Working Group III:

Teacher Educators

Group members: Clive Beck (OISE/Toronto), Shawn Bullock (Queen's), Susan Elliott-Johns (Nipissing), Kathryn Hibbert (Western), Julian Kitchen (Brock), Clare Kosnik (OISE/Toronto), Rick Mrazek (Lethbridge), Wendy Nielsen (UBC), Tom Russell (Queen's), Lynn Thomas (Sherbrooke), Valerie Triggs (UBC)

 

GROUP REPORT

(by Julian Kitchen)

 

Faculty Development of Teacher Educators

Group discussion began with each member of the group reporting on teacher education in their own institutions. Discussion focussed on who delivers the program and on how programs are organized. It soon became evident that there is a wide-range of models for staffing and program organization.  For example, while tenure-track faculty taught delivered much of the program in some universities, much of the program in other universities was delivered by non-permanent instructors who were part-time, contract, seconded or graduate student. Even universities employing large numbers of non-permanent instructors, there was great diversity; some relied largely on retired teachers, while others seconded teachers full-time or offered opportunities to graduate students. Programs too were organized in very different ways, with varying emphasis on field-based work, differing core courses, etc. Given this diversity, the working group soon recognized that we could not develop a faculty development model that could apply across institutions. We could, however, identify the perceived needs of teacher educators, core knowledge and skills, and best practices in teacher education by drawing on knowledge in the field. Texts by Darling-Hammond, Zeichner and Cochran-Smith were identified as offering a base for discussion and generally accepted understandings.

The wide-ranging discussion of ideas, best practices and the needs of teacher educators was very rich over the course of Saturday’s session. While there was not a consensus on next steps, there was general consensus on the qualities we wanted to develop among teacher educators. One of the challenges concerned the degree to which we direct learning towards best practices and the degree to which we provide support based on the needs identified by teacher educators. Another challenge is that a systematic approach to faculty development is not possible without a stronger consensus across Canada about teacher education program delivery.

We all agreed on three things. First, there is a need for faculty development based on the scholarship that underlies teacher education as a distinct field of scholarship and teaching. Second, we will each attempt to initiate some form of faculty development within our institutions; among the possibilities discussed were workshops for teaching assistants, orientation/education for new teacher educators from the field of practice, and support groups designed to build community and improve practice. Third, we agreed that we would report back on our efforts; some of the faculty development efforts may include research components, perhaps in the form of self-studies.

The group agreed that the 3rd Working Conference on Research in Teacher Education in Canada would provide an opportunity to extend the essential work of improving teacher education through faculty development.