[Not] speaking truth to power: Ethical dilemmas of teacher candidates during practicum

Teaching and Teacher Education 89 (2020) 103002

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

[Not] speaking truth to power: Ethical dilemmas of teacher candidates during practicum Marom Lilach 1 Faculty, Dep. of Educational Studies, Kwantlen Polytechnic University, Canada

h i g h l i g h t s
The practicum is an important part of pre-service teacher education.
Teacher candidates experience many ethical dilemmas during the practicum.
Ethical dilemmas often emerge in the gap between teacher candidates’ beliefs and desire to explore their teaching identity and the need to please their supervisors.
The concept of “dilemmatic space” is useful in unpacking the ethical dilemmas of teacher candidates during the practicum.
Teacher education programs should provide spaces for teacher candidates to reflect and analyze ethical dilemmas.

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 22 May 2019 Received in revised form 4 December 2019 Accepted 10 December 2019 Available online xxx

This paper draws on Honig’s (1994) concept of dilemmatic space to analyze the teaching practicum and to frame the ethical dilemmas that teacher candidates experience during it. The dilemmatic space highlights the wider context in which dilemmas occur, replacing the practice of analyzing ethical dilemmas as specific disconnected incidents. The practicum is the first opportunity for teacher candidates to spend a significant period of time in the classroom during their certification process. The supervised environment is important in supporting and mentoring teacher candidates; yet the hierarchical structure of the practicum can lead to ethical dilemmas that emerge in the gap between TCs’ desire to explore their professional identity and the need to please their supervisors and “pass the practicum.” Analyzing the practicum as a dilemmatic space is important not only to better support teacher candidates, but also to critically reflect on the structures of teacher education programs and the intersection of theory and practice in teacher education. © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Ethical dilemmas can be captured by the question, “what ought we to do?” or “what is the right course of action?” in a given situation. These are prescriptive questions, as they ask us to think beyond what is currently being done, and to consider other possibilities (Singer, 2011). While all humans face ethical dilemmas throughout their lives, in some professional fields ethical dilemmas are more likely to arise. In regulated professions such as teaching, nursing, and medicine which, “are usually the ones that play an important role in the safety and protection of the public” (Association of Accrediting

1

E-mail address: [email protected]. http://www.kpu.ca/arts/edst, https://kwantlen.academia.edu/LilachMarom.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.103002 0742-051X/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Agencies of Canada, 2013; para. 4), ethical issues are central and thus embedded within the core professional definitions. An increasing scholarly body provides illustrations of the types of ethical dilemmas that teachers confront in their daily work (Campbell, 1997; Helton & Ray, 2005; Hodgkinson, 1991; Johns, McGrath, & Mathur, 2008; Noddings, 1992; Shapira-Lishchinsky, 2011; Shapiro & Stefkovich, 2011; Tirri & Husu, 2002). Many dilemmas emerge from the multiple and often contradicting commitments that teachers have to children, colleagues, and institutions (Campbell, 2006; Colnerud, 2006; Husu & Tirri, 2001), from tensions between personal values and institutional norms and policies (Gomez, Allen, & Clinton, 2004) to tensions related to personal and professional boundaries (Aultman, Williams-Johnson, & Schutz, 2009). Limited focus, however, has been given to ethical dilemmas experienced by teacher candidates during the practicum

2

M. Lilach / Teaching and Teacher Education 89 (2020) 103002

(Millwater, Ehrich, & Cranston, 2004), which is the focus of this study. The practicum is an important part of teacher education in which teacher candidates (hereafter TCs) spend a significant period of time in the classroom, supervised and mentored by an experienced teacher (school advisor). Zeichner (2010) explains that, “the practicum is a key experience for pre-service teachers to enhance their knowledge, skills, and critical awareness” (p. 232). Furthermore, TCs “universally regard the practicum as the most important component of their Bachelor of Education degree and the cooperating teacher as critical to their success in the degree” (Clarke, Triggs, & Nielsen, 2014, p. 163). Analyzing the ethical dilemmas of TCs during the practicum is important because the practicum is the first opportunity for novice teachers to be exposed to ethical issues that are embedded in teachers’ work while also navigating their agency and professional identity within the school and teacher education structures. In my analyses of ethical dilemmas of TCs during the practicum, I draw on Honig (1994) concept of “dilemmatic space,” which highlights the wider context in which dilemmas occur, rather than analyze ethical dilemmas as specific disconnected situations. As a teacher educator, I often engaged with TCs in conversations around ethical dilemmas during teacher education courses; however, these dilemmas were primarily discussed as individual negotiations disconnected from the practicum as the space that generated them. Hence, the aim of this study was firstly to unpack the characteristics of the teaching practicum as a dilemmatic space, and subsequently to examine whether this space supports the enactment of TCs’ agency or hinders it. I analyze agency in an ecological sense, that is, as enacted in relation to concrete settings and conditions (Biesta, Preistley, & Robinson, 2017, p. 40) in a dilemmatic space. While the supervised environment is important in supporting and mentoring TCs, it can lead to ethical dilemmas that emerge in the gap between TCs’ desire to explore their professional identity and the need to please their supervisors and “pass the practicum.” Analyzing the practicum as a dilemmatic space is important not only in order to better support TCs, but also to critically reflect on the structures of teacher education programs and the intersection of theory and practice in teacher education. While the practicum started as a disconnected piece of teacher education, in the face of significant criticism of this divide between theory and practice since the 1980s, universities have sought to increase their connection to schools (Clarke et al., 2014). Still, as Korthagen, Loughran, and Russel (2006) argue, “the theory-practice issue seems intractable; telling new teachers what research shows about good teaching and sending them off to practice has failed to change in any major way what happens in our schools and universities” (p. 1038). Analyzing the practicum as a dilemmatic space can shed light on the ways in which the tension between theory and practice is maintained and reproduced in teacher education. I start with a conceptual framework of dilemmatic space, followed by the context of this study. I then describe the methodological design of the study and the data analysis process. In the Findings section 1 characterise the practicum as a dilemmatic space and highlight how this space underlies the individual dilemmas that TCs face. In the Discussion section 1 examine the affect of the practicum as a dilemmatic space on the enactment of TCs’ agency. In light of these findings, I conclude with recommendations for teacher education programs to better support TCs during the practicum. 2. Conceptual framework Honig (1994) proposes the concept of “dilemmatic spaces” as

part of a wider analysis of identity and difference in political and public arenas. She argues that. The circumstances of their subject constitution position all moral subjects in what I call dilemmatic spaces. Indeed, we might think of the subject as positioned on conflictual axes of identity/ difference such that her agency itself is constituted by and daily mired in dilemmatic choices and negotiations. (p. 568). According to Honig (1994), this means that dilemmas should not be seen as “discrete events” that individuals stumble upon, but rather as spaces “which both constitute us and form the terrain of our existence” (p. 568). In this sense the dilemmatic space, which includes pre-existing conditions and relations, frames and is embedded in individual dilemmas. While all human spaces are dilemmatic, certain political and professional arenas have stronger intensity and gravity as dilem€s (2013) apply the concept of matic spaces. Fransson and Granna dilemmatic space to the context of teaching and argue that “in professional life, dilemmatic spaces (and dilemmas) contribute to constituting and forming teachers’ professional identities, for instance in relation to other stakeholders, including pupils, head teachers, parents, policy-makers and other professionals, or in relation to specific perspectives” (p. 8). €s’s (2013) analysis of the teaching context Fransson and Granna as a dilemmatic space “offers a broader theoretical framework with which to conceptualize dilemmas and the complexity of educational contexts” (p. 14). I argue that the practicum requires a particular analysis as a dilemmatic space, since it is a confined and structured teaching context in which novice teachers start to develop their professional identity while subjected to constant evaluation. Honig (1994) further explains the intersection between dilemmas and dilemmatic space: [The] identification of dilemmas with the (admittedly) more amorphous notion of a dilemmatic space does not deny the felt eventfulness of particular dilemmas. But it insists on a particular meaning for the term event. Rather than springing up ab initio, dilemmas are actually the eventful eruptions of a turbulence that is always already there. They are the periodic crystallizations of incoherences and conflicts in social orders and their subjects. (p. 569). Similarly, I focus on the ethical dilemmas of TCs not only as individual incidents but also as emerging from the dilemmatic space of the practicum. I was interested in the taken for granted, hidden, or seemingly hidden nature of the practicum setting that “coordinates the dynamic beyond any individual’s everyday experience” (Fukuyama, 2014, p. 8). In particular, I was interested in analyzing ethical dilemmas in the context of the practicum where TCs inhabited a marginalized position in the school, dependent on more powerful agents to gain access to the teaching profession. Being in a dilemmatic space is inherently related to the possibility of the enactment of agency. Biesta and Tedder (2007) explain that actors always act by means of their environment rather than simply in their environment [so that] the achievement of agency will always result from the interplay of individual efforts, available resources and contextual and structural factors as they come together in particular and, in a sense, always unique situations. (p. 137). This view of agency aligns with the analysis of the practicum as a dilemmatic space, as it highlights how the enactment of agency is relational and context dependent (Biesta, Preistley, & Robinson, 2017). The practicum can be a space where TCs enact their agency while navigating tensions and possibilities, but it can also be a space where agency is constrained, and conformism encouraged. It is important to note that enacting agency in the practicum does not contradict the position of being supervised. Biesta (2017) differentiates between “authoritarian relationship” and

M. Lilach / Teaching and Teacher Education 89 (2020) 103002

3

“relationships of authority.” He explains that “whereas authoritarian relationships are about one-sided power and control, relationships of authority are relationships of what we might call ‘accepted’ or ‘justified’ power” (pp. 326e327). This distinction resembles Gaventa’s (2007) typology of participation that is set on a relational continuum. One end of the continuum is marked by closed participation, where the more powerful agents make the decisions without or with limited consultation; while the other end is marked by claimed participation, in which the less powerful agents disregard authority and act of their own accord. The middle of the continuum, which is the optimal mode, is that of invited participation; this mode is open ended and grounded in dialogue. More pertinent to this study, via an extensive literature review of six decades of studies on cooperating teachers (school advisors), Clarke et al. (2014) identify 11 main roles that cooperating teachers perform in the practicum. Among the prevalent roles are the following: “Agents of socialization,” “advocates of the practical,” and “Gate keepers of the profession.” By applying Gaventa (2007) typology of participation to these identified roles, Clarke et al. (2014) highlight how cooperating teachers’ participation in the practicum is underlined by the institutional space in which they work and the power relations between practicum schools and the universities in teacher education. I draw on these typologies to examine how TCs are positioned in relation to more powerful agents in the dilemmatic space of the practicum.

the classes. The decision on the outcome of the practicum is made together by the SA and FA. In cases of disagreement it is brought to the practicum coordinators.

3. Context of the study

4.1. Data sources

Teacher education in Canada is under the provision of the provinces (although teachers can move between provinces under the Agreement on Internal Trade; BC Ministry of Education, 2010). The prevalent model of teacher education in Canada is that of the university-based pre-service teacher education program. In British Columbia (BC) there are nine teacher education programs, all hosted in universities (BC Ministry of Education, 2019). Program duration is 11e24 months that include both theoretical and experiential components. Education courses taken at universities provide the theoretical foundations and teaching tools, while the school practicum provides the opportunity to put these ideas to the test. The program under study is an 11-month prestigious teacher education program at a research university in BC. The two practicum coordinators of the program (one for the elementary and middle-years cohorts and one for the secondary cohorts) shared that on average about 350 teacher candidates start the program every year; about 10% fail the practicum; and an additional 5%e10% leave the program before the beginning of the practicum, withdraw during the practicum, or need to repeat parts of it. Failures and delays in the program are primarily related to the practicum component. The supervision of TCs during the program is shared between faculty advisors, who are university faculty members (hereafter FAs), and school advisors, who are experienced schoolteachers (hereafter SAs). FAs teach courses in the program and are also assigned to a group of TCs whom they supervise thorough the program, including the practicum; however, the main supervisor during the practicum is the SA. The program aims to assign a few TCs to the same practicum school in order to create a support system on site. Both SAs and FAs observe TCs during the practicum; the SA is the direct supervisor, while the FA visits the school and observes TCs every 7e10 days. All parties (TC, FA, and SA) come together at the mid-point of the practicum to go over an evaluation check-list that each has filled separately and to discuss concerns before TCs move to the more advanced part of the practicum in which they teach 80%e100% of

The main sources of data were 125 reflective journal entries collected from TCs (see Table 1 for participants’ self-identification). The journal entries (one-two pages) were written as course assignments during a mandatory course that is focused on ethical dilemmas in teaching and is offered in the final term of the teacher education program (post practicum). During the course TCs share their dilemmas with each other, explore connecting themes between the individual dilemmas, and employ diverse theoretical frames to analyze their dilemmas. TCs were asked to identify an ethical dilemma that they had experienced during the practicum. There were a few guiding questions, such as, when/where did the event occur? Who were the participants? How did the TC act in that situation? And what is their perspective in hindsight? Participants for the study were recruited via an email that was sent to all teacher candidates. I collected the journals from TCs who gave their consent. TCs were also asked to self-identify and to state whether they were willing to be further interviewed. I correlated the TCs’ self-identification with the data in order to see if certain categories (e.g., gender, race) were tied to more challenges during the practicum; however, I could not find a clear correlation that indicated that certain groups of TCs faced greater challenges than others. That is not to say that such a correlation does not exist (Author, 2019). As Honig (1994) states, the dilemmatic space “treats dilemmas not only as a symptom of value pluralism but also as a sign of the ineradicability of difference from identity” (p. 569). However, the multiplicity of themes that emerged in the data analysis made it hard to isolate specific

4. Methodology and data analysis I applied the methodological design of grounded theory, since it is an effective design to capture the complexity of the practicum as a dilemmatic space and to focus on the relationships between individuals in a particular environment. Grounded theory was developed by Glaser and Strauss (2006) as a methodological design that challenges the need to start a research project with a solid overarching theoretical frame. Instead, it is a methodology that is grounded in the field; hence, it demands starting the research with an open question and refining the focus and the theoretical frame through the discovery of repeated themes and connections during the data analysis process. My approach to grounded theory draws on a feminist critical perspective (Wuest, 1995), which means that I began my inquiry from a critical perspective and was interested in exploring the visible and invisible forms of power relations that underlie the practicum. This correlates with Honig (1994) understanding of a dilemmatic space as pre-existing individual dilemmas. My analysis is focused on the intersections between individual dilemmas and the relational and institutional space in which they took place.

Table 1 Teacher candidates’ self-identification. Number:

Gender:

Ethnicity/Race:

Religion:

Total: 125 Journal Only: 113 Journal þ Interview: 12

Male: 44 Female: 81

White: 64 East Asian: 36 South Asian: 16 Middle Eastern: 6 Mixed Race/Other: 3

Catholic: 2 123 undefined

4

M. Lilach / Teaching and Teacher Education 89 (2020) 103002

categories. After analyzing the journals, I conducted semi-structured interviews with 12 TCs (Kvale, 1996; Seidman, 2005) in order to gain more insight into how the practicum operates as a particular dilemmatic space. I also conducted interviews with the practicum coordinators of the teacher education program in order to compare their perspectives to that of the TCs. Because of the large number of data sources, the participants were not given pseudonyms; in addition, all the identifying information about the participants and their respective schools was removed. 4.2. Data analysis In the first stage of the data collection I identified initial categories (open coding) in the reflective journals using NVivo software (Strauss, 1987). I analyzed each reflective journal entry and identified the main themes underlying individual dilemmas. Some of the main themes identified at this stage were similar to themes already described in studies on the ethical dilemmas of teachers (such as caring for individual students, assessment, boundaries, navigating personal values vs. institutional policies; Ehrich, Kimber, Millwater, & Cranston, 2011; Shapira-Lishchinsky, 2011; Shapiro & Stefkovich, 2011; Tirri & Husu, 2002). Other themes were unique to the practicum as a dilemmatic space and to the experiences of TCs in that space (see Table 2). Since one third of the dilemmas identified by TCs clearly emerged from the unique space of the practicum, I explored this direction further in the second stage of the analysis. In the second stage I conducted an “axial coding,” which entails putting data together by making connections between categories and subcategories (Strauss, 1987). The process of relating categories to their subcategories is called “axial” because the coding occurs around the axis of a category (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). I focused on themes that were unique to the practicum and to the position of being a TC, such as issues of conformity, authority, and power relations. I made theoretical memos that explored different theoretical possibilities to support the findings, such as the notions of “agency” and “relationship of authority” (Biesta, 2017; Biesta & Tedder, 2007). In order to get a deeper understanding of these themes, I interviewed 12 TCs whose dilemmas fell under these categories and who indicated on the consent form that they were willing to further discuss their dilemmas in an interview. These interviews, and the ones with the program coordinators, were transcribed verbatim and coded with the other sources of data through the NVivo software. At this stage I also refined the categories, looked for intersections between categories, and gave particular focus to the themes that in some way intersected with the practicum as a dilemmatic space (see Table 2). I also ensured that all the

information fit into the main categories, and that areas of overlap were clearly identified. In some cases, it was hard to draw a clear line between ethical dilemmas that are unique to TCs in the practicum and ethical dilemmas that teachers face in general. For example, power relations and hierarchies are embedded in the school system and not only in the practicum setting. My guideline in such cases was to identify how situations might be manifested uniquely in the practicum as a dilemmatic space. In the third stage of the coding process (selective coding), I made final alignments between the categories, clarified the relationships and hierarchies between the categories, and identified a core category. A core category (Strauss, 1987) is one that is central and has relationships to most of the other categories, to the theoretical frame, and to the institutions under investigation. I identified power relations in the practicum, as the core category that characterizes the practicum as a dilemmatic space. 5. Findings In this section 1 characterise the practicum as a dilemmatic space and highlight how it underlies the individual dilemmas that TCs face. The core characteristic of the practicum as a dilemmatic space is that it is a mesh of power relations. I identified three main subthemes under this overarching feature: Navigating power relations, conformism, and gossip and cliques. While all these categories are connected to power relations, each highlights different aspects of power. Navigating power relations focuses on how TCs often felt “caught in between” more powerful agents in school, conformism focuses on the relationship with the SA as the central authority figure in the practicum, and gossip and cliques highlights the wider institutional culture of the practicum schools. 5.1. Navigating power relations The first characteristic of the practicum as a dilemmatic space is that TCs are subjected to multiple negotiations with various authority figures and institutions. The SA, as the direct supervisor, has an important role as “convener of relations,” in supporting TCs in navigating the complex relationships with the diverse actors in the school setting (Clarke et al., 2014). When SAs did not take this role TCs often reported that they felt as if they were “caught in between” actors during the practicum, whether these were administrators or other teachers. For example, in a journal entry a TC shared an experience in which the school principal asked her to supervise students who came to school early while their parents attended a school meeting. However, her SA disapproved of her complying with this request: Overall, I got caught in this messy situation in which it was unclear whether I should have been watching these students because my principal wanted me to or if I should’ve known about the faux pas of “babysitting” students before class time.

Table 2 Dilemmas unique to the practicum as a dilemmatic space. Main Category:

Number of participants: Sub-category:

36 Power relations in the practicum: Dilemmas that emerge from being supervised and “on trial”

Time mentioned: Main themes:

Navigating power relations 17

Conformism

24

Gossip and Cliques

13













Caught in between SA and other teachers SA and admin SA and FA University & school Pleasing SA Passing practicum Challenging SA’s authority Adjusting teaching style Public discussion of teachers, families, and students

M. Lilach / Teaching and Teacher Education 89 (2020) 103002

Similarly, in an interview a TC shared a situation in which she was caught between her SA and the school administration and was worried that if she failed to show loyalty to the SA: “[The SA would say] ‘I’m not going to sign your final report and you don’t get a job.’” This TC further explained, “that’s where I think a lot of us are afraid that what we say might get us in trouble.” In both these examples the TCs felt caught between loyalty to their SAs, who are the ones who sign the practicum report, and other agents in the school. These dilemmas highlight a model of “authoritarian relationship” (Biesta, 2017), in which TCs need to align with the person in power. This is particularly complex in the practicum context where the school hierarchies (administrators are more powerful than teachers) intersect with the hierarchies of the practicum (the SA has direct power over the TC). These dilemmas further characterise the dilemmatic space of the practicum as shaped by wider political disputes over professional definitions, such as what constitutes the “job” of teachers, that are debated by higher-level players including the BC Teachers’ Federation, school trusties, and the Ministry of Education. TCs also shared situations of being caught between their SA and other teachers in the school. For example, in a journal entry one TC described a situation where her SA asked her to “spy” on another teacher while the SA was away. The TC wrote: I felt put in a very awkward position between my SA and another teacher at the school, and I felt obligated to tell my SA what her students were doing or not doing in the class. I felt that I had no choice but to talk to my SA about what she was asking. It felt like I was playing the role of a “spy.” When TCs had to navigate dynamics between teachers they often felt they were expected to take the side of their SA, yet felt uncomfortable being in the position of “spy” or speaking ill of another teacher. When SAs did not act as conveners of relationships, but rather expected TCs to “pick sides,” it intensified the dilemmatic space of the practicum. Other scenarios where TCs felt caught in between emerged in the relational triangle of SA-TC-FA. A good professional relationship between SA and FA are important for a successful practicum since the practicum is a joint venture of the teacher education program and the practicum school, and TCs are evaluated and supervised by both professionals. FAs are seen by many TCs as the representatives of the sending teacher education program, and thus, the ones whose role it is to protect them. In cases of problems between SAs and TCs in the practicum, the FA is the one called to evaluate the situation. However, when tensions emerged between FAs and TCs, TCs felt they were left without institutional support. The secondary practicum coordinator discussed the FA-SA-TC triangle from his point of view: TCs are expecting the FA-TC relationship to be like best friends and, “You’re my advocate, and not my critic,” you know? …. Maybe that’s unfair. Depending on the student, they see one or the other as being thedmore the gatekeeperdand the other one to be more of the advocate. And so, when the roles don’t match up with what they’re thinking, they sometimes get concerned. While the practicum coordinator is right to argue that TCs cannot expect unconditional support from FAs, for TCs the FA is the embodiment of the institution, so when they did not feel they had their FA’s support, they felt “on their own.” An interviewee gave an example of a situation in which she felt she didn’t have the FA’s support: Because my faculty advisor had so much power over me, the incentive is to suck up and please her… you do not necessarily have the strength to stand up and negotiate with and relate to someone in a position of authority on equal terms. When I tried to negotiate about not implementing some of her feedback, she took it really personally and was offended. Her response made me feel really

5

ashamed for challenging and disagreeing with her. In this example the TC described what she experienced as an authoritarian relationship in which she could not challenge her FA’s ideas. This resembles Gavata (2007) closed participation model, in which the TC did not feel invited to actively engage in the practicum. 5.1.1. The divide between theory and practice A related area of ethical dilemmas emerged when TCs felt caught not between agents but rather between institutions, namely between the teacher education program and the practicum school. Since the divide between theory and practice in teacher education has a long history, it is not surprising that it marked the dilemmatic space of the practicum. TCs shared how the theoretical part of their teacher education was perceived in their practicum schools as disconnected from reality. One interviewee explained: When I had new ideas, my SA would be, “[the university] is the ‘ivory tower’ and this is what is really going on in the class. We know better.” So, with this attitude it was hard to say, “Oh, but we’ve learned about this new technology or tool.” You cannot push it. You are always in the position of taking in their recommendations and playing it out. So it’s kind of a one-way situation. The elementary practicum coordinator shared that such tensions have increased since the implementation of a new curriculum in BC (BC Ministry of Education, 2018): It’s becoming more complex because the curriculum shifts… Our students only know the new curriculum. They’re probably going to classrooms and to school districts where a lot of the teachers are still using the older curriculum or have an older way of looking at education. So this is another friction point. These examples illuminate that while TCs often come from the university with new ideas and teaching tools, these are not always welcomed in the school setting. This phenomenon is supported by Clarke et al. (2014), whose category of “advocate of the practical” is identified as one of the most prominent roles that SAs play. While SAs take pride in the role of exposing TCs to the practical aspects of teaching, Clarke et al. (2014) caution that, “an emphasis on the practical may exist in opposition to reflective engagement where critical judgment is important” (p. 182). However, drawing on Gaventa (2007) participation typology, one may wonder if the reason that SAs claim the role of “advocate of practical” reflects power imbalances between schools and universities in teacher education that reduce SAs to the role of “supervisor” rather than an additional teacher educator. To conclude, it seems that the dilemmatic space of the practicum is characterized by tension on multiple levels: Between diverse agents in the practicum school and in the teacher education program; between the teacher education programs and the schools; and between theory and practice. These tensions are conveyed through the TCs’ relationships with multiple agents in the practicum setting. Hence, ethical dilemmas can be understood as political actions (or inactions) in the context of the practicum where TCs inhabit a marginalized position in the school, and are dependent on more powerful agents to gain access to the teaching profession. 5.2. Conformism Another key characteristic of the practicum as a dilemmatic space is that it seems to reward conformism. The most prevalent push toward conformism in the practicum was transmitted through the relationship with the SA, who takes the role of “gatekeeper to the profession” (Clarke et al., 2014). In BC teachers cannot be certified without successfully passing the practicum; hence, SAs

6

M. Lilach / Teaching and Teacher Education 89 (2020) 103002

play a significant role in entry to the profession. The role of gatekeeper is tightly connected to another prominent role that SAs play, that of “agent of socialization.” Clarke et al. (2014) explain that a socialization process is taking place in the practicum “not only in normative terms of customs and ideologies, but also in terms of dispositions and habits that define teaching as a profession” (p. 181). Many TCs shared experiences involving tension between exploring their ideas and adjusting to the teaching style of their SA. One interviewee described the following: There was a lot of micromanagement. My own experiential learning was not there. It was her script, her way, and that was the expectationdthat I follow exactly what she wanted. I didn’t have the freedom to do things my own way. I felt like she put me in this little box and kept me there…like she really wanted me to be like her. Another interviewee shared: I started out in a very people-pleasing positiondpleasing the kids, pleasing my SA, and pleasing my FA. Going from that identity of a people-pleaser to being in control [in class] required a total shift in consciousness and I don’t think I necessarily had the ability to find that inner authority… Throughout my practicum, I was like a soldier, in a disassociated mode, just doing whatever people told me to do… I realized how I erased myself. These examples reflect another prevalent role that SAs tend to take, that of “role modelers of practice” (Clarke et al., 2014). Clarke et al. (2014) argue that this is often the default position of SAs in the practicum. It assumes that practice is reproducible and thus SAs “typically expect their student teachers to model their practice after their own” (p. 177). However, when SAs expected TCs to copy their teaching style it limited the space for TCs to explore their own teaching style and enact their agency. Even in cases when TCs strongly disagreed with something that their SA had done, they hesitated to challenge their authority. For example, one TC journaled about an exchange with her SA after the SA had disciplined a student in a way that seemed to humiliate the student: After the lesson the SA took me out of the class and apologized that I had to see that and then she asked me, “But you do see why I had to do that?” This is where I felt uncomfortable. I didn’t want to agree, because in the back of my mind I could think of a few other ways this could’ve been handled without humiliating a student in front of the class. But I couldn’t disagree…I felt like I didn’t have much authority to even share my opinion, so I had to pretend as if I completely understood that what she did was fine. Many TCs felt that they had to please their SAs in order to get a passing mark in the practicum, even when it meant prioritizing the SA’s values over their own (Phelan et al., 2006). This could lead to feeling a lack of agency and sometimes even, as in the case above, to the erasure of the TC’s own identity. It seems that tensions were even more prevalent when there were personality differences between SAs and TCs, as one TC described in his journal: I was placed with a school advisor whose personality and teaching style was very different than my own. As a result, I found myself in the uncomfortable position of having to decide whether to compromise my own educational instincts to follow the advice of my senior. The importance of compatibility between SAs and TCs is supported by research. (Kabadayi (2007)) argues that “matching teaching style to learning style significantly enhances the cooperating teachers’ influence” (cited in Clarke et al., 2014, p. 181). The secondary practicum advisor gave an example of how a bad practicum experience can turn into a good one depending on the match between TC and SA:

Sometimes there are problems when the teacher candidate wants to be able to be independent and be autonomous, and the SA’s not willing to give that up, for whatever reason…What makes it so challenging is that the next year the student you place with that same SA might be one of those students who thrives with having everything told to them… and you get no issues. Hence, one possible way to reduce tensions between SAs and TCs is to try to “match” them. However, the complexity of practicum placements and the large number of TCs and schools involved make this “match-making” impossible on a practical level. Furthermore, while some matches between TCs and SAs might work better than others, it seems that in general the dilemmatic space of the practicum rewarded conformism over the enactment of agency. The “safest” way to pass the practicum was to conform to authority; questioning the system or the SAs’ behaviour meant taking a risk. In addition, taking into consideration the historical construction of the teacher profession as a mostly White, middle class, female profession (Marom, 2019, a, 2019, b), one must question whether the dilemmatic space of the practicum is marked by White normativity. Few TCs shared that they experienced discrimination in the practicum setting. Despite the fact that this theme was not as prevalent, it is important to highlight. For example, an interviewee of South-Asian descent shared: “My SA would constantly try to talk over me during my lessons when I started teaching. She is White and is relatively older than me, so I felt it might be a power issue, but after a while it made me feel that it was more about who I was rather than about something else.” In this example, this TC felt that the critique she faced was due to who she was rather than to how she taught. While I couldn’t find a strong correlation in the data between race and ethical dilemmas in the practicum experience, studies demonstrate that racial biases still play a role in schools and in teacher education (Brown, 2014; Author 2018; 2019). The concept of dilemmatic space calls for further analysis of the practicum as a space that might be more welcoming for TCs who “fit” the normative construction of the teaching profession than to TCs of marginalized groups. Where conformism works as a filter, TCs from marginalized groups and TCs who have critical views about teaching may face more difficulties being initiated into the teaching profession. 5.3. Gossip and cliques The third characteristic of the practicum as a dilemmatic space highlights the wider institutional culture of the practicum school as transmitted through relationships between teachers and between teachers and other players in a school (e.g., administrators, parents, and students). While the most significant relationship in the practicum is with the SA, the wider school culture has a considerable impact on TCs’ overall practicum experience. Similar findings were described in the practicum of nurses and medical students, suggesting that, “ethical dilemmas reflect the broader interprofessional workplace culture” (Rees, Monrouxe, & McDonald, 2015, p. 176). Varcoe, Pauly, Storch, Newton, and Makaroff (2012) argue, in the context of nursing, that analysis of moral dilemmas should be grounded in “a conceptual understanding of moral distress that reflects both moral agency and structural relationships and the interaction between individual’s experiences and the structural features” (p. 55). Similarly, in this study, the school culture was another layer that constituted the dilemmatic space of the practicum. In many cases it seems that the school culture was embedded with gossip and cliques, which colored the experience of TCs during the practicum. Many TCs shared that they felt uncomfortable and repelled by the prevalence of gossip in the staffroom and reported that they

M. Lilach / Teaching and Teacher Education 89 (2020) 103002

eventfully decided to refrain from going to the staffroom during breaks, opting to stay in their classrooms. One TC wrote in her journal: At breaks especially, there was a lot of gossip about how students were behaving …or updates on family matters… It made me often spend more time in my classroom during lunch to minimize the time I spent in that environment. Another TC’s journal reflected this sentiment: The staffroom became something that I wanted to avoid, especially when teachers were getting ready for report cards. During that time I noticed how teachers would talk very negatively about the students in their classroom and about their parents with others teachers… There was no confidentially left for that student and their family. While TCs felt that many staffroom exchanges took the form of public gossiping about students and families, which made them feel uncomfortable, the secondary practicum coordinator had a different view on the topic: There’s a self-righteousness about teacher candidates that’s both refreshing and frustrating. You know…they’ll see something going on in the staffroom, and…oftentimes they’ll kind of won’t put it in proper context, right, and see it very black and white…And there are times where you’re like, “Yeah, that’s two professionals talking about a student that they’ve probably both taught.” Since teachers are often isolated and confined to their individual classrooms, it is understandable that they would like to consult with each other and share their experiences in the staffroom during breaks. However, it seems that some conversations were conducted in an unprofessional manner, involving sharing personal information and judgment about students and families. In some schools the gossip was not limited to students but also involved the teaching staff, as one TC wrote: I began to notice that some of the teachers regularly talked about other teachers, had a lot to say about particular students or parents in their classes, and were not very kind or careful with the words they were using. Coming into the school as a new teacher, I felt quite uncomfortable in the first place, and hearing this chatter happen all around me did not instil the sense of safety and security that I thought I would feel entering an elementary school. When gossip extended to teachers it was often connected to cliques in schools. In these cases the SA would be affiliated with a specific clique, which reflected on the position of the TC in the school. One TC described this situation in his journal: “There were certain groups of teachers that sat with each other and only interacted with their group. As a student teacher, I felt very uncomfortable because I did not want to be associated with any cliques.” Another TC wrote about a situation where there was a disagreement between teachers in the staffroom: I felt hesitant to speak up and join their conversation due to the power imbalance between a teacher candidate and a teacher. I knew that I have no power or support among the teachers or admin, and that I would be the one to suffer the most if I made an enemy in the staffroom. The elementary practicum coordinator related to these experiences: They are just not at the point where they can actually do a lot about it. It’s not going to serve them well. If they do, and hats off if they do, the likelihood is that it is going to cost them the practicum if they challenge another teacher … Who’s expendable on staff? It’s always the teacher candidate who’s the one that is going to go out the door. They don’t have the union behind them, so to challenge that would be, at this point in their career, unwise.

7

From the quotations above it seems that when the practicum as a dilemmatic space was embedded in gossip TCs felt less secure and less capable of actively engaging with the professional staff. Furthermore, in the case of staffroom cliques, TCs had to be careful not to anger anyone or make enemies in the school.

6. Discussion The practicum is the first opportunity for many TCs to delve into the complexity of the teaching profession; hence, it is hardly surprising that they experience many ethical dilemmas during this time. The findings suggest that ethical dilemmas not only reflect tension experienced by an individual TC in a particular situation, but rather the wider space in which those tensions emerged. Returning to Honig’s (1994) analysis of dilemmas, “not only as specters of agentic fragmentation but also always as markers of a potential space of gender politics, empowerment, and political engagement” (p. 570), the practicum holds the potential to be a space of empowerment where TCs are encouraged to enact their agency. It seems, however, that more often the practicum operated as a closed space (Gaventa, 2007) that limited the TCs’ participation. Unpacking the characteristics of the practicum as a dilemmatic space is important since its pre-existing conditions underly the TCs’ individual dilemmas. In a dilemmatic space that is characterized by multiple power relations, conformism, gossip, and cliques it is not surprising that TCs prioritized passing the practicum over exploring their professional identities and enacting their agency. €s (2013) argue that the wider context of Fransson and Granna teachers’ work has significant implications on their professional identity: If, as an example, teachers are trusted as professionals, have a high autonomy with regard to politicians and the educational system has a low frequency of external accountability systems, it is more likely that teachers will develop a strong sense of professional identity and a high-status self-image than they would in an educational system in which they are not trusted and where there is a high frequency of external accountability systems. (p. 8). Similarly, in this case, the practicum as a dilemmatic space embedded in power relations has significant implications on the ability of TCs to explore their professional identities and enact their agency. Since the practicum is a complex space in which TCs have to navigate multiple relationships and institutions, they often feel “caught in between” contradicting demands from agents in positions of power. While the complexity of the teaching profession predisposes it to the existence of ethical dilemmas, the precarious position of being a TC “on trial” intensifies these dilemmas. Particularly when the school culture is infected by gossip, the practicum creates an unsafe space for TCsdpositioned at the bottom of the school professional hierarchydto share their views and trust other agents. A central component in the enactment of TCs’ agency is the relationship with the SA. While the mentorship model of the practicum in which novice teachers are introduced to the profession by more senior teachers has much merit, it has to be accompanied by an evolving relationship of authority that invites TCs to explore their own ideas rather than simply imitate the teaching style of their SA. The findings suggest that many TCs experience disagreements with their SAs, yet most of them feel powerless to voice their concerns. It seems that many hold the view described by one TC in an interview: “You know the pre-service teacher’s ritual: you go in for a few months, keep your mouth shut, don’t kick up any dust, do

8

M. Lilach / Teaching and Teacher Education 89 (2020) 103002

what you need to do, and get out.” While it is important to understand that TCs are guests in the practicum school and thus cannot expect to have ultimate freedom to explore their ideas, it seems that in the practicum setting conformism is one of the main qualities that TCs need to demonstrate in order to pass. Whereas the structure of the practicum entails that TCs are supervised by authority figures, the nature of the relationships in the dilemmatic space of the practicum is detrimental to the level of agency that TCs can enact. When authority is relational in the sense that it is supported by all the participants in the relationship, that is, it is not only the outcome of a pre-existing power hierarchy, it can allow a dialectic space for supervised exploration (Biesta, 2017). The concept of dilemmatic space calls for a deeper analysis of the structures and relationships underlying the practicum that might promote conformism and silence over agency and critique.

Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing.

7. Concluding thoughts

Association of Accrediting Agencies of Canada. (2013). Faq. Retrieved from http:// aaac.ca/Documents/FAQ.pdf. Aultman, L., Williams-Johnson, M., & Schutz, P. (2009). Boundary dilemmas in teacher-student relationships: Struggling with “the line. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(5), 636e646. Biesta, G. (2017). Education, measurement and the professions: Reclaiming a space for democratic professionality in education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 49(4), 315e330. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2015.1048665. Biesta, G., Priestley, M., & Robinson, S. (2017). Talking about education: Exploring the significance of teachers’ talk for teacher agency. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 49(1), 38e54. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2016.1205143. Biesta, G. J. J., & Tedder, M. (2007). Agency and learning in the lifecourse: Towards an ecological perspective. Studies in the Education of Adults, 39, 132e149. Brown, K. D. (2014). Teaching in color: A critical race theory in education analysis ofthe literature on preservice teachers of color and teacher education in the US. Race,Ethnicity and Education, 17(3), 326e345. Campbell, E. (1997). Administrators’ decisions and teachers’ ethical dilemmas: Implications for moral agency. Leading & Managing, 3(4), 245e257. Campbell, E. (2006). Ethical knowledge in teaching: A moral imperative of professionalism. Education Canada, 46(4), 32e35. Clarke, A., Triggs, V., & Nielsen, W. (2014). Cooperating teacher participation in teacher education: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 84(2), 163e202. Colnerud, G. (2006). Teacher ethics as a research problem: Syntheses achieved and new issues. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 12, 365e385. Ehrich, L. C., Kimber, M., Millwater, J., & Cranston, N. (2011). Ethical dilemmas: A model to understand teacher practice. Teachers and Teaching, 17(2), 173e185. Fransson, G., & Grann€ as, J. (2013). Dilemmatic spaces in educational contexts e towards a conceptual framework for dilemmas in teachers work. Teachers and Teaching, 19(1), 4e17. Fukuyama, K. (2014). Negotiating the education and practice disjuncture in nursing clinical placements : Nursing faculty’s perspectives (T). University of British Columbia. Retrieved from https://open.library.ubc.ca/collections/ubctheses/24/ items/1.0165868. Gaventa, J. (2007). Levels, spaces and forms of power: Analysing opportunities for change. In F. Berenskoetter, & M. J. Williams (Eds.), Power in world politics (pp. 204e223). New York, NY: Routledge. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2006). Discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research (3rd ed.). USA: Routledge. Gomez, M. L., Allen, A. R., & Clinton, K. (2004). Cultural models of care in teaching: A case study of one pre-service secondary teacher. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(5), 473e488. Helton, G. B., & Ray, B. A. (2005). Strategies school practitioners report they would use to resist pressure to practice unethically. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 22(1), 43e65. Hodgkinson, C. (1991). Educational leadership: The moral art. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Honig, B. (1994). Difference, dilemmas, and the politics of home. Social Research, 61(3), 563e597. Husu, J., & Tirri, K. (2001). Teachers’ ethical choices in sociomoral settings. Journal of Moral Education, 30(4), 361e375. Johns, B. H., McGrath, M. Z., & Mathur, S. R. (2008). Ethical dilemmas in education: Standing up for honesty and integrity. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Kabadayi, A. (2007). Analyzing the cognitive teaching styles of preservice and cooperating preschool teachers in Turkey. Early Child Development and Care, 177, 275e293. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430500473276. Korthagen, F., Loughran, J., & Russell, T. (2006). Developing fundamental principles for teacher education programs and practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(8), 1020e1041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.04.022. Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Marom. (2019). Under the cloak of professionalism: Covert racism in teacher educationUnder the cloak of professionalism: Covert racism in teacher education. Race Ethnicity and Education, 22(3), 319e337. https://doi.org/10.1080/

Studies demonstrate that reflecting on ethical dilemmas can support future teachers in analyzing professional tensions and provide them with tools to choose one action over another when encountering similar situations in their future practices (Measor, 1985; Woods, 1993). While reflecting on dilemmas TCs face is important, the concept of dilemmatic space shifts the perspective from dilemmas as singular with binary choices for resolution to a critical and structural understanding of educational spaces. It suggests that, in the case under study, the practicum may be understood as an institutional space that is designed to mold TCs to a system. Furthermore, analysis of the practicum as a dilemmatic space exposes the discrepancy between theory and practice in teacher education. While teacher education programs often include critical components in their curriculum, when it comes to the practical aspects of teacher education, one may wonder if conformism and compliance take precedence. Understanding the practicum as a dilemmatic space demands that issues of power and authority be discussed constantly during teacher education, not as theoretical constructs but as part of critical reflection that aims to question and challenge excessive power within educational institutions. While the well-being and safety of pupils is embedded in the professional guidelines of the teaching profession, and teachers unions aim to protect teachers, TCs are unaffiliated and unprotected individuals during the practicum, which puts them in a vulnerable position. This study suggests that teacher education programs should take a more active role in understanding the practicum as a dilemmatic space, and the resulting implications for TCs as a group. This could include creating spaces for teacher educators, teachers, and administrators to discuss issues of authority and conformism that seem to underlie the practicum experience for many TCs. It is also important to provide a space for TCs to analyze their ethical dilemmas as reflecting the practicum as a dilemmatic space (Rees & Monrouxe, 2010). While currently there is a course about ethics and teaching in the program under study, it is taken after the practicum and led by instructors who are disconnected from the practicum portion of the program, which takes away from the complexity of the discussions and their practical application. When TCs begin their professional trajectory in a dilemmatic space that promotes conformism over the enactment of agency it not only impacts them as individuals, it also limits the transformative role of teacher education to act as a vehicle of change in the school system. CRediT authorship contribution statement Marom Lilach: Conceptualization, Methodology, Data curation,

Acknowledgments My gratitude to Kwantlen Polytechnic University for supporting this study with Faculty Professional Development grant. My gratitude to the editors and reviewers of TATE for their constructive critiques that significantly improved the quality of this paper. Appendix A. Supplementary data Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.103002. References

M. Lilach / Teaching and Teacher Education 89 (2020) 103002 13613324.2018.1468748. Marom. (2019). From experienced teachers to newcomers to the profession: The capital conversion of internationally educated teachers in Canada. Journal of Teaching and Teacher Education, 78(2), 85e96. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.tate.2018.11.006. Measor, L. (1985). Critical incidents in the classroom: Identities, choices and career. In S. J. Ball, & F. Goodson (Eds.), Teachers’ lives and careers (pp. 61e78). London, UK: Falmer Press. Millwater, J., Ehrich, L. C., & Cranston, N. (2004). Preservice teachers’ dilemmas: Ethical or not? International Journal of Practical Experiences in Professional Education, 8(2), 48e58. Ministry of Education, B. C. (2010). The agreement on internal trade. Retrieved from http://www.bcteacherregulation.ca/teacher/LabourMobility.aspx. Ministry of Education, B. C. (2018). BC’s new curriculum. Retrieved from https:// curriculum.gov.bc.ca. Ministry of Education, B. C. (2019). Approved teacher education programs. Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/education-training/k-12/ teach/training-and-professional-development/teacher-education-programs. Noddings, N. (1992). The challenge to care in schools: An alternative approach to education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Phelan, A., Sawa, R., Barlow, C., Hurlock, D., Irvine, K., Rogers, G., et al. (2006). Violence and subjectivity in teacher education. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 34, 161e179. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598660600720561. Rees, C. E., & Monrouxe, L. V. (2010). Theory in medical education research: How do we get there? Medical Education, 44(4), 334e339. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.13652923.2009.03615.x. Rees, C. E., Monrouxe, L. V., & McDonald, L. A. (2015). ‘My mentor kicked a dying woman’s bed…’ Analysing UK nursing students ‘most memorable’

9

professionalism dilemmas. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 71(1), 169e180. https:// doi.org/10.1111/jan.12457. Seidman, I. (2005). Interviewing as a qualitative research (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Teacher College Press. Shapira-Lishchinsky, O. (2011). Teachers’ critical incidents: Ethical dilemmas in teaching practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(3), 648e656. Shapiro, J. P., & Stefkovich, J. A. (2011). Ethical leadership and decision-making: Applying theoretical perspectives to complex ethical dilemmas. New York, NY: Routledge Press. Singer, P. (2011). Practical ethics (3rd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press. Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511557842. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research. Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, California: Sage. Tirri, K., & Husu, J. (2002). Care and responsibility in “The best interest of the child”: Relational voices of ethical dilemmas in teaching. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 8(1), 65e80. Varcoe, C., Pauly, B., Storch, J., Newton, L., & Makaroff, K. (2012). Nurses’ perceptions of and responses to morally distressing situations. Nursing Ethics, 19(4), 488e500. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969733011436025. Woods, P. (1993). Critical events in education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 14(4), 355e371. Wuest, J. (1995). Feminist grounded theory: An exploration of the congruency and tensions between two traditions in knowledge discovery. Qualitative Health Research, 5(1), 125e137. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973239500500109. Zeichner, K. (2010). Rethinking the connections between campus courses and field experiences in college- and university-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1e2), 89e99. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487109347671.