 (2019) 90e99

in this study strongly identified with the work of preparing student teachers for diverse classrooms, largely as result of their own personal experiences. The LTEs’ stance, and consequently pedagogies, were deliberate and carefully thought out, a finding that is also documented by Gist (2014) and Kosnik et al. (2015). Further, all three endeavored to disrupt dominant narratives around literacy teaching and learning (i.e. who counts as literate? whose knowledge counts?) by designing experiences for their student teachers to recognize cultural underpinnings of their own beliefs, assumptions and practices (Ladson-Billings, 2005). Rather than take an “add-on” approach (Williams & Evans-Winters, 2005), issues of diversity and equity were at the centre of their courses. Their course texts and assignments had student teachers engage authentically with issues of equity because they recognized that many would not have these experiences first hand like they did. Their student teachers represented the traditional demographic of K-12 teachers (White; middle-class), so, the LTEs purposefully included multiple stakeholders (Zeichner, 2016) in their course delivery which they viewed as curricular informants when designing their literacy teacher education curriculum (community members, parents). Zeichner (2016) refers to this as a “democratic approach to the issue of whose knowledge counts in the education of teachers” (p. 153). The LTEs designed learning opportunities for student teachers to critically examine issues like race, class, and privilege throughout their teacher education course while simultaneously helping student teachers learn the pedagogical tools of the trade. Returning to Gist (2104) who noted, " … examining the background, experiences, and practices of teacher educators with a critical stance will contribute to both conceptual and practical understanding of teacher educators” (p. 279) the findings in this study continue to shape our understandings of teacher educators and how they are prepared. The implications, however, speak not only to the work of teacher educators but those who support and guide their work in university programs. The implications and recommendations that arise from the findings in this study can be categorized into LTEs work with doctoral students, Department Chairs working with Teacher Educators, and Deans working to strengthen programs through the support of teacher educators.

7.1. Working with doctoral students It was clear that the pedagogical approaches of the LTEs in this study were not a “happenstance act” (Gist, 2014) but instead a deliberate and intentional effort. Maya, Paul and Misa continually problematized literacy and schooling against the backdrop of their own lives. All three had the opportunity to reflect on their experiences, refine their pedagogies and study issues related to diversity, teacher education and literacy in their doctoral work. Commitment to developing a critical stance as a teacher educator involves a process of continuous, pedagogic development in which practices are refined and improved through reflection and action; a process which should ideally begin when doctoral students are preparing to become teacher educators. To prepare doctoral students to teach about teaching, teacher educators need to support them by creating opportunities for them to uncover the interrelationships across early life experiences, power and identity (Stenhouse, 2012) and how these shape their stance towards teaching and learning. While all doctoral students bring their own lived experiences, interests, and strengths to their work, anchoring teacher educator preparation in critical reflection and action through linking backgrounds and beliefs with practices will demonstrate to doctoral students enactments of and commitment to critical stance.

7.2. Department chairs working with teacher educators It is likely that not all teacher educators will have had the defining experiences the LTEs in this study described. They had experiences of being marginalized by schools and schooling structures, which were pivotal experiences that informed their views and practices of teaching and teacher education. Knowing this may not be a shared experience, it is important that Department Chairs commit to the ongoing and intentional development of the knowledge and dispositions associated with a critical stance in teacher education. They must create professional development opportunities for all teacher educators to understand marginalized populations in ways that are authentic to them. These opportunities could include collaborative research, mentoring, coconstructing curriculum, course observations, and team-teaching. For example, co-constructing curriculum would allow literacy teacher educators to learn with and from one another, while broadening the experiences from which they refine their practices and construct their literacy education curriculum. 7.3. Deans working to strengthen programs through the support of teacher educators From their early life experiences the LTEs in this study developed broad understandings of literacy, which were expansive and directly connected to rich literacy practices in local communities. Through years of relationship building and maintenance, the LTEs developed strong partnerships in the community, which they saw as an integral part of preparing future literacy teachers. These practices, however, were time consuming and demanding for the LTES. It is clear LTEs require more support. Deans of Education, drawing on the expertise and experiences of community-engaged teacher educators, must play a larger role in the coordination, communication and logistical planning of community partnerships, including both traditional and non-traditional learning spaces, which will ultimately working to strengthen their programs. A shift in administrative workload will allow LTEs the time required to develop meaningful learning experiences for their student teachers in the community (Kretchmar & Zeichner, 2016; Zeichner, Bowman, Guillen, & Napolitan, 2016), conduct scholarly research on their community work, and open up avenues for those teacher educators not involved in the community to do so. Contributing to a growing field, this paper argues for the need to spend more time understanding the backgrounds and experiences of LTEs and how these influence their pedagogies and practices. LTEs are at the cornerstone of educational reform; they directly influence the knowledge, skills, and dispositions of future classroom literacy teachers. It is therefore essential that literacy teacher education programs incorporate practices and pedagogies which prepare student teachers to enact critical practices in their increasingly diverse classrooms. Understanding the influences on the practices of LTEs with a critical stance may serve as an important step in not only better supporting this group but the work of all teacher educators. References Anzaldua, G. (1999). Borderlands/la frontera: The new mestiza (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Aunt Lute Books. Benevides, T., & Stagg Peterson, S. (2010). Literacy attitudes, habits, and achievements of future teachers. Journal of Education for Teaching: International Research and Pedagogy, 36(3), 291e302. Berg, B. L. (2004). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Boston, MA: Pearson Education Inc. Berry, A. (2007). Tensions in teaching about teaching: A self-study of the development of myself as a teacher educator. Dordrecht: Springer. Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. (2007). Grounded theory in historical perspective: An

P. Dharamshi / Teaching and Teacher Education 77 (2019) 90e99 epistemological account. In A. Bryant, & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The Sage handbook grounded theory (pp. 31e50). London: Sage Publications. Cochran-Smith, M., Davis, D., & Fries, K. (2004). Multicultural teacher education: Research, practice, and policy. In J. Banks, & C. M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (2nd ed., pp. 931e975). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher and learning in communities. Review of Research in Education, 24, 249e305. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (2009). Inquiry as stance: Practitioner research for the next generation. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Creswell, J., & Miller, D. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory and Practice, 39(3), 124e130. Denscombe, M. (2003). The good research guide: For small-scale social research projects (4th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill Press. Dixson, A. D., & Dingus, J. E. (2007). Tyranny of the majority: Re-enfranchisement of African- American teacher educators teaching for democracy. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 20(6), 639e654. Evans-Winters, V. E., & Hoff, P. T. (2011). The aesthetics of white racism in preservice teacher education: A critical race perspective. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 14(4), 461e479. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum. Gist, C. D. (2014). The culturally responsive teacher educator. The Teacher Educator, 49(4), 265e283. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter. Goodwin, L., & Kosnik, C. (2013). Quality teacher educators ¼ quality teachers? Conceptualizing essential domains of knowledge for those who teach teachers. Teacher Development, 17(3), 334e346. Kamler, B. (1999). This lovely doll who's come to school: Morning meeting talk as gendered language practice. In B. Kamler (Ed.), Constructing gender and difference: Critical research perspectives on early childhood (pp. 191e213). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Korthagen, F. A. J., Kessels, J., Koster, B., Langerwarf, B., & Wubbels, T. (2001). Linking theory and practice: The pedagogy of realistic teacher education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kosnik, C., Dharamshi, P., Menna, L., Miyata, C., & Clevoulou, Y. (2015). You teach who you are: The experiences and pedagogies of literacy/English teacher educators who have a critical stance. In J. Lampert, & B. Burnett (Eds.), Teacher education for high poverty schools (pp. 135e151). Dordrecht: Springer Publishers. Kosnik, C., Dharamshi, P., Miyata, C., & Clevoulou, Y. (2014). Beyond initial transition: An international examination of the complex work of experienced literacy/English teacher educators. English in Education, 48(1), 41e62. Kretchmar, K., & Zeichner, K. (2016). Teacher prep 3.0: A vision for teacher education to impact social transformation. Journal of Education for Teaching, 42(4), 417e433. Ladson-Billings, G. J. (2005). Is the team all right?: Diversity and teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 56(3), 229e234. Ladson-Billings, G. J. (2006). It's not the culture of poverty, it's the poverty of culture: The problem with teacher education. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 37(2), 104e109. Lakoff, G. (2004). Don't think of an elephant: Know your values and frame the debate. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green. Lewison, M., Leland, C., & Harste, J. C. (2008). Creating critical classrooms: K-8 reading and writing with and edge. New York, NY: Routledge. Loughran, J. J. (2006). Developing a pedagogy of teacher education: Understanding teaching and learning about teaching. New York, NY: Routledge. Loughran, J. (2011). On becoming a teacher educator. Journal of Education for Teaching, 37(3), 271e291. Lytle, S. (2013). Foreword: The critical literacies of teaching. In C. Kosnik, J. Rowsell, P. Williamson, R. Simon, & C. Beck (Eds.), Literacy teacher educators: Preparing teachers for a changing world. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. xvexix.

99

Martinez, K. (2008). Academic induction for teacher educators. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 36(1), 35e51. McGlynn-Stewart, M. (2016). How early childhood learning influences beginning literacy teachers' professional learning. Brock Education Journal, 25(2), 35e52. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Merryfield, M. M. (2000). Why aren't teachers being prepared to teach for diversity, equity, and global interconnectedness? A study of lived experiences in the making of multicultural and global educators. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 429e443. Mosley, M. (2010). Becoming a literacy teacher: Approximations in critical literacy teaching. Teaching Education, 21(4), 403e426. Murray, J., & Male, T. (2005). Becoming a teacher educator: Evidence from the field. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(2), 125e142. Nathanson, S., Pruslow, J., & Levitt, R. (2008). The reading habits and literacy attitudes of inservice and prospective teachers: Results of a questionnaire survey. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(4), 313e321. Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Punch, K. (2009). Introduction to research methods in education. London: Sage Publications. Rogers, R. (2013). Cultivating diversity through critical literacy in teacher education. In C. Kosnik, J. Rowsell, P. Williamson, R. Simon, & C. Beck (Eds.), Literacy teacher educators: Preparing teachers for a changing world (pp. 7e19). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Rogers, R. (2014). Coaching literacy teachers as they design critical literacy practices. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 30, 241e261. Schreff, L. (2012). “This project has personally affected me”: Developing a critical stance in preservice English Teachers. Journal of Literacy Research, 44(2), 200e236. Skerrett, A. (2009). Teaching critical literacy for social justice. Action in Teacher Education, 31(4), 54e68. Smith, L. K. (2005). The impact of early life history on teachers' beliefs: In-school and out-of- school experiences as learners and knowers of science. Teachers and Teaching, 11(1), 5e36. Stenhouse, V. L. (2012). Teacher educators' understanding of diversity: Painting a picture through narrative portraits. Multicultural Education, 19(4), 14e23. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (2000). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques for developing grounded theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Vasquez, V., Tate, S. L., & Harste, J. C. (2013). Negotiating critical literacies with teachers: Theoretical foundations and pedagogical resources for pre-service and inservice contexts. New York, NY: Routledge. Wheelcock, A. (1995). Crossing the tracks: How ‘untracking’ can save America's schools. New York, NY: The New Press. Williams, D. G., & Evans-Winters, V. (2005). The burden of teaching teachers: Memoirs of race discourse in teacher education. The Urban Review, 37(1), 201e219. Williamson, P. (2013). Engaging in literacy practices through inquiry and enactment in teacher education. In C. Kosnik, J. Rowsell, P. Williamson, R. Simon, & C. Beck (Eds.), Literacy teacher educators: Preparing teachers for a changing world (pp. 135e148). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Zeichner, K. (2005). Becoming a teacher educator: A personal perspective. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(1), 117e124. Zeichner, K. (2016). Advancing social justice and democracy in teacher education: Teacher preparation 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 52(4), 150e155. Zeichner, K., Bowman, M., Guillen, L., & Napolitan, K. (2016). Engaging and working in solidarity with local communities in preparing teachers of their children. Journal of Teacher Education, 67(4), 277e290.