lable at ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education 27 (2011) 880e890

Contents lists avai

Teaching and Teacher Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ tate

Establishing and sustaining teacher educator professional developmentin a self-study community of practice: Pre-tenure teacher educatorsdeveloping professionally

Tiffany Gallagher*, Shelley Griffin, Darlene Ciuffetelli Parker, Julian Kitchen, Candace FiggBrock University, Faculty of Education, 500 Glenridge Ave., St. Catharines, ON, Canada L2S 3A1

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 15 February 2009Received in revised form9 February 2011Accepted 11 February 2011

Keywords:Self-studyTeacher educatorsProfessional development

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 905 688 5550x511E-mail addresses: tiffany.gallagher@brocku.ca (T

brocku.ca (S. Griffin), darlene.ciuffetelli-parker@brocjulian.kitchen@brocku.ca (J. Kitchen), candace.figg@br

0742-051X/$ e see front matter � 2011 Elsevier Ltd.doi:10.1016/j.tate.2011.02.003

a b s t r a c t

This paper outlines the professional development of pre-tenure teacher educators through the estab-lishment of a self-study group. Through reflecting on three significant events, a discussion is offered as tohow members contributed to the self-study of teacher education practices and experienced enhance-ment as a community of scholars. Evidence is presented as to how pre-tenure faculty can work togetherto build a culture that links teaching practice to scholarship within an organizational framework forgroup interactions. This work contributes to research on the induction of new professors by providinga model of professional development that is self-directed, collaborative, and empowering.

� 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Teacher education is complex work involving curriculum,pedagogy and research, yet most teacher educators are providedwith little professional development support or mentoring in mostteacher education programs. On the one hand, we are expected toattend to, and experiment with, clinical aspects of practice asteacher educators in order to develop into skilled practitioners.Effective clinical practice involves modeling effective teachingbehavior, bridging theory and practice, understanding teachercandidates as adult learners, reflecting on practice, and developingteacher candidates’ reflection skills (Ducharme, 1993; Guilfoyle,Hamilton, Pinnegar, & Placier, 1995; Zeichner & Gore, 1990). Atthe same time, the academy expects teacher educators to pursuerigorous programs of research (Beck & Kosnik, 2001; Ducharme,1993). While most teacher educators begin with a deep commit-ment to effective teaching and pedagogical reform, the culture ofeducation colleges and the promotion criteria and other rewardsystems within universities privileges scholarship over clinicalpractice (Korthagen, Loughran, & Lunenberg, 2005; Martinez,2008). Overcoming these barriers is “a constant source of tension,frustration, and challenge” (Cole, 1999, p. 284), particularly as

4; fax: þ1 905 641 5229.. Gallagher), shelley.griffin@ku.ca (D. Ciuffetelli Parker),ocku.ca (C. Figg).

All rights reserved.

teacher education “has low status and is rewarded poorly in termsof tenure, promotion, and merit pay” (Beck & Kosnik, 2001, p. 946)in most universities. Often the “mystique” of the “esoteric”(pp. 48e49) life of professors causes education professors to focustheir efforts on graduate courses and scholarship rather thancommit deeply to initial teacher education (Ducharme, 1993).

Successfully negotiating these tensions in order to becomeeffective teacher educators committed to both practice and schol-arship requires mentoring and professional development support.Murray (2005), in her comprehensive research in the UnitedKingdom, found the mentoring of teacher educators to be a lowpriority in institutions of higher learning. In Canada, Cole (1999)notes that pre-tenure teacher educators (i.e., those tenure-trackfaculty members with a completed doctorate) identify a pressingneed for both professional development and enhancement toteacher education practices. In Australia, where there is little in theway of professional support or mentoring (Berry, 2009), Martinez(2008) proposes building on “the resources that all newacademics bring while offering them information about their newworkplace and facilitating opportunities for reflection and inter-disciplinary networking” (p. 49). In South Africa, where teachereducation colleges have recently been amalgamated into highereducation institutions, Robinson and McMillan (2006) have iden-tified significant tensions between teacher educators’ focus on theirstudents and the pressure to conduct research; they proposeparticipative action research as a way of attending to the primaryconcerns of teacher education while building a community ofpractice. Similar challenges in the Netherlands have prompted

T. Gallagher et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 27 (2011) 880e890 881

Lunenberg and Korthagen (2009) to emphasize “the triangularrelations between experience, theory and practical wisdom. asthe basis for curriculum development and teacher educator inter-ventions” (p. 225). While systematic research on best practice forteacher educators has grown in the last decade (Beck & Kosnik,2001; Kitchen, 2010), there remains a need for more research onhow teacher educators, particularly in their first years of practice,negotiate the challenges of preparing teacher candidates for thefield, while contributing to the scholarship of teacher education(Kitchen, 2010). It is also important that studies of teacher educa-tors’ professional development be situated in the social contexts(Bronfenbrenner, 2004) and professional knowledge landscapes(Connelly & Clandinin, 1995) on which teacher educators work.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the benefits and chal-lenges of establishing and sustaining a self-study of teachereducation practices group in an education college through a studyof our experiences as new faculty members in a S-STEP group.Establishing and sustaining self-study communities of practice, suchas the one discussed in this paper, is one way in which teachereducators can develop safe spaces for conversation, collaboration,and professional development (Kitchen & Ciuffetelli Parker, 2009).Through self-study of teacher education practices, teacher educa-tors have been able to construct meaningful professional devel-opment that serves their clinical practice while also contributing tothe scholarship of practice (Lunenberg & Willemse, 2006). It hasbeen found that such professional development, when engaged incollaboratively with peers, values their personal experiences,positions them as researchers of their own practice throughcollaboration and joint reflection, and it is situated with the insti-tutional contexts in which teacher educators work (CiuffetelliParker & McQuirter Scott, 2010; Griffin & Beatty, 2010, in press;Lunenberg & Willemse, 2006). Through this inquiry into ourexperiences as a self-study community of practice, we hope toadvance the professional development of teacher educators byoffering ways in which such communities of practice help newprofessors on the tenure-track and develop into learning commu-nities of scholars committed to improving teacher educationpractices. Bronfenbrenner’s (2004) Bioecological Theory of Devel-opment will be used as an interpretive lens to filter our experiencesand offer implications to other teacher educators within thetenure-track culture of higher education.

2. Theoretical framework

This paper focuses on how the professional development ofteacher educators can be developed and sustained through self-study communities of practice. Recent research emphasizes theimportance of professional development for teacher educators.Establishing and sustaining self-study communities of practice is oneroute to improving practice and engaging in inquiry for teachereducators. Inquiry into the professional development of teachereducators also needs to acknowledge the social contexts andprofessional landscapes on which practitioners work.

2.1. Professional development through the self-study of teachereducation practices

Over the past few years, attention has been paid to the trainingand professional development of teacher educators (Lunenberg,2002; Smith, 2003). Specifically, Lunenberg (2002) describes aninstitution’s process of designing a curriculum for beginningteacher educators based on six essential competences: subject,pedagogical, organizational, communicative, reflection, and insti-tute specific approaches (e.g., problem-based learning). At thiseducation college, teacher educators engage in a curriculum to

construct their own professional development goals, collaboratewith a mentor, participate in a discourse community with theirpeers and develop a vision for the growth of their organization(Lunenberg, 2002). Subsequently, four teaching education insti-tutes developed and implemented professional developmentcurriculum for their beginning teacher educators (Lunenberg,2002) and recently a national project, “Professional Quality ofTeacher Educators,” utilized a similar professional developmentcurriculum for teacher educators (Koster, Dengerink, Korthagen,& Lunenberg, 2008). In this latter project, the participatingteacher educators experienced a change in their cognition andbehavior with more positive self-esteem and more enthusiasm forteacher education (Koster et al., 2008). Closer to the context of thisstudy, in Canadian institutions, this poses a call to action for pre-tenure teacher educators to seek and find professional develop-ment and support. It is often the case that a pre-tenure teachereducator attempts to negotiate the demands of the academy ashe/she asks: How does one grow into the ranks of the professoriate,effectively instruct teacher candidates to be competent beginningteachers, advance one’s research agenda and scholarship, orcontribute to the vitality of a responsive teacher educationprogram? These questions might be explored via a host of profes-sional development routes such as in-service workshops, seminars,and institutes (Smith, 2003).

In the absence of effective professional induction andmentoringprograms in most universities, it falls on teacher educators toattend to their own professional development independently orwith colleagues. “Questioning the nature of teacher education” hasled many teacher educators to, “look more carefully at their ownpractices” (Loughran, 2002, p. 240). The self-study of teachereducation practices, by allowing education professors “to maintaina focus on their teaching and on their students’ learning”(Loughran, 2002, p. 245) while engaging in scholarly practice, hasbecome a powerful approach to improving the practice of teachereducators individually, collaboratively, and collectively. Self-studyis a method characterized by the examination of the role of the selfin the research project and “the space between self and the practiceengaged in” (Bullough & Pinnegar, 2001, p. 15). In the past decade,this practice has increasingly involved collaboration among teachereducators in the study of practice (Lighthall, 2004). Throughwritten reflection and teacher conversations, teacher educatorsnegotiate the tensions between ourselves and our contexts,between biography and history (Bullough & Pinnegar, 2001), andbetween our department’s commitment to teaching teachers andthe tenure-track culture of higher education.

2.2. Self-study communities of practice

One dimension of collaborative self-study is the study of thedynamics of the communities of practice in which memberscollaborate. The term professional learning communities hasreceived considerable attention in recent years as innovativeeducational leaders have established them as a means of engagingteachers in education reform (DuFour & Eaker, 1998). Theselearning communities are characterized by efforts to improvepractice through shared expertise, collaboration, life-long learning,and continuous renewal (Elmore, 1997). Teacher educators,however, must balance improving practice with contributing to thescholarship of teaching teachers. Self-study communities of practiceare groups of teacher educators committed to working together tostudy their educational practices and educational contexts. AsKitchen and Ciuffetelli Parker (2009) write:

The term self-study communities of practice is intended to conveyboth the teaching and inquiry dimensions of such communities.

T. Gallagher et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 27 (2011) 880e890882

Each community must also be adapted to the particular insti-tutional culture in which it operates to sustain its members andovercome barriers to teacher education as a form of scholarship.(p. 108)

Conversation, collaboration, and community can contributesignificantly to the professional growth of educators, as Clark(2001) discovered in his work with teacher conversation groups.Bodone, Guojonsdottir, and Dalmau (2004), in their survey ofcollaboration in self-study, emphasize the importance of partnersin building safe spaces for inquiry and deepening the level ofinquiry. Another example is The Arizona Group, who struggled tounderstand their experiences as new teacher educators in fouruniversities and created a virtual community that sustained themin their practice and research (Guilfoyle, Hamilton, Pinnegar,& Placier, 2004). An interest in the self-study of teacher educationpractices (S-STEP) and a willingness to dialogue provided thenecessary conditions for this voluntary community of formerclassmates to be successful. Despite a “divergence of interpreta-tions, analysis, methodology, and level of commitment” (Guilfoyleet al., 2004, p. 1110), they were able to help each other “negotiatemultiple layers of institutional politics and policies” (Guilfoyle et al.,1995, p. 37) as they sought to be educators and scholars of teachereducation. In their numerous publications, they also focus on thedynamics of the community of practice, including how they wereorganized and how the group dynamics contributed to theirunderstandings of the institutions in which they worked. Amongthe attractions of self-study to members of our group were thatself-study is highly compatible with other qualitative researchmethodologies and focuses on substantive issues of importance toteacher educators (Zeichner & Noffke, 2001). In this paper,however, we focus on process: the ways in which the dynamics ofthe community of practice helped us to understand the socialcontext and professional knowledge landscape on which we lived.

2.3. Social contexts and professional knowledge landscapes

Professional knowledge in action involves multiple componentsinteracting in a particular context. Bronfenbrenner’s (2004) Bio-ecological Theory of Development focuses on environmentalsystems or social contexts in which individuals develop and thosethat influence their development. Ecological theory is depicted asa series of nested circles: the inner core is the individual, sur-rounded by the microsystem (e.g., peers, school, departments,family), which is in turn surrounded by the mesosystem and exo-system (e.g., supervisory-type board, services, media). Othersystems include the macrosystem (e.g., culture, values, customs)and chronosystem (e.g., sociohistorical conditions). Since there isan interaction between an individual’s characteristics and his/herenvironment, it is essential to examine the individual’s life story inmultiple settings. Bronfenbrenner’s theory was used as an inter-pretive lens to metaphorically inquire into the three critical inci-dents which we experienced as individual scholars, teachereducators in our microsystem (i.e., Department of Teacher Educa-tion), and faculty members in our exosystem (i.e., Faculty ofEducation).

While our work inquiry into social contexts is framed by Bio-ecological Theory of Development, we also draw extensively on thework of Connelly and Clandinin (1995) on teachers’ professionalknowledge landscapes. Connelly and Clandinin (1995), like Bron-fenbrenner, see the “relationships among people, places, andthings. as both an intellectual and a moral landscape”(p. 5) whichteachers must navigate in order to engage in professional practice.Connelly and Clandinin (1995) recognize that teachers’ lives in theirclassrooms differ markedly from their lives in other professional,

communal landscapes. The tensions between these two spaces leadto a split existence which causes teachers to feel considerabledisturbances. As we examine our professional lives as teachereducators, we will consider the “moral and epistemologicaldilemmas associated with living in, and repeatedly crossing backand forth between, two epistemologically different places on thelandscape” (Connelly & Clandinin, 1995, p. 5).

3. Context and methodology

3.1. Institutional, faculty, and self-study group contexts

The Faculty of Education at Brock University has had a well-acknowledged history of initial teacher education since 1965. Thefaculty is divided into the Department of Undergraduate andGraduate Education (which runs the graduate program, as well aseducation courses for students in the first four years of theconcurrent education program) and the Department of TeacherEducation (which runs the B.Ed. on two campuses that leads toprofessional certification). In the Teacher Education program, inwhich the five of us teach courses in our areas of expertise, eachprofessor works in a cohort teamwith part-time faculty who cometo this role with experience as teachers or administrators.

While the structure and course of study of the Teacher Educa-tion program has remained relatively stable over the past 3decades, the previous 5 years had seen both a significant number ofretirements and adjustments in faculty workload. The appointmentof a large cadre of new hires over these years coincided witha university-wide focus on the advancement of research andscholarship. The university’s strategic plan emphasizes the impor-tance of developing innovative research niches while enhancingknowledge mobilization within and beyond the academy.

The self-study community of practice was formed as a means ofsimultaneously developing our own individual teaching andscholarship in light of the new university-wide focus. The responseof new faculty illustrates their interest in building community andcombining teaching with scholarship as they negotiate the tensionsbetween the two. This motivation is similar to one that was alsostudied by Poyas and Smith (2007) among teacher educators whoformed a community of learners in the context of an educationcollege that was in the midst of change.

Of particular interest during the second year of the self-studygroup was the period in the late fall of 2007. During this time, weparticipated in three department and faculty meetings that couldbe considered as significantly formative for our futures as begin-ning scholars. In this paper, these are referred to as the three criticalincidents that occurredwithin the social contexts inwhich wewerecontinuing to develop as beginning scholars. The December 12,2007 meeting, in particular, is recounted and critically examined asan event that illustrates the dynamic of our self-study communityof practice.

3.2. Participants

The authors of this studyare the five participants in the self-studycommunity of practice examined in this study. Tiffany, hadcompleted her third year teaching educational psychology, had beenan administrator and diagnostician in private practice supplementaleducation before graduating from the Ph.D. program at BrockUniversity. Shelley, a second year professor who had recentlydefended her doctoral dissertation inmusic education, was a formermusic and classroom teacher, and a past instructor who wasseconded to teach at the University of Prince Edward Island. Subse-quently, she taught at the University of Alberta during her Ph.D.degree. Darlene, who had finished her third year teaching

T. Gallagher et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 27 (2011) 880e890 883

elementary instructional methods in both the concurrent andconsecutive programs at Brock University, had been a classroomteacher, school board literacy consultant, and school administrator.Julian, who had completed his second year teaching education law,was a teacher who had been seconded to the teacher educationprogram at University of Toronto for 7 years. Candace, who hadfinished her second year teaching technology/computers in theclassroom,hadbeen anassistantprofessor in educational technologyat the University of Louisiana and West Texas A&M University.

In the first year, the membership of the group had been nineteacher educators. Four departed to focus their energies on otherresearch projects. The nine new professors in the original groupexperienced tension between the teaching and service demands ofthe teacher education program and the less explicit scholarlyexpectations placed on professors on the tenure-track. The oppor-tunity to develop a sense of community, combined with possibili-ties for scholarship on teacher education practices, attractedindividuals to the group. As documented in Kitchen, CiuffetelliParker, and Gallagher (2008), the first year was characterized byrich conversation that was voluntary, took place on commonground, characterized by safety, trust and care. It also advancedscholarship, as all group members engaged in collaborative S-STEPprojects during the year and in subsequent years (Ciuffetelli Parker& Volante, 2009; Figg, Griffin, Lu, & Vietgen, 2008; Griffin, CiuffetelliParker, & Kitchen, 2010). While there was a significant reductionfrom the original group, the membership remains significant asthere are few groups in the self-study literature that are greaterthan four members (Kitchen & Ciuffetelli Parker, 2009). Also,reduced size and increased commitment led to richer experiencesfor the remaining members.

3.3. Data collection and analysis

3.3.1. Sessions and the self-study community of practiceAs faculty members hired on tenure-track appointments, we

continued to establish ourselves as instructors of our courses,advisors to teacher candidates, educational researchers, andmembers of the university community. Committed to our self-study group, we met approximately eight times throughout theacademic year. In a previous study, three of the members of theself-study group discussed the focus of our meetings when theyexplained that “Facilitators identified topics for self-study thatemerged from their concerns as teacher educators. Discussionbegan with the experiences of the facilitators, extending toa consideration of our practices, both present and future, asa community of teacher educators” (Kitchen et al., 2008, p. 160).

As qualitative researchers in a natural setting (Creswell, 1998,2005) and participants in our study, we made individual reflec-tions on the development and evolution of the self-study group. Itbecame clear that through “Drawing on data sources common toself-study (Bullough & Pinnegar, 2001), our primary data includednotes by the presenters, the field notes and reflections of thecoordinators, reflections of other group members, and transcriptsof group discussions” (Kitchen et al., p. 160). We entered into thisprocess on a regular basis as we engaged in dialogue that pertainedto our teacher education practices and scholarship. Subsequently,

Dyads and triads formed naturally as a function of sharedinterests that individuals held in their induction as new hires.This self-study took place in a natural context and several typesof data were collected, supporting triangulation and enhancingthe credibility of the study (Creswell, 1998; Miles & Huberman,1994) (Kitchen et al., p. 160)

The detailed accounts that were taken during all themeetings orsessions are used as a basis for a critical reflection on the benefits,

challenges, and potential implications of establishing a self-studygroup. Bronfenbrenner’s (2004) Bioecological Model of Develop-ment is offered as a means to punctuate the environmental systemsor social contexts which influence our development as teachereducators within our department and our education college.

During the first year, we met as a self-study community ofpractice on a regular basis immediately following our monthlydepartmental meetings throughout the academic year. By contrast,it was decided that during the second year, we would attempt tomeet off campus on a periodic basis. The format of hosting meet-ings in a social setting was viewed as being more conducive todiscussion and relationship building. For example, Shelley hostedthe first dinner meeting; then Darlene welcomed us for a lunchmeeting. In total there were four off-campus meetings and fourmeetings held in campus meeting spaces. Regardless of the venue,the first minutes of each session were devoted to housekeepingdiscussions that included dialogue that pertained to conferenceproposal submissions, funding proposals, and drafting academicpapers. Members then rotated in the role of session facilitator andguided the discussion of teacher education practices for the session.

Sessions allowed members to reflect on their practices indi-vidually and as a collaborative self-study group. Handouts andreadings were generally provided. This protocol served as a modelfor the manner inwhich we interpreted our individual conflicts vis-à-vis our roles in the program, the Faculty of Education and theinstitution as a whole. During each session, one member acted asa scribe and recorded the discussion threads as meeting minutes.These notes were used as documentation of the conversations thattook place during the self-study meetings. Many of the meetingswere audio-taped and transcribed as a form of documented data.Additionally, we wrote field notes and reflections about the inter-actions during the sessions. Collectively, these research data wereused as the texts to support our group discussions and were thebasis for much of the analysis and reflection in this study. This isconsistent with best practices in effective teacher learningcommunities: dedicated discussion time, focused inquiry, sharedownership, and leadership support professional learning(Aubusson, Steele, Dinham, & Brady, 2007).

The data were independently coded and categorized by each ofthe authors of this paper. The authors came together to negotiatethe categories for data analysis. The common categories thatemerged from these data and the categorical clusters werecollapsed to form general patterns (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998;Creswell, 1998, 2005; Miles & Huberman, 1994). Various quota-tions from our individual reflections are utilized to encapsulate andsupport the findings which offer an outline of what was experi-enced by the self-study group members in their second year of theself-study group. Data were then shared with the entire group forfurther discussion.

A significant amount of the analysis was shared and created inthe social exchanges of our community of practitioners as wemade“self-conscious and often self-critical attempts to make sense of[our] daily work by talking about it in planned ways” (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2004, pp. 622e623). During the social exchange allS-STEP members were simultaneously participants and researchersas we probed more deeply into our understandings of our experi-ences. Through this dynamic process, we were both a collaborativeteam supporting each other through good conversations(Clark, 2001) and critically inquiring as a scholarly community ofpractice (Kitchen & Ciuffetelli Parker, 2009). Consequently, thismade our realities more explicit and allowed us to build our self-study community that informed our understandings and workthrough our tensions. This was a deep level of reflection and someof these reflections are embedded in the themes below and cannotbe extracted from the analysis of the data.

T. Gallagher et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 27 (2011) 880e890884

3.3.2. Focus on a single session: December 12, 2007In order to examine the dynamics of the self-study community

of practice as a venue for the professional development of pre-tenured teacher educators, we focus our attention on a significantmeeting that took place on December 12, 2007. This meetingevolved into a discussion of three critical incidents that representedimportant tensions in our work as teacher educators, particularly innon-classroom contexts. We inquire into our experiences as pre-tenured faculty navigating the tensions resulting from thesedisturbances on the professional knowledge landscape on whichwe worked (Connelly & Clandinin, 1995).

3.3.2.1. First significant event: Promotion and Tenure DiscussionDay. As self-study group members, we are a small sub-sample ofa large contingent of faculty on tenure-track appointments in theDepartment of Teacher Education. A full-day informational sessionwas held for all pre-tenure faculty that featured guest speakers,a discussion panel, and a workshop. The focus of the Pre-TenureFaculty Day was on preparations for promotion and tenure appli-cation. As a support for faculty development, a guest speaker fromthe Centre for Teaching and Learning candidly discussed tactics forthe process of application. Another guest speaker, a new facultymember who had just applied for promotion and tenure, shared hisrecent experience of putting together his dossier. A discussionpanel consisting of the Dean and Department Chairs expressedboth their personal experiences applying for promotion and tenureas well as their supportive leadership. Finally, a workshop onwriting and publishing was offered.

3.3.2.2. Second significant event: Department of Teacher EducationRetreat. Approximately 1 week prior to the Pre-Tenure Faculty Day,the Department of Teacher Education gathered for a full-day retreatto review recommendations that had been compiled by a committeeworking to re-structure and enhance our teacher educationprogram. This day brought together the entire department of over120 full and part-time members to discuss a number of proposedchanges to our course offerings, timetable, faculty roles, andcommunity involvement. The outcome of this Teacher EducationRetreat is anticipated to be a series of alterations to the currentstructure of the Department.

3.3.2.3. Third significant event: Faculty of Education Board Meetingon Professorial Roles. Finally, in the space of a few days, a Faculty ofEducation Board Meeting was held. This regular monthly meetingincluded a series of departmental and standing committee reportsfrom respective Chairs and Directors. In addition, the focus of thismeeting was on recommendations from a working committeeappointed by the Dean to delineate our professorial roles. Recom-mendations were offered that promised to open up discussions oncross-departmental instruction, as well as on faculty departmentredesign.

4. Data and analysis

Our focus on the session of December 17th, is one in whichTiffany provided group participants with a synopsis of the outcomesof these significant events. She asked members to independentlyreflect on these outcomes and potential impact on them. Thesereflections were a form of data. Then each outcome was discussedas members contributed equally to listening and clarifying under-standings of the resultant conclusions and next steps. In this sense,the self-study meeting provided a platform for members to sharetheir concerns and build affiliationwithin this learning community.

Bronfenbrenner’s (2004) Bioecological Model of Developmentreminds educators that individuals develop in several types of

social contexts. These contexts include the classroom, family, peergroup, neighbourhood, social and legal systems, and society. Withthis theory in mind, we discuss the thematic realities and tensionsthat each critical incident exemplifies, beginning with the Promo-tion and Tenure Discussion Day as an example of how authenticconversation was elicited. Then the critical incident of theDepartment of Teacher Education Retreat is provided as an exampleof our reflection and resonance in our teacher education practices.Finally, the Faculty of Education Board Meeting on ProfessorialRoles contributed to the acknowledgement of our learningcommunity of scholars. The understandings that emerge from ourcollective sharing and inquiry illustrate the value of our self-studycommunity of practice as a vehicle for ongoing professionaldevelopment.

4.1. Authentic conversation elicited: Promotion and TenureDiscussion Day

The issue that bound members and surfaced in most groupmeeting conversations over the first two years was the promotionand tenure process. Although promotion and tenure is a commonconcern for pre-tenured faculty members in universities, changesto the culture of the department, faculty, and university heighteneduncertainty for almost everyone.

Promotion and Tenure Discussion Day brought these concernsto the surface as pre-tenured faculty sought to make sense ofinstitutional changes and their implications for our futures. Inparticular, recent cases of professors being denied promotionprompted concern that standards were rising and might risefurther before we were due to apply. The professors who wereunsuccessful appeared to have focused more on teaching than onscholarship. Previously, teaching was the main consideration as theteacher education program, which had emerged from the St.Catharines Teachers’ College in 1965, and most professors in thedepartment identified themselves more as teachers than asscholars. The university’s strategic plan, however, had shiftedtowards a greater emphasis on the importance of developinginnovative research niches while enhancing knowledge mobiliza-tion within and beyond the university. At the time, the dean ofeducation framed the changes as relating to impact on the field ofeducation, with impact being defined as both depth and breadthof reach to practitioners and scholars alike (Heap, 2006). These newobjectives meant that we as new education professors experiencedchallenges between the department’s traditional commitment toinstructiondsomething that came naturally to us as former class-room teachersdand the renewed emphasis on scholarly produc-tivity. Despite reassurances from the departmental and facultyleadership, there was anxiety about the implications for our roles.

The session held by members of the self-study group at Dar-lene’s home on December 12, 2007 provided a context for authenticconversation (Clark, 2001) regarding this important issue. Here, weacknowledge how Bronfenbrenner’s (2004) notion of the micro-system informed our collaborative understandings regarding theuniversity structure. Our community of practice provided a safespace in which to articulate concerns, reflect on our experiences,and develop strategies for shared success. During the discussion,terms were clarified and expectations reviewed. Tiffany wrote:

I believe that the promotion and tenure process is a commonlyheld anxiety that we share to varying extents. The institutionholds one ideal, yet there are six different faculties in ourinstitution and take for example our faculty, the Faculty ofEducation, it has two different departments that are distinct.How do we fit the institutional ideal or alter the ideal to fit eachof us? (Tiffany, December 12, 2007)

T. Gallagher et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 27 (2011) 880e890 885

Shelley emphasized the importance of the self-study group asa venue for discussing this issue:

We need the opportunity to talk about what is valued as schol-arship in our faculty so that we can share this with those on thepromotion and tenure committee. (Shelley, December 12, 2007)

Candace, who had come away from the initial meeting withmany unanswered questions about new and shifting expectationsin a time of profound change, left the self-study meeting feelingassured that individuals shared similar concerns and that togetherwe were able to engage in meaningful conversation as a commu-nity of teacher education practitioners and scholars (Candace,December 12, 2007). As Darlene noted later:

Our group was already grounded in sharing insights today. Weare all in this together. From the Pre-TenureDaywewalked awayunderstanding the realities of our workload, service and schol-arship. The writing is on the wall. (Darlene, December 12, 2007)

This is an example of self-study scholarship identified earlier byJulian, Darlene, and Tiffany: “Members stated that they were therebecause they found the conversations personally and professionallymeaningful” (Kitchen et al., 2008, p. 162). Such opportunities led usto better understand that our conversations as a self-study grouphelp to sustain us, moving us forward in both our individual andcollaborative practices within our Faculty of Education. This wasconsistent with our original vision for the self-study group asa community space that developed our individual teaching andscholarship in a manner consistent with the new university-widefocus.

In our self-study conversations on this topic, members explicitlyidentified the community as a safe and supportive community. Byengaging in this collaborative conversation as new facultymembers, it was evident that there was a calmness of supportwithin the community of learners present. A similar sense ofsecurity was shared with other pre-tenured faculty in the depart-ment. An example of this was noted by Shelley when she sharedthat a colleague next to her offered to share his notes that hecreated on his laptop during the promotion and tenure discussion.Here, we were reminded that there was more an air of supportrather than an air of competition when imagining the loomingprocess of promotion and tenure within our Faculty of Education. Itbecame apparent that safety, trust, and care, (Clark, 2001) were allelements of authentic conversation present within the Promotionand Tenure Discussion Day.

4.1.1. Sustaining community in our second year`By discussing this critical incident in the context of a self-study

group, we acknowledged that the opportunity for us to engage inauthentic conversation in larger numbers, as in this Promotion andTenure Discussion Day, provided a necessary space for new facultymembers to collectively converse about foundational matters suchas promotion and tenure. It is in such moments that we realizedthat many of us, were in the same boat, all seeking to successfullyjump through similar academic hoops. From Clark’s (2001) point ofview, this is an example of authentic conversation happening oncommon ground.

Participation in the first significant incident, the Promotion andTenure Discussion Day, brought to the fore the importance ofestablishing oneself as a productive and distinctive scholar. Estab-lishment of the individual identity within a social context is at thecore of Bioecological Theory of Development (Bronfenbrenner,2004). As an interpretive lens, Bronfenbrenner (2004) sheds lighton the tensions we felt as new faculty attempting to balance ourscholarship and teaching whilst developing as burgeoning

academics within the tenure-track culture of higher education. Thestrain and angst associated with the promotion and tenure appli-cation process elicited authentic conversations within our self-study group. These authentic conversations are indicative of howwe are moving forward by sustaining community in our secondyear, especially in light of the imperativeness of such significantincidents. One of the conclusions drawn from our conversationswas that even though promotion and tenure application is done onan individual basis, the outcome for each individual reflects on thedepartment and Faculty of Education as a whole.

As individual professors, we each operate under self-imposeddemands to contribute to academe in a meaningful, trustworthymanner. Our development is influenced by a microsystem thatincludes our colleagues (both veteran and beginning faculty), ourDepartment of Teacher Education, and our respective families andfriends. This microsystem, as well as the individual’s inner core, issubject to the mesosystem and exosystem that for us includesdemands from our Faculty of Education and institution. Challengesare present at all levels or systems, and to successfully negotiate thestrains, the individual must continue to define one’s self. Self-studyhas been assistive in this process to advance each participant’sindividual growth as a scholar and teacher educator in the contextof a safe professional learning community. Our self-study groupdiscussions have encouraged each of us to look within, to definewhat we value and understand as our place in the education facultyand academe. More importantly, the collaborative aspect of ourself-study has forced us to explore the space in between the innercore and the other systems through perspectives and lenses otherthan our own. Rather than facing the intricacies of this chasmindividually and alone, our collaborative understandings arehelping us to find professional balance and providing us withreassurance that we have found our place. Bronfenbrenner (1977)explains the value of this collaborative experience when he states:

Witness the American ideal: the Self-Made Man. But there is nosuch person. If we can stand on our own two feet, it is becauseothers have raised us up. If, as adults, we can lay claim tocompetence and compassion, it only means that other humanbeings have been willing and enabled to commit their compe-tence and compassion to usdthrough infancy, childhood, andadolescence, right up to this very moment. (p. 1)

Involvement in this self-study community of practice providedus with a collaborative experience that provided safety andopportunities for professional growth.

By reflecting on how we are able to sustain community, movingforwardinoursecondyearasaself-studygroup,weacknowledgethat:

As a collective, we believe that studying our teacher educationpractices through self-study will enhance our understanding ofthe intricacies of teacher education and promote a communityof practice within our faculty. There is already a sense ofcommunity that has formed among the new hires in thismutually respectful self-study group. In this fashion, we aremodeling the function of a professional learning community inan institution of higher education; we are also assigning a senseof value to the pursuit of collegiality. (Kitchen et al., 2008, p. 166)

4.2. Resonance in our teacher education practices: Department ofTeacher Education Retreat

The goal of the Department of Teacher Education Retreat was forall teacher educators (tenured, pre-tenure, contract, part-time) tocome together as a collective to discuss a host of programmaticissues. All department members were to have an equal voice during

T. Gallagher et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 27 (2011) 880e890886

breakout discussion sessions. Each session focused on a single issue(e.g., partnership models, professional development, field-basedexperiences) and was facilitated by a faculty member. Julianreflected afterward that there was common ground for thediscussion which built on “an assumption of change and that theDepartment of Teacher Education Retreat was a way for us to guidechange.” As well, Shelley added that, as a department “we aremoving toward thinking about the importance of continuedconversation” (Shelley, December 12, 2007).

Yet, during that same gathering, Julian wondered if there wastruly pervasive resonance on teacher education practices amongthe larger departmental group of teacher educators or whether itwas the case that “some participants [during the departmentalretreat] had common ground based on their common rank ” (Julian,December 12, 2007). Darlene agreed with this distinction, addingthat “part-time faculty seemed to have their common ground andfull-time faculty have their common ground. At times, it is like twosolitudes that need to be merged to have good conversation”(Darlene, December 12, 2007). These examples shared by Julian andDarlene solidified the internal conflicts that at times we werefeeling as new faculty members in the teacher education programcontext within the tenure-track culture. We were relativelyuntroubled by our classroom experiences but we experiencedchallenges about priorities in the spaces outside the classroom thatwe shared with other professors, including many who had arrivedat the institution at a time when priorities were very different. Asfaculty hired as a result of changes and as agents for change, thestresses we experienced seemed particularly acute. Filteredthrough the theoretical lens of Bioecological Theory of Develop-ment (Bronfenbrenner, 2004), these stressors might exemplify thestrain between social contexts in which an individual develops. Inparticular, as individuals we were experiencing pressure from boththe microsystem (i.e., Department of Teacher Education) and theecosystem (i.e., Faculty of Education) and pressure between thetwo.

Julian also added that, contrary to the notion that authenticconversation resists the bounds of definition, at the Department ofTeacher Education Retreat, “the structured conversation wasdefinitively set” (Julian, December 12, 2007). Many of the topics ofconversation were close-ended and administrative in nature. Bystark contrast, we took notice that our self-study group meetingstended to produce more authentic conversationwith respect to ourteacher education practices and our continued professional devel-opment as teacher educators. This often occurred in the mostunassuming fashion. We make sense of this phenomenon usingConle’s (1996) notion of resonance. Resonance, Conle (1996) says, isa way of seeing one’s experience in terms of another. In our self-study meetings, we resonate with each other’s journey as newscholars. We experience each other’s struggles and triumphs asteacher educators and feel the conflicts together, the break-throughs, the puzzles, the enlightened experiences, through oneanother’s stories of teacher education practices. We recognized thatone teacher education practice story from a self-study groupmember seamlessly conjures up a complementary story fromanother member, and so it continues, until we are each other’smeaning makers.

Resonance has happened for us, not by being in the Depart-mental Retreat, but by conversing with each other in the safespace of our self-study community about the DepartmentalRetreat and other timely and relevant issues of our practice.Resonance happened from the trusting conversations with othersand not only as a result of taking part at the retreat. Thus, theretreat experience became a critical incident for us that allowed usto realize and take note of a deeper kind of resonance amongthose of us who are self-study colleagues. This realization

deepened our relationship and gave us a common ground tofurther pursue collaborative reflection of many of our teachereducation practices. The retreat, as a critical incident, allowed us tocome together afterward to reflect-in-action with one another andto echo each other’s experiences. To illustrate, we describe anexample of our self-study group meeting that was held onDecember 12, 2007, days after the Departmental Retreat.

At our December 12, 2007, meeting, we gathered at Darlene’shouse for lunch and sat around her dining room table. What wasassumed to be an aftermath conversation of the DepartmentalRetreat immediately became a flurry of informal conversationabout how we had just evaluated teacher candidates in theirpractica. We shared and echoed stories of howwe hadworked withteacher candidates who did poorly during their practica. Theconversations resonated with all members and developed into anelaborate sharing of previous counselling practices and interven-tions that were helpful to clarify misunderstandings. We also dis-cussed the role of the classroom teacher in this process and howhis/her evaluation of a teacher candidate might not be consistentwith a faculty member’s evaluation. This was yet another illumi-nation of the challenges faced by new faculty who were assumingtheir diverse roles. The topic of partnership was not dissimilar toone same topic discussed at the Teacher Education Retreat. Thedifference here in our self-study group, however, was that theauthentic conversation was not structured, nor administrative innature. It was a conversation that naturally occurred in the safe andtrusting space of our self-study group. Wewere free to explore, freeto be authentic with one another, free to critique, and dare to askquestions. Our internal resonance of our stories of practice allowedus to re-contextualize and even problem solve together. Our echostories developed new knowledge of our teacher education prac-tices. Regardless of the topic of discussion, each participating self-study group member was able to resonate with the discussions athand and consider his/her own role as a teacher educator andscholar.

Another illustration of the quality of resonance is exemplified bya dinner meeting at Shelley’s house. Julian facilitated this meetingand read from his authored paper on professional development infaculties of education. Julian shared his dismay that in Canada thereis little research that has been done on the principles of teachereducation as a specialized field of study:

Julian noted the tension between scholarship and excellence inteaching. There is a culture of collaboration that is inherent inschools, but not in university settings. There is little preparationfor faculty to become teacher educators. Universities do notpractice any professional development. For us, practitionerresearch is at the heart or intersection of scholarship andteacher education. (Tiffany, Field notes, October 30, 2007)

The nature of the conversation that ensued stemmed from thereality that we were on common ground and accordingly engagedin Julian’s discussion topic. Our echoing stories of limited profes-sional development as teacher educators contributed positively toauthentic listening in our self-study group. We noted the currentheightened quality of this communication. When we share theseexperiences, the resonance can be transformed as a unity of voice.Accordingly, Conle (1996) describes that we connect metaphori-cally to each other’s stories of practice. One member takes animage from what another articulates, and connects it to theirteacher education practice; another member takes a differentimage and makes new meaning for their teacher education prac-tice. And so it continues, layer upon layer. The reality of rich,authentic conversation in the year two self-study group is contraryto the nature of conversation that we had experienced in theDepartmental Retreat.

T. Gallagher et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 27 (2011) 880e890 887

4.2.1. Sustaining community in our second yearTeacher educators, like teachers in classrooms examined by

Connelly and Clandinin (1995), can become isolated from theculture of the institution in which they work. When they lacka place to tell and retell their stories of practice, teacher educationcan become a place of “endless, repetitive, living out of storieswithout possibility for awakenings and transformations” (Connelly& Clandinin, 1995, p. 13). We discovered that our self-studycommunity provided us with a space for reflection and resonancethat was in direct contrast to themore focused conversations had atthe Department of Teacher Education Retreat. This is not to suggestthat the retreat did not serve a purpose; on the contrary, it hasbecome the impetus for forward movement and re-visioning of ourentire faculty program. However, it was through our reflections ofour teacher education practices, as a result of having had theretreat, which moved us forward, not the actual retreat itself. Thepractical constraints of the retreat (i.e., the large number of part andfull-time faculty, number of topic issues, varied lived experiences,and the administrative agenda of the day) made it awkward forembracing a community of resonance, regardless of the fact that wewere all included that day. Our resonating stories of teachereducation practices as a self-study group have contributed morepositively to how we shape our practice as teacher educators thanto our participation in the larger group gathering during the retreat.Sustaining community appeared natural in our self-study group.Simply, our second year of self-study and the resonance that wehave found in our conversations and sharing of experiences is thevehicle that is sustaining our learning community of scholarsdnotthe breadth of topic coverage and discussion issues at the retreat.

There are few systematic routes for teacher educators to developprofessionally, and consequently, there is little documentation ofthese processes (Smith, 2003). Similar to a study by Poyas andSmith (2007), as a group of teacher educators, we engaged ina community of learners dedicated to our ongoing professionaldevelopment. It is typical for teacher educators to seek out inclusivesocial contexts to study their own pedagogy and teaching activities(Poyas & Smith, 2007). Professional identities are formed by thesharing of each individual’s story in light of other’s common stories.Moreover, forming a truly functional community supports theprofessional identity development of pre-tenure faculty andencourages them to rally to resolve institutional conflicts (Poyas& Smith, 2007). This is an example of positive interactionbetween the social contexts in which individuals develop.Bronfenbrenner (2004) contends that the ecosystem context (i.e.,education college) influences the development of the inner core(i.e., the individual).

The resonances among us suggest that our self-study communityof learners, by providing a safe space in which to share concerns asnew faculty challenged by the prevailing departmentalculturedwas an effective systematic route for professionaldevelopment.

4.3. Learning community of scholars: Faculty Meeting onProfessorial Roles

As new faculty, all with extensive experience as educators, wewere in the process of defining our identities as professors ofeducation. Our authentic conversations helped us to articulate ourpre-tenure challenges and learn from the experiences of others. Theresonance between our stories led to common understandings andrenewed efforts to remain true to our passions as educators whileattending to our scholarly roles in the professoriate. When Julianhighlighted research indicating that former educators facedparticular tensions as they entered the academy (Cole, 1999), thisresonated with the experiences of group members’ common

conflicts regarding our dual identities as educators and scholars.This tension is particularly acute as the traditional emphasis onteaching in our university is diminishing while scholarship isincreasingly stressed (Ciuffetelli Parker & McQuirter Scott, 2010).

These issues came to the fore at the faculty board meeting inNovember, 2007, at which the departmental structure of theFaculty of Education was scrutinized. The historical division intoa graduate department (that also teaches undergraduate courses inthe concurrent education program) and a teacher educationdepartment that teaches students in the consecutive program (andthe final year of the concurrent program) was regarded as prob-lematic by us as new faculty members in the Department of TeacherEducation. It seemed that this faculty structure made it moredifficult for us to teach graduate courses or develop programs ofresearch involving graduate students. While we were sensitive tothe issues facing members of the Graduate & UndergraduateDepartment, we were pleased that the meeting led to a commit-ment to seriously consider three models for reorganizing thegraduate program in order to give Teacher Education faculty moreopportunities in graduate education and scholarship.

Reflecting on the debate during the December 12, 2007, self-study meeting, Shelley suggested that the self-study group “fostersand enhances our understanding” while “in the midst of ten-sion.This is a chance for us to highlight some of the backgroundsand strengths that we bring as pre-tenured faculty members.”Julian agreed, suggesting that “the self-study group is a home ora safe harbour. The group meetings are the only place to talk aboutcertain issues. This is also a time of great opportunity as now thereis recognition that change is needed.” Darlene extended this notionwhen she said that “The self-study group offers us a common andcritical voice.” Candace, who still perceived herself as an outsiderbeing a new Canadian immigrant, felt that “there was power in thenew voices to impact change.”

We came to view ourselves as a community of practice, learningtogether through conversations about our teacher education prac-tices and our scholarship. In this respect, we are akin to facultylearning communities, a specialized form of communities of prac-tice that consists of faculty, graduate students, and/or professionalstaff engaged in active, collaborative programs to improve teachingand learning (Cox&Richlin, 2004). Such groups, byconcentrating onthe social aspects of building community, have been identified asvery effective in overcoming the isolation and fragmentation thatoftenmakes universities less thanwelcoming to faculty (Cox, 2004).At the same time, such communities of practice are often committedto the scholarship of practice. This combination of collegial supportand enhancement of our scholarshipmakes the pursuit of self-studyattractive for faculty concerned about the tenure process.

As a collective, studying our teacher education practices throughself-study will enhance our understanding of the intricacies ofteacher education and promote a community of practice within ourfaculty. In this fashion, we are modeling the function of anauthentic professional learning community in an institution ofhigher education; we are also assigning a sense of value to thepursuit of collegiality.

Within this community we were able to look inward to our ownidentities as teacher educators and scholars. For example, whenShelley presented a written reflection on defending her thesis, weall expressed resonances with our own experiences:

Shelley recounted an emotional phone call to her family tellingthem about her successful defence. She read on to tell us aboutthe abundance of congratulatory messages from colleagues andfriends. Then, Shelley revealed with honesty, her need to taketime away from her manuscript and her angst about dividingthe document up for publication. (Tiffany, December 12, 2007)

T. Gallagher et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 27 (2011) 880e890888

Shelley’s recounting of this rite of passage into the academyreminded us of the strain we felt as we sought to balance scholarlypressures with our teaching commitments. The emotion of themoment also revealed that our scholarly learning community wasa safe place in which to reveal our vulnerabilities.

Another dimension of our learning community was its ability tomove us forward in our collective mission as education professors.Candace credited our prior discussions within the self-study groupas being a major catalyst for the faculty at large to consider change.“Many of these changes come out of our conversations here andshared with others who were not here” (Candace, December 12,2007). A notable example is Darlene and Louis’s critique of theevaluation instrument used by faculty members to assess theperformance of teacher candidates during the practicum. Louis wasone of the original nine faculty members in the self-study group.Together, he and Darlene engaged in a self-study of their experi-ences using this form, and presented the results to the group inNovember, 2006. This issue led to a rigorous group discussion inwhich everyone expressed strong reservations about the form. Thisdiscussion has led to presentations in professional conferences,a manuscript for a refereed journal (Ciuffetelli Parker & Volante,2009), and, most significantly, an invitation for Louis and Darleneto lead a committee addressing teacher candidate evaluationcriteria and systems:

As part of a larger self-study group of nine new hires, we wereable to focus our inquiries of assessment practices in detailedand transcribed conversations with other colleagues, whooffered a language of commonality in our assessment dis-course. Everyone expressed their concerns and we identifiedthe improvement of the evaluation tool as a priority to theTeacher Education Department. We learned that the key tostudying our teacher education practicesdin this case ofassessment strategiesdwas to ask the question that affected ourpractice most, and then begin collecting and reflecting onexperiential data (Ciuffetelli Parker & Volante, 2009, p. 35).

The last line of this quotation speaks to the power of the self-study group as a place for authentic conversation among teachereducators. It has empowered Darlene and Louis to make thisdimension of practice a priority in their scholarship and to advocatefor reforms to existing practices in the program. Rather than beingisolated or marginalized, members of the group have developeda strong sense of identity as pre-tenured faculty and as changeagents within the institution.

From the inception of the self-study group, there has been a tiethat binds the collective faculty. In the first year, we came togetherwith varying backgrounds and expertise: literacy research, music,assessment, art education, physical education, technology, andteacher education and induction. As a large group of ninemembers,we were bound by the common need to adjust to our new facultypositions. This has evolved slightly in our second year as a smallergroup of fivemembers. Now, in our fifth year, the tie that binds us isthe common experience as teacher educators, studying our prac-tices within a scholarly learning community. Additionally, thegroup is bound together by a common desire to engage in a safecommunity in which to converse, share, reflect, explore tensions,and inquire further into our scholarly practices.

4.3.1. Sustaining community in our second yearOur sense of being a scholarly learning community grew in our

second year, even as the membership of the group was reducedfrom nine to five. During the first year, there was a sense of urgencyarising from most members feeling the pressure of being in theirfirst or second year in the academy. The self-study group provideda sense of belonging and support. As individuals felt more secure,

however, the need for a learning community forum in which toshare their professional journeys lessened. Those of us whoremained deepened our bonds as a community.

Conversations change and develop over time. The first year leftus with an appreciation for the authority of each member, a strongsense of community, and a desire to continue to work together asa self-study group. In the second year, the dynamics changed asmembers became familiar with self-study as a method for studyingtheir teaching practices. While the loss of four membersdallmaledchanged the group dynamics, we viewed this change as anopportunity to deepen our sense of community.

Being scholars of teacher education through the pursuit of self-study, we are confident, will advance our teaching educationpractices, our scholarly work, and the work of our department andthe Faculty of Education. Forming a self-study community ofscholars is an important part of our professional development aspre-tenure teacher education professors.

5. Implications

The purpose of this paper was to elucidate the experiences andprocesses of a self-study group of new faculty members whocollaborated in a professional development model formed froma learning community as practicing scholars. While self-study hasplayed a critical role in the development of a pedagogy of teachereducation (Loughran, 2006), there is a dearth of self-study groupswithin teacher education colleges. Self-study is generally under-taken by individual teacher educators, pairs of collaborators withinan institution, or small collaborative teams from different institu-tions. Within institutions, notable collaborations include JohnLoughran and Amanda Berry at Monash University (Berry, 2004;Berry & Loughran, 2002; Loughran, 2004); Tom Russell, AndreaMartin, and Shawn Bullock at Queen’s University (Bullock, 2007;Martin, 2007; Russell, 2007) and Todd Dinkelman and his grad-uate students at University of Georgia (Dinkelman, Margolis,& Sikkenga, 2006). These practitioners, who work both individu-ally and collaboratively, represent small groups of practitionerswithin large education colleges.

Our S-STEP learning community engaged in critical inquirywhile honoring the standards for quality in the self-study of teachereducation (Kitchen & Ciuffetelli Parker, 2009). As a collaborativegroup we established the conditions for our research method.Together, we worked to create educational knowledge while rec-reating teacher education. Consequently, we have made a contri-bution to the public discourse of communities of practice. Now thatself-study is well-established as both a professional developmentprocess and a research method, it is time to consider ways ofbroadening the application of self-study. This paper, rooted in ourpersonal and professional experiences, suggests that self-studygroups can encourage new education professors to identify withteacher education in three ways.

First, it is important to promote authentic conversation amongteacher educators. Authentic conversations (Clark & Florio-Ruane,2001) are identified as a powerful approach to professional devel-opment of classroom teachers and we have illustrated in this paperhow authentic conversations have provided the same powerfulimpact for beginning teacher educators too. While sharing ourpersonal narratives of experiences as pre-tenure faculty, weadvanced our own professional development by validating expe-riences and encouraging professional growth. In a prior study(Kitchen et al., 2008) we found qualities of authentic conversationidentified by Clark (2001) as valuable to understanding ourconversations in our self-study group and, more important to thispaper, as valuable to building a community of practice that fostersprofessional development. Qualities illustrated in this paper which

T. Gallagher et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 27 (2011) 880e890 889

show authentic conversations and promote professional develop-ment can be described as: conversations that are voluntary;conversations that happen on common ground; conversations thatrequire safety, trust and care; conversations that develop and havea future for further professional growth of members in the group.As former teachers, many members of the group brought “to theiruniversity classrooms values, beliefs, and knowledge of ‘good’teaching that usually contrasted starkly with the traditions andexpectations of the teacher education classroom” (Cole, 1999,p. 284). This has been a challenge given the recognition and rewardstructures of the university, and it has applied pressure to focus onscholarship at the expense of teaching. The self-study groupprovided a safe place in which members could have authenticconversations about this in our first years in the institution. Inaddition, by combining teaching with scholarship, authenticconversations offered a way of redressing this tension between theteacher education program context and the tenure-track culture ofthe institution. In this manner, professional development wasformed out of and through authentic conversations of the self-study community of practice.

Second, through authentic conversations there are greateropportunities to find resonance in each other’s stories. Throughtrust, respect and mutual vulnerability, our resonating stories hel-ped us to feel more comfortable; members, therefore, contributedpositively and freely to the issues and program. Reflection onpractice and finding resonance with the stories of others are highlysignificant and reaffirm our identities as teacher educators whilebuilding safe communities in which to develop professionally. Byidentifying ourselves in others’ stories of practice, the communitylived alongside one another, helping to reconcile the tensions ofnew faculty members and to professionally develop alongside oneanother too.

Finally, the self-study group provided members with a sense ofbelonging to a learning community of scholars in which they werevalued and supported as teachers and scholars. This sense ofbelonging to a community, which has played an important role inthe development of the S-STEP Special Interest Group of theAmerican Educational Research Association, was key to successduring our first 2 years. The longevity of our community hascontributed to unanticipated growth in our members: we willinglybare our thoughts and we are dedicated to each other’s learningand development (Aubusson et al., 2007). Resonance (Conle, 1996)and belonging to the community of practicewere two characteristicsthat helped promote professional development amongst allmembers.

This paper has not considered the long-term impact of the self-study group onmembers’ teacher education practices and scholarlycontributions, nor has it considered the impact this experiencemayhave on future direction of the education college. Over the next fewyears, as we continue with a longitudinal study of the group, wewill explore how membership in the group contributes to indi-vidual teaching and scholarship and to the ongoing development ofthe Department of Teacher Education in the context of the signifi-cant institutional change processes. We think, however, that theselimitations do not detract from the two key findings of this study:(1) that new teacher educators are receptive to and benefit fromself-study as a forum of professional development and, (2)authentic conversations are critical to developing a community ofpractice focused on the self-study of teacher education practices.

6. Conclusion

It is important to recognize, honour, and (re)conceptualize thestrains that new faculty members experience within themselves,their departments/faculties, the university context, and the larger

community. “Teacher education [colleges] need to initiate andsupport professional development of [faculty] by allowing suffi-cient time and creating a supportive atmosphere which enablesteacher educators to learn from all kinds of experiences, positive aswell as less successful experiences” (Smith, 2003, p. 213). Our self-study group is grateful for the recognition and support it hasreceived from our education college. Through our self-studycommunity of practice, our group continues to engage in a mean-ingful scholarly learning community in which we can delve deeperinto these internal conflicts as a means to commit to teachereducation, while striving to enhance our individual and collabo-rative growth. Thus, self-study engagement can provide a space fornew faculty members to more deeply comprehend conflicts. Suchengagement offers the potential for tensions to be interrupted,leading to increased opportunities to facilitate change and growthin one’s practice.

This paper illustrated how the professional development ofteacher educators was developed through a self-study communityof practice. We focussed on the process and how that processhelped us understand the social context we lived as new scholars aswell as the professional landscape on which we lived, together. Asa function of our community of scholars, we nurtured relationshipsand promoted authentic conversations among group members. Bydescribing and analyzing the formation of our group, we haveoffered possibilities for other teacher educators interested inexpanding conversations in their colleges. Framing these conver-sations around self-study helps develop teacher educators whostudy their own practices (Berry & Loughran, 2002; CiuffetelliParker & McQuirter Scott, 2010; Kitchen et al., 2008). This is oneeffective way that teacher educators can integrate professionaldevelopment into their work responsibilities (Smith, 2003).

Teacher educators engaged in self-study, in order to havea significant impact on teacher education practices, need to widenthe conversation to include more teacher educators in their insti-tutions and beyond. This study suggests that inviting facultymembers to join self-study groups is a form of faculty developmentthat can strengthen commitment to teacher education as teachingand scholarship. Authentic conversations about practice encourageeducation professors to remain committed to teacher educationwhile fulfilling their scholarly responsibilities; in addition, teachereducators’ understanding of themselves as developing scholars inthe realm of teacher education is at the heart of understandingresonating stories of others too. Resonating experiences help shapeand reshape teacher educators’ place on the professional knowl-edge landscape and help to consolidate the social context in whichthey live and work. Such communities of practice and inquiry offerprofessors, pre-tenured and tenured, with alternativeways of livingas teacher educators within the university.

References

Aubusson, P., Steele, F., Dinham, S., & Brady, L. (2007). Action learning in teacherlearning community formation: informative or transformative? Teacher Devel-opment, 11(2), 133e148.

Beck, C., & Kosnik, C. (2001). From cohort to community in a preservice teachereducation program. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(8), 925e948.

Berry, A. (2004). Confidence and uncertainty in teaching about teaching. AustralianJournal of Education, 48(2), 149e165.

Berry, A. (2009). Professional understanding as expertise about teaching. Teachersand Teaching: Theory and Practice, 15(2), 305e318.

Berry, A., & Loughran, J. (2002). Developing an understanding of learning to teach inteacher education. In J. Loughran, & T. Russell (Eds.), Improving teacher educationpractices through self-study (pp. 13e29). London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Bodone, F., Guojonsdottir, H., & Dalmau, M. C. (2004). Revisioning and recreatingpractice: collaboration in self-study. In J. J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton,V. K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teachingand teacher education practise (pp. 193e246). Dordrecht, The Netherlands:Kluwer Academic Publishers.

T. Gallagher et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 27 (2011) 880e890890

Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1998). Qualitative research for education. NeedhamHeights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Who needs parent education?. In Position paper for theWorking conference on parent education Flint, MI: Charles Stewart MottFoundation.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (2004). Making human beings human: Bioecological perspectiveson human development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Bullock, S. M. (2007). Finding my way from teacher to teacher educator: valuinginnovative pedagogy and inquiry into practice. In T. Russell, & J. Loughran (Eds.),Enacting a pedagogy of teacher education (pp. 77e94). London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Bullough, R. V., & Pinnegar, S. (2001). Guidelines for quality in autobiographicalforms of self-study research. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 13e21.

Ciuffetelli Parker, D., & McQuirter Scott, R. (2010). From mentorship to tenureship:a storied inquiry of two academic careers in education. Mentoring & Tutoring:Partnerships in Learning, 26(6), 1249e1260.

Ciuffetelli Parker, D., & Volante, L. (2009). Responding to challenges posed bysummative teacher candidate evaluation within a formative assessmentframework: a collaborative self-study of practicum supervision by faculty.Studying Teacher Education, 5(1), 33e44.

Clark, C. M. (2001). Good conversation. In C. M. Clark (Ed.), Talking shop: Authenticconversation and teacher learning (pp. 172e182). New York: Teachers CollegePress.

Clark, C. M., & Florio-Ruane, S. (2001). Conversation as support for teaching in newways. In C. M. Clark (Ed.), Talking shop: Authentic conversation and teacherlearning (pp. 172e182). New York: Teachers College Press.

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (2004). Practitioner inquiry, knowledge, anduniversity culture. In J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.),International handbook of research of self-study of teaching and teacher educationpractices (pp. 601e650). Amsterdam: Kluwer.

Cole, A. L. (1999). Teacher educators and teacher education reform: individualcommitments, institutional realities.Canadian Journal of Education, 24(3), 281e295.

Conle, C. (1996). Resonance in preservice teacher inquiry. American EducationalResearch Journal, 33(2), 297e325.

Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1995). Teachers’ professional knowledge land-scapes: secret, sacred, and cover stories. In D. J. Clandinin, & F. M. Connelly(Eds.), Teachers’ professional knowledge landscapes (pp. 3e15). New York:Teachers College Press.

Cox, M. D. (2004). Introduction to faculty learning communities. In M. D. Cox, &L. Richlin (Eds.), Building faculty learning communities (pp. 5e23). San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Cox, M. D., & Richlin, L. (Eds.). (2004). Building faculty learning communities. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluatingquantitative and qualitative research (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: PearsonEducation.

Dinkelman, T., Margolis, J., & Sikkenga, K. (2006). From teacher to teacher educator:experiences, expectations, and expatriation. Studying Teacher Education, 2(1), 5e24.

Ducharme, E. R. (1993). The lives of teacher educators. New York: Teachers CollegePress.

DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities: Best practices forenhancing student achievement. Bloomington, IN: National Educational Service.

Elmore, R. F. (1997). Investing in teacher learning. Staff development and instructionalimprovement in community school district #2, New York City. National Commis-sion on Teaching and America’s Future.

Figg, C., Griffin, S., Lu, C., & Vietgen, P. (2008). New faculty cross borders throughself-study in teacher education: global horizons. Brock Education, 18(1), 17e32.

Griffin, S., Ciuffetelli Parker, D., & Kitchen, J. (2010). Carrying stories from theoutside in: a collaborative narrative into a teacher education community. ineducation: exploring our connective educational landscape, 16(2). http://ineducation.ca.

Griffin, S. M., & Beatty, R. J. (2010). Storying the terroir of collaborative writing: likewine and food, a unique pairing of mentoring minds. Mentoring & Tutoring:Partnership in Learning, 18(2), 177e197, (Equal authorship).

Griffin, S. M., & Beatty, R. J. (Equal authorship). Hitting the trail running: roadmapsand reflections on faculty informal mentorship experiences. In M. S. Barrett, & S.L. Stauffer (Eds.), Narrative soundings: An anthology of narrative inquiry in musiceducation. New York: Springer, in press.

Guilfoyle, K., Hamilton, M. L., Pinnegar, S., & Placier, M. (1995). Becoming teachers ofteachers: the paths of four beginners. In T. Russell, & F. Korthagen (Eds.),

Teachers who teach teachers: Reflections on teacher education (pp. 35e55). Lon-don: Falmer Press.

Guilfoyle, K., Hamilton, M. L., Pinnegar, S., & Placier, P. (2004). The epistemologicaldimensions and dynamics of professional dialogue in self-study. InJ. J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V. K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), Internationalhandbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practise (pp.1109e1168). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Heap, J. (2006). Betwixt tower and field: autonomy, accountability and accredita-tion in Faculties of Education. Keynote speech at the Ontario Ministry ofEducation/Faculties of Education Forum, Toronto, May 2007.

Kitchen, J. (2010). Advancing teacher education through faculty development. BrockEducation, 19(1), 3e19.

Kitchen, J., & Ciuffetelli Parker, D. (2009). Self-study communities of practice:developing community, critically inquiring as community. In C. A. Lassonde,S. Galman, & C. Kosnik (Eds.), Self-study research methodologies for teachereducators (pp. 107e128). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.

Kitchen, J., Ciuffetelli Parker, D., & Gallagher, T. L. (2008). Authentic conversation asfaculty development: establishing a self-study group in an education college.Studying Teacher Education, 4(2), 157e171.

Korthagen, F., Loughran, J., & Lunenberg, M. (2005). Teaching teaches: studiesinto the expertise of teacher educators. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21,107e115.

Koster, B., Dengerink, J., Korthagen, F., & Lunenberg, M. (2008). Teacher educatorsworking on their own professional development: goals, activities and outcomesof a project for the professional development of teacher educators. Teachers &Teaching, 14(5/6), 567e587.

Lighthall, F. F. (2004). Fundamental features and approaches of the S-STEP enter-prise. In J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V. K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), Inter-national handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practise (pp.193e246). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

Loughran, J. (2002). Understanding self-study of teacher education practices. InJ. Loughran, & T. Russell (Eds.), Improving teacher education practices throughself-study (pp. 239e248). London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Loughran, J. (2004). Learning through self-study. In J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton,V. K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teachingand teacher education practise (pp. 151e192). Dordrecht, The Netherlands:Kluwer.

Loughran, J. (2006). Developing a pedagogy of teacher education. London:RoutledgeFalmer.

Lunenberg, M. (2002). Designing a curriculum for teacher educators. EuropeanJournal of Teacher Education, 25(2 & 3), 263e277.

Lunenberg, M., & Korthagen, F. (2009). Experience, theory, and practical wisdom inteaching and teacher education. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice,15(2), 225e240.

Lunenberg, M., & Willemse, M. (2006). Research and professional development ofteacher educators. European Journal of Teacher Education, 29(1), 81e98.

Martin, A. (2007). Program restructuring and reconceptualizing practice: anepiphany. In T. Russell, & J. Loughran (Eds.), Enacting a pedagogy of teachereducation (pp. 149e165). London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Martinez, K. (2008). Academic induction for teacher educators. Asia Pacific Journal ofTeacher Education, 36(1), 35e51.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook ofnew methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Murray, J. (2005). Re-addressing the priorities: new teacher educators’ experiencesof induction in higher education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 28(1),67e85.

Poyas, Y., & Smith, K. (2007). Becoming a community of practice e the blurredidentity of clinical faculty teacher educators. Teacher Development, 11(3),313e334.

Robinson, M., & McMillan, W. (2006). Who teaches the teachers? Identity, discourseand policy in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 327e336.

Russell, T. (2007). How experience changed my values as a teacher educator. InT. Russell, & J. Loughran (Eds.), Enacting a pedagogy of teacher education (pp.185e191). London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Smith, K. (2003). So, what about the professional development of teacher educa-tors? European Journal of Teacher Education, 26(2), 201e215.

Zeichner, K., & Gore, J. (1990). Teacher socialization. In W. R. Houston (Ed.), Hand-book of research on teacher education (pp. 329e348). New York: Macmillan.

Zeichner, K. M., & Noffke, S. E. (2001). Practitioner research. In V. Richardson (Ed.),Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 298e332). Washington, DC: AmericanEducational Research Association.