We are conducting a study of 28 literacy/English teacher educators (LTEs) in four countries: Canada, United States, England, and Australia. The research questions that guided this part of the study are:

• Why do some literacy teacher educators (LTEs) choose to move beyond the traditional confines of their courses?
•  How do LTEs conceptualize and enact community literacy practices in their courses? 
• How do student teachers respond to community-based activities?

Theoretical Framework

Literature on teacher education consistently reports that student teachers highly value the practice teaching component of their program (Goodwin et al., 2015; White, 2016). However, we believe that the concept of practice teaching needs to be reconsidered. Goodwin et al. (2015) found that mentor teachers tend to: replicate what is in place; focus on the technical or discrete skills; and discuss instructional decisions rather than explain pedagogical choices to support student learning. As a result, the status quo remains. In our large-scale study one LTE astutely noted: it was not sufficient to teach her student teachers about children; rather, she wanted her student teachers to “get to know children and plan around their interests and get to know their cultural backgrounds” (Masked Reference, 2015).

Lampert and Burnett (2016) argue that we need “novel ways to push back against an evolving climate that has seen the teacher education curriculum increasingly influenced by fundamental changes in what is counted as equity and social justice…” (p. 1). They developed a program for student teachers who were interested in teaching in high needs schools who were  “offered a specialized curriculum…given careful mentoring” (p. 82) because they realized they would require more than the traditional curriculum and experiences.

An emerging body of research is building on this work by advocating for community-engaged teacher education (Haddix, 2015). It is not simply service work but unpacking and confronting issues of racism, power, and White privilege (Haddix, 2015, p. 66).  Truly delving into systemic issues cannot simply happen in the academic classroom. Student teachers and teacher educators must engage in the community. Kretchmar & Zeichner  (2016) are calling for “new hybrid spaces where academic, practitioner, and community-based knowledge respect and interact to develop new solutions to the complicated process of preparing teachers” (p. 428).

Much of the methodology was qualitative as defined by Merriam (2009) and Punch (2014). Qualitative inquiry is justified as it provides depth of understanding and enables exploration of questions that do not on the whole lend themselves to quantitative inquiry (Guyton & McIntyre, 1990; Merriam, 2009). It opens the way to gaining entirely unexpected ideas and information from participants in addition to finding out their opinions on simple pre-set matters. A modified grounded theory approach was used, not beginning with a fixed theory but generating theory inductively from the data using a set of techniques and procedures for collection and analysis (Punch, 2014). All 28 participants were interviewed three times over the period April 2012 to August 2013. Each semi-structured interview took approximately 60–90 minutes. Interviews were done either face-to-face or on Skype and were audio-recorded and transcribed. The first interview considered their background experiences; turning points in their career (personal and professional); and research activities. The second interview focused on their pedagogy (e.g., goals for their literacy course(s) assignments and readings). The third interview focused on use of digital technology. For data analysis qualitative software NVivo was used. As the analysis progressed, key findings were identified and refined – adding some and deleting or merging others – through “constant comparison” analysis. The first level of analysis, “open coding,” (Strauss & Corbin, 2000) 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. The next step was axial coding through which connections were identified across the nodes. Approximately 35 nodes (themes) that related to pedagogy were analyzed Responses to the questions around goals for their courses were coded into 3 sub-nodes (themes): knowledge (e.g., specific content); skills (e.g., developing a repertoire of teaching techniques); and dispositions (e.g., understanding teachers as decision-makers).

Much of the methodology was qualitative as defined by Merriam (2009) and Punch (2014). Qualitative inquiry is justified as it provides depth of understanding and enables exploration of questions that do not on the whole lend themselves to quantitative inquiry (Guyton & McIntyre, 1990; Merriam, 2009). It opens the way to gaining entirely unexpected ideas and information from participants in addition to finding out their opinions on simple pre-set matters. A modified grounded theory approach was used, not beginning with a fixed theory but generating theory inductively from the data using a set of techniques and procedures for collection and analysis (Punch, 2014). All 28 participants were interviewed three times over the period April 2012 to August 2013. Each semi-structured interview took approximately 60–90 minutes. Interviews were done either face-to-face or on Skype and were audio-recorded and transcribed. The first interview considered their background experiences; turning points in their career (personal and professional); and research activities. The second interview focused on their pedagogy (e.g., goals for their literacy course(s) assignments and readings). The third interview focused on use of digital technology. For data analysis qualitative software NVivo was used. As the analysis progressed, key findings were identified and refined – adding some and deleting or merging others – through “constant comparison” analysis. The first level of analysis, “open coding,” (Strauss & Corbin, 2000) 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. The next step was axial coding through which connections were identified across the nodes. Approximately 35 nodes (themes) that related to pedagogy were analyzed Responses to the questions around goals for their courses were coded into 3 sub-nodes (themes): knowledge (e.g., specific content); skills (e.g., developing a repertoire of teaching techniques); and dispositions (e.g., understanding teachers as decision-makers).

Masked Reference, (2015). Creswell, J. & Miller, D. (2000) Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice 39 (3), 124 – 130. Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Powerful teacher education: Lessons from exemplary programs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Ghiso, M., Spencer, T., Ngo, L., Campano, G. (2013). Critical inquiry into literacy teacher education: Accounting for students. In C. Kosnik, J. Rowsell, P. Williamson, R. Simon, C. Beck (Eds.), Literacy teacher educators: Preparing student teachers for a changing world (pp. 51–64). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Goodwin, A. L. Roegman, R. & Reagan, E. (2015). Is experience the best teacher? Extensive clinical practice and mentor teachers’ perspectives on effective teaching. Urban Education 1-28 Haddix, M. (2015). Preparing community-engaged teachers. Theory Into Practice, 54, 63–70. Hagger, H. & McIntyre D. (2006). Learning teaching from teachers: Realizing the potential of school-based teacher education. Maidenhead: Open University Press. 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), 417-433. Lambert, J & Burnett, B. (Eds). (2016) Teacher Education for High Poverty Schools.Rotterdam: Springer. Lortie, D. 1975. Schoolteacher. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Punch, K. (2014). Introduction to social research: Quantitative and qualitative approaches. London: Sage. Sharkey, J., Olarte, A. C., & Ramírez, L. M. (2016). Developing a deeper understanding of community-based pedagogies with teachers: Learning with and from teachers in Colombia. Journal of Teacher Education 67(4) 306–319. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (2000). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques for developing grounded theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Tan, Onn-Seng. Education and the Child (2017). In Oon-Sen Tan, Ee-Ling Low, David Hung (Eds.) Lee Kuan Yew’s educational legacy: The challenges and success. (p. 17-29). Singapore: Springer. White, S (2016). Teacher education research and education policymakers: an Australian. perspective, Journal of Education for Teaching, 42(2), 252-264.