Context of the study

There has never been a time in history when literacy skills are needed to the degree they are in the world today, yet the National Report Card scores appear to indicate that America’s schools are failing to equip students with essential literacy skills, (National Center for Education Statistics, 2019, 2022). Research has shown that in-service teachers are an important element impacting student outcomes, and investing in teacher education can improve student proficiency (Chetty et al., 2011; Du Four et al., 2021; Goodwin & Rouleau, 2023). To teach literacy effectively, in-service teachers need to be masters of literacy content, and knowledgeable about theory, practice, and pedagogy (Muhammad, 2020). Thus, an important factor contributing to students’ positive literacy outcomes is teacher literacy education (Clark et al., 2016; Eisner, 1992; Moeller, 2005; Stronge, 2018), especially for marginalized students (Muhammad, 2020).

Teaching in-service educators is different from teaching students in classrooms (Zeichner, 2005). To facilitate learning for in-service teachers, teacher literacy educators (TLEs) require content knowledge, as well as affective qualities like trust building, honesty, valuing teacher autonomy, reflection, and the courage to take risks (Loughran, 2006). Other than the above understandings for TLEs, there is no agreement internationally about the best pedagogy for TLEs to use to facilitate the learning of in-service teachers. Accordingly, further research in this area is needed (Swennen & Van der Klink, 2009).

One of the researchers in this study, Mona, is a TLE, working with in-service teachers at multiple schools across several large school districts in the American Midwest. She relies heavily on relationships, participant engagement, reflection, and literacy knowledge to facilitate in-service teacher literacy content. As part of Mona’s TLE practice, we understand the facilitation of literacy content to refer to whole group professional development presentations of literacy information for licensed, in-service teachers working in K-12 classrooms, and we use the terms “in-service teachers,” “teachers,” and “participants” interchangeably. Mona works daily with teacher literacy education. She has long employed self-study to improve her instructional practice. When the pandemic hit, it required rethinking her pedagogy, which developed over twenty-five years of classroom teaching experience. This paper describes the challenges faced and lessons learned as this practitioner-researcher crossed this pedagogical threshold.

Aim/Objectives

The need for quality literacy education took on greater urgency and complexity during the pandemic. What had worked with in-person teacher literacy education required significant adjustments to deliver in remote and/or hybrid instruction. Accordingly, Mona sought to explore her own practice through self-study, with the assistance of Kathleen, an in-service teacher and doctoral student in education. As Mona trained hundreds of in-service teachers in public, private, and charter schools, during the 2020-2021 school year, Mona employed self-study to answer the research question: How can I facilitate literacy content for in-service teachers in the context of the pandemic?

Creating a Safe Space for Discourse

In order to investigate the research question, the authors applied third space theory to create a safe, reflective environment for discourse on teacher literacy training and practices (Bhabha, 1994). Third space uses discussion to answer questions by placing the participants in an environment in which discourse is not socially and culturally constraining, but a productive place of reimagination for answering questions and bringing about positive change (see Figure 1) (Flessner, 2014; Hulme et al., 2009; Sawyer et al., 2016).

Figure 1

Homi Bhabha’s (1994) Third Space Representation

Kris Gutiérrez and colleagues (Gutiérrez et al.,1999) extended Bhabha’s (1994) third space theory to ascertain how students’ discourses can be used to scaffold learning (Moje et al., 2004), and this has been extended to in-service teacher education (Flessner, 2014). As shown in Figure 2, Mona’s funds of knowledge made up the first space and included Mona’s background, beliefs, and professional practices (Hogg, 2011; Moje et al., 2004). Funds of knowledge have been studied as sources of teacher knowledge that have value within curriculum and pedagogy and can contain new perspectives and provide additional understandings of practice (Qi & Mullen, 2022). The inclusion of funds of knowledge in our third space provided an opportunity to honor Mona’s unique experiences and skills. Second space was defined as the teaching space(s) for Mona’s professional development sessions. Third space was the virtual space in which Mona and Kathleen met to discuss and examine Mona’s TLE practice.

Figure 2

Representation of First, Second, and Third Space in This Study

Like many teachers, care was central to Mona’s practice. Nel Noddings (2003), the creator of care theory, suggests that “the one cared-for and the one-caring are reciprocally dependent” (p. 58). A teacher that cares-for their student is affectively moved by that student, as the teacher pays close attention to their needs and responds to them. Likewise, the student who is cared-for acknowledges the actions of the one-caring, the teacher. In this sense, care is reciprocal, involving deeply receptive attention between the one-caring and the cared-for. While the onus for care is on the teacher (the one-caring) if the student (the cared-for) fails to acknowledge the teacher’s care it creates a rupture which, if it persists, may result in serious consequences for the relationship (Noddings, 2003, 2012). In a student-teacher relationship such consequences might include disengagement, lethargy, or teacher burnout. This affective dimension of teaching matters not only for a TLE’s resilience and longevity in the TLE profession but also for student learning. Within care theory, teaching and learning are connected to an ongoing reciprocal cycle of care with learning as its by-product (Hinsdale, 2016; Noddings, 2012).

Methods

This inquiry utilized self-study methodology. Self-study allows the researcher to delve more deeply into the self-in-practice than is accessible through traditional, isolated reflection or statistically analyzing data (LaBoskey, 2004; Pinnegar & Hamilton, 2011). Consistent with prior research (Flessner, 2014), the authors paired self-study methodology with third space theory (Bhabha, 1994), which uses discussion to answer questions by placing the participants in an environment in which discourse is not socially and culturally constraining but a productive place of reimagination for answering questions and bringing about positive change (Flessner, 2014; Hulme et al., 2009; Sawyer et al., 2016). While self-study asks for transformation of researcher practice to occur and for findings to be disseminated, it expects these research actions to take place within a discoursal (i.e., third) space (Meidl, 2018). Accordingly, Kathleen served as the critical friend (Schuck & Russel, 2005), questioning and supporting Mona in her practice, through discourse in their third space.

Regular video conferences served as the authors’ Third Space, where Mona’s practice was discussed in depth and instructional materials were examined together. Data were collected about Mona’s practice through journaling, notes, virtual meeting recordings, electronic documents, and instructional materials (see Appendix A). Data were collected, coded, and analyzed between September 2020 and April 2021. We applied Saldaña’s (2016) codes-to-theory model to find emergent themes within the data through a process of initial, concept, and pattern coding. Additional measures were implemented to ensure trustworthiness including transparent use of data, coding and analysis; triangulation; and recursive discourse between critical friends (see Appendix B).

Outcomes

This study identified multiple emergent themes that impacted the facilitation of teacher literacy education in the context of remote instruction, key amongst which were TLE expertise and in-service teacher response. We present these findings in the sections below and then, discuss what these findings reveal about the role of care in Mona’s practice.

TLE Expertise: New Ways to Read the Room

Pre-Covid, when Mona delivered trainings in person, she relied heavily on visual and verbal cues from participants to assess acquisition of literacy content via eye contact, facial expressions, body language, non-verbal communication, and verbal conversations. Throughout her career, Mona had depended on her ability to read the room in person to conduct formative assessment. During Covid, however, remote instruction interrupted her ability to read the room. This left Mona questioning her expertise and reflecting on ways to improve her practice, including the elements TLEs need to facilitate literacy instruction (Muhammad, 2020): content knowledge (Loughran, 2006), being up-to-date on current research (Schmoker, 2021), flexibility (Boyd & Harris, 2010; Risko et al., 2008), and opportunities for rehearsal and participation (Payne, 2008; Schmoker, 2021). Reflecting with Kathleen helped Mona recognize specific impediments to facilitating content.

Specifically, the funds of knowledge which Mona had built teaching in-person were insufficient to navigate virtual instruction. Technology posed particular problems, both for TLE instruction and for in-service teacher practice. Not only did Mona have to learn how to facilitate her trainings using technology she had never even heard of before, but she was also expected to train teachers in their use. Further, the technology felt detached from the human element, especially when participants had their cameras and microphones off. Not only did Mona have to employ new technology, but she also needed to rediscover ways to connect with her participants, form relationships, and assess learning. Thus, Mona began to attend numerous online trainings to improve her virtual instruction.

During these virtual trainings, she noticed that she did not always enjoy participating or sharing responses in front of the group. Comparing these personal experiences with the in-service trainings she facilitated before the pandemic, Mona realized that there were noticeably different and more diverse forms of feedback than she had ever used. For example, a Google Form, Padlet, Pear Deck, Mentimeter, or Jamboard could be used to encourage multiple ways to participate and solicit public and/or private feedback in a virtual setting. In person, Mona had thought she was getting robust and accurate feedback from her participants by reading the room. However, as she reflected with Kathleen, Mona realized that “Not all learners are comfortable sharing with a large group” (April 2, 2021). Indeed, only a limited number of teachers had really ever shared; there were other voices in the room who often chose not to share in front of the group. Mona realized her methods for receiving feedback were not robust or equitable. She had been rigidly defining how to read the room, a choice that was more about her than those for whom she was facilitating literacy learning.

The intense and oftentimes uncomfortable study of Mona’s practice allowed her and Kathleen to see where Mona’s strengths were and where there was room for growth. “Hearing, understanding, then enacting what my participants need to access and engage in ways that suit them best is what I am wondering about. Can I do more when we get back to face-to-face to provide access points to information and opportunities for responding to all my adult learners?” (April 6, 2021). Through this work, she realized that reading the room through sight and sound was not the whole picture, “...seeing isn’t everything. It isn’t equitable. Not everyone wants to turn and talk to the person next to them. Not everyone wants to share with the group” (April 6, 2021).

Realizing this, Mona began to offer teachers alternate ways to engage in her trainings. She provided opportunities for quiet reflection and started to use platforms like Padlet and Jamboard that could be anonymous. She also invited private messaging in the chat. This gave participants the real-time opportunity to ask questions, provide feedback, and engage in ways that were completely private. In-service teachers responded positively to these changes in Mona’s practice. For example, during one training, a participant private-messaged Mona to affirm that the content being presented was valuable and transferable to the authentic context of their classroom. As Mona developed her expertise in virtual instruction, she became a more flexible, responsive practitioner. Moving forward, she realized there was more than one way to read the room.

In-Service Teacher Response

Just as TLE expertise is central to effective instruction, our data revealed that the dispositions of in-service teachers attending Mona’s trainings also played a key role in instruction. Specifically, participants’ level of engagement in and receptivity to trainings impacted Mona’s instruction.

Reading the room pre-pandemic, Mona connected with in-service teachers via eye contact and through conversations intended to connect, unify, and subsequently form a TLE/in-service teacher relationship, the kind of pedagogical relationships which some scholars have suggested are essential for learning (Stengel, 2004). Remote instruction, though, deprived Mona of the in-the-moment visual and verbal feedback, which she had come to depend on throughout her career. As she observed in one journal entry, “Feeling like I am not cut out for this. Feedback was good, but hardly any participant interaction. I felt like I was just doing all the talking” (January 11, 2021), an experience that left her full of self-doubt.

This was exacerbated by barriers to participation created by technology use. For example, teachers regularly chose to keep their cameras off and microphones muted throughout trainings, creating a veritable wall, blocking Mona from audio-visual cues. And, when Mona adapted her instruction to incorporate new technologies, like Jamboad, to allow written and drawn participation, she found many in-service teachers were not “tech savvy enough for it- even with instruction from my end” (January 11, 2021). Despite these frustrations, Mona continued troubleshooting ways to connect with in-service teachers. She imagined what participants looked like to better teach them, and she sent affirmations to them verbally and in writing throughout virtual presentations, gradually letting go of her expectation that there be relational reciprocity as she had once experienced it.

By letting go of her need to see and hear participants to form relationships with them, she found openings to connect in new ways. Mona began to tell participants to “feel free to engage in the training today as you are able” (16 April 2021). Chat conversations, exit tickets, and follow-up emails provided her with new types of formative feedback that informed her practice, while also affirming that relationships were indeed formed–even though they took on a new appearance in this virtual environment. Further, these new forms of data helped her discern factors that might be at play behind the screens when in-service teachers were not able to fully engage in her sessions.

Reading the (virtual) room for cues about the culture, climate, and technological comfort within different teacher education trainings showed vast differences in the engagement of participants. During some trainings, participants were engaged in active questioning and responding, “This group is really engaged and motivated, and it puts them at another level for receiving information” (February 5, 2021). However, this was not the case for all participants. Within a few moments of trying to launch Jamboard with one group, a private message came through in the chat that the participants were not proficient in using that platform. So Mona changed her facilitation, transitioning immediately to participating in the chat. This experience reminded her that even in a pandemic, simplicity and clarity in teaching have a powerful impact on learning (Fisher et al., 2016). Yet, technology was not the only factor impacting teacher engagement.

Oftentimes, organizational factors, like teacher-administration relationships, time constraints, or administrative planning processes, impacted the culture and climate of the schools with which Mona worked. While the relationship-building with participants happened during instructional time, the foundation for instruction began when school administrators reached out to Mona’s organization to request training. This could begin weeks or months of preparation, where Mona would learn about teacher learning needs, meet with school leaders, and design TLE content tailored to a school’s needs. If teachers and administrators did not have a good working relationship, however, the quality of her preparation was impacted, as was the receptivity of in-service teachers to the TLE trainings. The novel demands of teaching during Covid often created stress on these teacher-administrator relationships, which were made evident to Mona through emails, meetings, and scheduling changes prior to TLE facilitation. Accordingly, when participants were not engaged in training activities or expressed struggles with difficult circumstances occurring within their institutions, she initially tried to compensate for these institutional issues by investing unstainable amounts of time in planning lessons that were poorly received. Only through reflection in our third space did Mona begin to realize that teacher-administrator relationships, though they impacted her participants’ response to her instruction, were beyond her control. By differentiating between factors within her control and those beyond it, she was able to create healthier boundaries and dedicate energy more explicitly to those pedagogical practices over which she had control.

Discussion: Recognizing Care Within TLE

As noted above, more than simply a mode of in-the-moment formative assessment, Mona entered the pandemic with the well-established practice of using visual and verbal cues from in-person instruction to build and nurture relationships with her in-service teacher participants. Importantly though, she did not recognize, at first, that this practice was functioning as more than just a formative assessment. Only through conversation in our Third Space did the practice of care emerge as a topic of conversation. After reviewing a presentation slide deck that Mona initially delivered in September 2020, Kathleen wrote,

curious to see you lead the whole session with the idea of “support.” Did your feedback bear out that sentiment was received? It reminds me of Nel Noddings Care Theory. She posits, among other things, that care is reciprocal and must be acknowledged by the cared-for” (January 5, 2021).

This was the first time that care theory was identified as a meaningful heuristic for understanding the challenge of teaching during the pandemic.

Analysis of our data revealed that both Mona’s TLE practice and the effects of her practice on her emotional life showed signs of care. Regarding the former, Mona repeatedly built into her lessons discussion of “teacher support,” and she reported on one-on-one coaching sessions with teachers and teacher-coaches with deep concern for their personal wellbeing and professional success. In short, Mona was engrossed in her participants’ lives, a key characteristic of caring-for. Further, when lessons did not go well, and/or the preparation she put into lessons was disproportionate to the impact of her lessons on participants, she was deeply troubled and began to express signs of emotional burnout. This, we’ve noted above, is an indicator of disruption in the caring-relationship. Such disruption makes sense within the Covid context because Mona was deprived of the traditional means by which she understood her students acknowledged her caring-for them, including eye contact, verbal responses, smiles or frowns, visual evidence of note-taking, and/or heads nodding. Absent these visual and verbal cues, she felt unmoored. Until Mona identified and adopted new ways to build and strengthen relationships with her students, allowing new modes of reciprocal affect to pass between them, she persisted in this unhealthy state, which she described as feeling “overwhelmed,” “incompetent,” and unbalanced and led to “lost sleep.”

One step in revitalizing Mona’s practice was to understand more clearly how care operated in her practice. Analysis of our data revealed that each student-teacher relationship, though distinct, was built through cyclical iterations of four elements: relationships, listening, thinking, and responding (see Appendix C). Further, we understand relationship functioned as both a core element and a product of this process. Mona sought relationships with in-service teachers and deepened those relationships through listening to them, thinking about their feedback, and responding to what they shared with her. We imagine these four elements as a cycle of care (see Figure 3), and we suggest this is consistent with care theory (Noddings, 1984), generally, and its extensions (Valenzuela, 1999).

Figure 3

Cycle of Care Framework

The utility of this model is that it allowed us to identify more precisely where disruption was happening in the care cycle and what that disruption actually was. This, in turn, allowed Mona to implement more constructive responses through her teaching practice. For example, Kathleen and Mona wondered: When in-service teachers don’t respond to a question in a session, is it really apathy, or are participants not responding because they are uncomfortable responding in a large group; overwhelmed with stress; or affected by something else? Questions such as these led Mona to consider the ethical implications of TLE practice and, ultimately, redesign how she solicits feedback, in order to be more equitable. Further, she realized that in order to set boundaries for herself, she needed to differentiate between what is and is not within her control in the learning environment, and to do so, she needs to better understand how policies and politics that influence her facilitation (Cuenca, 2019). By doing so, she could respond to her students more effectively and deepen the relationships she has with them. That is, by understanding her context of instruction more deeply, she could better care for herself and, as a result, better care for her participants.

Conclusions

This work endeavored to answer the question: How can teacher literacy education be facilitated for in-service teachers in the context of the pandemic? We identified multiple emergent themes that impacted the facilitation of teacher literacy education, in the context of remote and hybrid instruction during the pandemic: Teacher literacy educator expertise and in-service teacher learning. Care was later identified as an analytical heuristic, and a care framework was put forward to help visualize our data.

This study indicated that TLE expertise--including content knowledge, delivery, and reflexive practice--had the potential to enhance teacher literacy education. Covid led to unique teaching and learning conditions, namely remote and hybrid instruction, in which veteran teaching practices were no longer possible. Mona responded by learning as much as she could to support her evolving practice, including literacy and technological content as well as analysis of herself as a participant in trainings to better imagine the experiences of her in-service teachers. These processes reconnected her with the understanding that good facilitation is clear and simple, and good facilitators have flexibility, within healthy boundaries. Mona also worked to become more equitable and fair in her requests for feedback from in-service teachers, releasing her need for audio-visual cues to confirm participant engagement.

Our findings further showed in-service teachers themselves affected the facilitation of content through their relationship with the TLE and their engagement in the literacy trainings. As the study progressed, Mona noted that both relationships and engagement looked different for each participant, and visual and verbal cues were not essential for formative assessment. Through reflection in our virtual third space, Mona became more proficient at discerning what forces were at play behind the screens affecting relationships and engagement. She also became more adept at connecting with participants and discerning levels of engagement in remote and hybrid modes of instruction.

Using care theory for our analysis, we realized Mona’s struggles with TLE during Covid were linked directly to her dependence on audio-visual cues, a dependence which she had been habituated to during decades of in-person classroom instruction. These struggles were both effective and affective in nature. That is, Mona had used audio-visual cues for in-the-moment formative assessments during in-person instruction, and they contributed to Mona’s experience of care, by which “the contributions of the cared-for [students] sustain [the one-caring] in [their] attempts to care” (Noddings, 2003, p. xxii). The absence of such cues made remote instruction, initially, feel unsustainable. However, re-envisioning informal formative assessment for remote instruction reinvigorated her experience of care and confidence in her instruction.

The novel instructional context of Covid revealed that, for Mona, reading the room encompasses more than just the in-the-moment assessment of what’s happening within content delivery. It involves reading the room more wholly and equitably through a cycle of care-inspired lens. By examining Mona’s practice in our third space, she was better able to understand and facilitate content during the pandemic to be more responsive to her in-service teachers, empowering her to re-engage in caring student-teacher relationships.

References

Bhabha, H., K. (1994). The Location of Culture. New York: Routledge.

Boyd, P. & K. Harris. (2010). Becoming a University Lecturer in Teacher Education: Expert School Teachers Reconstructing Their Pedagogy and Identity. Professional Development in Education, 36(1–2), 9–24.

Chetty, R., Friedman, J. N., & Rockoff, J. E. (2011). The long term impacts of teachers: Teacher value-added and student outcomes in adulthood. Retrieved from https://www.nber.org/papers/w17699

Clark, P., Zygmunt, E., & Howard, T. (2016). Why Race and Culture Matter in Schools, and Why We Need to Get This Right: A Conversation with Dr. Tyrone Howard. The Teacher Educator, 51(4), 268–276. https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730.2016.1210414

Cuenca, A. (2019). Deploying warrants, producing policy: A self-study of teacher education policy discussions. Studying Teacher Education, 15(3), 278-295. https://doi.org/10.1080/17425964.2019.1628014

Eisner, E. (1992). The reality of reform. English Leadership Quarterly, 14(3), 2-5. 

Fisher, D., Frey, N., Hattie, J. (2016). Visible Learning for Literacy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Flessner, R. (2014). Revisiting reflection: Utilizing third spaces in teacher education. The Educational Forum, 78, 231-247.

Goodwin, B., Rouleau, K. (2023). The new classroom instruction that works. Arlington, VA: ASCD.

Gutiérrez, K. D., Baquedano-López, P., Alvarez, H., & Chiu, M. M. (1999). Building a culture of collaboration through hybrid language practices. Theory into Practice, 38(87-93).

Hinsdale, M. (2016). Relational Pedagogy. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education. Retrieved 27 Dec. 2021, from https://oxfordre.com/education/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.001.0001/acrefore%209780190264093-e-28

Hogg, L. (2011). Funds of knowledge: An investigation of coherence within the literature. Teaching and teacher education, 27 (3), 666-677.

Hulme, R., Cracknell, D., & Owens, A. (2009). Learning in third spaces: Developing trans professional understanding through practitioner enquiry. Educational Action Research, 17(4), 537-550.

LaBoskey, V. K. (2004). The methodology of self-study and its theoretical underpinnings. In J.J. Loughran, L. Hamilton, V. K. La Bosley, & T. L. Russell (Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 817-870). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Loughran, J. (2006). Developing a pedagogy of teacher education: Understanding teaching and learning about teaching. New York: Routledge.

Meidl, C. (2018). My journey as a teacher educator. In Ritter, J. K., Lunenberg, M., Pithouse Morgan, K., Samaras, & A. P., Vanassche, E. (Eds.), Teaching, learning, and enacting self study methodology (pp. 63-68), Singapore, Springer.

Moeller, A. K. (2005). Optimizing Student Success: Focused Curriculum, Meaningful Assessment, and Effective Instruction. Central states conference on the teaching of foreign languages report, 77-84.

Moje, E. B., Ciechanowski, K. M., Kramer, K., Ellis L., Carrillo, R., & Collazo, T. (2004). Working toward third space in content area literacy: An examination of everyday funds of knowledge and discourse. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(1), 38-70.

Muhammad, G. (2020). Cultivating Genius. Broadway, New York: Scholastic. 

National Center for Education Statistics (2019). Thirty-five percent of fourth-graders at or above N AEP Proficient lower compared to 2017. Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading/nation/achievement/?grade=4

National Center for Education Statistics (2022). Scores decline in NAEP reading at grades 4 and 8 compared to 2019. Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/highlights/reading/2022/

Noddings, N. (1984). Caring: An educational approach to ethics and moral education. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Noddings, N. (2003). Caring: A relational approach to ethics & moral education (Second Edition, Updated ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press.

Noddings, N. (2012). The caring relation in teaching. Oxford Review of Education, 38(6), 71-781, DOI: 10.1080/03054985.2012.745047

Payne, C. M. (2008). So much reform, so little change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press

Pinnegar, S., & Hamilton, M. L. (2011). Self-study inquiry practices: Introduction to self-study inquiry practices and scholarly activities. In S. Schonmann (Ed.), Key concepts in theatre/drama education (pp. 345-352). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.

Qi, J., & Mullen, K. (2022, September 19). Community languages teachers’ funds of knowledge: domains, meta-awareness and transferability. Taylor and Francis Online. Retrieved December 28, 2022, from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1080/13670050.2022.2119834?scroll=top&needAccess=true&role=tab

Risko, V., Roller, C., Cummins, C., Bean, R., Block, C., Anders, P. & Flood, J. (2008). A critical analysis of research on reading teacher education. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(3), 252– 288.

Saldaña, J. (2016). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Thousand Oaks: Sage. 

Sawyer, R. D., Neel, M., & Coulter, M. (2016). At the crossroads of clinical practice and teacher leadership: A changing paradigm for professional practice. International Journal of Teacher Leadership, 7(1), 17-36.

Schmoker, M. (2021). The Obvious Path to Better Professional Development. Educational Leadership, 78(8), 65-69.

Schuck, S., & Russell, T. (2005). Self-study, critical friendship, and the complexities of teacher education. Studying Teacher Education, 1, 107-121.

Stengel, B. S. (2004). Knowing is response-able relation. In C. Bingham & A. M. Sidorkin (Eds.), No education without relation (pp. 139–152). New York: Peter Lang.

Stronge, J. H. (2018). Qualities of Effective Teachers. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Swennen, A. & Van der Klink, M. (2009). Becoming a teacher educator: Theory and practice for teacher educators. Dordrecht: Springer Academic Publishers.

Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive schooling: U.S.-Mexican youth and the politics of caring. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Zeichner, K. (2005). Becoming a teacher educator: a personal perspective. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 117–124.

Appendix A

Data Collection

Appendix B

Coding and Trustworthiness

Appendix C:

Cycle of Care Framework