Engagement: learning to teach and learning to teach to teach

Engaging as the new Executive Editor of JET, I find myself in the daunting position of succeeding Professor Peter Gilroy, who has been at the helm for over thirty years, during which he has developed our journal into the global leader of published research in teacher education that it is today. It has been an immense privilege and great pleasure to have been mentored by Peter over the last few years and I would therefore like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to his outstanding, career-long contribution to scholarship in our field. Peter’s philosophical background has framed his own writing, and he has brought new, critical perspectives to the issues central to the education of teachers. As he steps down from academic work, Peter’s analytical and judicious spotlight on topics from pedagogy to policy in teacher education will be sorely missed, as will his intellectual wisdom, imperturbability and forbearance. I have heard it said from more than one person that time spent in Peter’s company always makes one feel better and on a personal level, I endorse this fully. JET’s administrative assistant, Jenny Francis, who ably manages the enormous and ever-expanding JET database, is also handing over the reins and thanks is certainly due to her for her patience, efficiency and amiability in dealing with the manuscripts, authors and general queries on a relentless conveyor belt of activity. As a team, Peter and Jenny have developed a personalized approach to editorship that has been hugely appreciated by authors around the world. I wish both Peter and Jenny a long, happy and fulfilled retirement.

Teacher education in the broadest sense is the remit of JET and a major element of this is initial teacher education. Studies centred on student teachers and on teacher educators themselves form the content of this issue. Reading through the papers, I have been struck by the recurring theme of engagement, in the sense of interlocking, committing, acting, as opposed to promising to marry or, worse, battling, although as far as the latter meaning is concerned, some may disagree! The first four full papers present aspects of engagement in learning to teach at the outset of a career, whilst the next two look at engagement in the process of educating students and teachers from the perspective of teacher educators.

Sylvia Tang and colleagues from Hong Kong present new empirical evidence for effective engagement by student teachers with the theory-practice nexus. Based on an established model of professional expertise, they suggest two factors in respect of student teachers’ engagement with theory in relation to practice: first, theoretical knowledge as a guide for professional decision-making and reflection on practice and second, adaptation of theoretical knowledge to practical situations. This new contribution adds valuably to the debates around teaching as an intellectual activity (la Velle and Flores 2018), masterly teaching (la Velle, 2013) and research-informed teaching (BERA/RSA 2014; Royal Society and British Academy 2018).

Professional decision-making in initial teacher education is the focus of the next paper, by Todd Reeves and colleagues from the USA. In the current debate about data-driven decision-making they highlight the dangers of assuming understanding in the learner simply from the use of historic data. The study illuminates misconceptions held by student teachers based on misinterpretation of statistical data, misunderstanding of the original evidence and citing irrelevant evidence, any or all of which mar their claims, thus distorting their professional decision-making. The implications of this have clear relevance for both practice and research in teacher education.

Stella van der Wal-Maris and colleagues from Utrecht in the Netherlands present the next paper, which takes a broad view of ways in which student teachers engage in the development of an effective orientation towards learning. They describe and research a model in which learning is viewed as an active process of knowledge construction and where learning is regulated, thorough and from which new knowledge can be garnered. The authors present useful data to suggest that increases in student teachers’ direct and indirect deep processing of concepts and skills may be related to their perceptions of opportunities to learn from and regulate their experiences. Clearly, this is important evidence of a successful approach to not just initial teacher education but also for career-long professional development.

Ibis Valdivia, from the University of Barcelona in Spain takes a different perspective on the business of learning to teach in her study of the development of student teachers’ scientific argumentation through epistemic practice, i.e. that characterised by knowledge production and learning. Arguing for the imperative of improving students’ argumentative competence, she presents the evaluation of a programme of learning tasks as progressive epistemic exercises designed to enhance the students’ writing skills through argumentation. Previous research has shown that higher education students struggle both to establish intertextual dialogue in their writing and in formulating a thesis central to their argument. This study brings new insight suggesting that students can make steady progress in engaging with intertextual dialogue, which might be regarded as the most difficult skill to acquire in terms of argumentation.

In the next two contributions to this issue, the focus shifts from student learning towards aspects of teacher education from the point of view of teacher educators themselves. In the first paper, Rui Yuan, from the University of Hong Kong reports on a comparative investigation into English language teacher educators’ ideal identities as revealed from two perspectives: that of language teachers and that of teacher educators. Predictably, similarities and differences between the two groups were revealed. The range of ideal identities characterised by the participants included those of ‘practical expert’, ‘model’ and ‘learner’. Interestingly, the different contexts of teacher education in China showed a divide between the views about identities of the teacher educator as ‘researcher’ or ‘scholar’. There is international significance for this finding in that research assessment exercises of universities that have teacher education provision in for example the UK and Australia reveal a growing divide between ‘academic’ education and ‘teacher’ education (Pollard 2014).

The final full paper, by Simone White from the University of Queensland in Australia, poses the simple question, ‘who is a teacher educator?’ The answer to which is of course far from simple. White presents a review of the literature on this professional group and engages in an analysis of Australian policy in an attempt to elucidate teacher educators’ professional identity, learning needs and career trajectories. Policy churn in that national context has revealed three main groups of teacher educator: university-based, school-based and community-based. The findings suggest that these groups together, although positioned differently in terms of research and policy, meet the needs for the supply and continuing education of a diverse workforce of teachers, equipping them to engage 21^st century school learners. Reflecting on these assertions, White makes recommendations for further research and practice, particularly into how these three groups might be productively collaborative in the learning-to-teach landscape.

In addition to these full papers described above, this issue of JET also contains three ‘In Practice’ and two ‘Research in Progress’ short papers, all from China. The first, from Huang Song and colleagues from Beijing addresses Chinese English teachers’ perceived dissatisfaction with the provision of their CPD by providing university-led opportunities for collaborative problem solving in reciprocal coaching circles. The second paper, by Yuan Chen and Jing Peng from Chongqing, describes and discusses a CPD scheme to support teachers of English as a Medium of Instruction (EMI) in Higher Education. The last ‘In Practice’ piece, by Lucas Kohnke and Andrew Jarvis from Hong Kong presents a report on a mentoring scheme aiming to enhance undergraduates’ English language skills, to enable an enhanced access to higher education curricula.

The first ‘Research in progress’ paper by Luis Miguel dos Santos from Macau SAR, describes a project investigating the experiences of eleven US mid-life career-changers into teaching, their motivations and engagement, with implications for both policy and practice in teacher education for this group.

It has been claimed that one characteristic of a teacher held in high regard by school pupils is humour, (Banas et al. 2011). In a move away from learning to teach towards more general learning by university students, the second ‘Research in Progress’ paper and the final contribution to this issue, by Alias Masek and colleagues from Malaysia, looks at undergraduate engineering students’ engagement with a lecture series in which humour was a significant feature. There is no doubting the power of humour to engage a learner, but perception of what is entertaining in this sense differs widely between individuals, as does the capability of teachers to be humorous. It could go badly wrong!

Engagement is the common thread through this issue: engagement of student teachers in learning to teach in the initial stages of their professional education, of teachers in higher education and of teacher educators in both curriculum development and practice.