This article was downloaded by: [Northwestern University]On: 08 September 2014, At: 00:14Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Education for Teaching:International research and pedagogyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjet20

Preparing pre-service teachers forthe profession: creating spaces fortransformative practiceGreg Auhla & Graham R. Danielaa School of Teacher Education, Charles Sturt University, Bathurst,AustraliaPublished online: 10 Jul 2014.

To cite this article: Greg Auhl & Graham R. Daniel (2014) Preparing pre-service teachers forthe profession: creating spaces for transformative practice, Journal of Education for Teaching:International research and pedagogy, 40:4, 377-390, DOI: 10.1080/02607476.2014.924649

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2014.924649

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Preparing pre-service teachers for the profession: creating spacesfor transformative practice

Greg Auhl* and Graham R. Daniel

School of Teacher Education, Charles Sturt University, Bathurst, Australia

Within professional learning communities, the processes of shared reflection andcritique, or critical transformative dialogues are considered crucial for themaintenance and improvement of professional practice. This paper focuses onthe development of the processes of critical transformative dialogues and theirapplication in the professional development of pre-service teachers. Participantsreported a growing understanding of the importance of a continuing criticaldialogue, and an appreciation of the value that critical feedback has in develop-ing professional skills. The paper argues for the value of providing spaces forearly engagement in the processes of critical transformative dialogue as part ofprofessional preparation. A cumulative model of transformative practice forsupporting pre-service teachers’ emerging schema for teaching is proposed.

Keywords: critical transformative dialogue; reflection; teacher education;pedagogies of enactment; communities of practice

Introduction

For professional learning communities, the processes of shared reflection and cri-tique, or critical transformative dialogues (Trede 2010) are crucial for the mainte-nance and improvement of professional practice (Friend and Cook 2010). Within thecommunity of practice of teaching, there is currently a renewed emphasis on peerand individual reflection as part of professional learning and development (Marcos,Sanchez, and Tillema 2010). Ball and Forzani (2009) acknowledge that such skillsrequire conscious development, and indeed form part of what they describe as the‘unnatural work’ (498) of teaching. In teacher education courses, there is, therefore,a need to develop the skills necessary to support this practice across the profession(Marcos, Sanchez, and Tillema 2010; Thurlings et al. 2012).

This paper reports on a programme which applied the conceptual framework ofcritical transformative dialogue, developed as a part of the health profession (Trede2007), to the context of teacher education. The programme applied the processes ofcritical transformative dialogue in the development of a series of core skills of teach-ing or ‘pedagogies of enactment’ (Grossman and McDonald 2008, 189), with first-year pre-service teachers in the initial stages of their degree and prior to their firstplacement in schools. This paper provides pre-service teacher’s perspectives of criti-cal transformative dialogue in supporting their early professional development andpreparation for entry into schools. A cumulative model of transformative practice,

*Corresponding author. Email: gauhl@csu.edu.au

© 2014 Taylor & Francis

Journal of Education for Teaching, 2014Vol. 40, No. 4, 377–390, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2014.924649

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thw

este

rn U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

14 0

8 Se

ptem

ber

2014

engaging participants in a cyclical process of rehearsal, enactment and shared criticalreflection, is proposed.

Theoretical context

Within a community of practice, members with a common area of interest engagewith each other to maintain the integrity of, and to promote continuing developmentin, their particular field (Wenger 2006a). According to Wenger (1998), communitiesof practice are defined by three key characteristics, all of which contribute to com-munity coherence: mutual engagement, a joint enterprise and a shared repertoire.Within this definition, Wenger (2006b) describes teaching as an emerging professionthat is still establishing these processes of mutual engagement through the regularprofessional dialogue that supports the refinement of the shared repertoire of thejoint enterprise.

For Wenger (1998), mutual engagement represents a complex process involvingsustained negotiation among the diversity of members within the community. It con-cerns developing and refining the knowledges and practices of the enterprise throughengagement in collaborative critique on current practice, a process which Trede(2007, 2010) refers to as critical transformative dialogue. In critical transformativedialogue, the nature of feedback given and received is perceived more as critiquethan as criticism, and as a mechanism which is vital if an individual’s practice is totransform to a new level.

Habermas (1987) identified the need for collaborative exchange in describinghow processes of argumentation and clarification allow for further insight in devel-oping shared understandings. As a mechanism for professional learning, Friend andCook (2010) consider regular collaborative reflection and feedback to be essential.Friend and Cook (2010) describe how such reflection, when delivered appropriately,gives the recipients important ‘information about their behaviours or performance’(259), allowing for improvement in the target area. Davis (2006) identifies that thereflective activities of pre-service teachers may remain descriptive, rather than beinganalytical and thus supporting change in practice. In addressing this potential limita-tion, Davis (2006) argues that teacher educators need to design student experiencesthat support the development of ‘more productive reflection involving analysis’(294) to enable this change to occur. While Habermas (1987) argues that theseexchanges are particularly important in helping to drive social change, in a commu-nity of practice these interactions play an important role in assisting participants toreach deeper conceptual understandings.

Mutual engagement in critical transformative dialogue also supports new entrantsinto the field, as they participate in a process referred to by Lave and Wenger (1991)as legitimate peripheral participation. As part of their legitimate peripheral participa-tion, new entrants engage in personal and shared reflection so as constantly to‘reconsider, challenge and renew the quality of practice in [the] field’ (Daniel, Auhl,and Hastings 2013, 160). These deliberations draw on the collective professionalknowledge of the participants, informed by current theory and research. Thisengagement contributes to their development towards becoming reflective practitio-ners (Schön 1991). Whilst acknowledging critiques that Wenger’s framework aroundcommunities of practice does not adequately address uneven relationships of power(Hodkinson and Hodkinson 2004), by participating in shared professional reflectionas part of their legitimate peripheral participation, pre-service teachers move beyond

378 G. Auhl and G.R. Daniel

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thw

este

rn U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

14 0

8 Se

ptem

ber

2014

traditional concepts of the practicum so as to experience learning as part of theircommunity of practice (Le Cornu and Ewing 2008).

Regular reflection between members of a community of practice also helps todevelop what Smethurst (1997) refers to as pattern language. Pattern language ‘con-sists of the terms that the community uses … to organise its models and practice’(Smethurst 1997, 1). This ‘shared conceptual language’ (Daniel, Auhl, and Hastings2013, 160) enables practitioners to ‘describe the dimensions of practice’ (Bain 2007,46) within a professional field, allowing the inherent features of particular practicesto be defined and understood. In this regard, critical transformative dialogue repre-sents a process of regular collaborative reflection that promotes the development ofthe shared repertoire in a field.

Grossman and McDonald (2008) argue that in the field of education, the sharedrepertoire involves core practices, or pedagogies of enactment, that teachers usewithin specific subject areas, and those applied more generically across teachingpractice. They note that, like skills in other professions, these practices requirerehearsal of the ‘discrete components of complex practice in settings of reducedcomplexity’ (Grossman and McDonald 2008, 190). These components, or constitu-ent skills, may be rehearsed in isolation, or within the context of the overall complexpractice. This notion is further conceptualised by Reid (2011) as the development ofthese complex skills ‘as something that must be practised and refined, reflected uponand tried again’ (304). Willis and Cifuentes (2005) advocate that, prior to their appli-cation in actual classroom settings, new pedagogical skills benefit from rehearsal insettings that are similar to the intended context. This allows for ‘deliberate practice’(Ericsson 2009, 405) as a part of the mastery process. This focus on the progressivedevelopment of individual components of complex skills reflects what Reid (2011)describes as the ‘practice turn’ in teacher education (293).

While agreeing with Grossman (2011) that the early development of core skillsshould involve the modelling, explicit teaching and rehearsal of teaching practices,Zeichner (2012) and Hiebert and Morris (2012) contend that the transfer of theseskills to authentic settings is sometimes problematic. Zeichner (2012) proposes thatthis transference is a developmental process which is facilitated by continuingrehearsal within a community of colleagues. Further, Willis and Cifuentes (2005)suggest that the provision of such rehearsal prior to their enactment facilitates thesuccessful transfer of skills into the authentic classroom setting. The central role ofcritical transformative dialogue in supporting the refinement of these skills as a partof the rehearsal process, and refinement of pedagogies of enactment within the pro-fession, positions these dialogues as a core practice of teaching (Walkington 2005).

The role of individual and collaborative reflection as a key element of professionalpractice is recognised in teaching standards across various global jurisdictions. Forexample, the Commission of the European Communities (2007) report, Improving theQuality of Teacher Education emphasises promoting ‘a culture of reflective practiceand research within the profession’ (16); the English Department for Education’s(DfE 2012) Teachers’ Standards describes the need for teachers to ‘take responsibilityfor improving teaching through appropriate professional development, responding toadvice and feedback from colleagues’ (9); and the Professional Standards for theAccreditation of Teacher Preparation Institutions by the United States’ NationalCouncil for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE 2008) indicates that elemen-tary ‘teachers are aware of and reflect on their practice … continually evaluate theeffects of their professional decisions … and actively seek out opportunities to grow

Journal of Education for Teaching 379

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thw

este

rn U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

14 0

8 Se

ptem

ber

2014

professionally’ (55). In Australia, the Australian Institute for Teaching and SchoolLeadership (AITSL 2011) Standard 6.3 also states that graduate teachers ‘seek andapply constructive feedback from supervisors and teachers to improve teachingpractices’. Highly accomplished teachers meet Standard 6.3, by demonstrating anability to initiate and ‘engage in professional discussions with colleagues in a rangeof forums to evaluate practice directed at improving professional knowledge andpractice, and the educational outcomes of students’ (12).

At the same time as professional standards for collaboration, reflection and cri-tique are being integrated in teacher education courses globally, professional critiquewith colleagues remains a challenge for the teaching profession (Marcos, Sanchez,and Tillema 2010; Thurlings et al. 2012). Dominant constructions of teaching whereteachers are seen as independent practitioners within their own classrooms, andwithin discourses of ‘niceness’ (Carver and Katz 2004; Hastings 2009; McLaughlinand Talbert 2001; Pomson 2005) currently work to proscribe peer critique with col-leagues. For pre-service teachers, however, engagement in critical dialogue withpeers has been found to be supportive of their development as professional practitio-ners although, they too, find these processes of critique challenging (Copland 2012;Lu 2010). The creation of spaces where pre-service teachers can learn and practisethe skills of critical feedback is, therefore, a vital element in their overall profes-sional preparation.

The programme

A group of first-year undergraduate pre-service teachers (n = 65) at the authors’university were involved in a 12-week extra-curricular programme to rehearse anddevelop core practices of teaching, or pedagogies of enactment (Grossman andMcDonald 2008). In particular, the programme explored the skill of reading tochildren for educational purposes. The skill was deconstructed, and the ‘discretecomponents’ (Grossman and McDonald 2008, 190) identified. These componentsincluded aspects of bodily performance (voice, pace, eye contact, expression and thepresentation of the book), and the use of questioning and discussion to engage, focusand enrich the reading experience. No grades were given, and apart from participa-tion, there were no assignments or associated formal assessment. The programmeinvolved a total of 48 h of participant engagement and employed the processes ofregular critical transformative dialogue as a means of supporting this development.

Each week participants were introduced to a particular component, modelled byexperienced classroom practitioners and academic staff. The component was explic-itly described and links to previously introduced components of the overall skillwere discussed. During the week, the pre-service teachers prepared a presentation ofan excerpt from suitable children’s books, demonstrating their use of the componentalong with previously learned skills. As part of this preparation, the presentationswere rehearsed in pairs, and then in small groups of four. Peers provided each otherwith both verbal and written feedback to help prepare their performance for the fol-lowing week. The written component used a template to scaffold responses. Thesesessions were also video recorded for immediate and later individual review andreflection.

At the end of the first weekly cycle, larger groups, consisting of two to threegroups of four, were formed and assigned a practising teacher and an academic staffmember as mentors. These groups remained constant for the duration of the

380 G. Auhl and G.R. Daniel

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thw

este

rn U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

14 0

8 Se

ptem

ber

2014

programme. The small groups presented their rehearsed rendition of the focus skillfor the larger group and were provided with immediate oral and written feedback.This included feedback on the pre-service teacher’s performance of the specific com-ponent and previously learned skills, as they progressed towards overall mastery ofthe pedagogy.

Through the addition of a new constituent skill each week, accompanied by thecontinuing rehearsal and performance of the previously learned components, the par-ticipants were involved in a cumulative cycle of rehearsal, performance and critiquein the development of the complex pedagogy. Each pre-service teacher reviewed thefeedback provided by peers and mentors from their performance. The group presen-tations were also video recorded for later individual analysis.

This study reports on the participants’ perspectives of their engagement in criti-cal transformative dialogues as part of their preparation for their first practicumexperience. Following their first placement, participants were asked to comment ontheir use of shared reflection and critique in supporting the development of the focuspedagogies of enactment, as well as its value as a professional skill in supportingproductive interactions with associate teachers.

Methods

Following approval from the University Human Ethics Research Committee, theresearch elements of the programme were introduced to the pre-service teachers.Each was provided with written explanations and a research consent form for con-sideration. Those who agreed to participate in the research element of the pro-gramme were asked to provide feedback on aspects of the programme and theirprogress at a number of data points. This included the completion of questionnaires,participation in focus groups and individual interviews. Participation in the researchelement was voluntary.

The research reported on here provides an analysis of participant feedback fromthe questionnaire which was completed following their first professional placement.This questionnaire focused on the pre-service teachers’ perceptions of the value ofcritical transformative dialogue in developing their pedagogical skills, and for theirengagement in reflective practice in the professional setting. The questionnaire con-sisted of open-ended questions exploring issues of their experiences of providingand receiving critical feedback. These questions explored the effectiveness of theseexperiences on the development of their teaching skills and the practice of engagingin professional dialogue, as preparation for their entry into the community of prac-tice as a participant in the setting of their practicum placement. Thirty-four partici-pants consented to, and participated in, this phase of data collection. Additional datawere gathered from these participants through individual interviews and by dividingthe 34 participants who had completed the questionnaire into small focus groups.Both the individual interviews and focus groups were asked to elaborate on thesecritical feedback issues.

The research applied qualitative data analysis methods, following Yin’s (2011)five-phased cycle of assembly, disassembly, reassembly, interpreting the data anddrawing conclusions. In this process, responses were analysed for patterns, themesand categories (Patton 1990, 390), reflecting the participants’ experiences of engage-ment with critical transformative dialogues as part of their development. This analy-sis involved an iterative process of checking back and forth between emerging

Journal of Education for Teaching 381

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thw

este

rn U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

14 0

8 Se

ptem

ber

2014

categories and the data, to ensure the strength and accuracy, or credibility, of inter-pretations. The analysis further aimed to identify the role of reflective practice andcritique in preparing participants for the profession.

Initially, the researchers collated the data by examining responses to individualitems across the data-set. Each participant’s responses were coded by pseudonym,and the data were assembled (Yin 2011) under the specific topics discussed in theparticipant questionnaire. In this way, answers relating to each area of questioningcould be analysed.

The disassembling phase (Yin 2011) involved the identification of significantwords and statements in relation to the topic of study, or what Johnson andChristensen (2012) refer to as meaning statements. Johnson and Christensen definemeaning statements as ‘statements … that have particular relevance to the phenome-non being studied’ (387). These individual phrases, sentences or passages formedthe data for analysis. Each meaning statement was coded to enable the iterativeprocess of checking interpretation of data within its original context. Once theindividual pieces of data within the transcripts had been identified and no newmeaning statements were apparent, this data was reassembled into a single data-setfor analysis.

In the reassembly phase, relationships within the data were identified. Theseemerging concepts were checked back to their original place in the data to ensureinterpretations were consistent with the participants’ comments (Stake 2006). Asnew themes or ‘theoretical concepts’ (Yin 2011, 191) emerged, transcripts wererevisited to investigate the validity of these concepts across different participants’experiences. To ensure the robustness of the categorisations (Yin 2011) and credibil-ity of the analysis (Lincoln and Guba 1985), a process of explicitly checking forcontradictory data and exploring possible alternative categories was implemented.

In Yin’s (2011) interpretation phase of qualitative data analysis, the researcherlooks to identify ‘causal events contributing to the phenomenon; descriptive detailsof the phenomenon itself; and the ramifications of the phenomenon under study’(Hoepfl 1997, n.p.). This interpretation involved analysing the categories and pat-terns identified in relation to the contribution of critical transformative dialogue inthe development of the participants’ pedagogical skills and reflective abilities, in theprofessional setting. The ‘broader significance’ (Yin 2011, 220) of these findingswas then considered.

Results and discussion

Although during the development stage (prior to professional placement) some par-ticipants found engaging in critical transformative dialogue with their peers con-fronting, following placement, they reported finding the skills of collaborativereflection valuable in supporting their professional development. Participant feed-back following professional placement indicated their acknowledgement of the valueof engaging in critical transformative dialogues as a tool for professional learning.The pre-service teachers’ comments revealed that their experiences had contributedto their understanding of teaching, learning and children’s development; the value ofcritical transformative dialogue in supporting professional reflection; their readinessfor engagement in the professional context of schools; and an increasing confidenceas beginning teachers.

382 G. Auhl and G.R. Daniel

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thw

este

rn U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

14 0

8 Se

ptem

ber

2014

Developing understanding of teaching, learning and children’s development

The participants reported that their engagement in the processes of critical transfor-mative dialogue contributed to their developing understanding of children’s develop-ment and learning. These skills helped the participants in their first engagement withchildren. Participants reported that the core practices rehearsed in the programmehad also been useful in preparing them for the classroom context by providing ‘theskills that I needed to teach students effectively (as well as confidence to stand infront of the class)’ (Lillian).

Participants were also able to apply learning from their concurrent curriculumand child development subjects. The pre-service teachers reported their increasedawareness of the importance of recognising the developmental characteristics ofchildren at different stages. The benefits of the participants having engaged in theprogramme alongside their academic subjects were evident in their reflections fol-lowing their placement in schools. The pre-service teachers identified they haddeveloped a greater capacity in the selection of stage-appropriate texts and the dif-ferentiation of the modalities in which these could be employed as part of the educa-tional programme. Thus, Lillian stated that the programme ‘Helped in understandingthe general level of student knowledge to build upon what needed to be taught next’with Paul agreeing that he ‘felt more comfortable … about what stage-appropriatethe stories were’ (Paul).

Value of engaging in critical reflection

Participants’ responses indicated an appreciation of the value of engaging in criticaltransformative dialogue as part of their professional learning. Their commentsreported a developing ability as reflexive practitioners, through their participation inshared reflective activities. In this regard, dialogue with associate teachers and men-tors was valued:

The feedback that our mentors gave us helped us to expect [the] feedback our associateteachers would give us. (Paul)

I had an open dialogue with my associate teacher. The importance of gaining feedbackwas discussed in the programme. (John)

I was able to understand what I did wrong and how to improve. (Elise)

Several participants identified that their experiences of engaging in shared critiquehad also built their capacity for personal reflection as they started to experience anddevelop their place in the classroom, with the following comments being typical:

Peer assessing helped in evaluating my own teaching. (John)

Able to reflect back on my lessons and evaluate what was effective and what wasn’t.(Lillian)

Helped with understanding which strategies that I used and saw were effective in theclassroom. (Lillian)

Readiness for engagement in the professional context of schools

Participants reported becoming aware of the professional behaviours of teachers,modelled and discussed in the programme, as they entered the school environment.

Journal of Education for Teaching 383

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thw

este

rn U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

14 0

8 Se

ptem

ber

2014

These behaviours included ‘how to dress, act, speak, read, write [all] in a positivemanner’ (Jane), and ‘body language for example being on their [the children’s]level’ (Sarah).

With a developing understanding of teaching, learning and children’s develop-ment, the participants indicated that involvement with critical transformative dia-logue had also served as an introduction to the professional context. Participantscommented that the approach:

Helped with the overall skills needed to work and communicate effectively within theschool. (Lillian)

I was more confident to speak with my associate teacher and ask for help. (Savaro)

Regular use of educational terminology or the pattern language (Smethurst 1997) ofthe profession was also apparent. Examples of their emerging use of a shared con-ceptual language included the participants’ referral to ‘teaching strategies’, ‘curricu-lum’, ‘constructive criticism’ ‘feedback’ and notions of ‘engaging’ students withlearning processes and materials. Other conceptual language use included aspectsrelated to the necessity of ‘planning’ and ‘evaluat[ing] how effective lessons were’,and building on student ‘prior knowledge’. Adoption of language related to collabo-rative and reflective practice was also apparent in comments such as:

Peer assessing helped in evaluating my own teaching. (John)

Skills to be able to be critical. (Jane)

Helped with developing constructive criticism around my teaching. (Lillian)

Some of the metalanguage was useful in correspondence with my associate’s com-ments and daily feedback. (Sarah)

Increased confidence

The pre-service teachers reported that the programme had contributed to increasingtheir confidence as they approached their first placement in schools. This confidencewas evident in their reports of the quality of their engagement with their associateteachers, their self-reflections on their emerging identities as teachers and theirobservations of the school environment.

Responses indicated an appreciation of the opportunities provided to rehearseand engage in dialogue and reflection to support the development of core practices(reading, questioning and writing). These rehearsed skills were described as makingthe participants feel more able to contribute to the overall educational experience ofthe children in the pre-service teachers’ placement classes. Participants alsoexpressed a growing confidence in being able to work with children, as evidencedby the following observations:

I felt more confident working with children as I was able to adopt the skills I learnedduring the [preparatory] programme. (Mary)

Knowing I did at least one thing relatively well gave me some confidence in the newsituation [of placement]. (Sarah)

I was more confident in the approach of engaging students and wanted to get involved,even if I was not actually teaching the lesson. (Savaro)

384 G. Auhl and G.R. Daniel

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thw

este

rn U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

14 0

8 Se

ptem

ber

2014

Peralta and Burns (2012) note that: ‘Feedback, reflective conversations andshared goals with peers are all central in building confidence in pre-service teachers’(131). The participants’ increased confidence in their ability to contribute to theclassroom indicated an emerging sense of legitimacy in their role as pre-serviceteachers, or what Lave and Wenger (1991) describe as a role of legitimate peripheralparticipation.

Legitimate peripheral participation is an important aspect of the development ofcommunities of practice (Lave and Wenger 1991). As legitimate peripheral partici-pants, new entrants are able to contribute to the community, while at the same timebeing exposed to its culture and shared repertoire (Wenger 1998). This participationassists in promoting new entrants’ developing understanding of the profession.

By being engaged in a programme of skills development, in a situation thatresembles that of practice, participants were given the opportunity to demonstratetheir growing competence as new entrants into the educational community. Further,their observations indicated their growing awareness of the importance of feedbackand critical reflection.

A cumulative model of transformative practice

One of the key findings emerging from this research was that the development ofcore practices occurred in the weekly cycle of interactions. This can be representedin a four-stage instructional model (see Figure 1) that enables the gradual introduc-tion and rehearsal of the constituent skills of the complex pedagogy being rehearsed.The cumulative model of transformative practice proposes an incremental approach,where participants are actively involved in the co-construction of practice with class-room practitioners, academic mentors and peers.

Figure 1. A model for cumulative transformative practice for the development of complexskills.

Journal of Education for Teaching 385

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thw

este

rn U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

14 0

8 Se

ptem

ber

2014

Structured around the weekly introduction of constituent skills, the cycle beginswith the modelling and explication of a component skill, embedded within a demon-stration of the complex pedagogy. These skills are presented and explicated by anexperienced practitioner, with a new component introduced each week. Through themodelling and each performance included within the context of a demonstration ofthe complex pedagogy, the participants are instructed to focus predominantly on thediscrete component which is the focus for that week (Grossman and McDonald2008).

In the second stage, the constituent skill is explicitly rehearsed in pairs, with ini-tial feedback being provided by a partner. In this stage, the learners are engaged incritical transformative dialogues, in a reciprocal interaction, to improve each other’sperformance. This process is then repeated with pairs forming groups of four to pro-vide further rehearsal and feedback.

The performance stage involves each participant in the presentation of the newconstituent skill, orchestrated with existing capacities, in an approximation of thecomplex pedagogy. This performance is for a larger group. In this programme, upto 12 pre-service teachers and their mentors provided critical feedback. This feed-back and subsequent critical discussion forms the basis of the fourth stage of thecycle.

Stage four of the cycle involves individual reflective practice, where the learnerreflects on the feedback provided. This feedback includes the observations of others,film or audio recordings and personal observations of their own progress. The pur-pose of this reflection is to lead to the further refinement of the constituent skill aspart of the next cycle, in a perpetuation of a continuous cycle of change.

This model of transformative practice for the development of complex skillsrepresents an adaption of the action research cycle (Carr and Kemmis 1986) so as toform a cycle for instruction, rather than self-guided development by an individual orgroup. Central to the model is the engagement of the processes of feedback andcritique as the basis of individual and peer-mediated reflection. Applying socialconstructivist principles (Vygotsky 1978) and Wenger’s (1998) notion of communi-ties of practice, the cycle engages all participants in the co-construction ofknowledge engaging at their own level of experience and development. Scaffoldingis provided at each stage through the modelling and engagement in critical transfor-mative dialogue, establishing and enabling the participants to develop within theirzone of proximal development in a combination of collaborative and individualreflection.

The model provides for a progressive delivery of each of the constituent skills,in a manner such that mastery of the complex skill is achievable. In this way, partic-ipants are engaged in critical transformative dialogue, and critical transformativepractice from the earliest stages of their professional learning. This critical transfor-mative practice involves the pre-service teacher in moving progressively toward acomplex and professional mastery of the professional practice of teaching.

In addition, the pre-service teachers’ immersion as legitimate peripheral partici-pants, engaging in the processes of the profession with peers and mentors, providessupport for their transformation as professional educators. The cycle thereforeengages participants at all levels in the process of intergenerational communityreproduction for the profession and the passing on of knowledge to which Lave andWenger (1991) refer.

386 G. Auhl and G.R. Daniel

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thw

este

rn U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

14 0

8 Se

ptem

ber

2014

Implications

The findings of this research have implications for programmes preparing pre-ser-vice teachers for practice within classrooms. One of the challenges experienced byearly pre-service teachers is their first engagement with students and professionals inschools. Programmes which develop the skills to engage with both the core practicesof teaching, and the reflective skills necessary for collaborative learning in the pro-fession, offer support to pre-service teachers as they enter the field.

The spaces created in the implementation of the model for cumulative transfor-mative practice facilitates the engagement of pre-service teachers in critical dia-logues as they co-construct an understanding of complex pedagogies. Aseducational practice becomes more closely scrutinised and regulated, engagement incritical transformative dialogue enables the preparation of pre-service teachers forthe implementation of core practices (pedagogies of enactment) in the classroom.

The creation of spaces in which pre-service teachers are engaged in learning thepedagogies of enactment and the processes of the community of practice, from the ear-liest stages of their course of study, enables them to develop an early sense of theshared repertoire of the field. These spaces provide support in preparing pre-serviceteachers for entry into their professional environment, and in particular for workingwith professional associates in the processes of reflection and critique. Theparticipants’ emerging appreciation of the value of critical transformative dialogue insupporting and improving professional practice offers a challenge to the discourses ofisolation and niceness currently limiting the establishment of teaching as a communityof practice.

Limitations and need for further research

While limited to the experiences of the particular participants that were the focus ofthis research, these analyses offer a contribution to the larger body of literature, andmay prompt further study in this area. The small number of pre-service teacherswho participated in this study, and their position at such an early stage of their pro-gramme, limit the generalisability of these findings. It is clear that these participantsindicated a growing familiarity with the processes of critical transformative dialogueand its value in supporting the development of their professional skills. However, toquantify this efficacy, further research is necessary that compares this approach withother cultures and contexts for pre-service teacher education programmes.

The challenges of building community relationships and trust with new col-leagues may also have limited the participant’s willingness to engage in honest andopen critique of others’ performances. The limitation of this study to self-reporteddata, and to the perspectives of only the pre-service teachers, points to the need foradditional data from multiple perspectives, such as those provided by the supervis-ing teachers during school placement.

Within these limitations, these pre-service teachers indicated that their participa-tion in the reflective spaces formed in the weekly cycle, assisted in preparing themfor their first placement in schools. This included their development of pedagogicalskills, their preparation for the professional role of the classroom teacher and theirentrance into the educational community. We recommend that further research in thisarea be undertaken, including investigating the perspectives of the associate teachersconcerned, to contribute to the emerging understandings of how to effect real and

Journal of Education for Teaching 387

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thw

este

rn U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

14 0

8 Se

ptem

ber

2014

continuing change in the preparation of quality classroom practitioners. Furtherresearch is also recommended in helping to understand the processes and depth ofreflection experienced by participants in similar programmes.

Conclusion

By embedding the processes of critical transformative dialogue and reflection withinteacher education preparation programmes, pre-service teachers are provided spacesto focus on the development and refinement of core teaching skills, and skillsrequired for professional dialogue and reflection. The model for transformative prac-tice proposed here provides one mechanism through which these spaces might beformed. Engagement in these processes offers support in the development of anearly schema for teaching by enabling pre-service teachers to begin to become famil-iar with the pedagogies of the enactment of teaching, the shared conceptual languageof the profession, and thus to participate as legitimate peripheral participants withinthe community of practice of teaching.

ReferencesAITSL (Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership). 2011. Australian

Professional Standards for Teachers. Canberra: Ministerial Council for Education, EarlyChildhood Development and Youth Affairs (MCEECDYA).

Bain, A. 2007. The Self-Organizing School: Next Generation Comprehensive SchoolReforms. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.

Ball, D. L., and F. Forzani. 2009. “The Work of Teaching and the Challenge for TeacherEducation.” Journal of Teacher Education 60 (5): 497–511.

Carr, W., and S. Kemmis. 1986. Becoming Critical: Education, Knowledge, and ActionResearch. London: Falmer Press.

Carver, C. L., and D. S. Katz. 2004. “Teaching at the Boundary of Acceptable Practice: Whatis a New Teacher Mentor to Do?” Journal of Teacher Education 55 (5): 449–462.

Commission of the European Communities. 2007. Communication from the Commission tothe Council and the European Parliament: Improving the Quality of Teacher Education.Brussels: Commission of the European Communities. http://ec.europa.eu/education/com392_en.pdf.

Copland, F. 2012. “Legitimate Talk in Feedback Conferences.” Applied Linguistics 33 (1): 1–20.Daniel, G. R., G. Auhl, and W. Hastings. 2013. “Collaborative Feedback and Reflection for

Professional Growth: Preparing First-year Pre-service Teachers for Participation in theCommunity of Practice.” Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education 41 (2): 159–172.

Davis, E. A. 2006. “Characterizing Productive Reflection among Preservice ElementaryTeachers: Seeing What Matters.” Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (3): 281–301.

DfE (Department for Education) 2012. Teachers’ Standards. London: Crown Copyright. https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/teachers%20standards.pdf.

Ericsson, K. A. 2009. “Enhancing the Development of Professional Performance: Implica-tions from the Study of Deliberate Practice.” In Development of Professional Expertise,edited by K. A. Ericsson, 405–431. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Friend, M., and L. Cook. 2010. Interactions: Collaboration Skills for School Professionals.6th ed. Upper Saddle River: Pearson.

Grossman, P. 2011. “A Framework for Teaching Practice: A Brief History of an Idea.” Teach-ers College Record 113 (12): 2836–2843.

Grossman, P., and M. McDonald. 2008. “Back to the Future: Directions for Research inTeaching and Teacher Education.” American Educational Research Journal 45 (1):184–205.

Habermas, J. 1987. The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity. Translated by F. Lawrence.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

388 G. Auhl and G.R. Daniel

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thw

este

rn U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

14 0

8 Se

ptem

ber

2014

Hastings, W. J. 2009. “Effective Communication in Professional Experience.” In Teaching &Communicating: Rethinking Professional Experience, edited by R. Ewing, T. Lowrie, andJ. Higgs, 137–148. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Hiebert, J., and A. K. Morris. 2012. “Teaching, Rather than Teachers, as a Path towardImproving Classroom Instruction.” Journal of Teacher Education 63 (2): 92–102.

Hodkinson, H., and P. Hodkinson. 2004. “Rethinking the Concept of Community of Practicein Relation to Schoolteachers’ Workplace Learning.” International Journal of Trainingand Development 8 (1): 21–31.

Hoepfl, M. C. 1997. “Choosing Qualitative Research: A Primer for Technology EducationResearchers.” Journal of Technology Education 9 (1): 47–63.

Johnson, B., and L. B. Christensen. 2012. Educational Research: Quantitative, Qualitative,and Mixed Approaches. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Lave, J., and E. Wenger. 1991. Situated Learning. Cambridge University Press.Le Cornu, R., and R. Ewing. 2008. “Reconceptualising Professional Experiences in

Pre-Service Teacher Education … Reconstructing the Past to Embrace the Future.”Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (7): 1799–1812.

Lincoln, Y. S., and E. G. Guba. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Lu, H. 2010. “Research on Peer Coaching in Preservice Teacher Education – A Review of

Literature.” Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (4): 748.Marcos, J. M., E. Sanchez, and H. H. Tillema. 2010. “Promoting Teacher Reflection: What is

Said to Be Done.” Journal of Education for Teaching: International Research andPedagogy 37 (1): 21–36.

McLaughlin, M., and J. Talbert. 2001. Professional Communities and the Work of HighSchool Teaching. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

NCATE (National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education) 2008. Professional Stan-dards for the Accreditation of Teacher Preparation Institutions. Washington, DC:National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education.

Patton, M. Q. 1990. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. 3rd ed. Newbury Park,CA: Sage.

Peralta, L. R., and K. Burns. 2012. “First off the Blocks: Professional Experience andLearning for First-Year Preservice Physical and Health Education Teachers.” Asia-PacificJournal of Teacher Education 40 (2): 127–141.

Pomson, A. D. M. 2005. “One Classroom at a Time? Teacher Isolation and CommunityViewed through the Prism of the Particular.” Teachers College Record 107 (4): 783–802.

Reid, J. 2011. “A Practice Turn for Teacher Education?” Asia-Pacific Journal of TeacherEducation 39 (4): 293–310.

Schön, D. A. 1991. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action.Aldershot: Ashgate.

Smethurst, J. 1997. “Communities of Practice and Pattern Language.” Journal of TransitionManagement 2 (3). http://www.mgtaylor.com/mgtaylor/jotm/summer97/community_of_practice.htm.

Stake, R. E. 2006. Multiple Case Study Analysis. New York: The Guilford Press.Thurlings, M., M. Vermeulen, K. Kreijns, T. Bastiaens, and S. Stijnen. 2012. “Development

of the Teacher Feedback Observation Scheme: Evaluating the Quality of Feedback inPeer Groups.” Journal of Education for Teaching: International Research and Pedagogy38 (2): 193–208.

Trede, F. V. 2007. “A Critical Practice Model for Physiotherapy.” Unpublished doctoral diss.,Sydney University, Sydney, Australia. http://hdl.handle.net/2123/1430.

Trede, F. V. 2010. “Enhancing Communicative Spaces for Fieldwork Education in an InlandRegional Australian University.” Higher Education Research & Development 29 (4):373–387.

Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. In Mind in Society the Development of Higher Psychological Pro-cesses, edited by M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, and E. Souberman. Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press.

Walkington, J. 2005. “Becoming a Teacher: Encouraging Development of Teacher Identitythrough Reflective Practice.” Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education 33 (1): 53–64.

Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Wenger, E. 2006a. “Etienne Wenger Home Page.” http://www.ewenger.com/.

Journal of Education for Teaching 389

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thw

este

rn U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

14 0

8 Se

ptem

ber

2014

Wenger, E. 2006b. “Organizations and Learning in Communities of Practice.” In ProfessionalDevelopment Seminar, RIPPLE (Research into Professional Practice, Learning andEducation). Albury.

Willis, J., and L. Cifuentes. 2005. “Training Teachers to Integrate Technology into the Class-room Curriculum: Online versus Face-to-Face Course Delivery (Comparative Analysis ofTeacher Technology Training Courses).” Journal of Technology and Teacher Education13 (1): 43–63.

Yin, R. K. 2011. Qualitative Research from Start to Finish. New York: Guilford Press.Zeichner, K. 2012. “The Turn Once Again toward Practice-Based Teacher Education.”

Journal of Teacher Education 63 (5): 376–382.

390 G. Auhl and G.R. Daniel

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thw

este

rn U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

14 0

8 Se

ptem

ber

2014