Embracing Institutional Authority: The Emerging Identity of a Novice Teacher Educator

Abstract

This self-study explores the emerging identity of a first-time teacher educator using a framework that views identity as natural, institutional, discursive, and affinity. This framework provided an opportunity to unpack empirically how these various strands of identity intersected within the classroom of a novice teacher educator. Situated in the context of an elementary social studies methods classroom, this study reveals various struggles with the institutional authority of being a teacher educator. Issues such as how preservice teachers perceive a novice teacher educator, the acknowledgment of lack of experience, and the process of negotiating institutionalized and systemic power within the classroom are discussed. Because this study also featured a mentor professor as a critical friend, the implications of self-study work and mentoring first-time teacher educators are also featured in the discussion section. Considering the importance of identity in shaping the practice of new teachers, this self-study reveals the importance of further complicating the emerging and evolving identities of new teacher educators.

Keywords::

• first-time teacher educator
• identity development
• critical friend
• mentoring

The importance of identity in the professional development of teachers has been well established. As Hammerness, Darling-Hammond, and Bransford (2005) suggest, “developing an identity as a teacher is an important part of securing teachers' commitment to their work and adherence to professional norms of practice” (p. 383). Although many teacher education programs have deliberately focused on the development of different kinds of teaching identities (Zeichner & Conklin, 2005), we generally know very little about the identity development of teacher educators. Often, factors such as the assumption that teacher education is self-evident work (Zeichner, 2005), the low status of teacher education within institutions of higher education (Labaree, 2003), and the generally unclear distinction between what it means to be a teacher and what it means to be a teacher educator (Swennen, Volman, & van Essen, 2008) have contributed to the limited research about teacher educator identities.

In particular, we know very little about the development of the identities of new teacher educators. As in teaching generally, the identities of teacher educators help shape their dispositions and commitments to certain norms within a teacher education program. If we assume that the overall experience of a teacher education program is intimately tied to the ways in which teacher educators enact these dispositions, then identity development should be of critical concern. Also, because new teacher educators are often thrust into their positions with little training or support (Tom, 1997; Zeichner, 2005), they generally have little time to sufficiently consider the difficulties of becoming a teacher educator. In other words, a prevalent route into the work of teacher education is to require individuals to develop a new professional identity while engaging in the act of the practice for the first time (Ritter, 2007). Given the general ambiguity of what it means to be a teacher educator, a significant challenge emerges for first-time teacher educators who are faced with reconciling the unfamiliarity of their position, the discomfort of redefining their identities, and the demands of preparing successful teachers.

Based on the need to further explore the identities of novice teacher educators, this self-study examines the experience of a graduate student (Joe) charged with teaching prospective teachers for the first time. Like many other novice teacher educators (Cuenca, 2010; Dinkelman, Margolis, & Sikkenga, 2006a; Ritter, 2007), Joe became a teacher educator by being asked to teach preservice teachers by his institution, in this case, his mentor professor (Alex). In this study, Joe systematically explores the emergence of his identity as a teacher educator. Drawing on the work of Gee (2000), who defines identity as being recognized as a “certain kind of person in a given context” (p. 100), this self-study was guided by the following research question: How does identity of a first-time teacher educator emerge? Given the limited body of knowledge concerning the identities of novice teacher educators, it is our belief that this study can contribute to the conversation regarding how new teacher educators develop their identities and also to the ways in which programs can support these developing identities.

We begin by exploring the current literature on the experiences and challenges of novice teacher educators. Next, we provide some background about the context where this study took place. Then, relying on Gee's (2000) understanding of identity as an analytic lens, we explore how various aspects of Joe's identity intersected during his first semester as a teacher educator. Finally, the implications of this intersection for other first-time teacher educators are explored. Considering the importance of identity in shaping the practice of new teachers, this self-study helps to reveal the importance of further complicating the emerging and evolving identities of new teacher educators.

The Emerging Literature on Becoming a Teacher Educator

Although limited, research about becoming a teacher educator has provided powerful insights into this process. In particular, Williams, Ritter, and Bullock (2012) have recently shed light on a series of complex and challenging tasks required to become a teacher educator: (1) the reexamination of prior identities, (2) navigating the institutional contexts in which teacher educators work, and (3) constructing a new professional identity as a teacher educator. Our review draws on this framework and briefly explores these themes and their implications.

Entangled Identities

A common trend in the literature on teacher educators involves chronicling the reevaluation of one's professional identity. Because so many teacher educators are previously practicing teachers, many researchers discuss the tendency to view oneself as a teacher and not as a teacher educator. Thus many beginning teacher educators enter their new roles with strong identities as K–12 teachers. At least initially, these identities are likely to shape and guide their pedagogical decisions as teacher educators. Relying on past experiences in the classroom to guide their work in the university setting, beginning teacher educators struggle to redefine their professional identity; perhaps more accurately, they struggle with resituating their professional identity (Boyd & Harris, 2010; Carrillo & Baguley, 2011; Dinkelman et al., 2006a, 2006b; McKeon & Harrison, 2010; Murray & Male, 2005; Swennen, Shagrir, & Cooper, 2009; Wood & Borg, 2010).

Thus the question emerges: To what extent should K–12 teaching inform one's teacher education pedagogy? Following this tension, it seems many novice teacher educators wrestle with their self-perceived levels of competence and authority in their new roles. Williams et al. (2012) state that, “maintaining a teacher identity is very important because many beginning teacher educators perceived this as part of their professional credibility in the eyes of pre-service teachers and mentor teachers in schools” (p. 248). Reiterating this feeling, Loughran (2005) points out that “a beginning teacher educator who has been a successful school teacher may feel an overwhelming need to offer recent and relevant experiences of teaching to student teachers so that what they are doing (their teaching) will appear meaningful and relevant” (p. 8). However, Loughran argues that this “tips and tricks” approach is problematic to teacher education, potentially reinforcing the notion that teaching is only about tips and tricks, or keeping students entertained through the learning process (pp. 8–9). Many new teacher educators have articulated their reliance on their K–12 teaching experiences, seeing this identity as the root of their authority or credibility in their new role (Dinkelman et al., 2006a, 2006b; McKeon & Harrison, 2010; Murray & Male, 2005; Ritter, 2006, 2007; Williams, 2008). The challenge then is how to use classroom experiences to inform, rather than dictate, an emerging teacher educator pedagogy. As Dinkelman et al. (2006a) note, there are associated “waves of self-doubt” (p. 18). With this insecurity, the desire to maintain confidence and credibility seems to push many beginning teacher educators to rely on their own classroom experiences, rather than crafting a new professional identity. However, as Boyd and Harris (2010) point out, clinging to one's identity as a K–12 teacher risks conservatism in teacher education. While these identities are not mutually exclusive, it is important to recognize that these professional identities are not the same – and thus require a reconsideration of identity.

Pressures of Academia

Amidst the challenges of redefining one's professional identity, the literature reveals another tension – academic enculturation. While becoming teacher educators, many novices express confusion and disillusionment in the new world of academia. As Loughran summarizes, beginning teacher educators “experience unanticipated changes and the demands of their role may initially cause them to struggle with the expectations of university culture” (2005, p. 8). Dinkelman et al. (2006a) reveal the multiple demands that graduate-student teacher-educators are expected to meet, namely, teaching, supervising student teachers, and building rapport with practicum schools and cooperating teachers. In addition to the workload, beginning teacher educators are expected to situate themselves within the institutional political and power structures (Guilfoyle, 1995). Typically with little or no support, beginning teacher educators (both graduate students and new faculty) struggle with the pressure to research and publish, especially when pursuing tenure (Donnell, 2010; Gallagher, Griffin, Parker, Kitchen, & Figg, 2011; Guilfoyle, 1995; Harrison & McKeon, 2010; Kitchen, 2008; Murray & Male, 2005).

In many competitive, research-driven institutions, new teacher educators struggle to shape their new identities as academics. Arguably, the emergence of self-study literature provides a forum to alleviate this tension, particularly collaborative self-studies. Through the self-study process, beginning teacher educators can fulfill particular research pressures and externalize the aforementioned shift in professional identities, while also reconciling the feelings of loneliness and isolations felt by many (Dinkelman et al., 2006a, 2006b; Guilfoyle, 1995; Harrison & McKeon, 2010; Knowles & Coles, 1994; Murray & Male, 2005). New teacher educators are then provided with a space to name, analyze, and interpret the experiences of their new role. In essence, self-study is an opportunity to compensate for the lack of formal induction programs or processes for beginning teacher educators.

Situated Learning

Because there is typically minimal guidance or formal induction, learning to teach teachers is often a process of learning by doing. Many novice teacher educators discuss the experience of figuring out how to teach teachers, the process of developing their pedagogy as teacher educators, and the trial-and-error approach of becoming a teacher educator. Learning while in practice is intimately connected to the previously discussed discomfort of developing a new professional identity and the challenges many face as they are immersed into academia. As noted, the tendency of many novice teacher educators is to rely on their previously developed pedagogy as K–12 teachers. Zeichner and Conklin (2005) have revealed the importance of a structured curriculum in teacher education. Additionally, Loughran (2006) examines the importance of a pedagogy of teacher education. With that said, it is vital that teacher educators construct and enact a personal pedagogy, yet this process typically seems to take place while teaching teachers, not before. Thus, the tensions and struggles first-time teacher educators face – in regards to their emerging professional identity and conflicts in academia – are embodied in their practice. The disconnects between a new teacher educator's K–12 pedagogy and the expectations of the university-based teacher education program often establish a difficult environment in which to define and evolve one's practice (Berry, 2007; Donnell, 2010; Harrison & McKeon, 2010; Murray & Male, 2005). The challenge then is to create spaces for new teacher educators to evaluate and reevaluate their emerging pedagogy of teacher education, identifying and examining the factors that influence the development of one's personal pedagogy (Bullock, 2007; Kitchen, 2005a, 2005b; Ritter, 2009).

The literature identified above works to contextualize and situate this study within the emerging dialog in the self-study community regarding the act of becoming a teacher educator. In essence, this self-study not only builds on these studies, but also serves to engage them in conversation. Although the issues and tensions that Joe faced as a first-time teacher educator resonated with this literature in many ways, in other significant ways this study sheds light on other nuances in the identity development of a novice teacher educator. By engaging in this dialog, this self-study serves to help the accumulation of knowledge (Zeichner, 2007) regarding this important phase in the development of teacher educators.

Context and Methodology

At the time of the study, I (Joe) was a 23-year-old graduate assistant working on a master's degree in curriculum and instruction in the education department at Saint Louis University. I moved into this position directly after graduating from the secondary social studies teacher education program at the University of Georgia. Upon admission to Saint Louis University, I was assigned to Alex (co-author), a first-year assistant professor of social studies education. Alex and I had a history together; he was a graduate assistant at my undergraduate institution and asked me upon graduation to work as his graduate assistant at his new institution. In my first year, I was responsible for shadowing Alex as he taught courses in elementary and secondary methods of social studies education. During that first year, I usually observed Alex teaching the course, graded certain assignments, occasionally worked with small groups, and conducted observations during the fieldwork component of the methods courses. Throughout the academic year, Alex and I would meet after class to discuss salient issues, circumstances, and situations. We often discussed circumstantial dilemmas of practice that arose within these courses. At the conclusion of the first year, Alex asked me to teach my own section of Methods of Elementary Social Studies (EDI 307) as part of my graduate assistantship.

Although I was happy to take on a new assignment, I also experienced significant feelings of doubt during the intervening summer months. As noted previously, I moved directly into graduate studies after my undergraduate teacher education program. Thus my only real experience in a classroom was as a student teacher in a secondary history classroom. While I learned many things about teaching and learning in my undergraduate program, I felt that student teaching was not enough preparation to teach teachers; even that limited experience was in a secondary classroom, leaving me with little experience for guiding prospective elementary teachers. Even shadowing Alex for one year seemed like an insufficient training. Nevertheless, I spent the summer looking over other elementary social studies methods syllabi that Alex and others shared with me. I tried to construct as best I could a framework for the course that I felt engaged powerful social studies themes such as awareness of community, social justice, and equity, while also providing some context about the nature of the various disciplines that constitute social studies in the elementary curriculum. In the fall 2012 semester, 17 elementary preservice teachers – 16 females and 1 male – were enrolled in my methods course, and in this first context of practice, elements of my initial identity as a teacher educator began to take shape.

Self-Study Methodology

As intentional and systematic inquiries into practice, self-studies are capable of surfacing the complexity and tacit understandings of teacher education (Berry & Loughran, 2005; Dinkelman, 2003; Hamilton & Pinnegar, 1998). This study relied on self-study methodology to develop a deeper understanding of Joe's emerging identity as a first-time teacher educator. As Sfard and Prusak (2005) suggest, identity is ultimately composed of a set of reifying, significant, endorsable stories about a person. Because self-study provides a way to surface the narrative nature of knowing about one's self, this methodology fits the purposes of our inquiry. However, beyond the capacity of self-study research to reveal a teacher educator's way of being, we strategically used self-study to advance our personal and professional selves as teacher educators. Entering this study, we believed that the self-study methods of focused inquiry, deep reflection, and dialog would provide insights that would help us critically consider and reframe our work as teacher educators.

Data Sources

Three forms of data were collected for this study. The main data sources for this study were six hour-long conversations (every other week throughout the semester) with Alex, who served as a critical friend (Schuck & Russell, 2005) during the self-study. As LaBoskey (2004) notes, teacher knowledge is best “understood, transformed, constructed, and articulated … in collaboration with others” (p. 826). Moreover, because self-study research relies on dialog to surface understandings (Hamilton & Pinnegar, 2013), Alex's role as a critical friend was important in framing and reframing classroom situations, asking questions about intentions, rationales, and motivations throughout the semester, and serving as a sounding board for reflection. These conversations were audio-recorded and transcribed. A second source of data involved reflective journals that served to capture Joe's weekly thoughts after teaching each course. In total, Joe wrote 12 journal entries consisting of approximately 14,000 words during the semester, and these covered a range of topics including encounters with students, challenges faced during instruction, and personal reminders for future practice. The third form of data involved documents related to the course, such as the syllabus, handouts, and evaluations of practice. Taken together, these data helped develop a situated understanding of the intersection of practice and initial identity for a first-time teacher educator.

Data Analysis

The term identity has many meanings and interpretations in the research literature on teaching and teacher education. For this study, we relied on Gee's (2000) conceptualization of identity as “being recognized as a ‘certain kind of person' in a given context” (p. 100). According to Gee, there are four ways to understand identity: who we are by nature (Nature, N-identity), who we are based on the positions we occupy in society (Institutional, I-identity), who we are based on how others recognize us (Discourse, D-identity), and who we are because of the affinities we share with others (Affinity, A-identity). According to Gee, the nature perspective or N-identity is a state of being over which the individual has no control, such as being a twin or being female or male. The discursive perspective or D-identity focuses on an individual trait or characteristic recognized through the discourse or dialog. The affinity perspective or A-identity refers to an identity shaped by an affinity group. Gee uses the example of “trekkies” – those who share an allegiance or participation in Star Trek. Finally, the institutional perspective or I-identity refers to components of one's identity authorized by an institution. While this four-part conceptualization may seem straightforward, Gee (2000) also recognizes that these four perspectives are not independent of each other (p. 101). Alternatively, they are likened to strands of one's identity – “all present and woven together as a given person acts in a given context” (p. 101). In other words, these four perspectives focus on different aspects of one's identity, revealing which strand or strands of one's identity predominate in various contexts.

Because the primary aim of this study was to unpack the relationship between Joe's identity as a first-time teacher educator and his practice, Gee's framework provided a set of a priori understandings to apply to the data. As two teacher educators sharing a goal of better understanding the identities of novice teacher educators, we conducted our analysis collaboratively to ensure that the process was trustworthy (Loughran & Northfield, 1998). We began data analysis by exploring how the elements of the conversations, journals, and course documents fit into Gee's conceptualization of the four strands of identity. We looked for ways in which Joe's natural traits (N), individual traits recognized by others (D), mutual affinities (A), and institutionalized authority (I) were enacted during practice and in his analysis of practice. Iteratively working between Gee's understanding and the data, we separated the various phrases, words, and jottings in our data within these four conceptualizations, paying close attention to how Joe's identity was shaped by both the things he mentioned and those that he did not mention.

As we engaged in the first round of coding, we were confronted by the difficulty we faced in parsing an I-identity from the other various strands that Gee describes. A closer look at the data revealed that, across the personal data collected in conversations and journals, a constant tension occurred with the I-identity because Joe felt underprepared to teach undergraduate students. This tension seemed to manifest itself across the data. While the title of teacher educator was now an identity that was institutionally authorized (e.g., Joe's name was on the course syllabus, and he was recognized as the instructor of record), the attributes that Joe believed this I-identity required in teacher education, such as practical classroom experience, disciplinary knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, were all attributes that he felt he did not possess despite having this institutional authority. As a result of the dissonance that emerged through this first round of data analysis, we decided to reframe our analytical scheme to explore this tension more explicitly.

In our second round of data analysis, we searched not for independent instances of the different strands of Joe's identity, but instead for how his I-identity intersected with the other strands of his identity as a first-time teacher educator. We tried to surface how his feelings of inadequacy with the I-identity influenced how he wanted students to perceive him (D-identity), what kinds of affinities he wanted to create with his students (A-identity), and how he negotiated his natural characteristics (N-identity) (see Table 1). We looked at the data compiled within each of these groupings and searched for commonalities that helped identify an emergent theme, configuration, and salience within each intersection (Saldana, 2009). In the next section, Joe discusses in first-person narrative the insights that were produced as a result of this analysis.

Table 1 Gee's four ways to view identity.

Identity strand	Description	Study
Discursive-identity (D-identity)	A trait recognized in the discourse or dialog of individuals	Being laid-back and easygoing
Affinity-identity (A-identity)	Experiences shared in the practice of an “affinity group”	Being a preservice teacher
Nature-identity (N-identity)	A state developed from forces in nature	Being a 23-year-old male
Institution-identity (I-identity)	A position authorized by authorities within an institution	Being the course instructor

Insights from the Data

Being Seen as Laid-Back (Institution and Discursive Identities)

Stemming from the dissonance between my own identity and what I believed was required to successfully enact the I-identity, our analysis revealed that I worked to construct a desired D-identity throughout the semester. Because I felt too young and inexperienced to embody my perception of the I-identity, I explicitly worked to “keep the course fun” (Journal, 16 August 2012). Feeling insecure in my abilities and credibility, I became intentional about establishing a university classroom that was laid-back and fun – working to avoid having to claim the authority I associated with being the course instructor. In other words, I was working to minimize my tension with the I-identity by intentionally creating a classroom community that was not authoritative. Because I was having difficulty embracing my new I-identity, I prioritized shaping my work as a teacher educator around a discourse of being a fun, laid-back, and easygoing instructor. I explained the first class period:

I want it to be a laid-back class. I want the students to enjoy it. On the first day of class I had set the desks in a circle and had music playing as they walked into the room … A group was giving out free food outside and a couple of students were late on account of the food. Wanting to be laid-back, I encouraged anyone who wanted to run out to grab some food … One of the girls in the class was like, “This is my favorite class already.” So, to an extent there is a pressure to live up to that. (Critical Friend Conversation Transcript, 17 September 2012)

From the beginning, I acknowledged the potentially limiting nature of this discourse in the context of being an instructor. While I had shaped this identity myself, I immediately debated the impact this identity would have on my role as instructor. I noted that I was thinking my class was, “a fun little club, where we are chatting it up, where they all totally agree with everything I am saying – yet I am totally forgetting the fact that they may be looking at me as having some kind of authority” (Critical Friend Conversation Transcript, 17 September 2012). As a result, throughout the semester I wondered at what point my desire to be viewed as laid-back was problematic for the students in the class: “Is it a disservice if I am not stepping up and claiming the authority associated with being a university instructor? Or is that acceptable?” (Critical Friend Conversation Transcript, 17 September 2012).

To challenge this tension, the mid-semester evaluations revealed that most students appreciated my D-identity. For example, one student wrote:

He is the best professor. Joe is a super cool guy. I love that he jokes around with us. I still learn a lot, but with his attitude and demeanor, I feel like I am learning from a peer, rather than a teacher (which is a good thing). (Evaluation, 1 October 2012)

Similarly, another student said, “I really like how the class is relaxed, but we are learning a lot at the same time. Joe's very chill and down-to-earth attitude makes class really enjoyable” (Evaluation, 30 September 2012).

Nevertheless, by the end of the semester, a similar tension still existed. While I was still viewed in a similar lens – being laid-back and easygoing – I debated what that meant for the learning that occurred or was made possible in that space. In many cases, I was uncomfortable asserting myself – feeling it was in opposition to how I was seen by my students. In other words, “I didn't want to be overly harsh” (Critical Friend Conversation Transcript, 26 November 2012). Similarly, when students produced work that did not align with my expectations, I wrote that “my rapport with them proved to outweigh any potential consequences” (Journal, 1 November 2012). Ultimately, I saw things in these terms:

I think I built a rapport with them to a point where we were comfortable with each other, but I think it almost added a particular set of pressures to then fit within that box of how they had identified me … I had this assumption that they had been like, “Oh, Joe – he is laid-back, fun, and he is not strict about a lot of things. He just wants us to have a good experience” … So I felt a weird pressure that this relationship needed to stay the same … I had to maintain who they thought they were talking to. (Critical Friend Conversation Transcript, 26 November 2012)

This pressure to abide by these preestablished expectations – albeit self-created – influenced how I chose and was thus able to enact my I-identity. To counter this discourse I felt would be detrimental to the learning environment. Ultimately, I wrestled with whether this discourse was limiting and thus equally detrimental to the learning made possible throughout the semesters.

A Preservice Teacher, Just Like You (Institution and Affinity Identities)

As mentioned, there was an apparent feeling that I, like my students, lacked necessary teaching experience; thus my shared A-identity emerged. Although I felt I was not far removed from being an undergraduate myself, I still viewed myself as a preservice teacher. Consequently, this shared identity with my undergraduate preservice teachers strongly influenced my instructional decisions. One of these decisions involved shifting the course from the traditional methods focus to prioritizing general dialogs on social studies. To validate this shift, I continually pointed to my inexperience, explicitly stating that “I feel like I do not have the experiences or understanding to develop an undergraduate methods course” (Journal, 16 August 2012). Later, when explaining this shift, I said:

I think I was wrestling with the idea of methods versus a more general rationale for social studies. So, when designing the course, I decided to promote critical thinking about social studies rather than something that explicitly focuses on methods. I think, honestly, the tension came down to not feeling like I had enough experiences to teach a methods course, yet I felt a little bit more confident focusing on social studies in general and structuring it around dialogs about social studies. (Critical Friend Conversation Transcript, 17 September 2012)

Additionally, reinforcing my internalized A-identity, I continually relied on my own experiences as an undergraduate student. Having graduated from a traditional teacher education program, and feeling I lacked experience to construct the course, this study revealed that I often wanted to recreate experiences I most enjoyed as an undergraduate.

As I navigated my role as the instructor through the semester, my shared identity as a preservice teacher (A-identity) influenced many of the decisions made in class, particularly in terms of replicating experiences and conceptualizations I had been exposed to as an undergraduate student. In the design of the course, I was informed by my own positive, beneficial experiences studying education. Building off the aforementioned D-identity, my initial desire for a laid-back course with class discussions emerged, “because that was my experience, and I really liked that. I like that it wasn't stuffy and that we were talking about things that were relevant” (Critical Friend Conversation Transcript, 17 September 2012). In both my construction and enactment of the course, I was often thinking like an education student, never having to negotiate and think about the position and moves of the teachers of those courses. Instead, I wanted to emulate those experiences or even regurgitate lessons I had learned. For example, when discussing how to address problematic statements that pertain to race, class, gender, or sexual orientation in the classroom, “I mentioned things I had been told by my own instructors, saying things like, ‘Things that go unchallenged in your classroom, you are ultimately supporting'” (Critical Friend Conversation Transcript, 24 September 2012). Similarly, I felt my own experiences in teacher education had pushed me to think like a teacher rather than as a student. I noted that I was working to push “them to think like teachers and to think about the methods that are going on instead of passively just going through the class” (Critical Friend Conversation Transcript, 24 September 2012).

As a result of replicating my own experiences, I often unconsciously positioned myself as a fellow student rather than as the instructor of the course. In this way, my A-identity and my I-identity were at odds with each other. Throughout the semester, I engaged the class in various discussions that often pushed students to defend and think through their own rationales and pedagogical philosophies. In one particular lesson, I noted that I “felt like I was a part of the activity, and so I was more inclined to act like a student – sharing my own opinions and views” (Journal, 27 September 2012). I had failed to acknowledge the power associated with the I-identity, ignoring the ways in which my authority in that space was at play. Reflecting on the exchanges in that lesson, I stated:

At one point, one of my female students snapped back at me. I can't remember exactly what she said, because it didn't faze me at all. It was something that could probably be considered disrespectful to say to your instructor, but I didn't care at all. But several students had this noticeable reaction – did she really just shoot him down, kind of thing. I noticed their reactions, but the exchange hadn't fazed me. In that moment, I found it interesting that they were so shocked that she challenged me. I thought that was the point of the activity – we're trying to persuade each other. (Critical Friend Conversation Transcript, 1 October 2012)

With further reflection, I realized that I had failed to fully recognize the dynamic of teacher–student. As I replicated activities that had been worthwhile for me as an undergraduate, I was in many ways unknowingly continuing my role as student. As such, this study revealed that my I-identity was strongly shaped and limited by our shared A-identity as preservice teachers and students of education.

The Authority of Being a Young Male (Institution and Nature Identities)

In many ways, my N-identity went unacknowledged throughout the study. The reflection journal rarely accounted for how my identity as a male was at play in the construction of the course. When it was noted, it was often in connection to my age. As such, my gendered identity appears to have been treated as a non-issue as I worked to construct the course.

With that said, the component of my N-identity that dominated my pre-enactment thinking was the perceived proximity of my age to the age of traditional undergraduates. While designing the course, I wrote that “I do not want to take myself too seriously. I view myself as a peer – both young and inexperienced. As such I do not want to act like I am above [my undergraduate students]” (Journal, 16 August 2012). The approximately two-year difference between my students and myself became a source of insecurity as I attempted to define who I was as a teacher educator in the days leading up to my assignment.

Turning then to the enactment of the N-identity – being a 23-year-old male – the data revealed that my male identity was rarely acknowledged. Like my pre-enactment journals, my focus during the semester was targeted more on my age rather than on my maleness. I remained insecure about how close in age I was to my students. However, in many ways, it seems the focus on my age was a product of my preoccupation with both my D- and A-identities. Feeling there was little relative age difference was intimately connected to my desire to be laid-back, enhancing my existing personality traits as I interacted with “peers.” Additionally, feeling I was still a preservice teacher was tied to both my lack of experience and my age. While I was aware of – and admittedly insecure about – my age, I remained focused primarily on my D- and A-identities.

Furthermore, the assumed irrelevance of my gender to the role of course instructor was reinforced during the semester. For example, after a lesson on gender issues in society and women in history – or more accurately women's traditional absence from history curricula – any thoughts on advocating for women as a male before a class of women were minimal (Critical Friend Conversation Transcript, 24 September 2012). The underlying message then is that, although gendered structures may be at play, any impact is tangential to the role of a university instructor.

The absence of data focusing on my identity as a male – the N-identity – is problematic. My identity as a male carries the most societal weight – the value assigned to my gender outweighs any perceived value given to being laid-back, lacking experience, or being 23 years old. To be clear, unearned power is often overlooked, for it is difficult to be continually aware of the ways such power is at play. However, elementary education is highly genderized. Statistically, the field of elementary education consists predominantly of females, while university instructors tend to be male. Following this trend, I was a male teaching mainly females.

Returning to Gee's framework, my identity as a 23-year-old male probably influenced how I acted and how I was perceived in the classroom, yet I failed to fully acknowledge what it meant to be a young, male teacher educator in that space. The way age and gender intersected with my role as teacher educator was important to explore and consider. Yet I often overlooked how my age and gender moved and influenced the classroom experiences. For example, when examining how teachers deal with tragedy in the elementary classroom, I unintentionally brought up a recent tragedy one of my students had a personal connection to. Unknowingly, I had brought up an emotional moment in her life. During the discussion, I noticed her walking out of the room crying. In the moment I was unsure how to respond, but I felt extremely guilty for having stirred such emotions (Journal, 27 September 2012). Even when talking about the class period later, my dialog was focused on my A-identity, feeling that I lacked the necessary experience to teach my class how to successfully deal with tragedy as evidenced by my own inability to successfully respond to the tragedy in my own classroom, as well as on my D-identity, feeling that this student's clear emotions were detrimental to the desired laid-back, easygoing classroom environment I was pursuing (Critical Friend Conversation Transcript, 1 October 2012). At one point, I left the room to find her, meeting her in the hallway as she was preparing to reenter the classroom. I apologized and briefly talked with her. However, throughout the exchange I failed to acknowledge how my being a 23-year-old male influenced that exchange or even the way this student felt as a result of my identity.

Discussion

Joe's Perspective: Identity and novice teacher educators

As Gee (2000) acknowledges, identity strands are not mutually exclusive; rather, they are interconnected and interwoven, influencing the way each strand is enacted, perceived, and validated. As such, this study largely explores the relationship between each strand and the I-identity: being a laid-back instructor, being a preservice teacher instructor, and being a young male instructor. However, there are just as substantial relationships between the D-, A-, and N-identities. As briefly noted, my desire to be laid-back was equally informed by being a 23-year-old male teaching a class of 21-year-old females. These connections are important to consider in the context of this study. As such, while my own experiences are limited by my own identity strands, the interplay of these facets for any first-time teacher educator's identity is worth exploring and negotiating.

Given this interplay, it is worth noting that much of the data focused on my desired D-identity and my shared A-identity. As I wrestled with who I was as an instructor, I continually thought about how I wanted to be viewed by my students, contextualized within and limited by my own experiences in a teacher education program. As a result of this focus, I seemed unable or unwilling to fully and substantially explore my position of power in that space. My preoccupation with my D- and A-identities thus became limiting and problematic. As Gee notes, the I-identity derives power and authority from the institution. My focus on my D- and A-identities reveals a desire to undermine and shirk this institutional authority and power. However, the power still existed – I was still the instructor. In short, the D- and A-identities appear to have been tangential to the negotiations of power associated with my I-identity. I allowed these facets of my identity to shape this position as instructor, yet this position carries authority and power no matter how I wanted to enact it. Conversely, the genderized nature of elementary education proved to be insufficiently considered in the development of my identity as a first-time teacher educator, yet was most likely at play in that space. So, in order to better understand the way power is yielded in the university classroom – both consciously and unconsciously – deliberate considerations of all of one's identity strands must be made, further complicating what it means to be a teacher educator.

Ultimately, throughout this study I realized I was extremely insecure about this new I-identity. I felt unqualified to teach teachers; I was insecure about my own inexperience in the K–12 classroom. I worked to compensate for this insecurity by enhancing my laid-back, easygoing nature while, in a way, recreating my own experiences in a teacher education program. I felt I lacked the necessary credibility to do anything else. Additionally, while I had shadowed Alex in similar courses, I was given no formal training. Aside from occasionally grading assignments or working with small groups, I had little insight into what went into each lesson or the rationale behind various moves and decisions he made in the classroom. As such, this insecurity and inexperience loomed as I developed and enacted my own course.

By the end of the semester, I noted that my insecurity was seemingly rooted in my inexperience with elementary-aged students. Having been a student teacher in a high school setting, my conceptualization of teaching is primarily centered on a secondary student. Tasked with teaching an elementary education course, I felt extremely unqualified and I even noted that, “I don't know if having more secondary experience would help me feel more comfortable with teaching this course again” (Critical Friend Conversation Transcript, 26 November 2012). I think this tension is interesting and important to consider as I move forward. Traditionally, those who teach elementary social studies courses have a background in secondary social studies. While I lacked the formal teaching experience first-time teacher educators usually possess, they too often lack experience in the elementary classroom. The assumption, then, is that in order to successfully enact the I-identity, any experience is sufficient. While I think my inexperience heightened my insecurities as a first-time teacher educator, I am not sure the insecurities are unique to my experience. As a result, it seems my conceptualization of what is required to be a teacher educator was problematized. To be clear, I do feel practical experience enhances the insights and credibility of teacher educators. However, I feel that, even with vast experience in a high school classroom, I would have felt similar tensions and insecurities teaching an elementary methods course.

Given the genderized nature of elementary education, I think it is important to consider the impact that gender may have on my experiences in the elementary classroom. As a male – even assuming I had vast elementary experience – my experiences might dramatically differ from the experiences of my female students. Thus, as a male, I would not fully understand or relate to the experience of teaching as a female in an elementary classroom. In this way, the impact of gender is vital, particularly in the elementary classroom and requiring much more consideration than I allowed.

As I engaged in self-study to explore my development as a first-time teacher educator, I came to realize that my insecurities and negotiations were often irrational, thus prompting me to poorly prioritize and focus my negotiations during the semester. It seems that, regardless of my inexperience, I would have likely maintained a laid-back persona while also relying on my own positive experiences of my own teacher education program. Now, as I move forward, it is important to focus on the ways my natural identities – my age and my maleness – influence and shape the university classroom. Additionally, I need to renegotiate the insecurities themselves. Instead of trying to compensate or alleviate the tensions associated with my insecurities, I might be better served by embracing these strands of my identity in order to become increasingly cognizant of the ways my age, my maleness, my personality, and my affinities move in and influence the university classroom and my pedagogy of teacher education – not how to reshape those identities in order to be a more confident teacher educator. While looking back on the semester, I said:

I think the process of becoming a teacher educator is about figuring out how to teach so that you can feel comfortable with what you've accomplished. I don't know if I'll ever reach that point, but – I don't know. I don't think being a teacher educator is about feeling confident, but rather about feeling comfortable with the end result. (Critical Friend Conversation Transcript, 26 October 2012)

Given my own insecurities, I am not able to say I am confident I accomplished all I sought to do that semester. Yet I am comfortable with the space I created. I feel my laid-back personality afforded me a rapport with the students to engage in worthwhile, relevant dialogs. I feel my experiences in my own teacher education program enhanced and supported the learning I hoped to promote. And I am comfortable saying I was continually striving to be the best teacher educator I could be – wanting to create positive learning experiences for my students. Nevertheless, further exploration of my emergent pedagogy of teacher education and my professional development is vital.

Alex's Perspectives: Identity and novice teacher educator mentors

Although the focus of this study was on Joe's identity as a first-time teacher educator, as a critical friend, I learned a great deal about novice teacher educator identity in the process. In fact, this study placed me in a paradoxical position. As a very junior faculty member, I was keenly aware of my own challenges of becoming a teacher educator. In fact, my own self-study work as a graduate student featured a call to be more deliberate about the induction of new teacher educators (Cuenca, 2010). A few years later, I placed my own graduate student in a similar position. Although I attempted to mediate some of the challenges I faced as a novice teacher educator by providing Joe with a year to shadow my courses, this study helped me realize that this was still not enough. What this study revealed to me is that more needs to be done during the initial induction experiences to help novice teacher educators sort through the social and emotional influences that are working to shape their identities. As other self-studies have revealed, spaces dedicated to “talking shop” about the complex work of teaching teachers provide an opportunity for the development of teacher educator identities (Kosnik et al., 2011). Unfortunately, beyond the conversations related to the self-study, there was nowhere else for Joe to turn in our program. There were no structures in place for our graduate students to engage others regarding the identity issues that were complicating Joe's pedagogy in his teacher education classroom.

Moreover, Joe's study revealed to me that while self-study is a helpful tool in providing systematic opportunities for analysis during an initial teacher education experience, these conversations are also limited by the power dynamics that circulate within a mentor–mentee relationship. I have no doubt that there were spaces in our critical conversations where Joe held back or was apprehensive to address fully his classroom experiences. After all, despite our friendship and our shared belief in the power of reflection as a tool to generate knowledge, I was still his mentor professor and he was still my student. Although I deliberately tried to distance myself from any evaluative stance during our conversations, Joe was, in essence, performing for me too. While I believe Joe was honest during all of our critical conversations, a more equal power dynamic within the critical friendship could have helped him sort through a different set of influences that were challenging to discuss because of the imbalance created by our positioning. This is not to say that Joe lacked any agency or power within the relationship, but it is important to keep in mind that, as a novice develops her or his identity, it is important to be aware of the ways in which power circulates within the spaces where the novice is developing an identity. Critical reflection groups that consist of different power equivalencies may yield more holistic opportunities for a novice to develop distinct aspects of their emerging identities.

Beyond the need to provide critical spaces for novice teacher educator identity development, learning about the strands of Joe's identity development afforded me the opportunity to gain some valuable insights as I move forward in mentoring future novice teacher educators. One powerful lesson from this experience was the strong influence of – borrowing a term from Lortie (1976) – the apprenticeship of teacher education in the life of a young teacher educator. While much of the research indicates the significant influence of K–12 experiences in determining the choices of novice teacher educators, this self-study pointed to the strong influence of replicating teacher education classrooms. While Joe's limited K–12 experience certainly contributed to the unusually strong influence of his own teacher education experiences on his pedagogy, attempting to surface how a teacher educator's own teacher education influences her or his identity is going to be an important element of my mentoring practices.

Another important point that this self-study made clear for me was the necessity to engage the issue of gender more explicitly in my mentoring practices. Although Joe critiqued himself during this self-study for not challenging the ways in which his natural identity as a young male played a role, in part this was also a failing on my part as a critical friend. Having taught this course previously with a similar gender composition, I was aware of some of the dynamics that tend to complicate practice in the course. Yet I failed to bring up critical questions regarding this crucial dimension of practice and the development of an identity as a novice teacher educator. My future mentoring practice must more actively and explicitly pursue this strand of the identity of my future teacher education mentees.

Finally, what this self-study accentuated for my own practice as a mentor was the burden of institutional authority. As Joe mentioned, with the responsibility of being the instructor of record came the institutional authority of that identity. In my work mentoring Joe, I vastly underestimated the effects of this authority. Beyond a suggestion here or there between his assignment and the start of the course, I provided little guidance regarding the conceptualization of the course (e.g., syllabus, course structure, course assignments). Seemingly, I placed all my energy on helping him develop his new identity in practice, neglecting to help him become more comfortable with the initial responsibilities required by this position of authority. Joe's study revealed that the burden of institutional authority reverberated throughout his practice. As such, my mentoring practice can improve by paying more attention to the initial gravity of such a responsibility. Perhaps more careful attention in the future can lighten the burden of institutional authority.

Conclusion

The experience of being a first-time teacher educator is complex and nuanced, driven by the need to shape a new professional identity, balance the difficulties of academic pressures, and navigate this transition through learning by doing. Shaping a new professional identity is challenging in light of the competing demands of being a teacher educator. Despite these demands, the lack of attention given to this identity development is problematic. The importance of this study is apparent in its contribution to our limited knowledge of the professional identity development of first-time teacher educators.

The common assumption appears to be that teacher educators possess the skills and competencies required to teach preservice teachers successfully, particularly if one has experience in the K–12 classroom. This study suggests that, with or without considerable experience in the K–12 classroom, the first-time teacher educator must prioritize and become intentional about exploring his or her identity development. This involves challenging conceptualizations of what it means to be a teacher educator and the insecurities associated with this new identity, and working to better understand how the authority of the teacher educator is yielded, reinforced, and negotiated in the university classroom. Joe's experiences revealed that his preoccupation with students' perceptions of who he was as a teacher and as an individual prevented any substantial consideration of the kind of teacher educator he wanted to be. This poor prioritization also reveals another complexity of becoming a teacher educator. Given the insecurities often tied to this new space, it is important to dedicate spaces to consider and negotiate the pedagogical and professional development of first-time teacher educators.

Dinkelman et al. (2006a) spoke of “waves of self-doubt” (p. 18), feelings of insecurity that often promote the desire to maintain confidence and credibility by relying on one's own classroom experiences, rather than crafting a new professional identity in teacher education. Furthermore, these waves of self-doubt can be crippling in nature, limiting the impact of teacher education. The experience of first-time teacher educators is often a sink-or-swim scenario in which they are forced to learn by doing. Given feelings of self-doubt and the potential ineffectiveness that could result, this process of learning by doing often does not foster a needed sense of community.

In order to enhance the possibilities of teacher education, we believe that an emphasis on community should be promoted. Joe was not able to fully anticipate and process the experience and his identity development. While this self-study functioned to push his thinking and criticality throughout the semester, he was also relatively isolated in his teaching. However, first-time teacher educators (and arguably veteran teacher educators) should be surrounded by like-minded individuals who function as both critical friends and a supportive community. Being paired with peers who are also navigating transitions into teacher education – with similarly limited experiences – may counter some of the waves of self-doubt and insecurity. One's identity development should not occur in isolation, but rather through communication and collaboration. A sense of community should be fostered to help alleviate and analyze the tensions of first-time teacher educators.

Acknowledgements

We thank the two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions.