This page is referenced by:

• 1 2022-06-08T20:13:39+00:00 Teacher Education 43 literature review of teacher education and teacher educators plain 2023-10-29T21:00:05+00:00 "Simply put, it is reasonable to assume that quality teacher education depends on quality teacher educators. Yet, almost nowhere is attention being paid to what teacher educators should know and be able to do" (Goodwin & Kosnik, 2013, p. 334).
  
  Teaching is described as both art and science (Biesta, 2022; Marzano, 2007). Elements of teaching, according to Banner and Cannon (1997/2017) included learning, authority, ethics, order, imagination, compassion, patience, tenacity, character, and pleasure (see Figure 2). Across the provincial education jurisdictions for kindergarten to Grade 12 (K-12) education, elements of teaching practice are identified in the standards of practice and the ethical standards outlined for the profession (Alberta Education Office of Registrar, 2023; BC Teachers' Council, 2019; Ontario College of Teachers, 2020). Examining documents from Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario, I notice a range of attitudes, ethics, competencies, fluencies, and skills. The teaching standards may be applied for verification and certification of graduates from a FoE course of study; however, these are not explicitly identified for the context of teacher education, nor are these standards connected to the practice of teaching by teacher educators. Although the connections between teaching, knowledge acquisition, learning, and literacy development are worthy of further investigation, these were not the primary focus of this conceptual investigation. I focused on the conceptual frameworks that grounded my investigation into media and digital skills, fluencies, competencies, and literacies of teacher educators as these are experienced within an open educational practice and defined the elements of a teaching practice.
  
            As the statement by Goodwin and Kosnik (2013) illuminated, there was an identified need for research into how TEds do what they do (Ellis & McNicholl, 2015) and delve into what it means to be a teacher educator. In this research, it is timely that teacher educators share their expertise as practitioners and theorists as part of an open educational network; making explicit what is often tacit and unspoken while sharing their knowledge, reflections and actions (Beck, 2016; Bennett & Bennett, 2008) outside of the traditional silos of academia. In this way, TEds may well showcase what they know and how they enact and embody the art and craft of teaching (Biesta, 2022; Marzano, 2007) (see Figure 3).
  
           With a focus on TEds as being a critical component in faculties of education, it was essential to examine factors relevant to teacher education and specifically on research relating to teacher educators. Teacher education programs are referenced here as faculties of education (FoE). These are departments in higher education institutions providing a course of study in the discipline of education, sometimes referenced as initial teacher education (Association of Canadian Deans of Education, 2017). Courses in the FoE were designed and delivered by teacher educators (TEds) to teacher candidates (TCs) who graduate to become licensed teachers, usually employed to work within the kindergarten to grade 12 sector (K-12) of education. For this research, FoE programs are differentiated from professional development courses, instructional design departments, or higher education centers for teaching and learning, where opportunities and support for the development of teaching skills and competencies may also be provided. These alternative learning opportunities are often informal or short-term and frequently come without the full range of courses, subject matter, or credentialing systems found in initial teacher education within a FoE.
  
            An additional consideration for this research was the inclusion rather than exclusion of reference to online course offerings and recognizing that open educational practices are not constrained to being only online. Chickering and Gamson's (1987) insights into good teaching practices for undergraduate online education included actions that encouraged contact between teachers and students, developed reciprocity and cooperation within course contacts, used active learning techniques, provided timely feedback, emphasized time on task, communicated explicit and high expectations, and respected diversity in learner’s talents and ways of learning. These elements may subsequently be seen as qualities of open educational practices.
  
            Since education in Canada falls under provincial jurisdiction, initial teacher education programs in FoE are developed with limited national oversight. An undergraduate degree followed by a course of study in the education department is the most common design of FoE in Canada (Russell & Dillon, 2015). Some universities offered a concurrent education program whereby education related courses are incorporated into the undergraduate course of study. A graduate degree at the master or PhD levels of study should not be confused with initial teacher education, alternatively called the professional-years study. For the purpose of this research, the focus was on initial teacher education, commonly completed within one to two years of study following an undergraduate degree.
  
            Research literature revealed two key issues in teacher education. First, teacher education programs faced the challenge of managing two competing demands - the ‘theory-practice’ and ‘research-teaching’ tensions (Cochran-Smith, 2005; Eisner, 2002; Zeichner, 2012). This episteme – phronesis dichotomy was an ongoing issue in teacher education (Pisova & Janik, 2011).  In Canada, these tensions were the focus of many FoE reform initiatives (Russell & Dillon, 2015). As outlined by Russell and Dillon (2015), teacher education program design traditionally included the what and the how of teaching practice. The what focused on foundational elements such as subject specific methods, aspects of teaching such as behaviour management or assessment, as well as the sequencing of courses and the organization of practicum experiences. The how focused on the process of enacting teaching in the classroom and the contexts of learning such as within a community of inquiry. Tensions emerged in FoE in a push/pull relationship for time, space, and attention to theory or practice. These tensions were exacerbated by recent pandemic-influenced teaching and learning constraints (Danyluk et al., 2022). The OEPr of TEds can reveal how working thing and through these tensions occurred. Through actively 'thinking out loud' in blogs, social media, and open publications, particularly when sharing details of the what, how, and why they do what they do, teacher educators may reveal integrated MDL activities, strategies, and opportunities within their OEPr.
  
            A second issue was the nature of those who teach in FoE. The term teacher educator (TEd) described those individuals tasked with teaching in the FoE. These TEds were seen as gatekeepers and lynchpins to the teaching profession and considered to be a critical factor in the quality and transformation of teacher education programs (Kosnik et al., 2015; Stillman et al., 2019; Voithofer et al., 2019). Yet it was noted that here is a highly transient nature of precarious employment within teacher education (Kosnik et al, 2015). Some TEds bring extensive practice from the field of education into their course designs. Other TEds may be new to the discipline, or become TEds as a result of an academic and research stream of study. Although teachers in the K-12 sector in many provinces are licensed to teach by a governing body, such as the Ontario College of Teachers, this is not a requirement for employment or teaching in higher education sectors such as FoE. Research noted that some TEds had extensive research experience yet may have little or no formal knowledge of teaching practices. Although TEds were considered central to good teacher education, they received little attention (Vloet & van Swet, 2010). TEds were often overlooked, invisible, and rarely researched within the field of education (Crawley, 2018; Izadinia, 2014; Kosnik et al., 2015; Voithofer et al., 2019; Woloshyn et al., 2017). Perceptions suggested that TEds:

  should be able to handle themselves in their practice, to act in an effective way, to take care for themselves and to be physically, emotionally and cognitively balanced. They should have a realistic self-concept, concerning who they are, what they are able to do and how they want to develop themselves, especially when coping with educational innovations. … They should have insight into their personal experiences, feelings, values and motives, and gain self-knowledge about processes of their identity development, construction of meaning and their professional development (Vloet & van Swet, 2010, p. 150).

            With rapid changes in media and digital technologies impacting the preparation of teachers in FoE, there were increasing demands on teacher educators to improve outcomes (Buss et al., 2018; Garcia-Martin et al., 2016). Research and change efforts in FoE included: a) self-study (Hordvik et al., 2020; Kosnik et al., 2015); b) the infusion of technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge (TPACK) frameworks (Allen & Katz, 2023; Jaipal-Jamani et al., 2018; Voithofer et al., 2019); c) the application of participatory teaching (West-Puckett et al., 2018); d) networking and collaborative teaching and learning (Heldens, 2017; Lohnes Watulak, 2018; Oddone et al., 2019); e) digital literacies and digital citizenship (Choi et al., 2018; Nascimbeni, 2018); and f) open educational practices (Albion et al., 2017; Kim, 2018). Recent research showed some of the issues and opportunities TEds face when digital literacies were infused or integrated within Canada’s teacher education programs (DeWaard, 2022). Changes to FoE programs are politically driven, as suggested by the US Department of Educational Technology 2016 report on the Advancing Educational Technology in Teacher Preparation: Policy Brief (Stokes-Beverley & Simoy, 2016) calling upon "leaders of teacher preparation programs to engage in concerted, programmatic shifts" (p. 4). The political impact on teacher education is evident in governmental reforms that drastically changed the organization and application of initial teacher education programs in Faculties of Education in Ontario (Kitchen & Petrarca, 2015).
  
            Although not explicit to MDL or OEPr research, this research was informed by the teacher educator technology competencies (TETCs) proposed by Foulger et al., (2017) in their exploration of the technological practices of TEds. The TETCs establishes a foundational set of skills and attributes which can support self-reflection and professional development (Foulger et al., 2017). Subsequent research examined these competencies in practice (Thomas et al., 2019), but explicit connections to MDL within OEPr of TEds in FoE have yet to be made. Allen and Katz (2019) proposed that teacher educators were positioned to impact the future or OEPr within K-12 education. With this in mind, this research focused on the nexus between MDL and OEPr found in teacher educators in FoE in Canadian contexts, recognized the complexity of teaching in teacher education, and hinted at a life-long learning approach to teacher education (Livingston, 2014, 2017). 
   
• 1 2022-06-08T18:22:01+00:00 Background 36 describing confluence of fields of study and influences of the lived experiences of the research plain 2023-10-27T15:36:50+00:00 I design and teach about teaching and learning in a teacher education program in Canada. I am a life-long practitioner of the art and science of teaching and learning. It is through this research that I aim to understand the lived experiences of teacher educators as they apply media and digital literacies (MDL) within Canadian teacher education, as evidenced within their open educational practices. This is of interest because I am a Canadian teacher by profession and a teacher educator by choice.
  
            Critical literacies is an important research focus, as evident from the growing political and public demands for literacies in all areas of education (CMEC, 2020b; OECD, 2018; Zimmer, 2018). Calls for educational responses to ‘fake news’ (Gallagher & Rowsell, 2017) and the teaching of digital citizenship to combat cyberbullying (Choi et al., 2018; Jones & Mitchell, 2016) increasingly influence educational landscapes in Canada (DeWaard & Hoechsmann, 2021; Hoechsmann & DeWaard, 2015).
  
            Digital literacy and competency frameworks have been developed by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), where the notion of education as a common good(s) is amplified, and shifts from previous notions of education as individualistic and economically entangled good(s). UNESCO promotes a focus on open educational practices and networks as mechanisms for change (Daviet, 2016; Law et al., 2018). Common good(s) and contributing to societal well-being are undergirded with a humanistic and holistic belief system (Daviet, 2016). This is echoed in the European Union (EU) documents where efforts enhance education for citizenship (Carretero Gomez et al., 2017; Law et al., 2018).
  
            Although research focuses on MDL in the K-12 education sector (Buss et al., 2018; Gallagher & Rowsell, 2017), on teachers in the classroom (Choi et al., 2018), teaching and learning in higher education contexts (Castañeda & Selwyn, 2018); and, teacher candidates being prepared for a career in teaching (Cam & Kiyici, 2017; Cantabrana et al., 2019; Cervetti et al., 2006; Gretter & Yadav, 2018), there is little research studying the media and digital literacies or the open educational practices of teacher educators (Foulger et al., 2017; Knezek et al., 2019; Krumsvik, 2014; Petrarca & Kitchen, 2017). From this preliminary review of the literature, I generated a direction for my research study.
  
            The Canadian Council of Ministers of Education (CMEC) and the National Council of Teachers of English emphasizes the need for enhanced literacy development in conjunction with technology competencies in education for all provincial education jurisdictions (Gallagher & Rowsell, 2017). The Canadians for 21st Century Learning & Innovation document Shifting minds: A 21st century vision of public education in Canada (C21, 2012), identified key skills and competencies learners should possess, which suggests that teachers, teacher candidates, and teacher educators should also possess these skills and competencies. In the United States, the development of a set of technology competencies for teacher educators (Foulger et al., 2017) indicated the need for a reconceptualization of current faculty of education (FoE) structures and teacher educators’ practices.
  
            Since a “teacher’s knowledge is an essential component in improving educational practice” (Connelly et al., 1997, p. 674), this research explored the lived experiences of teacher educators who openly share experiences and applications with a consideration toward MDL as part of their teaching practice. Sharing openness in educational practices “does not require overcoming huge technical obstacles, but rather, requires a change in mindset and a differing view of practice, and of how learning can be achieved” (Couros, 2006, p. 188). A better understanding of the contexts of MDL within FoE can emerge when teacher educators’ voices and stories are represented. A better understanding of the contexts of MDL within FoE can emerge when teacher educators’ voices and stories are represented. This investigation adds to the limited research addressing the needs of teacher educators or how teacher educators infuse MDL into their teaching practice (Lohnes Watulak, 2016; Phuong et al., 2018; Seward & Nguyen, 2019; Stokes-Beverley & Simoy, 2016).
  
            Because I espouse to be an open educational practitioner, promoting open educational practices in the courses I design and teach, I aim to further understand the role of OEPr within teacher education in general, and within the lived experiences of others who work openly as teacher educators. Through this research I aim to explore, revise, and add to current definitions of OEPr (Couros, 2006; Cronin & MacLaren, 2018; Nascimbeni & Burgos, 2016; Paskevicius, 2017; Tur et al., 2020). In this research, I aim to uncover connections between current conceptualizations of OEPr with understandings of MDL (Buckingham, 2020; Gee, 2015; Hoechsmann, 2019; Stordy, 2015) and living literacies. (Pahl et al., 2020).
  
            This research responds to a call from Zawacki-Richter et al., (2020) to “re-explore the benefits of openness in education to respond to emerging needs, advance the field, and envision a better world” (p. 329). Cronin (2017) reveals connections between OEPr and digital literacies which I believe to be essential to the work of open educators. Through this research I endeavour to find connections between MDL and OEPr within the lived experiences of teacher educators (TEds) as they navigate and negotiate their teaching practice into the open.
  
            This research not only adds to rapidly evolving discussions about OEPr but also contributes a focus on teacher educators (Zawacki-Richter et al., 2020). I believe that teacher educators bring experience in educational teaching practice to the nexus between OEPr, teaching, and MDL. Teacher educators from diverse Canadian FoE sites were invited to participate in interviews to “story” (Clandinin, 2015) their OEPr, and reflect on their MDL negotiations. The ubiquity of electronic technologies in the functional milieu of today’s educational environments, particularly in light of the global COVID-19 pandemic, suggested that digital tools are both field and method for research studies (Burrell, 2009; Markham, 2016).
  
   
• 1 2022-06-08T21:23:24+00:00 Research Phases and Timeline 30 outlines the research phases and timeline for this research plain 2023-10-02T17:40:38+00:00 Next the phases and timeline are provided in both text and graphic formats. Although this timeline suggested a linear process, spirals and recursions occurred throughout the research process in order to revisit, review, and reflect on data gatherings and research journal notes. This is symptomatic of P-IP methodology as an iterative and rhizomatic process. This supported the assembling of data engagements (Ellingson & Sotirin, 2020) since data were generated from the lived experiences and intentionality of the participants, as revealed through actions, artifacts, technologies, and discourses within each research phase (see Figure 15).
            Phase One included the preparatory work of seeking research ethics board (REB) approval, preparing the informed consent forms, drafting the interview protocol, developing a draft interview schedule, and searching the internet for potential participants. During this phase I conducted one interview with a teacher educator outside the Canadian teacher education context who was familiar to me. As a novice researcher, this pilot interview allowed me to reflect on the interview process and prompts, and make adjustments to the interview protocol as part of the REB submission. This first phase ended once the REB approval was received (see Appendix A).
  
            Phase Two included a sequence of initial contacts over the space of five months. I aimed to schedule these at least one week apart in order to manage the data gathering and data-engagement process I had planned. Throughout this phase I maintained both an electronic spreadsheet and a research notebook form of tracking to ensure I followed a consistent sequence with each participant. An introductory email was sent to the participant (see Appendix B-1). Once the TEd agreed to participate, I conducted a web search for information that may be relevant for this research e.g. publications, course related information, and social media posts. I recorded this information in a Word doc version of my research journal, along with any notes on insights into MDL connections or thoughts for possible inclusion in the interview.
  
            After the initial agreement to participate, I sent out the informed consent information (see Appendix C) along with a video link as a way of introducing myself to the participant and providing information about the research. The interview was then scheduled for a mutually convenient time and the informed consent was collected. I also sent a copy of the interview protocol (see Appendix D), not with an expectation that participants would prepare prior to meeting, but to provide a guide to our conversation. After the first few interviews were completed, I changed the process slightly to include sending out an electronic calendar invitation which included the Zoom link so participants could see this event on their preferred calendar software.
  
            The interview was then conducted. Immediately prior to meeting the participant, I reviewed my research journal notes to ensure I was fully prepared for the conversation. At the end of the interview participants were asked to prepare a digital artifact using a technology of their choice (text, image, graphic, audio, video) that was reflective of their MDL and OEPr lived experiences. As suggested by Ellingson and Sotirin (2020), this “participatory data engagement requires exceptional openness to change, to uncertainty and ambiguity, and to attending carefully to how different forms of knowledge emerge” (p. 95).
  
            After the interview ended, the recording was saved to my laptop. The audio file provided from the Zoom recording was uploaded to Otter.ai and transcribed, usually within one hour of the upload. After downloading the transcription from Otter.ai, I reviewed the document as I listened and watched the recorded interview. This supported making any necessary edits and observational notes. In this way, I re-encountered the data within an agentic and dynamic state (Ellingson & Sotirin, 2020). Although the recordings or transcripts did not materially change (Ellingson & Sotirin, 2020), my engagement with these data shifted to a different moment in time, thus altering my views in subtle and sometimes dramatic ways. Once the transcript was reviewed, it was saved prior to conducting a process of redacting identifying information such as names or geographic references. This redacted version of the transcript was then inserted into the Word Art software. The rendered word cloud image was then downloaded as a portable graphics network (PNG) file and stored on my computer. I also created a short screen-cast video of some of the interactive word clouds which allowed me to detect words that were not noticed in the first viewing.
  
            In the post-interview email sent to each participant (see Appendix B-2), I included links to the transcript, the audio recording, and the PNG of the word cloud image for review and comments (see this curated collection of word cloud images). In this email I reminded the TEds of the second part of their participation – the creation of a digital artifact representative of their lived experiences with MDL in their OEPr. To provoke their thinking, I provided links to media and digital literacy frameworks that could be referenced for this artifact production. A soft due date was set for two weeks post-interview. I also included a digital e-card to a national bookstore chain as a way to recognize their gift of time with this project.
  
            When I examined the artifacts, I delved more deeply into the TEds lived experiences with MDL within OEPr. This was an opportunity to “focus on analysis and creative representations of participants’ experiences, with consideration of the researcher in a secondary role” (Ellingson, 2009, p. 23). The participants created artifacts in a variety of formats – infographics, a sketch-note, blog post, video recording, interactive story created using Twine, and audio recordings. These digital artifacts revealed a representation of MDL and OEPr in action as a process of becoming. This part of the second phase was a way of “leading to a co-authored understanding of the experience being discussed between the participant and the researcher” (Ranse et al., 2020, p. 6). As mentioned, a spreadsheet and research journal chart were maintained throughout this phase to confirm completion of each task, to track progress, and ensure I reached projected timeline benchmarks.
  
            Phase Three included work done after the interview phase was fully complete. During this phase I blocked one week to review all the interview video recordings while reading the transcripts, modelling the whole-part-whole process in P-IP methodology. This allowed me to make note of connections among and between participants’ stories, as I began to notice trends and commonalities. Immediately following this week-long review, I took time to revisit codes already done in NVivo for each transcript (see Table 2) and then created updated coding charts. I revisited the word art collections from the transcripts and created an overarching word art from all the keywords created by the Otter.ai software. As I did a third review of the transcripts, I further redacted the documents to ensure confidentiality, and added notes and memos as marginalia.
  
            The time came to generate unifying codes to discern the overarching research story. I reviewed the codebook within NVivo to combine to reduce the listing and provided detailed descriptions (see Table 3 in Appendix H). Once this was completed, I created a graphic rendering of early and emergent ideas (see Figure 17) and a preliminary concept map (see Figure 18) as I attempted to bring ideas and conceptions together. I shared these digital artifacts with critical friends in my PLN. After receiving feedback, I took a pause from my immersion into the data. During the next period of time I immersed myself in reading and rereading literature, while also attending and viewing webinars relating to coding and generating themes. Phase three ended with a renewed plan for revising themes and organizing quotes for the writing of the findings section of the dissertation.
   
• 1 2022-06-04T15:43:12+00:00 Glossary 19 alphabetic listing of glossary items with links to notes that describe each item plain 2023-06-28T15:29:30+00:00 Here is an alphabetic listing of the glossary items included in this dissertation document. Each item is linked to a note where the item is defined, described, and/or examples provided. These glossary items are also embedded throughout the document as notes within pages, where they provide 'just in time' clarification for you, the reader.
  • Actor Network Theory
  • Affinity Spaces
  • Alternative Dissertation
  • Artificial Intelligence (AI)
  • Black Box technology
  • Block Chain
  • ChatGPT
  • Computer Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis Software (CAQDAS)
  • Creative Commons
  • Cynefin framework
  • Data Gathering
  • Digital Rights Management (DRM)
  • Educommunication
  • Emirec
  • Episteme / Phronesis
  • Faculty of Education (FoE)
  • #FemEdTech
  • Free and Open Software (FOSS)
  • Homo Faber
  • Hupomnemata
  • Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis (IPA)
  • Learning Management Systems (LMS)
  • Makerspace
  • Massive Open Online Course (MOOC)
  • Media and Information Literacy (MIL)
  • Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
  • Open Educational Practices (OEPr)
  • Paywall
  • Platforms
  • PDF
  • Portable Graphics Network (PNG)
  • Post-Intentional Phenomenology (P-IP)
  • Practice - both noun and verb
  • Research Ethics Board (REB)
  • Safety, Security, Privacy, Permission (SSPP)
  • Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, Canada (SSHRC)
  • Teacher Candidates (TCs)
  • Teacher Educators (TEds)
  • Teacher Educator Technology Competencies (TETCs)
  • TPACK
  • Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans
  • UNESCO
  • Uniform Resource Locator (URL)
  • Universal Serial Bus (USB)
  • Visitors / Residents
  
   
• 1 2022-06-08T18:27:26+00:00 Researcher Positionality 14 outlines the grounded experiences that I bring to this research plain 2023-10-30T21:59:58+00:00 This research is grounded in my experiences in education, as well as my extensive background as an elementary school educator. I bring my own lived experiences as an open educator, teacher educator, teacher of critical media and digital literacies, and novice researcher to this dissertation work. This research is informed through my engagement in global networks such as the Global OER Graduate Network (GO-GN), UNESCO Open Education for a Better World, and the Open/Education Technology, Society and Scholarship Association. This research is enhanced by cross-border collaborations within Virtually Connecting and the International Society for Technology in Education Inclusive Learning Network, as well as my explorations in open educational spaces such as Ontario Extend, Ontario Open Education Fellows, Creative Commons, and Mozilla Open Leaders. These places and spaces inform and shape this dissertation research.
  
            My positionality as a new researcher is supported by my academic persona as a scholarly writer and media-making educator. This post-intentional phenomenological (P-IP) research (Vagle, 2018; Valentine et al., 2018) applies crystallization methodologies (Ellingson, 2009, 2015) to explore teacher educators’ stories of becoming, as revealed in their hupomnemata (Foucault, 1988; Weisgerber & Butler, 2016) and through their interview conversations.  In this research, I explicate how these lived experience stories and artifacts, as shared by participating Canadian TEds, are gathered and become offerings of research data, since “everything that shows, offers” (Rocha, 2015, p. 6, emphasis in original).