I speak prose and I now know it.” Personal development trajectories among teacher educators in a...

lable at ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education xxx (2011) 1e12

Contents lists avai

Teaching and Teacher Education

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

“I speak prose and I now know it.” Personal development trajectories amongteacher educators in a professional development communityq

David Brody a,*, Linor Hadar b,c

a Efrata College of Education, Rehov Ben Yefuna, 17, P.O. Box 10263, Jerusalem 91102, IsraelbDepartment of Learning, Instruction and Teacher Education, Faculty of Education, The University of Haifa, Haifa 31905, IsraelcBeit Berl College, School of Education, Israel

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 1 March 2011Received in revised form3 July 2011Accepted 5 July 2011

Keywords:Teacher educatorsProfessional developmentHigher learningCommunities of practiceCommunity of learners

q “I speak prose and I now know it” (Le Bourgeois* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ972 545304458; fax

E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (L. Hadar).

0742-051X/$ e see front matter � 2011 Elsevier Ltd.doi:10.1016/j.tate.2011.07.002

Please cite this article in press as: Brody, D.,educators in a professional development co

a b s t r a c t

This study explores trajectories of professional growth by teacher educators participating in a profes-sional development community on teaching thinking. Qualitative measures revealed a four stage modelof personal professional trajectories: anticipation/curiosity, withdrawal, awareness and change. Themodel delineates passages traversed by teacher educators grappling with complexities and challenges ofan engaging professional development experience in a communal context. All participants followed thesame four staged trajectory though individuals were located at different points on the path. Findings lendsupport to the nonlinear view of professional development, illustrating Kinchin and Cabot’s (2010)paradigm of backwards and forwards movements along career paths.

� 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

In recent years thinking education has been viewed by manyscholars as a critical element in educational reform (Perkins, 2009;Perkins & Ritchhart, 2008). The drive to improve school achieve-ment and student motivation has included prioritizing teachingthinking as an end in itself and as an effective means for improvingsubject matter mastery (Perkins, 1992). Teacher educators havetaken up the challenge of thinking education as a goal in preparingfuture teachers to engage in effective problem solving, thoughtfuldecision making and lifelong learning (Tishman, Perkins, & Jay,1995) as well as to acquire the pedagogy of teaching thinking. Inaddition to creating and monitoring environmental conditions tomaximize possibilities for thinking, teaching thinking requiresdirect instruction in strategies promoting dispositions character-izing skillful thinkers (Costa, 2001). In our college in Israel teachereducators sought to improve students’ preparation by infusingthinking into courses.

Our understanding of teaching thinking includes two compo-nents which Costa (2001) refers to as teaching for thinking and

Gentilhomme, Molière).: þ972 26738660.acam.ac.il (D. Brody), lhadar@

All rights reserved.

& Hadar, L., “I speak prose anmmunity, Teaching and Teach

teaching of thinking. Teaching for thinking means creating condi-tions conducive to students’ thinking, and include goals suchas engaging students’ minds with dilemmas, enabling small groupcollaborations, creating risk-taking climates, and modelingdesirable thinking behaviors. Teaching of thinking means directinstruction in the thinking process and includes identifyingcognitive abilities embedded in content followed by teachingrelated thinking skills. It includes strategies for habituation of thoseattitudes and dispositions which characterize skillful thinkers andare formed over time in a variety of contexts.

The first step in integrating the thinking dimension intocurriculum involves professional development in thinking educa-tion for teacher educators (Martin & Michelli, 2001). Nickerson(1988, p. 6) claimed that “it is no more reasonable to expect anindividual who does not know a lot about thinking to teachthinking effectively, than to expect one who does not know a lotabout math, physics or literature to be an effective teacher in any ofthese areas.”

1.1. Professional development communities

International attention has focused on the importance of thestructure of instructional development efforts in achieving peda-gogic change (Avalos, 2011; Gallos, van den Berg, & Treagust, 2005;McAlpine, 2003; Prebble et al., 2004; Stes, Min-Leliveld, Gijbels, &Van Petegem, 2010; Taylor & Rege Colet, 2009). In this study

d I now know it.” Personal development trajectories among teacherer Education (2011), doi:10.1016/j.tate.2011.07.002

mailto:[email protected]




www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/0742051X

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.07.002



D. Brody, L. Hadar / Teaching and Teacher Education xxx (2011) 1e122

professional development is defined as participation in a process toimprove teaching (Guskey, 2000). Our focus on teaching improve-ment is embedded in a broader framework of increasing knowledgeand skills, which contribute to personal, social and emotionalgrowth of teachers (Desimone, 2009). Traditional professionaldevelopment deemphasizes interaction among participants,reducing the process to a purely functional activity (Hargreaves,1994). This professional development model in thinking educa-tion is based on a socio-cultural learning perspective focused onbecoming a community member (ten Dam & Blom, 2006). Thisconstructivist view defines learning as an individual endeavor,socially and culturally situated. We emphasize professional growthwithin a group in the work setting, a perspective derived fromresearch showing the limitations of isolated experts (Brown, 1997;Brown, Bransford, Ferrara, & Campione, 1983). Thus professionalgrowth of individual teacher educators can best be understood byactions and the social context of work and learning (Niesz, 2010).This communal conception of learning (Salomon & Perkins, 1998;Sfard, 1998) assumes an inextricable bond with identity forma-tion. New ideas emanate not only from individual learning andfrom interaction, creating a culture (Jurasaite-Harbison & Rex,2010) supporting further learning.

This socio-cultural perspective suggests that teacher educators canlearn as well as teach in college settings (Borko & Putnam, 1996;Hargreaves, 1994; Smylie, 1995). Theories of college improvementlink learning with participation in institutional activities. Bothdomains stress integration of work and learning as a necessarycondition for individual and organizational development (Hargreaves,1997; King & Newmann, 2000; Livneh & Livneh,1999; Moore & Shaw,2005; Watkins & Marsick, 1999). Thus, becoming a more effectiveparticipant in society extends beyond acquiring knowledge and skillsto becoming a member of a community of practice, defined as anygroup of practitioners sharing a common concern, set of problems, orpassion about a topic, committing themselves to deepening knowl-edge and expertise by ongoing interaction toward a common goal(Wenger, Mc Dermott, & Snyder, 2002). This social theory of learning(Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998) has been applied to a widevariety of settings, indicating its utility as a professional developmentparadigm (Petrone, 2010; Safran, 2010; Valle & Weiss, 2010; Verma,2010; Warriner, 2010).

Essential features of effective professional development includeteacher involvement, collaborative problem solving, continuity, andsupport (Borko, 2004; Hawley & Valli, 1999; Vescio, Ross, & Adams,2008). Because learning and teaching aremajor activities in teacherscolleges, the community of practice functions as a community oflearners, emphasizing interpersonal relations and reflective activi-ties among teachers rather than abstract discussions (Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 1995; Stevens, Kahne, & Cooper, 2006).Our community of learners stimulates professional developmentamong teacher educators committed to infusing thinking intoteaching, a combination deemed essential byWhitcomb, Borko, andListon (2009).

In the past, college faculty and administrators attempted tointegrate thinking into teaching, but lacked knowledge to accom-plish this goal. Addressing this need, we selected a paradigmwhichwe termed “professional development community” (PDC) whichintegrates community of learners (ten Dam & Blom, 2006) andcommunity of practice (Wenger et al., 2002). This melding of twomodels emphasizes communal aspects of learning, such as thecontribution of relationship, caring, and mutual support within thegroup while at the same time focusing on professional developmentof individuals within their own discipline. Thus professional growthresults from focusing on common issues of teacher educators’professional practice. Our construct identifies a process by whichteacher educators become a community of learners focused on

Please cite this article in press as: Brody, D., & Hadar, L., “I speak prose aneducators in a professional development community, Teaching and Teach

integrating thinking education into practice. This study is based ontwo separate yearlong PDC projects in which twenty facultymembers committed themselves to monthly meetings to learnabout and implement thinking education in their courses. It exam-ines individual paths of teacher educators in their professionaldevelopment within the PDC.

This community aspect of professional development enablescollegial support for individuals. The notion of distributed cogni-tion (Salomon, 1993) presumes that members of the communitytake responsibility for their contribution to the group and personallearning process. This analysis is bolstered by a theory of andragogyemphasizing unique components of adult learning such as needingto know and taking responsibility and readiness for learning(Knowles, Holton, & Swanson, 1998).

The PDC in thinking education was voluntary, presuming thatadult learners must set their own goals for continued professionaldevelopment (Knowles et al., 1998). Having already examined howthe PDC works in terms of breaking isolation, improvement ofteaching, and professional development (Hadar & Brody, 2010a),we focused this study on individual trajectories of developmentwithin the community. The term trajectory refers to sequentialstages of learning, as shown in studies of professionals (Campbell,Verenikina, & Herrington, 2009; Tanggaard & Elmholdt, 2007) aswell as among students (de Oliveira Pires, 2009; Harris, 2009). Inaddition, the term trajectories has been used to track phases inteachers’ professional development over time (Day, 2008).Knowledge about career paths provided a theoretical basis for thisstudy.

1.2. Career paths and professional development

Effective professional development takes into account personaland work related issues as teachers move along career paths fromnovice to expert, a transition which has been claimed to occur overtwo dimensions of increasing embedded understandings and skillprogression (Dall’Alba & Sandberg, 2006). Kinchin and Cabot’s(2010) teacher development model suggests movement fromchains of knowledge to integrated nets. Both proposed structureshave moved beyond the early stage models of professional devel-opment (Ball & Cohen, 1999; Bents & Bents, 1990; Berliner, 1994,2001; Dreyfus & Dreyfus, 1986; Eraut, 2000; Leinhardt, 1989).Despite differences in conceptual approaches, these various modelsrecognize the essential differences between novice practice basedon rigid adherence to rules and expert practice based on implicitunderstandings (Kinchin & Cabot, 2010).

Whether linear or interactional, career paths play decisive rolesin the effectiveness of professional development endeavors. Borko(2004) claimed that professional development is situative, and thatoutcomes are influenced by personal and group processes. Thecontextual nature of teaching explains teachers’ self perception asexpert in one domain and novice in another. For example, Orland-Barak and Yinon (2005) found that mentors view tutees from theperspective of expert, while expressing novice solutions to prob-lems of beginning teachers.

Interdependence between personal and professional identity hasbeen examined by medical educators (Lown, Davies, Cordingley,Bundy, & Braidman, 2009), an analysis which may be useful forunderstanding teacher educators’ development. Progressive stagesof career development can be identified at the macro level whenexamining teacher careers longitudinally over an extended period oftime (Kinchin & Cabot, 2010) and at themicro level when examininga teacher’s professional development within short term inservicetraining. At the micro level teachers have been found to followparticular paths in adapting new methods paralleling longitudinalpathways at the macro level.


D. Brody, L. Hadar / Teaching and Teacher Education xxx (2011) 1e12 3

We propose the PDC as an appropriate vehicle for addressingprofessional development needs of college faculty at various careerstages. Variation in career pathsmay explain differences in teachersrelating to innovations proposed in the PDC (Terenzio, 2002).Examples abound regarding the importance of prior experience inprofessional development. While novice teachers prefer generalover engaged knowledge in their practice (Alexander & Judy, 1988),they experience difficulty integrating knowledge about teachinginto practice (Livingston & Borko, 1990). Harrison and McKeon(2008) found advantages of informal learning opportunities foryoung faculty, while Larkin and Neumann (2009) recognized theimportance of both life and career stages for older academics.

Our study examines teacher educators’ responses to proposedchanges in their practice within a PDC focused on teaching thinking.We sought to infuse thinking into college courses through yearlongprofessional development courses revealing thinking techniqueswhich could be used with students. Although the PDC effectivelybroke isolation and supported professional growth (Hadar & Brody,2010b), some participants adhered to previous teaching practices,resisting newmethods. Informed by literature on the importance ofteachers’ career paths (Kinchin & Cabot, 2010) and insights aboutthe significance of context in professional development (Borko,2004), this study focuses attention on the trajectory of teachereducators’ professional growth within the PDC.

2. Methods

The two yearlong PDC endeavors in this study followed a similarstructure divided into three stages. The first phase consisted ofexposure to aspects of “teaching thinking” (Tishman et al., 1995). Atthese initial meetings participants explored current theories inthinking education, read research and case materials from the fieldand explored possible implementations. They shared their exper-tise and experience, accessing the topic of thinking in variousdisciplines. In the second phase participants implemented thinkingactivities in college classrooms, encouraging further applicationand interactive feedback, driven by mutual reflection. As groupmembers tried out various thinking routines, they documentedthese experiences for group analysis and collegial discourse. Thefinal phase of the PDC consisted of joint investigation of pedagogyand practice of teaching thinking through group reflection. Our aimwas understanding individual professional development trajecto-ries as teachers experienced these PDC stages.

2.1. Data collection

Our interest in teachers’ professional development within thegroup required studying individual participants for comparison.Thus, in each yearlong PDC project we collected data on fiveteachers using qualitative methods:

1. Ten teacher educators (five in each project) were interviewedat the beginning, middle and end of the year and one year later.A group interview was conducted at the conclusion of eachproject. These interviews included reflection about effects ofthe PDC on personal and professional development and aboutchanges since previous group sessions. The initial interviewaddressed the teacher’s decision to join the group. All inter-views were recorded and transcribed.

2. Meetings were documented by voice recording.3. In the second yearlong project, each meeting opened with

a written thinking routine which documented teaching expe-riences related to thinking, including changes in attitude,structural innovation in courses, adaptation of thinking tech-niques, and further questions.


4. After each meeting, the researchers prepared field notesdescribed the session and tracked long term projectdevelopments.

5. Attendance at monthly sessions was monitored.

2.2. Data analysis methods

These data were analyzed qualitatively to identify professionaldevelopment processes and outcomes relating to thinking educa-tion. We examined the structure of the narrative material usingform based analysis (Lieblich, Tuval-Mashiach, & Zilber, 2004),investigating meaning in the narrative by tracking its developmentover time. Our focus included awareness of attitudinal changes andadaptation of new methods. This analytic approach highlightsteachers’ thinking about their own development rather thantracking actual changes which occurred. Emphasizing form enablesmonitoring of progression and regression in personal professionaldevelopment (Gergen & Gergen, 2000).

With narrative material, the distinction between form andcontent analysis is never clear cut. Although our analysis concen-trates on form embedded in content, it reveals progression orregression in professional development. While in our case thinkingis the content, the professional development community is theform in which it is situated.

Grounded theory analysis (Strauss & Corbin, 2008) was used foropen coding of interview data, generating preliminary categorieswhich emerged from the interviews. Subjectivity in initial categoryselection was avoided by a dual method in which categories wereabstracted separately by each of the two researchers. Afterward thelists were compared and revised to achieve agreement. Afterabstracting the preliminary categories from the interviews, otherdata sources were analyzed using these categories. New categorieswere added if found in other data sources. Triangulation was ach-ieved by corroborating themes found in the interviews with otherdata sources. The final scheme for categorizing teachers’ profes-sional development path was abstracted at a second phase. Basedon grounded theory procedures for abstracting more generalcategories (Strauss & Corbin, 2008), we used the preliminarycategories from all data sources, in order to create broader cate-gories including those found in the initial analysis.

Privacy of the informants was achieved by verbal permission torecord and use the interviews, the PDC meetings and by the use ofpseudonyms in all written transcriptions, including file names.During interviews, the subjects were given the right to request thatparticular material not be transcribed or used in the researchfindings. These requests were honored. This procedure wasapproved by the IRB (Internal Review Board) of the college wherethe research took place.

Quotes from various sources were identified to illustrate personalprofessional development patterns. This procedure revealed changesin teacher beliefs and attitudes over time, thereby generating distinctstages of personal development in the PDC. When viewed insequence, these stages are called personal professional trajectories.

3. Results

Working within a socio-cultural perspective, we examined theactions and thinking of the teacher educators, within the social,cultural and institutional context of the PDC. Group development inthe PDC has been reported elsewhere (Hadar & Brody, 2010a). Thusthe results presented here address the impact of the communityon the individual teacher as learner. Connections between thesocio-cultural framing of the PDC and individual trajectories will benoted as each stage of the model is presented. We identified foursequential phases of professional development within our PDC:



anticipation/curiosity, withdrawal, awareness and change. At anyperiod during the PDC, our informants could each be located ata particular point along this continuum. Teachers were found tofollow identical trajectories whether or not they simultaneouslyshared the same stages, which are described below.

3.1. Anticipation and curiosity

While discussing their motives for joining the group, teachereducators claimed that thinking education is high on their agenda.They described their approach as intuitive and therefore less thansatisfying. The opportunity to learn about thinking educationsystematically within a community triggered interest and curi-osity, and was viewed as a vehicle for realizing teaching goals,enhancing professional improvement, and filling a gap in teachingskills.

3.1.1. Importance of thinking as a teaching goalA major motivation for joining the group was a commitment

to addressing thinking in college courses. Feeling that teachingsubject matter is not enough, teacher educators expresseda desire to enhance students’ thinking abilities. In his firstinterview, Tom, an instructor of educational assessment, dis-cussed his desire to improve class discussions by integratingthinking:

I think that the development of thinking is important foreverything, even on a personal level, and of course on a profes-sional level. The issue of developing thinking among studentsand also during lessons is crucial. As a teacher, when I lead classdiscussions it’s muchmore efficient to have high level discourse.If I ask the students to be involved in higher order thinking.this of course effects class discussions. If I can acquire profes-sional knowledge that serves the college’s interest and mypersonal interest. we both benefit.

Tom feels that thinking is the key for high level class discussions.He seeks a teaching style which models appropriate pedagogy forstudents to use in the future. Bella, a language teacher, believes thatthinking improves discourse between students. In the first PDCmeeting she commented:

I am impressed with the thinking framework. and curiousabout the ways teachers implement this. I think that this way isgreat. It reveals the best in students. It takes their understandingto new places. By making students think, teachers are makingthe best of students’ learning. I mean in this way we improvetheir ability to learn. the discussion among students becomesvery very rich.

Both Tom and Bella feel they can enhance learning by involvingstudents in thinking activities. The improvement of teaching inorder to develop students’ thinking skills, abilities, and dispositionswas dominant in the narratives of all informants.

3.1.2. Professional and personal growthTeacher educators cited their own advancement as a motivator

for joining the group. In her first interview, Rebecca reveals herexpectations from the PDC related to her personal growth:

The name of our group already made me feel that I am going tolearn something important for my professional development.I feel that in recent years I went through a process of develop-ment and growth. I have learned . how to analyze my experi-ences and think reflectively. This helpedme grow professionally,and I thought that a professional course with a professionalinstructor can help organize my thoughts.


Rebecca continues by expressing the importance of groupprocesses to enhance professional skills.

I think I’mgoing to learn something important for bothmyworkwith pre-school children and with students at the college.. Myability to be a part of a group, to think together and to take partin the process of understanding, to read articles that otherwiseI wouldn’t have read is very important to me. It gives me a solid,professional background in the area of thinking education. I feelI’m in the right place at the right time. It’s a great experience tomeet academic colleagues and to be a part of this group..Advancing thinking education in the college is a great feelingboth personally and professionally.

Rebecca extends interest in thinking education beyond herrole as teacher educator to current work with young children. Shemakes no distinction between the two roles in terms of the PDC’sutility, indicating its high impact on her professional identity atboth levels. Like Rebecca, Bella expects that learning aboutthinking will be useful in many areas. She expressed her interestin her first interview:

I decided to join the group when I saw the notice. I like tolearn. It’s interesting, moreover this specific subject isimportant because it can help in every subject I teach .notonly when you teach but also in conversations, in everylecture you give. Personally I thought of things I could gain byjoining the group. This might be helpful in many areas and itcan also improve work I’m doing with students.. I’m lookingforward to see these changes occur. I also work with highschool students, and I think that this can be implemented inboth college and high school settings.. This is very inter-esting and very important. The importance of thinking iscrucial for learning. I hope that this experience will giveme additional tools, and renew and improve my teachingstrategies.

Bella expects to broaden her pedagogic repertoire in thinkingeducation, which she deems highly salient. These tools will helpher improve professionally by renewing her teaching methods.She shares Rebecca’s interest in using this pedagogy in domainsbeyond teacher training. Hannah, a pedagogic instructor, echoesthe notion that advancement in thinking education marksprofessional achievement. In her first interview, she notes thatthinking education is lacking in her own background. Expandingthe professional development theme of Rebecca and Bella, hermotivation is multifaceted She articulated the fanning out effect,beginning with her own college teaching, moving on to herstudents, and reaching the learning disabled children with whomher students work.

I have decided to join this group for a couple of reasons. FirstI have heard very positive things from last years’ participants.I am always searching for ways to develop on personal as well asprofessional levels. The thinking issue is really interesting. Asa person I act mostly on an emotional plain, a lot of psychology,and I thought to myself that I am less strong in these aspects ofthinking. This is how I perceive myself. Moreover this is verygood for the course that I am teaching. I am really interested thatmy students will move from acquiring and transmittingknowledge to developing thinking in their classes. So I am eagerto advance in these aspects. It is very important to me.

Hannah’s recognition of the gap between her professional selfimage and her actual skills in thinking education motivated her tojoin the PDC as an opportunity to broaden her repertoire asa teacher educator.



3.1.3. Closing a professional gapParticipants in our group expressed feelings concerning the

importance of thinking as it relates to various aspects of theirteaching. Despite high motivation, they expressed frustration inlacking professional knowledge to achieve their personal goals.Based on lacunae in her training, Dana, an English instructor,identified in her initial interview her need to develop professionally.

I decided to join the group because I think that I am a teacher whois involved in thinking. When I saw the subject I decided that thisis the right thing for me. I think that I am trying to work aroundthinking and I want to do things in a professional way. I now dothis intuitively. This issue is always attractive for me, I don’t mindwhere or when, I am always happy to know more about thissubject.. I cannot quantify how much this experience cancontribute to my professional development. It is too early to talkabout that. As for now, I feel that I want to develop something thatI feel is important for me and I want to become professional indoing it. Something that is not just reflective or intuitive in nature.I ask myself, “What can I do better for my students?”

Tom’s second interview reveals his need to learn about teachingthinking to his students. His recognition of a deficit in his back-ground drove him to learn more by joining the group.

All in all I think that this subject is very very important ona professional as well as personal level.. Through my entirecareer I have thought e how do I do this, how do I advance mystudents’ thinking skills? This is why I came to the group. It isimportant to me on a professional and personal level; I want toknow how to do it.

These teacher educators sought professional guidance withinthe context of communal learning to address an issue of greatimportance. Their quest for guidance to improve teaching partiallydefined their identity as teacher educators.

The first stage of the personal professional trajectory is char-acterized by three complementary elements. One factor is anappraisal of the topic’s importance. This assessment is coupled witha second factor, a desire for professional self improvement. Alongwith these elements is a third factor, an awareness of a backgrounddeficit in thinking education. Viewed together, these claims forma coherent argument for joining the PDC.

3.2. Withdrawal

Following their decision to join the group showing anticipationand curiosity, teacher educators defensively withdrew from thegroup goals, temporarily rejecting the community as a venue forprofessional growth.

3.2.1. Confirmation of professional competenceFor some participants the withdrawal stage demonstrated

assurance about the effectiveness of their current teaching. ForHannah the PDC’s emphasis on thinking resemble her focus onBloom’s (1956) taxonomy in her didactics course, thus confirmingfor her the adequacy of her own pedagogy in the realm of thinkingeducation. This reasoning reinforces her perception that herteaching practice is current. In the third PDC meeting she stated:

In my case, I find that this is exactly what I have been doing eachyear in the first semester. I teach Bloom’s taxonomy to mystudents for six month. My view concerning teaching is that youcannot teach in the classroom without teaching the studentsthinking skills.. There is something really hard about teachingthinking skills to the students. When I joined this groupI thought that there is something beyond Bloom. I feel that these


are exactly the same things, only we are using different, moreupdated terminology. So I am satisfied because I have neverlearned how to teach thinking skills to my students. I have builtit myself. Our meetings give me the feeling that I am doing itright, that I am doing it well and I should continue.

Like Hannah, Dana also feels strengthened by the PDC, learningnew approaches which match her pedagogy. In her second inter-view, she concludes that her practice is aligned with current theory.

All along I am dealing with the thinking issue. I have alwaysbeen doing that. I had this poster that I used in order to showrelations among elements, thinking concepts, and analyticalstructures. all this was always there on thewalls. And these arethings that the students imitate. My classes are not regularclasses, they are different and I am looking for ways to imple-ment this. Mostly I am feeling that this strengthens somethingthat is already there. You know Moliere’s play, when someonecomes to him (Monsieur Jourdain) and tries to teach him prose,so he says “You speak prose.” So Monsieur Jourdain says insurprise, “Did I speak prose? I spoke prose and I did not evenknow (sic).” So I speak thinking and I did not even know.

Dana and Hannah withdrew from the PDC’s agenda, whichaddressed changing teaching practices. They essentially reframewhat they already do instead of examining their pedagogy andtrying out new approaches. They both claim that thinking has beenforemost in their courses for many years. Dana claims expertise inthinking education by viewing it is a natural process, a tool forheightening student motivation.

I have done this as a rule, naturally, because I want to make itinteresting for them. And I feel that this is a way of getting theminvolved in what I am doing. I’m not teaching a course in themethodology (of thinking) or something else like that. That’swhat I think makes it more interesting for them. Evenwhen youread a novel I am always trying to say, okay what do you thinkabout this? How does this affect you? That’s what I have donefor a long time.

Dana’s self assessment of teaching thinking lends credence toexempting herself from engaging in transformational learning inthe PDC. Having decided that she already teaches thinking in a waywhich coincides with newer approaches, she has no motivation tolearn more. Continued participation in the PDC strengthens herwithdrawal, as she identifies each new pedagogy with previouslyused methods.

3.2.2. Relabeling current practiceFor some teacher educators the PDC confirms their competence,

while for others it supports learning current terminology forpractices in use already without any significant change in thesepedagogies. In her second interview, Debbie, who teaches researchmethodology, explains what she gains from the PDC, making nomention of changing practice, only of changing terminology.

During the meetings I felt that I have received positive feedbackfor what I am already doing. The meeting confirmed manythings that I have been doing intuitively in my courses. It gaveme definitions, a framework, something more accurate. Wetalked about higher order thinking skills and I realized that thisis exactly what I am aiming for e to develop higher orderthinking skills. The notion of reflection came up quite often inour meetings. This is what I am doing. My actions are veryreflective. What I have learned is to be more accurate in theterms I am using. I have received new terms for the things thatI am trying to do.



Like Debbie, Tom gained insight about his own practice whilereading about the language of thinking and participating in themeetings. He identified new concepts with what he has been doingfor years, acquiring names for his current practice and thusheightening his sense of professional self.

I would like to tell you my thoughts. When I was a schoolprincipal I dealt so much in those aspects of learning andexercising. I don’t want to flatter myself, but I was one of a kindin this respect. I dealt a lot with skills that are involved inthinking: vocabulary, conclusions, and reasoning .. So why amI telling you all this? Because nowwe are dealing with thinking,and I read it in the article and in the meeting we talk about howwe should use again and again the language of thinking e this isexercising and I have been doing it for ages. And you understandthat what you have been emphasizing is the basics.

For Hannah and Dana, the new approaches are seen as identicalto what they are doing, while Debbie and Tom refer in a superficialmanner to professional lingo, rather than pedagogic methods. Bothstrategies lead to inaction, as teacher educators claim a newfoundself assurance that their practice is up to date and thereforeprofessional.

3.2.3. Evidence for current expertiseSome teachers withdraw from the PDC by noting examples of

higher order thinking among their students, thereby bolstering theirself image as thinking educators. Because the students are already“thinking”, the teacher substantiates the adequacy of her currentachievements, however tacit they may be. Tanya reveals this line ofreasoning in this comment from the fourth PDC meeting:

I have been working with my students on methods for thedevelopment of thinking among special education students fora long time. I cannot tell you exactly how I do it, I am not surethat I can. But I do it. And from the assignments that thestudents hand in I can see that the students understood thatthey have to think..

In this form of withdrawal the teacher educator concludes thatshe has produced higher order thinking by citing an incident ofthinking without examining any teaching practice. The followingclaim is made: thinking is important, my students think, thereforeI must being doing things correctly.

3.2.4. Identifying roadblocks to implementationWhile most teacher educators related to their knowledge,

expertise and prior experience, some talked about external factorspreventing implementation of change. This removes responsibilityfrom the teacher educator to change their practice, and placesblame for inaction on others.

Rachel, an elementary school pedagogic instructor, decided towithdraw when students complained about thinking routines usedin the course. In addition, she diminished the importance forherself of implementing change because others in the PDC wouldbe doing the same thing in their courses with the same students.She identified these two roadblocks in the third PDC meeting:

I decided not to use (thinking routines) because students tend tocomplain. It is not that it did not exist earlier; I always had it, butit was not intentional and I was not focused on it. I ask myselfwhether we should all work on the same thinking tools. It seemsfunny that everyone who is here goes back to his class and doesthe same thing. It does not seem serious..

Dana justifies her withdrawal by mentioning time constrains asan additional roadblock. In the third PDC meeting, she claims thatshe lacks time to teach content material and to emphasize thinking.


She also notes that students have already learned to think in highschool, obviating the need for addressing thinking in college.

The structure of the courses here prevents me from developingthinking. There is not enough time. The students need to attendclass, they need to do the assignments and they need to take thetest, so you cannot ask them to do extra on thinking and youcannot count on them to prepare something from one session tothe other. So the time is really limited, and you cannot beinvolved in a process of development of thinking. You can jumponce in a while to a routine (of thinking) or something like that,but I think that when you want to deal with thinking you needtime. .You need a different course structure. In previous yearsI had courses in which I could do it more. In those courses I hadmore time to get involved in students’ work. You cannot do itinstantly. Also herewe assume that students know how to think.Our students are intelligent, but we can always make thembetter thinkers. It is not simple with the structure that we havehere this year.

Withdrawal with its multiple rationales was commonplace in thepersonal and professional development trajectories of teachereducators. Each participant moved into withdrawal soon after theinitial stage of anticipation and curiosity. We found four majorexplanations for failure to implement change, related to self justifi-cation or external interference. Teacher educators shifted into thispassive mode as they continued to participate in the PDC. The with-drawal stage could lead to dropout from the PDC, to a state of inactionor to pedagogic change. Attendance records indicate a dropout rate of20% at this stage. More significantly, most participants remained inthe PDC without significantly changing their practice.

3.3. Awareness

Some teacher educators emerged from withdrawal into a stageof awareness of the possibilities of change. This stage is charac-terized by insight about the scope and possibilities of engaging inthinking education which had been addressed in the PDC. Thosewho moved forward at this juncture realized that their past expe-riences did not adequately address teaching thinking. In additionthey valued the potential of the PDC to support their continueddevelopment by helping them acquire new skills which they saidthey wanted to learn at the initial stage of anticipation and curi-osity. The group experience helped them see ways of overcomingexternal obstacles. Moving beyond withdrawal, they expressedawareness in three modalities as described below.

3.3.1. Motivation and goal settingAfter the fifth meeting of the PDC, Bella took a significant step

forward in her professional development by deciding to reformu-late course goals for both content and thinking. Like others in thePDC, she claimed that she was already integrating thinking withcontent, placing her squarely in the withdrawal phase. Her newawareness positioned her for making a change. In her writtenreflection she stated:

I think that I am starting to be more aware of things that I do. Itdid not reach a level of actual discussions with students, but forexample when I think about our discussion today (in the PDSmeeting) so I think to myself as a grammar teacher that it is notenough for the student to know certain grammar rules if theycannot implement them in language. So how should I changemy teaching in order for me to give them this ability, and for meto know that they can use those skills? So I have a learning goalthat concerns the topic I teach, and I also have a thinking goal formy students.



3.3.2. Desire for using thinking routinesAnother form of awareness is teacher educators’ sensitivity to

missed opportunities to use thinking routines. In the sixth PDCmeeting, Karen, coordinator of the internship program, speaks ofher frustration at having passed up a situation which would havebeen appropriate for teaching thinking.

There was something that happened during class. A studentraised a topic and we had a very loud argument about it. AndI came home and thought to myself, “I could have done thisdifferently.” I thought how stupid I was for not using a routine tostructure the conversation and to enhance their thinking andreasoning skills. I am thinking next time I should do it this way.

Karen’s awareness is neither intuitive nor automatic. Thereported classroom conversation was not planned in advance;therefore, she could not have used a thinking routine to structurethe students’ discourse automatically. Yet her later realization thatsuch a routine could have enhanced learning in critical waysconstitutes awareness and a shift away from withdrawal. In herthird interview, Robin also speaks about her desire to use thinkingroutines automatically and regularly.

What I have not succeeded in doing, I have not integrated theidea of thinking routines. I would love to be doing that auto-matically in the courses I am teaching here and I am not. Andeven in my other classes I am not. But using thinking routines,which I would like to do on an automatic basis,. I am not thereyet. I am succeeding in doing it in this one thinking class.. Solike that is the work (which needs to be accomplished, and) I amnot there yet.

3.3.3. Elaborated understanding of thinking routinesRobin’s awareness is strengthened through her explanation of

where she stands now. In the final group interview, she exhibitsefficacy in how she could be teaching. In the past she has sought tointegrate mathematical thinking skills into her courses, and nowshe feels poised to implement this vision.

At the beginning I felt that I did have an idea of what teachingthinking is. It has expanded. I wouldn’t say that it has changed.Expanded tremendously fromwhat I thought teaching thinkingwas. Specifically, I’m more conscious of them now. I feel thatI want to teach them how to break down a problem and see itscomponent pieces and build a solution step by step, but I haven’teven verbalized that to myself and now I can easily vocalize it,and I have routines that I can fall back on that I can actuallyaccomplish that.

Awareness is a transitional phase between withdrawal andgenuine change. At this stage the teacher educators recognize thatthey have acquired knowledge which they desire to use. Likewithdrawal, this stage is characterized by inaction. Knowing how toteach thinking differs from actually implementing new teachingstrategies. An awareness of potential benefit generates frustrationwhich could be the catalyst for actual change.

3.4. Change

Although highly individual, the stage of awareness is accom-plished in the company of other teacher educators, and onlyafterward could actual change be achieved. Adapting new practiceswas socially significant for members of the group, as they sharedtheir achievements with the group. Interestingly, teachers at thisfinal stage of development reported adopting new approaches notonly in teaching but also on a personal level.


3.4.1. Change in practiceAt this stage, the teacher educators felt that their practice

changed due to their involvement in the PDC. In the final groupinterview, Terry, an early childhood teacher educator, talks aboutthe significant of habituating a particular thinking routine.

I findmyself now automatically saying. “There is no yes or no.”My response for every answer is always, “Well how did you gotthere?” And if my students come up with a statement onsomething, I find myself saying again, automatically, “Whatmakes you think of that?” So I’m always asking them . toverbalize reasons, not only in my classes but also in my day today interaction.. I see that as a profound change, I guess, inhow I receive statements.

Terry is now demanding more of her students in terms of theirthinking as she internalized a thinking routine and made it intoa habit. In her final interview, she recognizes the contribution of thePDC:

I just finished .marking a whole pile of papers to give back tostudents before the holiday e and.I made remarks that wouldhelp them if I want them to come to conclusions, if I want themto explain the statement that they said. So I used the terms thatwe used in our course, in our learning about thinking, I used thesame terms. And even one student said to me, “Should I correctit and give it back?” So I said, “I would like you to correct it andshow it to me. It would help you to correct it.” That’s why I madethose comments.

Like Terry, Robin feels that her teaching has changed. In thegroup interview, she reports structuring a new course around onemajor thinking routine. Rather than implementing one of theroutines she learned in the PDC, she created a new routine whichfits the course content and works for her students.

I teach a class called How to Think Mathematically. So in regardsto the class this year I intentionally set out to use these thinkingroutines and I found that none them that we discussed in theseminar worked. So what I did is I sort of formalized . thethinking question I would pose from time to time, I formalizethat as my own routine, which is appropriate for this class. Theway the class always works is that we have some math puzzle,that is how it starts, and there are always four questions:What isthe real question? What do we know? What do we need toknow? How do we find it? So I would say that in this specificclass I am really good about doing it consciously.

Both Terry and Robin are acutely aware of exactly how theyimplement what they have learned in the PDC. Proud of havingreached this stage, they express confidence in their newly acquiredskills for teaching thinking. They have moved beyond the inactionof awareness into the realm of implementation.

3.4.2. Developing new expertiseFor some teacher educators change occurred on a personal level.

Kathy, a bible teacher, wrote an academic paper about integratingthinking with bible teaching. Her newly acquired expertise enabledher to apply what she learned in the PDC to her own professionalknowledge. Her written reflection on this process expressesempowerment and agency.

On a personal level, I actually wrote an article recently. This isgreat for me to have that knowledge.. The article is about theimportance of teaching (and) education for complex thinking.The whole article is about giving an example of how importantthis is in teaching bible. Being in that course gave me thetheoretical background in the general educational world. In the



article I gave an example of a question which arises in studyingbible and two possible answers that are given to that question.In the modern era you have to deal with it. what wouldmotivate such a position, and then take the other side. It is reallyusing the skills that we were learning in the course, teachingstudents to look at both sides. See the beauty and the problemwith each position. The group strengthens me to write thisarticle. It is kind of thing that I was connected to but hearingabout it and seeing how much work has been done on it in theacademic world made me realize, wow you are really (learningsomething important). The article was kind of sitting there inmy head. I said, “Wait a minute, you know what? I can use thatcontent as an example of how you have to teach for complexthinking.” I really needed to develop my own thoughts about it.

The final stage of change consists of implementation of thematerial learned on various levels, including actually copying thestrategies as theywere presented, inventing new techniques, and inthe final case applying this knowledge to an academic query in anoriginal fashion. Having passed through the previous stages in thepersonal professional trajectory, the teachers who reached thestage of change have achieved the goals of professional develop-ment in the sense that they are able to reflect on their practice and

Table 1Summary of each of the four stages of personal development trajectory: sub categories w

Professional development path

Anticipation and curiosity Withdrawal

Importance of thinking as ateaching goal:

“I think that the developmentof thinking is important foreverything, even on apersonal level, and of courseon a professional level.”

Confirmation ofprofessional competence:

“In my case, I find thatthis is exactly what Ihave been doing eachyear in the first semester.”

Professional and personalgrowth:

“Advancing thinkingeducation in the college isa great feeling bothpersonally and professionally.”

Relabeling currentpractice:

“What I have learned isto be more accurate inthe terms I am using. Ihave received new termsfor the things that I amtrying to do.”

Closing a professional gap:

“Through my entire career Ihave thought e how do I dothis, how do I advance mystudents’ thinking skills? Thisis why I came to the group. Itis important to me on aprofessional and personallevel; I want to know how to do it.”

Evidence for currentexpertise:

“I am working with mystudents on methods forthe development ofthinking.from theassignments that thestudents hand in I cansee that the studentsunderstood that theyhave to think.”Identifying roadblocksto implementation:“The structure of thecourses here prevents mefrom developingthinking. There is notenough time.”


implement change intentionally. Teachers at this stage have begunto acquire a disposition for using thinking in their teaching.

3.5. Results summary

Table 1 summarizes our four stage model of personal profes-sional trajectories. The model delineates passages which theteacher educators traversed as they grappled with the complexitiesand challenges of an engaging professional development experi-ence in a communal context. Although experiencing the PDC asindividuals, the teacher educators were nurtured in their devel-opment by the group at all stages except withdrawal, when theystepped back from the group goals. Initially they were intrigued bythe possibilities of professional growth and change, and thisenthusiasm was universally expressed through anticipation aboutthe learning and curiosity about the content. Once the participantsbegan to learn about new theories and methods, their optimismand excitement shifted to skepticism accompanied by positive selfappraisal about their current practice. In the withdrawal phase, theteacher educators no longer were open to adopting new ideas;rather they constructed protective mechanisms by which theyprevented themselves from significant learning. The withdrawal

ith examples.

Awareness Change

Motivation andgoal setting:

“I have a learninggoal that concerns thetopic I teach, and Ialso have a thinkinggoal for my students.”

Change in practice:

“So I’m always askingthem . to verbalizereasons, not only in myclasses but also in myday to dayinteraction.. I seethat as a profoundchange, I guess, inhow I receivestatements.”

Desire for usingthinking routines:

“I thought how stupidI was for not using aroutine to structure theconversation and toenhance their thinkingand reasoning skills.”

Developing newexpertise:

“On a personal level, Iactually wrote anarticle recently. This isgreat for me to havethat knowledge ..Thearticle is about theimportance of teaching(and) education forcomplex thinking.”

Elaboratedunderstanding ofthinking routines:

“At the beginning I feltthat I did have an idea ofwhat teaching thinking is.It has expanded. .Expanded tremendouslyfrom what I thoughtteaching thinking was.”



stage is the most dominant change in our teacher educators’professional development trajectories. All participants wentthrough this stage, not all moved out of it, and some even droppedout of the PDC at this stage. Others remained in the group butpersisted in their mental withdrawal. Those teacher educators whowere able to move out of withdrawal became aware of the possi-bilities afforded by the proposed innovations.

Although unable at this stage to implement change, theyemerged from the stagnation of withdrawal to a broadening of theirprofessional knowledge landscape (Clandinin et al., 1995), thusaffording potential for moving forward. At the fourth stage called“change,” the awareness of the previous stage is translated intoa renewal of teaching practice. This phase takes many forms, fromsurface change in terms of teaching strategies to deeper change asevidenced by creating new pedagogic paradigms.

4. Discussion

The four stage model described in our findings is dynamic innature (see Fig. 1). While teacher educators were found to movepredictably from one phase to the next, their pacing varied. Theprogression between stages depends on the teacher educators’willingness and ability to progress out of the current stage and ontonewand different levels of functioning. Many teachers who enteredthe withdrawal stage never emerged. We described this inertia, orthe tendency to continue with current practice, as “stasis” which isprevalent at the withdrawal stage of the trajectory. Individualdifferences appeared not only in the chosen pathways, but also inthe pace at which the teacher educators progressed. Our modelsuggests that change in pedagogic methods is a drawn out affair,a process marked by multiple decisions at particular nodes,signaling stasis, regression, or progress toward the desired goal.

Fig. 1. Dynamic four stage model of p


Literature concerning professional development or career path(Berliner, 1994, 2001; Borko, 2004; Glaser, 1996; Kinchin & Cabot,2010) focuses on the macro level of teachers moving from noviceto expert over many years of teaching. We suggest that in thecontext of a one year PDC project, teachers’ professional develop-ment moves forward and backward over the year. This micro levelof viewing professional development takes place over a relativelyshort period of time. On the other hand, the same teacher educatorsare each progressing along a career path over a number of yearswhich also reflects progression and regression, a process whichsomewhat parallels the short term, micro analysis. Our findings inthe micro level support Kinchin and Cabot’s (2010) view ofprofessional development as a nonlinear dual processing. Thisdynamic view is reflected in early research by Glaser (1996) whoproposed an oscillation model in which teachers move back andforth between new acquired skills and previously learned habits.The comfortable zone of withdrawal turned out to be a haven formany of the teacher educators who chose not to adopt newmethods, preferring to continue functioning within a familiarframework. Eventually some of the teachers began to move out ofthe withdrawal stage, once again illustrating the paradigm ofbackwards and forwards movements along the career path. Thosewho were able to move from withdrawal to awareness advancedtoward expertise in teaching thinking. Having given up thecomforts of withdrawal, they reached out to seek new possibilitiesin implementing thinking strategies.

Our findings reveal particular difficulties among veteran teachereducators in moving beyond withdrawal, which may be based ontheir professional identity as experts. Changes in identity have beenseen to affect teacher educators’ ability to advance professionally.Referring to the contextual nature of teaching, teachers may findthemselves in an expert role in one domain and novice in another

ersonal professional trajectories.



(Borko, 2004). In our study, expert teacher educators are put backinto a position of novice, thus experiencing cognitive dissonancebetween their view of themselves as expert and their lack ofexpertise in the proposed innovative pedagogy. Uncomfortablewith the novice identity, experts reframe their current teaching,claiming that they regularly engage in thinking education, therebyobviating pedagogic change. This leads to stasis, a somewhat rigidand permanent withdrawal, thus resolving the cognitive disso-nance created by the PDC. Novices themselves are seeking princi-ples to guide their teaching, and they find in the PDC helpfulguidance to improve their practice. Experienced teacher educatorswho choose to identify themselves as experts in the field ofthinking education see little utility in learning and adapting newtechniques. Although a direct comparison of novices and experts isbeyond the scope of this study, our data suggest further researchwhich would allow clarification of the influence experience on theprofessional development trajectory of teacher educators.

The role of the community using a socio-cultural perspective isuseful in understanding the teacher educators’movement betweenthe four stages of professional development. Knowles et al. (1998)characteristics of andragogy were apparent in the initial stage ofanticipation and curiosity, inwhich the teacher educators displayeda strong eagerness to learn within the communal context as theyexpressed the importance of thinking in furthering their own aimsof teaching, in improving discourse abilities of the students, and inadvancing their professional performance. Such individual goalsetting in the PDC is described by Knowles et al. (1998) as typical ofthe adult learner. The function of being part of a professional,“academic” group was clearly expressed as a driving force behindthe PDC’s effectiveness. Both veteran and novice teacher educatorsfocused attention on what it means to engage in the profession oftraining teachers. The topic of teaching thinking challenged notonly their knowledge and skills but also their professional identity.In response to these challenges, this identity was strengthened andfor some broadened (Goffman, 1971) to include thinking educationinstead of educating as well. This process of identity formation wasenhanced by the PDC, which provided community support for thisprocess of self definition. As noted by ten Dam and Blom (2006)professional growth occurs within a community and thus thecommunal focus was emphasized in the rationale for our choice ofthe PDC as an appropriate framework for infusing thinking into thecollege culture. This emphasis bore itself out in the findings,particularly in the initial stages of the personal developmenttrajectory of the teacher educators.

This communal rhetoric expressed in the initial stage is glaringlyabsent in the withdrawal stage. Here, the discourse centers aroundself, on personal achievement, on individual and private reasons fornot adapting new teaching methods. This self applauding blockslearning and prevents professional growth. It is couched in noncommunal terms, suggesting at this stage a lack of collaboration,a turning inward which inhibits the expected professional learningoutcomes typically obtained in the PDC (Brody & Hadar, 2010).

The stage of awareness signals a refocusing on the communalcontext of the professional development experience. Group discoursewithin the PDC was mentioned as a trigger for this awakening, and asSykes (1999) mentioned, points to the expansion fromwhat teacherslearn towhat students learn. Teachers who achieved the final stage ofchange in their own trajectory explained their accomplishment interms of routinely using techniques which “we” learned in the groupmeetings. Use of the first person plural points to the importance ofcommunal aspects of learning and professional growth withina community which breaks down isolation and stimulates learning(Brown, 1997). Significant change involves acquiring a dispositionwhich includes acquiring teaching skills as well as an inclination toengage in higher order thinking with students and sensitivity to


identify those situations which can support students’ thinking(Tishman, 2001).

This study goes beyond the earlier research of Bell and Gilbert(1994), who identified three discrete aspects of learning inprofessional development: social, professional and personal. Ouranalysis focuses on the tight connection between the professionaland personal factors and how they work together in promoting orhindering change. Thus we show how personal processes causeprogression or regression toward change in practice. Moreover, thephenomenon of withdrawal identified in our study includes notonly the restrictions noted by Bell and Gilbert, but also argumentswhich teachers generate in order to distance themselves from thegoals of professional development.

An additional significant finding is the teacher educators’reluctance to change. Given that their goal is to support change intheir college students as developing educators, their withdrawalfrom the goals of the PDC is particularly significant. The need forteacher educators to improve their own practice is stated explicitlyin the Standards for Teacher Educators published by the Associationof Teacher Educators (2009). Our understanding of why so fewteacher educators actually reach change sheds light on the need toimprove methods of professional development in order to reachthese standards.

Although the strength of our findings lies in the four stagemodel which we have explicated in this paper, this study is limitedin its scope to two yearlong professional development projectsfocused on the particular content of infusing of thinking intocollege courses. The individual trajectories may have been influ-enced by the content of thinking education itself. In order tounderstand the impact of the PDC model on teacher’s personalprofessional development more clearly, further research applyingthe PDC to other types of academic content should prove enlight-ening. A second limitation of the study is the small scale and inti-mate nature of the college setting in which this study took place.With certain communal aspects already in place, the effects of thePDC on individual trajectories of development might have beenenhanced by existing cultures of collaboration within the college.PDC initiatives in larger and more anonymous university settingscould elucidate the potential of the PDC to create community andstimulate professional growth trajectories in the absence of anexisting collaborative culture. Plans for future research include aninvestigation of the effectiveness of teacher educators’ adaptationof higher order thinking routines in their college courses byexamining student responses to such pedagogic innovation in theirown student teaching venues.

5. Conclusions

From in international perspective, this study contributes toa world-wide growing sensitivity toward individual differences ofprofessional development among teacher educators who undergoa PDC experience in order to achieve pedagogic change. As ourresults show, achieving pedagogic change involves slow progressionas well as phases of regression in an extended journey. Moreover,achieving pedagogical change involves not only acquiring knowl-edge about a new pedagogy but also implementing the desiredchange. In that sense acting on knowledge constitutes developinga disposition to infuse thinking into college level teaching.

The socio-cultural perspective of the PDC contributes to the rele-vance of this study beyond the bounds of its context. Although pacingmay vary and pathways differ due to individual choices, the basicpatterns established in this paper pave the way for further researchinto the importance of teacher educators’ personal pathways in theirown growth and development as competent professionals. Further-more, our focus on actual understandings and behaviors of teacher



educators who choose to participate in a professional developmentproject can help policy makers appreciate and deal with resistance tothe adaptation of proposed innovations.

References

Alexander, P., & Judy, J. (1988). The interaction of domain-specific and strategicknowledge in academic performance. Review of Educational Research, 58,375e404.

Association of Teacher Educators. (2009). The teacher educator standards. Availableonline at www.ate1.org/pubs/Why_the_Standards.cfm Accessed 10.03.09.

Avalos, B. (2011). Teacher professional development in teaching and teachereducation over ten years. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(1), 10e20.

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 ofpolicy and practice (pp. 3e32). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bell, B., & Gilbert, J. (1994). Teacher development as professional, personal, andsocial development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 10(5), 483e497.

Bents, M., & Bents, R. (1990). Perceptions of good teaching among novice’ advancedbeginner and expert teachers. Paper presented at meetings of the AmericanEducational Research Association, Boston, MA, April 1990.

Berliner, D. C. (1994). Expertise: the wonder of exemplary performances. InJ. N. Manigieri, & C. Collins Block (Eds.), Creating powerful thinking in teachersand students: Diverse perspectives (pp. 161e186). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt BraceCollege.

Berliner, D. C. (2001). Learning about and learning from expert teachers. Interna-tional Journal of Educational Research, 35(5), 463e482.

Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: mapping the

terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3e15.Borko, H., & Putnam, R. T. (1996). Learning to teach. In D. C. Berliner, & R. C. Calfree

(Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 673e708). New York, NY: Simonand Schuster.

Brody, D., & Hadar, L. L. (2010). I speak prose and I now know it. Personal develop-ment trajectories among teacher educators in a professional developmentcommunity. Paper presented at the teacher and teaching education sig confer-ence: future Visions for learning and teaching conference. Helsinki, Finland.

Brown, A. L. (1997). Transforming schools into communities of thinking andlearning about serious matters. American Psychologist, 52(4), 399e413.

Brown, A. L., Bransford, J. D., Ferrara, R. A., & Campione, J. C. (1983). Learning,remembering, and understanding. In J. H. Flavell, & M. Markman (Eds.),Cognitive development (4th ed.).. Handbook of child psychology, Vol. 3 (pp.77e166) New York, NY: Wiley.

Campbell, M., Verenikina, I., & Herrington, A. (2009). Intersection of trajectories:a newcomer in a community of practice. Journal of Workplace Learning, 21(8),647e657.

Clandinin, J. D., Michael Connelly, F., & Soltis, J. F. (1995). In Teachers’ professionalknowledge landscapes. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Costa, A. L. (2001). Teaching for, of and about thinking. In L. Costa (Ed.), Developingminds: A resource book for teaching thinking. VA: ASCD.

Dall’Alba, G., & Sandberg, J. (2006). Unveiling professional development: a criticalview of stage models. Review of Educational Research, 76, 383e412.

Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1995, April). Policies that supportprofessional development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8), 597e604.

Day, C. (2008). Committed for life? Variations in teachers’ work, lives and effec-tiveness. Journal of Educational Change, 9(3), 243e260.

de Oliveira Pires, A. (2009). Higher education and adult motivation towards lifelonglearning: an empirical analysis of university post-graduates perspectives.European Journal of Vocational Training, 46(1), 129e150.

Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional devel-opment: toward better conceptualizations and measures. EducationalResearcher, 38(3), 181e199.

Dreyfus, H. L., & Dreyfus, S. E. (1986). Mind over machine: The power of humanintuition and expertise in the era of the computer. New York: The Free Press.

Eraut, M. (2000). Non-formal learning and tacit knowledge in professional work.British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 113e136.

Gallos, M. R., van den Berg, E., & Treagust, D. F. (2005). The effect of integrated courseand faculty development: experiences of a university chemistry department inthe Philippines. International Journal of Science Education, 27(8), 985e1006.

Gergen, M. M., & Gergen, K. J. (2000). Qualitative inquiry: tensions and trans-formations. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitativeresearch (2nd ed.). (pp. 1025e1046) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Glaser, R. (1996). Changing the agency for learning: acquiring expert performance.In K. A. Ericsson (Ed.), The road to excellence: The acquisition of expert perfor-mance in the arts and sciences, sports, and games (pp. 303).

Goffman, E. (1971). The presentation of self in everyday life. Harmondsworth:Penguin.

Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA.:Corwin Press.

Hadar, L., & Brody, D. (2010a). From isolation to symphonic harmony: Buildinga community of learners among teacher educators. Teaching and TeacherEducation, 26(8), 1641e1651.


Hadar, L. L., & Brody. D. (2010b). Moving fromwithdrawal to awareness and change:transformational learning among teacher educators. Paper presented at theEuropean association for practitioner research on improving learning ineducational and professional practice: challenges in professional learningacross disciplines. Lisbon, Portugal.

Hargreaves, A. (1994). The new professionalism: the synthesis of professional andinstitutional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 10, 423e438.

Hargreaves, A. (1997). From reform to renewal: a new deal for a new age. InA. Hargreaves, & R. Evans (Eds.), Beyond educational reform: Bringing teachersback in (pp. 105e125). Buckingham: Open University Press.

Harris, R. (2009). Two worlds? Higher education and post-school VET in Australiaand the movement of learners between them. European Journal of VocationalTraining, 46(1), 66e88.

Harrison, J., & McKeon, F. (2008). The formal and situated learning of beginningteacher educators in England: identifying characteristics for successful induc-tion in the transition from workplace in school to workplace in higher educa-tion. European Journal of Teacher Education, 31(2), 151e168.

Hawley, W. D., & Valli, L. (1999). The essentials of effective professional develop-ment: a new consensus. In L. Darling-Hammond, & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching asthe learning profession (pp. 127e150). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Jurasaite-Harbison, E., & Rex, L. A. (2010). School cultures as contexts for informalteacher learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(2), 267e277.

Kinchin, I. M., & Cabot, L. B. (2010). Reconsidering the dimensions of expertise: fromlinear stages towards dual processing. London Review of Education, 8(2),153e166.

King, M. B., & Newmann, F. M. (2000). Will teacher learning advance school goals?Phi Delta Kappan, 81(8), 576e580.

Knowles, M. S., Holton, E. F., & Swanson, R. A. (1998). The adult learner. Houston, TX:Gulf Publishing.

Larkin, J., & Neumann, R. (2009). Older academics and career management: an inter-disciplinary discussion. Australian Journal of Career Development, 18(3), 29e39.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Leinhardt, G. (1989). Math lessons: a contrast of novice and expert competence.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20, 52e75.

Lieblich, A., Tuval-Mashiach, R., & Zilber, T. (2004). Narrative research: Readinganalysis and interpretationIn Applied social research methods series, Vol. 47.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Livingston, C., & Borko, H. (1990). High school mathematics review lessons: expert/novice distinctions. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 21, 372e387.

Livneh, C., & Livneh, H. (1999). Continuing professional education among educators:predictors of participation in learning activities. Adult Education Quarterly,49(2), 91e106.

Lown, N., Davies, I., Cordingley, L., Bundy, C., & Braidman, I. (2009). Development ofa method to investigate medical students’ perceptions of their personal andprofessional development. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 14(4),475e486.

Martin, D. S., & Michelli, N. M. (2001). Preparing teachers of thinking. In L. Costa(Ed.), Developing minds: A resource book for teaching thinking. VA: ASCD.

McAlpine, L. (2003). Het belang vanonderwijskundige vorming voor studentge-centreerdonderwijs: de praktijk geëvalueerd. [The importance of instructionaldevelopment for student centered teaching: an examination of practice]. InN. Druine, M. Clement, & M. K. Waeytens (Eds.), Dynamiek in het hoger onder-wijs. Uitdagingen voor onderwijsondersteuning [Dynamics in higher education:Challenges for teaching support] (pp. 57e71). Leuven: Universitaire Pers.

Moore, S., & Shaw, P. (2005). The professional learning needs and perceptions ofsecondary school teachers: implications for professional learning community.Paper presented at the annual AERA conference, New Orleans, LA, April 2005.

Nickerson, R. (1988). On improving thinking through instruction. Review of Researchin Education, 15, 3e57.

Niesz, T. (2010). Chasms and bridges: generativity is the space between educators’communities of practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(1), 37e44.

Orland-Barak, L., & Yinon, H. (2005). Sometimes a novice and sometimes an expert:mentors’ professional expertise as revealed through their stories of criticalincidents. Oxford Review of Education, 31(4), 557e578.

Perkins, D. (2009). Making learning whole: How seven principles of teaching cantransform education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Perkins, D. N. (1992). Smart schools: Better thinking and learning for every child. NewYork, NY: Free Press.

Perkins, D. N., & Ritchhart, R. (2008). Making thinking visible. Educational Leader-ship, 65(5), 57e63.

Petrone, R. (2010). “You have to get hit a couple of times”: the role of conflict inlearning how to “be” a skateboarder. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(1),119e127.

Prebble, T., Hargraves, H., Leach, L., Naidoo, K., Suddaby, G., & Zepke, N. (2004).Impact of student support services and academic development programmes onstudent outcomes in undergraduate tertiary study: A synthesis of the research.Report to the Ministry of Education. Massey University College of Education.

Safran, L. (2010). Legitimate peripheral participation and home education. Teachingand Teacher Education, 26(1), 107e112.

Salomon, G. (Ed.). (1993). Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educationalconsiderations. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. N. (1998). Individual and social aspects of learning. InP. D. Pearson, & A. Iran-Nejad (Eds.), Review of research in education. Wash-ington, DC: AERA.


http://www.ate1.org/pubs/Why_the_Standards.cfm


Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing justone. Educational Researcher, 27, 4e13.

Smylie, M. A. (1995). New perspective on teacher leadership. Elementary SchoolJournal, 96, 3e7.

Stes, A., Min-Leliveld, M., Gijbels, D., & Van Petegem, P. (2010). The impact ofinstructional development in higher education: the state-of-the-art of theresearch. Educational Research Review, 5(1), 25e49.

Stevens, W. D., Kahne, J., & Cooper, L. (2006). Professional communities andinstructional improvement practices: A study of small high schools in Chicago.Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and proce-dures for developing grounded theory. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.

Sykes, G. (1999). Teacher and student learning: strengthening their connection. InL. Darling-Hammond, & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession (pp.151e180). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Tanggaard, L., & Elmholdt, C. (2007). Learning trajectories among educationalpsychologists. Studies in Continuing Education, 29(3), 295e314.

Taylor, L., & Rege Colet, N. (2009). Making the shift from faculty development toeducational development: a conceptual framework grounded in practice. InA. Saroyan, & M. Frenay (Eds.), Building teaching capacities in higher education:A comprehensive international model. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

ten Dam, G. T. M., & Blom, S. (2006). Learning through participation. The potential ofschool-based teacher education for developing a professional identity. Teachingand Teacher Education, 22, 647e660.

Terenzio, M. (2002). Professional development across the faculty career: an enginefor implementing a new faculty-institutional compact. In L. A. McMillin, &W. G. Berberet (Eds.), A new academic compact: Revisioning the relationship


between faculty and their institutions (pp. 29e60). Williston, VT: AnkerPublishing.

Tishman, S. (2001). Added value: a dispositional perspective on thinking. InA. L. Costa (Ed.), Developing minds, a resource book for teaching thinking (pp.72e75). Alexandria, Va.: ASCD.

Tishman, S., Perkins, D. N., & Jay, E. (1995). The thinking classroom: Learning andteaching in a culture of thinking. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Valle, I., & Weiss, E. (2010). Participation in the figured world of graffiti. Teaching andTeacher Education, 26(1), 128e135.

Verma, M. (2010). The education of Hindu priests in the Diaspora: assessing the valueof community of practice theory. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(1), 11e21.

Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). Review of research on the impact ofprofessional learning communities on teaching and student learning. Teachingand Teacher Education, 24(1), 80e91.

Warriner, D. S. (2010). Competent performances of situated identities: adultlearners of English accessing engaged participation. Teaching and TeacherEducation, 26(1), 22e30.

Watkins, E. K., & Marsick, J. V. (1999). Sculpting the learning community: new formsof working and organizing. NASSP Bulletin, 83(604), 78.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Wenger, E., Mc Dermott, R., & Snyder, W. M. (2002). Cultivating communities ofpractice: A guide to managing knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business SchoolPress.

Whitcomb, J., Borko, H., & Liston, D. (2009). Growing talent, promising professionaldevelopment models and practices. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(3),207e212.


I speak prose and I now know it.” Personal development trajectories among teacher educators in a...

Documents

Transcript of I speak prose and I now know it.” Personal development trajectories among teacher educators in a...