Teaching and Teacher Education 44 (2014) 117e127

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education

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

Teacher educators' professionalism in practice: Positioning theory and

personal interpretative framework
Eline Vanassche*, Geert Kelchtermans
Center for Educational Policy, Innovation and Teacher Training, University of Leuven, Dekenstraat 2, Postbox 3773, 3000 Leuven, Belgium

h i g h l i g h t s

The relation between teacher educators' positioning and their practices.

Professionalism manifests itself in teacher educators' actions and behaviors.

A close examination of teacher educators' normative beliefs is essential.

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 7 May 2014
Received in revised form
18 July 2014
Accepted 19 August 2014
Available online 13 September 2014

This study connects to the international call for research on teacher educator professionalism. Combining
positioning theory with the personal interpretative framework, we examined the relationship between
teacher educators' positioning and their teacher education practices. The interpretative analysis of
qualitative data from twelve experienced Flemish teacher educators revealed three teacher educator
positionings: a teacher educator of pedagogues, a teacher educator of reective teachers, and a teacher
educator of subject teachers. Each positioning constitutes a coherent pattern of normative beliefs about
good teaching and teacher education, the preferred relationships with student teachers, and valuable
methods and strategies to enact these beliefs.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Teacher educator
Positioning theory
Pedagogy

1. Introduction
The need for a competent teaching force as a warrant for high
quality education remains a central concern in many countries
(e.g., Commission of the European Communities, 2007; DarlingHammond, 2010). Critical discussions of teachers and their education can be found in the media, policy documents, and
educational literature. However, empirical research focusing
directly on the professional lives and needs of teacher educatorsdthose who teach teachersdremains scarce (a.o., Bates,
Swennen, & Jones, 2011; Ben-Peretz, Kleeman, Reichenberg, &
Shimoni, 2011; Davey, 2013; Edmond & Hayler, 2013; Grossman,
2005; Swennen, Jones, & Volman, 2010). In a special issue of the
Journal of Education for Teaching the unanswered questions
needing immediate attention were highlighted:

* Corresponding author. Tel.: 32 16326292; fax: 32 16326274.

E-mail addresses: eline.vanassche@ppw.kuleuven.be (E. Vanassche), geert.
kelchtermans@ppw.kuleuven.be (G. Kelchtermans).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.08.006
0742-051X/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

who are they, why do they work in teacher education, what

career pathways have led them to teacher education, what are
key aspects of their knowledge and practice as teacher educators, and what are the critical issues faced by those working in
teacher education. (Mayer, Mitchell, Santoro, & White, 2011, p.
247).
This paradox between the recognition of teacher educators'
importance on the one hand but the limited research attention on
the other hand can be partly explained by the implicit assumption
that a teacher educator is someone who teaches (his/her subject) to
students in higher education instead of to pupils in elementary or
secondary education. In other words, the assumption is that
educating teachers is something that does not require any additional preparation and that if one is a good teacher of elementary or
secondary students, this expertise will automatically carry over to
one's work with novice teachers (Zeichner, 2005, p. 118). As a
consequence, little research attention is paid to the nature of
teacher educators' professionalism in terms of how they dene
their professional task as a teacher educator and how they

118

E. Vanassche, G. Kelchtermans / Teaching and Teacher Education 44 (2014) 117e127

construct the knowledge and skills for the enactment of this task.
This study contributes to this issue.
2. A combined theoretical framework
This study was based on a concept of practice-based
(Kelchtermans, 2013) or enacted professionalism (Ball & Cohen,
1999; Evans, 2008; Frelin, 2013; Grossman & McDonald, 2008;
Munby, Russell, & Martin, 2001). A practice-based approach starts
from and gives center stage to actual teacher education practices in
conceptualizing and studying teacher educator professionalism.1 In
other words, professionalism is conceived of as manifesting itself in
teacher educators' actions and behaviors in practice. It is reected
in four questions: what happens?; why is this happening?; what
do we think of this and why?; and should we try to change this
practice and why would this change be an improvement?. The
judgment (or evaluation) of a practice is postponed: it is not until
the third question that teacher educators' particular normative
stances are made explicit (including the goals they strive for, the
assumptions about good teaching and teaching about teaching, and
the beliefs about the instruments or interventions that may result
in the desired outcomes).
Studying enacted professionalism, with its emphasis on actual
practices, implies that one acknowledges the contextualized character of teacher education, as well as its intrinsic relational character (a.o., Biesta, 2004; Frelin, 2013; Grossman & McDonald, 2008).
Education has indeed a relational character, that it doesn't exist in
any other sense than as a relation and in relation (Biesta, 2004, p.
21). Teacher educators cannot but be in relation with student
teachers. Furthermore these relationships do not operate in a vacuum, but are always embedded in the context of a particular
teacher training institute, that is characterized by particular
structural (e.g., the available resources, organizational structure,
student teacher population) and cultural (shared assumptions
about good teacher education) working conditions.
In the theoretical framework of our study, we tried to do justice
to the enacted (practice-based), relational and contextualized
character of teacher educator professionalism. On the one hand, we
build on our former work on professional development, and more
in particular the concept of the personal interpretative framework
(Kelchtermans, 1993, 2009; Kelchtermans & Hamilton, 2004). On
the other hand, we conceptually enriched our theoretical lens with

, 2001; Davies
insights from positioning theory (a.o., Adams & Harre

, 1990, 1999; Harre

& van Langenhove, 1991).
& Harre
2.1. The personal interpretative framework
The personal interpretative frameworkdas dened by
Kelchtermans (1993, 2009)drefers to the set of cognitions and
beliefs that operates as a lens through which teacher educators
perceive their job situations, give meaning to, and act in them. It
can be seen as the always temporary mental sediment of the
learning and development processes that span one's career and
result from the socially meaningful interactions between the

teacher educator and his/her professional working context. Kelchtermans distinguished between two interrelated domains in the
content of the personal interpretative framework: on the one hand
the representations of oneself as a teacher educator (professional
self-understanding) and on the other hand the personal system of
knowledge and beliefs about teaching (subjective educational theory). Professional self-understanding is composed of ve components: self-image, self-esteem, task perception, job motivation, and
future perspective.
The self-image refers to the ways teacher educators typify
themselves (descriptive). It is largely based on self-perception, but
also reects what others mirror back to teacher educators (e.g.,
comments from student teachers, colleagues, department heads).
The self-image has to be understood as closely related to the
evaluative component of the self-understanding. Self-esteem refers
to the way teacher educators evaluate their actual teacher educator
behavior (how well am I doing?).
Teacher educators' personal conceptions of their professional
task and responsibilities constitutes the third component, the task
perception. This normative component of the self-understanding
encompasses teacher educators' personal answer to questions
such as: what are the tasks I have to perform in order to have the
justied feeling that I am doing well?; what do I consider as
legitimate duties I have to perform and what do I refuse to accept as
part of my job (and why)?. The task perception highlights the fact
that teacher education is not a neutral endeavor, but always implies
value-laden considerations and choices. It encompasses deeply
held beliefs about what constitutes good education, about one's
moral responsibilities and duties toward student teachers.
The job motivation is the conative component and refers to the
motives or drives that make teacher educators choose to become a
teacher educator, to stay in the profession, or to change careers.
Again, it is rather easy to understand that the task perception, as
well as the working conditions that allow or impede educators to
act according to their personal normative program, are crucial determinants for their job motivation.
Finally, self-understanding includes a prospective component,
the future perspective, revealing teacher educators' expectations
about their future in the job. These expectations highlight the dynamic character of the self-understanding. It is not a static, or xed
essence, but the result of the ongoing meaningful interactions of
teacher educators with their working contexts. This needs to be
understood in relation to human temporality: people's actions are
embedded in their personal histories. Teacher educators' actions and
sense-making in the present are inuenced by meaningful experiences in the past, as well as their expectations toward the future.
The second domain within the personal interpretative framework is the subjective educational theory. It encompasses the personal system of knowledge and beliefs on teaching and teacher
education and how to enact these. It contains teacher educators'
technical know-how, the basis on which they ground their decisions for actions in particular situations. It reects their personal
answer to the questions: how can I effectively deal with this
particular situation? and why would this work that way?.
2.2. Positioning theory

1
Conceiving of professionalism in terms of its manifestations in practice opposes
a blueprint approach (Kelchtermans, 2013) or a concept of demanded professionalism
(Evans, 2008) in which professionalism is conceived of in general and contextindependent terms, listing and prescribing the knowledge, skills, and attitudes
deemed critical for professional behavior. The standards for teacher educators (e.g.,
Association of Teacher Educators, 2002; Koster & Dengerink, 2008) or the knowledgebase for teacher education (e.g., Murray, 1998) are examples of this approach:
these function as a blueprint or a presumably exhaustive list of knowledge, skills,
and attitudes that individual teacher educators need to master or strive for in order
to legitimately consider themselves as professional teacher educators.

While the concept personal interpretative framework acknowledges that its content (professional self-understanding and
subjective educational theory) results from the meaningful interactions with the working context, it primarily refers to an (always temporary) product in the person of the teacher educator. In
order to acknowledge the relational and situated process of teacher
educator professionalism, we combined this line of work with in
, 2001; Davies &
sights from positioning theory (a.o., Adams & Harre

E. Vanassche, G. Kelchtermans / Teaching and Teacher Education 44 (2014) 117e127

, 1990, 1999; Harre

& van Langenhove, 1991). Central to
Harre
positioning theory is the question how individuals are continuously generating their local sense of the real and the good (Gergen,
1999, p. 176) during interactions with each other.
In discursive practices individuals not only position themselves
in particular ways, but simultaneously position others (Adams &

, 2001). Positioning refers to the assignment of uid parts
Harre
or roles to speakers in the discursive construction of personal
stories that make a person's actions intelligible and relatively

, 1999, p. 17).
determinate as social acts (van Langenhove & Harre
Two modes of positioning are relevant for this study.
The rst mode is reexive positioning or intentional self-posi
, 1990, p.
tioning in which one positions oneself (Davies & Harre
48). The term reexive positioning refers to positioning oneself as
or taking a stance toward in the interaction with others in a
particular situation and thus recognizes that teacher educators
view the practice of educating teachers from a particular position

& van Langenhove, 1999; Tan & Moghaddam, 1995; Taylor,
(Harre

(1999)
Bougie, & Caouette, 2003). van Langenhove and Harre
describe how self-positioning occurs in every conversation
where one wants to express his/her professional identity, for
example, by referring to events in one's biography (p. 24). The
ways in which teacher educators self-reexively position themselves is thus closely related to their personal interpretative
framework (in particular their task perception) or the normative
assumptions about good teaching (about teaching) that are the
basis on which they ground their decisions for actions in particular
situations. At the same time, positioning theory stresses the relational and contextualized character of the process of understanding oneself as and how teacher educators' self-understanding is
called forth (Ollerhead, 2012, p. 3) in particular ways and/or
actively constructed in interaction with others.
This illustrates a second mode of positioning which Davies and

(1990) dene as interactive positioning in which what one
Harre
person says positions another (p. 48). How individuals position
each other entails a call to look at themselves in particular ways,
act in particular ways, and relate to each other in particular ways.
Positioning others opens or constricts the range of possible ways of
understanding the interaction and relationship open to those individuals (p. 48). Put differently, interactive positioning indicates
which positions teacher educators are (not) expected to adopt in
the teacher education landscape and how they are expected to
relate to others in that landscape. Interactive positioning occurs
intentionally and consciously as well as unintentionally. Furthermore, an attempted positioning can be accepted or contested since
people always bring in their personal understanding of what is

, 1990, 1999;
taking place and react to each other (Davies & Harre

& van Langenhove, 1999; Wagner & Herbel-Eisenmann,
Harre
2009).
2.3. Research questions
Building on the combined theoretical framework, the research
questions for this study were: (1) how do teacher educators position themselves as teacher educators?; (2) how do teacher educators position their student teachers?; (3) how do these positionings
inuence the learning processes supported by teacher educators?
3. Methodology
3.1. Research group
Initial teacher education in Flanders is organized in two kinds of
teacher education programs. Both eventually result in the same
teaching certicate, but are provided by different institutes, each

119

aiming at particular populations of teacher candidates (Eurydice,

2012). First, the integrated program is provided by Higher Education Colleges and results in the degree of bachelor in education
(i.e., kindergarten, primary education, or lower secondary education). This program combines extended practical training (internships) with general pedagogical/educational theory and subject
matter knowledge. Secondly, the specic program can be taken
either after an initial subject-oriented study (e.g., mathematics
degree) at university or as a separate program for candidates with
relevant work experience who want to become teachers in the
practical training components of vocational and technical secondary education. This program is provided by Higher Education Colleges, universities, and Centers of Adult Education.
We assumed that these different institutional contexts affect the
professional lives and experiences of the teacher educators working
in these contexts. Therefore, we purposefully selected (Strauss &
Corbin, 1998) a sample of teacher educators who represented this
diversity in institutional settings. We selected six teacher educators
from an integrated program for nursery teacher education located
in a Higher Education College and six teacher educators from a
specic program in a Center of Adult Education. We further selected
teacher educators with a minimum of three years of teaching
experience in teacher education. Furthermore, the selected teacher
educators had entered the eld of teacher education through
different routes since research (a.o., Acker, 1997; Bullock, 2009;
Zeichner, 2005) has shown the relevance of teacher educators'
former careers on their practices. For example, we included teacher
educators who had taught in primary or secondary schools for a
number of years, but also teacher educators who entered the job
without teaching experience. Finally, all selected teacher educators
needed to teach pedagogy courses, either general or subjectoriented, and/or be involved in the supervision of student teachers' internships.
Table 1 summarizes the general characteristics of the
respondents.
3.2. Data collection
We used a multiple case-study approach (Miles & Huberman,
1994) and combined different techniques for data collection: a
written questionnaire, in-depth interviews, and document analysis.
In the questionnaire, teacher educators were asked to give a
chronological overview of the formal career positions (contracts)
they had occupied since their initial training. In addition, the
questionnaire also contained open-ended questions on the
perception of their actual job situation, principles guiding their
teacher education practice, and inuential professional development courses.
The rst interview had two parts. Part A consisted of the systematic exploration of the respondents' formal career using the
questionnaire data as our guideline. In part B, teacher educators
described important career decisions and elements of their practice. This part had an open structure, allowing respondents to give a
narrative account of their professional experiences. Since posi
& van
tioning can be detected through people's speech acts (Harre

& Moghaddam, 2003), we focused on
Langenhove, 1991; Harre
eliciting stories and closely listened to the respondents during interviews. We did not ask direct questions on positioning, but
explored their daily practices, probing for detailed descriptive information about their actual form, as well as for how they made
sense of them.
In the second interview, teacher educators were asked to
describe and explain in detail their goals and aspirations for their
student teachers and their knowledge and beliefs about how to
attain these. Enacted professionalism, as dened above, cannot be

120

E. Vanassche, G. Kelchtermans / Teaching and Teacher Education 44 (2014) 117e127

Table 1
Overview of the respondents.
Name

Institute

Qualication

Experience and background

Jean
Beth
Helena
Jenny
Catherine

HEC
HEC
HEC
HEC
HEC

Master in Education; teaching qualication

Master in Education; teaching qualication
Master in Education; teaching qualication
Master/PhD in Theology and Religious Studies
Master in Languages (Dutch, English); Master
in Political Sciences; playwright; teaching qualication

Tasha

HEC

Master in Languages (Dutch, English)

Nicky
Lester
Mark

CAE
CAE
CAE

Master in Education; teaching qualication

Master in Languages (Dutch, English)
Master in Special Education; teaching qualication

Grace
Igor
Tim

CAE
CAE
CAE

Master in Languages (French, English)

Bachelor in Electro mechanics
Master in Psychology; Master in Musicology; music therapy

3 years in TE
38 years in TE, 20 years in in-service training of teachers
7 years in TE, 1 year in research
6 years in research, 1 year in upper secondary education, 8 years in TE
2 years in non-prot organizations, 10 years in lower and upper
secondary education (English, Dutch, history), 2 years in drama
academy (recital), 8 years in TE
10 years in upper secondary education (Dutch, English), 2 years as
a principal, 22 years in TE
11 years in TE
26 years in upper secondary education (Dutch, English), 10 years in TE
1 year in secondary education, 3 years as a special needs coordinator,
13 years in TE
2 years in lower and upper secondary education, 25 years in TE
8 years in lower secondary education, 27 years in TE
3 years in lower and upper secondary education, 12 years in TE

Note. TE Teacher Education; HEC Higher Education College; CAE Center of Adult Education. Pseudonyms were used.

displayed outside of practices or descriptions of practice as it is

always purposeful action, toward one or several purposes (Frelin,
2013, pp. 8e9). Therefore, teacher educators were asked to
choose an artifact from their practice which illustrated in an
exemplary way their goals and pedagogical practices. Artifacts
included, for example, a written report of an observed lesson during internships, a student teacher assignment, or a teacher educator's interventions in an online discussion forum. During this
interview, we systematically explored the artifact as a materialization of (aspects of) their personal interpretative framework, and
reexive and interactive positioning, by asking questions, such as
how did you proceed?; how satised are you with ?. Again, the
focus was on eliciting narrative accounts of their experiences and
roles as a teacher educator.
3.3. Data analysis
All interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Next,
we had several rounds of close reading of the data and divided the
transcripts in text fragments. The length of the fragments
depended on their meaningfulness: all the utterances constituting
one coherent, meaningful message or stance by the respondent
were kept together in one fragment. As such, the length varied
from a couple of words or sentences to a short paragraph
(maximum 10e15 lines). The transcript were subsequently coded,
using both descriptive (summarizing the content of the fragment)
and interpretative codes (reecting the conceptual framework).
All fragments were coded and every fragment received several
codes in order to warrant full capture of its different meaningful
elements.
This systematic within-case-analysis (Miles & Huberman, 1994)
resulted in a synthesis text with a common structure of paragraphs
for each respondent (prole). This prole summarized data
focusing on (1) their beliefs about good teaching; (2) their professional self-understanding; (3) their subjective educational theory;
and (4) their perception of their working contexts. We included
extensive quotes from the interviews, preserving the richness and
detail of the original data (thick descriptions; Geertz, 1983). The
proles thus constituted a rst interpretative transformation of the
data in a structured and manageable way, without, however, losing
meaningful or relevant information.
Next, these proles were submitted to a cross-case-analysis
(Miles & Huberman, 1994) to build a general pattern of explanation.
The aim was to identify commonalities and differences regarding
teacher educators' positioning of themselves, the positioning of

their student teachers, and how this relates to their teacher education practices and student teachers' possibilities for learning. In
this phase, we used Spradley's (1980) taxonomic analysis. This
analysis focuses on generating more inclusive categories in the data
by grouping segments of data as items in a subset of a more inclusive term. In this study, this included combining different contents of teacher educators' professional self-understanding, as well
as their conceptualizations of (their relationship with) student
teachers, and their pedagogical knowledge and skills (i.e., subjective educational theory). This implied several rounds of interpretative reading and categorizing of the proles, building stacks of
systematically similar cases. This resulted in three interpretive
stacks of data, which were then labelled, by dening and describing
in a cleardand mutually exclusive waydthe different teacher
educator positionings. These positionings do not merely represent a
way of working with student teachers or enacting a pedagogy of
teacher education, but refer to what Bullough and Gitlin (2001, p. 3)
have called a preferred way of being with and relating to students. Each positioning refers to a coherent pattern of normative
beliefs about good teaching and teaching about teaching (the
respective positions of student teachers and teacher educators), the
preferred relation with student teachers, and valuable methods and
strategies to enact these beliefs in practice. All teacher educator
positionings were noted in the taxonomy and described in detail
until an exhaustive list of positionings was achieved. When this
process was completed, all the interviews were read once more and
checked for full comprehension according to the taxonomy.
3.4. Ethical considerations
At the outset of the study all respondents were fully informed
about the purpose of the study, the methodology and what it would
require from them to participate. All respondents agreed that their
participation was entirely voluntary and gave their consent to
participate in the study as designed. Furthermore, all contributions
were recorded and the respondents were explicitly reminded that
they could stop the tape at any time. Finally, for both methodological and ethical reasons, the interpretative reports (proles)
were fed back to the respondents for their approval or potential
amendment.
4. Findings
Our qualitative-interpretative analysis resulted in the identication and description of three teacher educator positionings: the

E. Vanassche, G. Kelchtermans / Teaching and Teacher Education 44 (2014) 117e127

121

Table 2
Overview of the taxonomic analysis.
Teacher educator

Teacher educator positioning

(Student) teacher
positioning

Relationship with student

teachers

Strategies to educate teachers

Jean, Helena, Beth, Tim

Teacher educator of pedagogues

Pedagogue

Jenny, Tasha, Mark,

Nicky, Igor, Lestor

Teacher educator of reective

teachers

Reective teacher

Responsive
Student teacher controlled
Interactive
Student teacher and teacher
educator controlled

Catherine, Grace

Teacher educator of subject

teachers

Subject teacher

(Didactical and attitudinal) modeling

Student teachers' diverse needs
Modeling
Thinking aloud
Reective practices
Student teachers' diverse needs
Direct instruction
Student teachers' content needs

teacher educator of pedagogues,2 the teacher educator of reective teachers, and the teacher educator of subject teachers. Table 2
provides an overview of the constitutive elements of each positioning which will be discussed in detail below.
4.1. Positioning 1: the teacher educator of pedagogues
4.1.1. Position of the student teacher
Central in the beliefs about good teaching of the teacher educators of pedagogues was the student as a whole person and not
only as a learning being (Tim). Teaching, for the teacher educators
of pedagogues, thus not only concerns teaching subject matter
knowledge, but supporting children in their personal growth and
development.
Of course it's valuable to be an excellent [mathematics] teacher,
but that's such a missed opportunity to have an impact on
children in different ways. In my opinion, children not only need
to learn a lot about mathematicsdteachers need to develop
children's critical thinking, recognize the value of things, and
truly engage with them. (Tim)
The phrases have an impact on children in different ways and
truly engage with referred to the essential relational qualities of
teaching for the teacher educators of pedagogues, alongside
instrumental or technical aspects (i.e., subject matter knowledge
and didactical knowledge). Obviously, it remains imperative/
desirable that teachers commit themselves fully to achieving
learning results with their students. However, professional teaching for the teacher educators of pedagogues hingesdrst and
foremostdon the moral commitment of the teachers to their students, and not on subject matter knowledge. Decits in the latter
are easily remedied, according to Jenny. A teacher does not have to
know everything, but needs to pay close attention to the children.
Facts can always be checked afterwards. It's absolutely ne to say I
was wrong.
As a consequence, the teacher educators of pedagogues positioned their student teachers not (only) as students of a specic
subject discipline (e.g., students of mathematics), but (also) as
teachers of children that have been entrusted to their care and with
whom teachers build a relationship of moral commitment and responsibility. They stressed the moral responsibility of their job
anddas a consequencedthe high demands it placed on the
training of these pedagogical teachers. A teacher has the power to
make or break children. I'm exaggerating a little bit, but we must
set the bar high for our student teachers when it comes down to
this personal level (Helena).

2
Although pedagogue is uncommon in English educational literature, we
used itein line with the European pedagogiek-tradition-to refer to the relational, moral, and social aspects in education, in addition to technicalinstrumental ones.

Directive
Teacher educator controlled

4.1.2. Position of the teacher educator

Precisely because student teachers will need to act as pedagogues, this pedagogical aspect needs to be an essential part of
their training. Building on this, preparing teachers to teach, for Tim,
is education to the second power.
The inuence my student teachers will have on the children in
their classrooms [is the same as the one] I now have on them in
the program. You think about what you value in life, what you
want to pass on to society, and you pass on these things to your
student teachers hoping that they in turn will do the same with
their students.
The teacher educators of pedagogues did not perceive their task
as preparing students with the technical-instrumental knowhow for
teaching, but rst of all thought of it as a pedagogical one. The
pedagogical refers to a particular content or form of the relationship
between the teacher educators and their student teachers; a relationship of care and responsibility for the person of the student
teacher (Kelchtermans, 2011). In other words, the teacher educators
of pedagogues strived to practice what they preached. The relationship these teacher educators sought to establish with their student teachers resembled the envisaged qualities of the relationship
between the student teachers and their future students: not just
professionals to train, but persons to support in their full development as human beings. For the teacher educators of pedagogues, the
personal and the professional self were seen as intertwining.
Furthermore, the attention to the whole person expressed a
concern for student teachers' emotional well-being. In their teacher
education practices, teacher educators of pedagogues explicitly
prioritized the well-being of their student teachers and strongly
invested in this. I always try to see the person behind their learning
achievements or the lack thereof. Youre not doing well today, what's
wrong? Or I can see youre struggling, what's going on? (Helena).
The task perception of the teacher educators of pedagogues
contained an aspect of care, responsibility, and dedication to
their student teachers, rooted in a moral and emotional commitment to both their well-being as well as their learning achievements (a.o., Bullough, 2005; Darling, 2001; Murray, 2006; Nias,
1999). Following Varney (2009), we label this as a form of humanistic mentoring or mentoring that incorporates care and
nurturance for the person within the developing professional (p.
127). This category of teacher educators nurtures the personal self
of the student teachers in their practice. Teacher educators of
pedagogues [derive] from their interpersonal nature of this
relationship a moral, as distinct from legal, sense of responsibility
for and accountability to pupils (Nias, 1999, p. 226). Precisely this
moral commitment served as an important source of job motivation and satisfaction. These teacher educators derived a strong
sense of positive self-esteem and personal meaningfulness from
caring for their student teachers. In other words, the personal and
appreciative relationship they strived for was at the same time also
personally rewarding in terms of job satisfaction.

122

E. Vanassche, G. Kelchtermans / Teaching and Teacher Education 44 (2014) 117e127

This requires investing a lot of time, often in the weekends and

evenings, which is exhausting, but also gives a lot of satisfaction.
A small example: that student texted me that his internship was
a real success. That's what it's all about! (Igor)
As such, student teachers constituted simultaneously a key source
of legitimation for teacher educators' self-esteem, as well as the main
potential threats to their self-esteem. Lack of social recognition was
found to profoundly affect teacher educators' sense of professional
competence. These teacher educators' broad task perception,
emphasizing care and a moral debt to their student teachers,
potentially operated as a guilt trap (Hargreaves, 1994, p. 142) if they
felt that they did not fully meet student teachers' needs, for example,
because of institutional demands. Jean, for example, emotionally
recalled how a student teacher she had failed, led a complaint.
Based on that experience and the atmosphere in the program, I
took on a strictly evaluative role [when interacting with my
students]. Every single time I visited them [during their
internship], I ended up listing all the shortcomings. I didn't
feel comfortable in that role and I guess my students didn't
either. Unconsciously, this complaint had driven me in a direction I never wanted to go.
For the teacher educators of pedagogues, the increasing
administrative demands and judicialization went hand in hand
with guilt. It compelled them to establish primarily instrumental
relationships with their student teachers or it demanded time
spent on other things than actually supporting their students,
although this element was central to their task perception. Their
task perception thus also implied a critique of the increasing
administrative demands in teacher education and the emphasis
placed upon its technical-instrumental aspects.
4.1.3. Relationship with student teachers
The preferred relationship of the teacher educators of pedagogues with their student teachers reected their positioning of
themselves as dedicated, committed, and caring individuals. They
tried to build a personal and appreciative relationship with student
teachers, characterized by respect for their autonomy and selfsteering capacities, in which they modelled inter-personal qualities, like trust and empathy. They often used small informal interactions to express their care and commitment as essential
elements of their task perception. You need to be available for
them. You need to be open to their questions as much as you can,
Igor stated. Caring was thus also literally understood in terms of
being available. Igor gave the example of a student suffering from a
fear of failure. He had lengthy Skype meetings with this student
every single night during his internship in order to debrief the
lessons (and as such strengthen his self-condence).
The relationship between this group of teacher educators and
their student teachers can be described as responsive (Young,
Bullough, Draper, Smith, & Erickson, 2005) in the sense that they

ge

for guidance and
[looked] almost exclusively to his or her prote
direction (p. 175). Student teachers, often unintentionally, set the
agenda for teacher educators' actions through their questions or
reported difculties. Tim, for example, characterized his position as
a teacher educator as following, rather than leading or steering:
Students ask for the most part what they need; it's just a matter of
carefully listening to their learning questions.
As a consequence, the responsive teacher educators served a
variety of roles depending on student teachers' needs at different
stages in their development, such as coach, role model, listener, or
observer. What the teacher educators of pedagogues explicitly

tried to avoid, was telling student teachers uninvitedly what to do

and how. For example, rather than providing detailed comments
and suggestions for improvement of student teachers' lessons, they
would engage in a questioneanswer interaction, aimed at guiding
their student teachers to come to an appropriate evaluation
themselves, as well as to perspectives for improvement. I try to
lead students themselves to that insight by asking questions: why
do you think that happened?. And then they come up with reasons
and I'll say: could you think of any other reason? (Tim).
As a consequence of that position, the teacher educators of pedagogues were hesitant to offer critical feedback, and preferably
expressed their disappointments about student teacher performance
in non-judgmental forms. Relationships with student teachers were
based on acceptance (see also Hobson, 2002). A positive climate of
acceptance was thought to be an important condition for optimal
learning. This is clearly illustrated in these teacher educators'
approach to post-lesson debriengs. Rather than starting from a
decit, they consciously chose to address students' strengths (Helena). The teacher educator, they argued, should believe in [students']
growth potential. It offers them the mirror to their potential and only
then students can grow (Tim). The self-positioning of the teacher
educators of pedagogues conrmed their task perception as a
teacher educator: creating a community of passion (Darling, 2001)da
relationship in which taking care of is the prime goal.
4.1.4. Pedagogical enactment
Since the teacher educators of pedagogues prioritized student
teachers' needs, they used a variety of educational strategies,
including modeling (Loughran, 1995, 2006; Loughran & Berry,
2005), thinking aloud (Loughran, 1995, 2006), and direct
instruction.
The teacher educators of pedagogues recognized themselves as
a model for student teachersdnot only a model of exemplary
teaching practice (referring to the traditional use of the term in the
research literature), but also attitudinal. They modeled and (re)
produced the personal qualities (taking care of) of good teachers in
elementary or secondary education with their student teachers. For
example, just as the teacher educators of pedagogues expect
teachers to know their children as the basis for their judgment of
what works and what does not work in specic situations in their
classrooms, they made signicant efforts to know their student
teachers. Just as they expected teachers to not only attend to the
individual child but also to the group, these teacher educators
modeled this attention to the group in their practices.
The broad task perception of the teacher educators of pedagogues with a focus on care and responsibility was also reected
in their evaluation criteria for student teacher performance. The
quality of the relation between student teachers and their children
in the classroom was the single most important standard for
assessment. When that relationship was poor (i.e., impersonal or
instrumental-technical) this overruled student teachers' potentially excellent technical performance or subject matter knowledge
in the assessment. Tim, for example, explained how he failed a
student teacher who taught information-rich lessons but failed to
make a meaningful connection with the children in his classroom.
4.2. Positioning 2: the teacher educator of reective teachers
4.2.1. Position of the student teacher
The teacher educators of reective teachers perceived their task
to educate teachers who take a reective stance in their practice.
Those reective teachers draw on a broad repertoire of theories of
teaching and have the ability to translate these theories into
effective teaching approaches as well as critically reect on the
consequences of their actions. At the heart of quality

E. Vanassche, G. Kelchtermans / Teaching and Teacher Education 44 (2014) 117e127

teachingdaccording to this group of teacher educatorsdis not so

much the technical mastery of subject matter knowledge and
pedagogical/didactical skills as such, but rather the ability to
thoughtfully apply this knowledge and skills to reectively judge
particular situations and decide on appropriate actions accordingly.
The positioning of student teachers by the teacher educators of
reective teachers ts neatly into the tradition of the reective
n, 1983).
practitioner (Korthagen, 2001; Scho
This acknowledgment of the prime importance of reection
stemmed from the assumption that teaching is a complex and
dynamic practice that is, by denition, context-dependent. The
teacher educators of reective teachers stressed that teaching always involves a particular content, particular students, as well as
relevant contextual characteristics. According to these teacher educators, making appropriate judgments on what is desirable, both
in terms of the goals and teaching instruments, is central to good
teaching. Sure you can build your own idea of what an ideal lesson
should look like, Mark contended, but imagine yourself ending up
in a different grade or teaching a different subject. What matters is
the ability to make informed decisions on what to do and what not
to do. Making informed decisions referred to the importance of
theories of teaching that could be used in a variety of contexts.
The task perception of the teacher educators of reective
teachers aligns with Biesta's (2004) plea for the need in teacher
education to purposefully strive for the development of student
teachers' ability to make appropriate judgments about what is
educationally desirable in particular situations. According to the
teacher educators of reective teachers, this ability to judge is what
distinguishes the content expert from the expert teacher.
I know Pythagoras' theorem, so I can explain that to children.
Anyone can do that. That's not teaching. A good teacher makes
decisions: how will we tackle this topic?. What do we want
students to know?. The question why do you choose this? is an
important aspect of what turns someone into a good teacher.
(Mark)

4.2.2. Position of the teacher educator

Given the assumption that teaching is a complex and situated
practice that consistently asks for making informed decisions,
teacher training cannot sufce with tips or the recipe book of good
teaching.
Rather it is about let me give you a broad range of tools and you
will decide in a responsible way what method to use in a given
situation. You need to give them the criteria which they can use
to base their decisions on and account for them. (Mark)
The primary task of the teacher educators of reective teachers,
therefore, consisted of offering student teachers the theoretical
knowledge to read, interpret, and make sense of specic situations in
order to properly judge which approaches are most appropriate. It is
about ensuring that theoretical frameworks and practical experiencedin continuous interactiondreinforce and challenge each other
and that student teachers actively realize this integration themselves.
It's deceptive to think that student teachers need everything
delivered ready-to-use. I honestly don't think this is the kind of
students we want to educate. They need to look at things
themselves, think and act based on theories and research.
(Nicky)
An important argument for the position taken by these teacher
educators is the fact that working conditions and job demands for

123

teachers change over time. Equipping student teachers with the

recipe book of teaching does not make them resilient (Mark) in
contexts of reform which they inevitably will experience in their
career and which will affect their approaches in their classrooms
(see also Gu & Day, 2007). By passing on your personal teaching
style, youre simply cloning yourself. Teachers' workplaces are
constantly changing. My teaching approach today might be
inconsistent tomorrow (Mark). Teacher training is thus by denition incomplete and conned to offering student teachers a starting
point in the form of basic concepts, theories, and frameworks, and
developing a reective attitude on the basis of which they can
continuously question their practice and actively work on its
improvement. How they eventually develop into a good teacher, is
up to them. Teacher educators can build the foundations, not a
prefab house (Nicky).
Similarly, teacher educators of reective teachers positioned
themselves as someone who continuously and self-critically
questioned existing practices and worked toward the improvement of practicedthey positioned themselves as reective
practitioners.

4.2.3. Relationship with student teachers

The teacher educators of reective teachers aimed to build an
interactive (Young et al., 2005) relationship with their student
teachers. The teacher educator and student teacher jointly dened
the action agenda which could be adjusted according to the
developing needs and concerns of both of them. These teacher
educators developed a relationship based on mutual recognition,
characterized by open conversation on issues of mutual concern
(Awaya et al., p. 56). Mark, for example, described the relationship
with his student teachers as travelling the road together. He
explicitly addressed them as engaged, motivated, and capable
people who consciously made the decision to enter teaching. This
interactive relationship only exists if teacher educators recognize
and address their student teachers as peers (see also Young et al.,
2005).
Positioning student teachers as peers implied that the teacher
educators of reective teachers deliberately toned down their position of the expert teacher. These teacher educators preferred to
position and present themselves as someone who is also struggling
and continuously developing new understandings, rather than
speaking from an expert's position. They drew their authority not
from practical wisdom (e.g., built from a former career as a teacher).
On the contrary, the more you have taught yourself, the more
specic your personal teaching style and the more rigorous you
get (Mark). As a result of these teacher educators' self-positioning
as someone who is also learning, as well as from the fact that
teaching is characterized as lacking denite and ultimate answers,
the student teacher in some situations became the teacher of
teaching rather than the student of teaching. The teacher and
learner position in the relationship between this group of teacher
educators and their student teachers shifted constantly.
The invested and appreciative relationship that the teacher
educators of reective teachers preferred resembled that of the
former category, yet in a less responsive way. This is, in part, related
to the role of theory in this positioning. The teacher educators of
reective teachers considered particular theoretical concepts and
frameworks as an essential part of the curriculum and, as such,
insisted that they would be mastered by student teachers.
Furthermore, they showed less restraint in passing judgment on
student teachers' performance. Feedback took the form of strong
recommendations for improvement. At the same time, they
remained conscious of the fact that their judgment was colored by
their specic normative beliefs and assumptionsdteacher

124

E. Vanassche, G. Kelchtermans / Teaching and Teacher Education 44 (2014) 117e127

educators of reective teachers, as highlighted by Mark, were always willing to call into question this judgment.
4.2.4. Pedagogical enactment
The teacher educators of reective teachers strived for congruence
in their teacher education practice or teaching in ways consistent
with the demands they themselves placed on their student teachers'
teaching (see also Berry & Russell, 2013; Loughran, 2006). They were
fully aware that their teaching was always visible to their student
teachers, and that the ways they were actually teaching sent out
strong messages to their students (Russell, 1997). The way in which
Idlets call itdstand in front of my class, crucially determines student teachers' behavior in their future classrooms. Teach as you
preach. What they see you doing ends up in their classrooms
(Tasha). Tasha refers to the mechanism Lortie (1975) labeled the
apprenticeship of observation or the recognition of the fact that
teachers teach the way they were taught (Heaton & Mickelson,
2002, p. 51). As such, modeling effective and high quality teaching
approaches in line with their normative theoretical stances was a
central element in their pedagogy.
However, modeling for the teacher educators of reective
teachers was not limited to setting the example. It also included
thinking aloud (Loughran, 1995, 2006) and stepping out (Swennen,
Lunenberg, & Korthagen, 2008). The teacher educators of reective teachers made explicit why they chose specic actions in their
practice as an opportunity to explore teaching and pedagogical
decision-making together with student teachers.

professional socialization distinguishes in a natural way the

capable from the incapable students. It appears that this stance was
strongly rooted in their personal experiences as beginning teachers
(in primary education, secondary education, or teacher education).
Grace, for example, described her rst years in the teacher education program as very difcult. I still don't understand how I
managed to do it. I guess that I'm talented. Years ago, my mentor
[during my internship] said youre a natural. I see no other
explanation for my success.
4.3.2. Position of the teacher educator
This category of teacher educators intentionally positioned
themselves as subject teachers and not as an educator of student
teachers. Catherine, for example, graduated as a playwright and
worked as a teacher educator for over nine years. Still, she dened
herself as a specialist in playwright, rather than a teacher
educator.
The program clearly expects me to pass on my expertise and
passion. Dear miss Johnston, you were hired to teach drama and
we believe that to be a very important subject for our students
for these reasons. You were also hired to teach culture and we
believe that to be a very important subject for our students for
these reasons.

You need to know your subject, but I strongly believe that

teaching is for the most part a craft. It's doing something in
which experience makes a difference. It's a highly complex skill
that is only mastered through experience. Id better not say this
out loud since this undermines our program from the beginning.
(Grace)

The task perception of the teacher educators of subject teachers

was strictly dened. Teacher education is about the transmission of
detailed subject matter knowledge and the subject-specic strategies and methods to teach this. After all, Grace stated, that is
what teacher education is about: passing on the tools for good
language teaching [her subject discipline] in such a way that this
interest in the subject can be passed on in meaningful ways.
Following Murray (2005, 2008), the teacher educators of subject
teachers can be dened as rst-order teacher educators aiming to
reproduce rst-order subject matter knowledge with their student
teachers through rst-order didactical skills and strategies. As
Catherine put it, teacher education is literally about passing on
her expertise and passion. Based on the assumption that beginning
teachers mainly need subject matter knowledge and practical
experience in everyday classrooms, there is little need to pay
attention to second-order teaching about teaching [for] it would
have little impact on development, as development itself presupposes a linear path which the capable can followdwith minimal need for assistance (Loughran, 2006, p. 19). As far as student
teachers needed support, the teacher educators of subject teachers
referred them to the educationalists among their colleagues, who
had a broader background in educational sciences. They positioned
the educationalists as generalists who outline the bigger picture
(Grace) and, in doing so, expected them to take care of student
teachers' learning needs other than subject matter knowledge.
The teacher educators of subject teachers had a clear agenda for
their personal professional development. Continuously updating
their knowledge of the subject discipline and keeping up with
recent developments in the eld was perceived as vital to teacher
educator performance. Especially when teaching in higher education, you need to be more informed [than your student teachers]
(Grace). As a result, the prime source of job motivation for this
group of teacher educators was their subject discipline. Grace
explained her decision to enter higher education, for example, as a
decision based on her interest in philology.

The teacher educators of subject teachers assumed that capable

students make it through that process and the ones who fail to do
so are just not cut out for teaching (Grace). In their view, the

I never wanted to teach teachers. My interest was in philology. I

expected that teaching in higher education would allow me to
engage with philology at a higher level and with more depth
than I would be able to do in secondary education.

Sometimes I do things in my course that may look weird to adult

learners, but it's just to show them great ideas for secondary
education. I always connect that with my goals and rationale
either before or after the example. I don't want them to be like,
whoa, she's acting weird! (Nicky)

4.3. Positioning 3: the teacher educator of subject teachers

4.3.1. Position of the student teacher
The teacher educators of subject teachers positioned their student teachers as students of a specic subject discipline or content
matter (e.g., students of mathematic teaching), rather than as
students of teaching. The knowledge of the subject discipline was
the core of professional teaching and thus the key ingredient of
student teachers' training. The central concern of this group of
teacher educators was teaching their students specic subject
matter knowledge (as curriculum content) and the established
teaching methods of that subject discipline.
Their emphasis on preparing student teachers primarily in
terms of mastery of curriculum content, relates to the fact that
these teacher educators saw their students' socialization and entry
into the profession mainly as something students had to gure out
for themselves. It inevitably is an individual process of trial-anderror through which student teachers learn what works and does
not work for them in the reality of their schools.

E. Vanassche, G. Kelchtermans / Teaching and Teacher Education 44 (2014) 117e127

The data of our study showed that the self-positioning of the

teacher educators of subject teachers was not acknowledged as
socially legitimate, neither by teacher educator colleagues, nor by
the teacher training institute. Both the normative assumptions
about good teaching in the teacher training institute (as reected
in its mission statement and organizational culture; e.g., a focus
on reective practices with student teachers) and its actual
organizational structure (e.g., heterogeneous learning groups),
placed different demands on the teacher educators. In other
words, there was a tension between these teacher educators' selfpositioning and how they were positioned by the teacher training
institute.
Homogenous groups of language teachers are a conditio sine
qua non since a major part of my sessions focuses on theoretical
frameworks or examples relevant to this particular subject
discipline and not to others. Evaluation strategies in language
teaching are useless to mathematicians. That's the moment
where they don't belong in that group. (Grace)
The ways in which teacher educators of subject teachers were
actually positioned by the structural and cultural conditions of the
teacher training institute ran counter to their self-positioning.
Teacher educators of subject teachers were highly aware of this,
but at the same time actively refused to adjust their selfpositioning.
4.3.3. Relationship with student teachers
The relationship of the teacher educators of subject teachers
with their student teachers can be described as directive (Young
et al., 2005). The teacher educators set the action agenda and
decide how to work on it according to their personal assessment of
the situation. This directive position left little room for student
teachers' autonomy or self-direction and reduced their roles to
simply listening. Catherine, for example, pointed out that student
teachers are not capable of judging on curriculum content. It is not
their role to decide if they like something or not. Numerous
courses would be abolished if they were to decide, because they
nd these irrelevant, too difcult, or whatever.
The teacher educators of subject teachers assumed that certain
principles, theories, and assumptions were relevant and applicable
to all teachers in a specic subject discipline. Therefore, they had
clear expectations for student teacher performance and were very
peremptory in their judgment. In line with their assumptions about
good teaching, their evaluation criteria mainly related to student
teachers' mastery of the subject discipline and teaching methods.
Grace, for example, disagreed with the hesitations of her colleagues
and department head to fail student teachers who (consistently)
lacked subject matter knowledge and expertise, because of the
stagnating number of teacher candidates in the program.
She needs to teach French, but her French is absolutely not okay.
I felt an enormous pressure from the program to pass her and let
her continue her internship. There she is standing in front of the
class, making mistakes while I'm sitting in the back as the one
responsible. I wished the earth would swallow me up.
Interestingly, the teacher educators of subject teachers were
more responsive, and less directive, with student teachers in the
nal year of the program. This is related to their self-positioning
and their view of learning to teach as an individual process of
trial-and-error in everyday classroom reality. This self-positioning
did not lend them the right to speak and to be heard (Davies &

, 1990) by students in the nal year of the program with
Harre
loads of teaching experience gained from long internships. Really,

125

how can I support them? (Grace). Their perception of their task

and responsibilities thus changed signicantly over the different
stages of the program.
4.3.4. Pedagogical enactment
The relationship between the teacher educator of subject
teachers and student teachers is characterized by single loop
n, 1974) or making simple
learning (Argyris, 1976; Argyris & Scho
adaptations or corrections to actions (without questioning the
underlying assumptions or beliefs). The teacher educators correct
student teachers' errors based on their knowledge of the subject
discipline; student teachers are expected to improve their teaching
based on teacher educators' tips and feedback. Their feedback can
n, 1983), focusing on prociency in,
be described as technical (Scho
for example, languages and methods for language teaching. Their
reexive self-positioning as an expert teacher in a specic subject
discipline afrmed the need (and their right) to rigorously offer
feedback, corrections, and suggestions for improvement. You
constantly need to give feedback If I could continue to give
feedback until I'm satised, they would run screaming from my
classes (Grace).
Since the task perception of the teacher educators of subject
teachers did not include responsibility for teaching about teaching,
this group regularly and intentionally put aside their role as a
model of exemplary teaching practice. For example, the teacher
educators of subject teachers will turn to traditional lecturing
because the content demands it (Catherine) or if they want to
cover as much as possible in a single lesson.
5. Conclusion and discussion
This study resulted in the identication and description of three
teacher educator positionings: the teacher educator of pedagogues, the teacher educator of reective teachers, and the teacher
educator of subject teachers. Each positioning referred to a
coherent pattern of normative beliefs about good teaching and
teacher education (the respective positions of student teachers and
teacher educators), the preferred relation with student teachers,
and valuable approaches and strategies to enact these assumptions
in practice. In the analytical description of every positioning, we
clearly illustrated how the ways in which teacher educators position themselves affected the content of the action agenda in terms
of the learning process they accept responsibility for (or not) and
how they aim to do that. This study offers interesting suggestions
and implications for future research on teacher educator
professionalism.
Firstly, the ndings indicate that a close examination of teacher
educators' normative beliefs is essential in future research since
this study has demonstrated that teacher educators' reexive
positioning of themselves is a crucial factor in understanding the
rationale of their practices, as well as their understanding of student teachers' learning about teaching. The ways in which teacher
educators perceive their task determine how they approach the
relation with their student teachers and the specic pedagogies

(1990) remind us, inchosen to teach them. As Davies and Harre
dividuals view the world from a specic position.
Once having taken up a particular position as one's own, a
person inevitably sees the world from the vantage point of that
position and in terms of the particular images, metaphors, story
lines and concepts which are made relevant within the particular discursive practice in which they are positioned (p. 46).
The three positionings identied not only contribute to a
more grounded and differentiated conceptualization of teacher

126

E. Vanassche, G. Kelchtermans / Teaching and Teacher Education 44 (2014) 117e127

educator professionalism as it shows in their practice. They can

also be used as powerful tools for professional development, as
they can help teacher educators to critically examine their actual
practices (for example as part of a self-study; e.g., Vanassche &
Kelchtermans, submitted). Developing a rened insight in their
own positioning and how it positions their student teachers, as
well as potential conicts between the enactment and their
normative assumptions, opens powerful perspectives for teacher
educators to unpack and understand possible tensions and
threats to the effectiveness of their practices, as well to student
teachers' potential resistance or persistent beliefs (e.g., internal/
external attribution).
Secondly, this study indicates that it might be worthwhile to
explore the consequences of (in)congruence between teacher educators' and student teachers' self-positioning. If we accept that
student teachersdsimilar to teacher educatorsdhave particular
normative assumptions about good teaching and, therefore, good
teacher education, this implies that student teachers want specic
learning questions to be answered and other questions not. This
raises the question as to what the consequences are for student
teachers' learning if, for example, a student teacher who positions
himself/herself as a pedagogue, emphasizing aspects of care and
dedication to the children in his/her future classroom, has to work
with a teacher educator who positions himself/herself as a teacher
educator of subject teachers? This student teacher will hope to gain
an understanding of how to support and relate to children's personal and social development, and will expect teacher educators to
model these relational aspects of teaching. However, this study
suggests that teacher educators of subject teachers will rather
deliver the established knowledge and methods in their subject
discipline that the student teacher then can use and develop
autonomously in teaching practice. In order to understand how the
congruence between student teachers' and teacher educators'
positioning supports or impedes student teachers' learning, it
might be interesting to complement self-report data of teacher
educators, with self-report data of student teachers and observations of actual interactions between student teachers and teacher
educators.
Thirdly, previous research (e.g., Bullough & Draper, 2004; Yoon,
2008) has illustrated the power of positioning. For example, a
teacher educator of subject teachers positioning his/her student
teachers as learners of a specic subject discipline might eventually
inuence how student teachers see themselves and the process of
(learning to) teach. Although a single positioning of the student
teacher by the teacher educator might not seriously affect students'
views of themselves, continuous positioning of student teachers in
particular ways might inuence how they see themselves, both as
student teachers, as well as teachers.
Acknowledgments
This research was sponsored by the Research Foundation e
Flanders (Fonds voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek e Vlaanderen).
References
Acker, S. (1997). Becoming a teacher educator: voices of women academics in Canadian faculties of education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13(1), 65e74.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(96)00046-7.

, R. (2001). Gender positioning: a sixteenth/seventeenth cenAdams, J. L., & Harre
tury example. Journal of the Theory of Social Behaviour, 31, 331e338. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-5914.00162.
Argyris, C. (1976). Increasing leadership effectiveness. New York, NY: Wiley.
n, D. A. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effecArgyris, C., & Scho
tiveness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Association of Teacher Educators. (2002). Standards for teacher educators. Manassas,
VA: Association of Teacher Educators.

Awaya, A., McEwan, H., Heyler, D., Linsky, S., Lum, D., & Wakukawa, P. (2003).
Mentoring as a journey. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(1), 45e56. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(02)00093-8.
Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Toward a practice-based theory of professional education. In
G. Sykes, & L. Darling-Hammond (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 3e32). San Francisco, CA: Jossey
Bass.
Bates, T., Swennen, A., & Jones, K. (2011). The professional development of teacher
educators. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Ben-Peretz, M., Kleeman, S., Reichenberg, R., & Shimoni, S. (2011). Educators of
educators: Their goals, perceptions and practices. In T. Bales, A. Swennen, &
K. Jones (Eds.), The professional development of teacher educators (pp. 119e137).
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Berry, A., & Russell, T. L. (2013). Seeking congruence in teacher education
practices through self-study. Studying Teacher Education: A Journal of SelfStudy of Teacher Education Practices, 9(3), 201e202. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/17425964.2013.845482.
Biesta, G. (2004). Mind the gap! Communication and the educational relation. In
C. W. Bingham, & A. M. Sidorkin (Eds.), No education without relation (pp.
11e22). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Bullock, S. (2009). Learning to think like a teacher educator: Making the substantive
and syntactic structures of teaching explicit through self-study. Teachers and
teaching: Theory and Practice, 15(2), 291e304. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
13540600902875357.
Bullough, R. V., Jr. (2005). Teacher vulnerability and teachability: A case study of a
mentor and two interns. Teacher Education Quarterly, 32(2), 23e40. Retrieved
from http://les.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ795314.pdf.
Bullough, R. V., Jr., & Draper, R. (2004). Making sense of a failed triad: Mentors,
university supervisors, and positioning theory. Journal of Teacher Education,
55(5), 407e420. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022487104269804.
Bullough, R. V., Jr., & Gitlin, A. (2001). Becoming a student of teaching: Linking
knowledge production and practice (2nd ed.). London, UK: Routledge/
Falmer.
Commission of the European Communities. (2007). Improving the quality of
teacher education. Belgium, Brussels: Commission of the European
Communities.
Darling, L. F. (2001). When conceptions collide: constructing a community of inquiry for teacher education in British Columbia. Journal of Education for
Teaching, 27(1), 7e21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02607470120042519.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). Teacher education and the American future. Journal of
Teacher Education, 61, 35e47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022487109348024.
Davey, R. (2013). The professional identity of teacher educators. Career on the cusp?
London, UK/New York, NY: Routledge.

, R. (1990). Positioning: The discursive production of selves.
Davies, B., & Harre
Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 20, 43e63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
j.1468-5914.1990.tb00174.x.

, R. (1999). Positioning and personhood. In R. Harre

, & L. van
Davies, B., & Harre
Langenhove (Eds.), Positioning theory (pp. 32e52). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Edmond, N., & Hayler, M. (2013). On either side of the teacher: Perspectives on
professionalism in education. Journal of Education for Teaching, 39, 209e221.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2013.765193.
Eurydice. (2012). Quality assurance in teacher education in Europe. Brussels, Belgium:
Eurydice.
Evans, L. (2008). Professionalism, professionality and the development of education
professionals. British Journal of Educational Studies, 56(1), 20e38. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8527.2007.00392.x.
Frelin, A. (2013). Exploring teachers' relational professionalism in schools. Rotterdam,
The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Geertz, C. (1983). Local knowledge: Further essays in interpretive anthropology. New
York, NY: Harper.
Gergen, K. (1999). An invitation to social construction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Grossman, P. (2005). Research on pedagogical approaches in teacher education. In
M. Cochran-Smith, & K. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education (pp.
425e476). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Grossman, P., & McDonald, M. (2008). Back to the future: Directions for research in
teaching and teacher education. American Educational Research Association,
45(1), 184e205. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0002831207312906.
Gu, Q., & Day, C. (2007). Teachers resilience: a necessary condition for effectiveness.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 1302e1316. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.tate.2006.06.006.
Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times. New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.

, R., & Moghaddam, F. (2003). The self and others: Positioning individuals and
Harre
groups in personal, political, and cultural contexts. Westport, CT: Praeger.

, R., & van Langenhove, L. (1991). Varieties of positioning. Journal for the Theory of
Harre
Social Behaviour, 21, 393e408. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5914.1991.tb00203.x.

, R., & van Langenhove, L. (Eds.). (1999). Positioning theory. Cambridge, UK:
Harre
Blackwell.
Heaton, R. M., & Mickelson, W. T. (2002). The learning and teaching of statistical
investigation in teaching and teacher education. Journal of Mathematics Teacher
Education, 5, 35e59.
Hobson, A. (2002). Mentors' perceptions of their roles in school-based teacher
training in England and Germany. Journal of Education for Teaching, 27, 75e94.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02607470120042555.

E. Vanassche, G. Kelchtermans / Teaching and Teacher Education 44 (2014) 117e127

Kelchtermans, G. (1993). Getting the story, understanding the lives. From career
stories to teachers' professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 9,
443e456.
Kelchtermans, G. (2009). Who I am in how I teach is the message. Self-understanding, vulnerability and reection. Teachers and Teaching, 15(2), 257e272.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1354060092875332.
Kelchtermans, G. (2013). Praktijk in de plaats van blauwdruk. Over het opleiden van
lerarenopleiders. [Practice instead of blueprint. Educating teacher educators].
VELON Tijdschrift voor Lerarenopleiders, 34, 89e99.
Kelchtermans, G., & Hamilton, M. L. (2004). The dialects of passion and theory:
Exploring the relation between self-study and emotion. In J. J. Loughran,
M. L. Hamilton, V. K. LaBoskey, & T. L. Russell (Eds.), ,International Handbook of
Self-Study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices (pp. 785e810). Dordrecht,
The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Korthagen, F. (2001). Teacher education: a problematic enterprise. In
F. A. J. Korthangen, J. Kessels, B. Koster, B. Langerwarf, & T. Wubbels (Eds.),
Linking practice and theory: The pedagogy of realistic teacher education (pp.
1e19). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Koster, B., & Dengerink, J. (2008). Professional standards for teacher educators: how
to deal with complexity, ownership and function. Experiences from the
Netherlands. European Journal of Teacher Education, 31(2), 135e149. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/02619760802000115.

, R. (1999). Introducing positioning theory. In R. Harre

, &
van Langenhove, L., & Harre
L. van Langenhove (Eds.), Positioning theory (pp. 14e31). Cambridge, UK:
Blackwell.
Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Loughran, J. J. (1995). Practicing what I preach: Modelling reection to studentteachers. Research in Science Education, 25(4), 431e451. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/bf02357386.
Loughran, J. J. (2006). Developing a pedagogy of teacher education. Understanding
teaching and learning about teaching. London, UK/New York, NY: Routledge.
Loughran, J. J., & Berry, A. (2005). Modelling by teacher educators. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 21(2), 193e203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2004.12.005.
Mayer, D., Mitchell, J., Santoro, N., & White, S. (2011). Teacher educators and accidental careers in academe: An Australian perspective. Journal of Education for
Teaching: International research and pedagogy, 37(3), 247e260. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/02607476.2011.588011.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded
source-book. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Munby, H., Russell, T. L., & Martin, A. K. (2001). Teachers' knowledge and how it
develops. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed.). (pp.
877e904). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Murray, J. (1998). Integration or dichotomy of teaching and research? A case study
of primary initial teacher educators. Teachers and Teaching, 4(1), 143e160.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1354060980040109.
Murray, J. (2005). Re-addressing the priorities: new teacher educators and induction into higher education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 28(2), 67e85.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02619760500040108.
Murray, J. (2006). Constructions of caring professionalism: A case study of teacher
educators. Gender and Education, 18(4), 381e397. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
09540250600805054.

127

Murray, J. (2008). Towards the re-articulation of the work of teacher educators in

higher education institutions in England. European Journal of Teacher Education,
31(1), 17e34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02619760701845073.
Nias, J. (1999). Teachers' moral purposes: stress, vulnerability, and strength. In
R. Vandenberghe, & M. Huberman (Eds.), Understanding and preventing teacher
burnout: A sourcebook of international research and practice (pp. 223e237).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Ollerhead, S. (2012). Passivity or potential? Teacher responses to learner identity
in the low-level adult ESL classroom. Literacy and Numeracy Studies, 20(1),
64e84. Retrieved from http://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/journals.
Russell, T. L. (1997). Teaching teachers: how I teach IS the message. In J. J. Loughran,
& T. L. Russell (Eds.), Teaching about teaching: Purpose, passion and pedagogy in
teacher education (pp. 32e47). London, UK: Falmer.
n, D. A. (1983). The reective practitioner. How professionals think in action.
Scho
London, UK: Temple Smith.
Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participant observation. Philadelphia, PA: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich College Publishers.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Swennen, A., Jones, K., & Volman, M. (2010). Teacher educators: Their identities,
sub-identities and implications for professional development. Professional
Development in Education, 36(1/2), 245e262. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
19415250903457893.
Swennen, A., Lunenberg, M. L., & Korthagen, F. A. J. (2008). Preach what you teach!
Teacher educators and congruent teaching. Teachers and Teaching, Theory and
Practice, 14(6), 531e542. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13540600802571387.
Tan, S. L., & Moghaddam, F. M. (1995). Reexive positioning and culture. Journal for
the Theory of Social Behaviour, 25, 387e401. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.14685914.1995.tb00281.x.
Taylor, D., Bougie, E., & Caouette, J. (2003). Applying positioning principles to a

, & F. Moghaddam (Eds.), The self and
theory of collective identity. In R. Harre
others: Positioning individuals and groups in personal, political, and cultural
contexts (pp. 197e215). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Vanassche, E., & Kelchtermans, G. (2014). Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices:
an appreciative review of the published work. Journal of Curriculum Studies.
Submitted for publication.
Varney, J. (2009). Humanistic mentoring: Nurturing the person within. Kappa Delta
Pi Record, 45(3), 127e131. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00228958.2009.10517302.
Wagner, D., & Herbel-Eisenmann, B. (2009). Re-mythologizing mathematics
through attention to classroom positioning. Educational Studies in Mathematics,
72(1), 1e15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10649-008-9178-5.
Yoon, B. (2008). Uninvited guests: the inuence of teachers' roles and pedagogies
on the positioning of English language learners in the regular classroom.
American Educational Research Journal, 48(2), 495e522. http://dx.doi.org/
10.3102/0002831208316200.
Young, J., Bullough, R. V., Jr., Draper, R., Smith, L., & Erickson, L. (2005). Novice
teacher growth and personal models of mentoring: Choosing compassion over
inquiry. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 13(2), 169e188. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/13611260500105477.
Zeichner, K. M. (2005). Becoming a teacher educator: A personal perspective.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(2), 117e124. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.tate.2004.12.001.