Abstract
Through discursive analysis of narratives of practice, this study examines the tensions and opportunities that arise for teacher educators as a result of implementing a teaching performance assessment in an existing program of study. The introduction of the Graduate Teacher Performance Assessment (GTPA) and the requirements to ensure assessment fidelity disrupted our thinking, programmatic, curricular, and organisational structures. Drawing on the notion of collaborative professionalism, we analyse our implementation experiences and reflect on our professional learning in relation to the sites of practice (the university and partner schools) for our work and the risks of implementation. Moreover, we draw on nuanced notions of accountability to illuminate how we have reconceptualised and reimagined our work as teacher educators. Simultaneously, we assert our capacity as teacher educators to shape and steer decision-making in initial teacher education (ITE) in ways that respond to the needs of the communities our graduate teachers serve.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
Acknowledgment: The Graduate Teacher Performance Assessment (GTPA®) was created by the Institute for Learning Sciences and Teacher Education, Australian Catholic University, and has been implemented in a Collective of Higher Education Institutions in Australia (https://www.graduatetpa.com).
References
Adie, L. (2018). GTPA and a new model of shared accountability: Taking risks in collaborative professionalism in ITE. Australian Association for Research in Education (AARE) Conference: Education Research Matters: Impact and Engagement.
Adie, L., & Wyatt-Smith, C. (2020). Fidelity of summative performance assessment in initial teacher education: The intersection of standardisation and authenticity. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 48(3), 267–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2019.1606892.
Alexander, C., Fox, J., & Guttierrez, A. (2019). Conceptualising teacher professionalism. In A. Gutierrez, J. Fox & C. Alexander (Eds.), Professionalism and teacher education. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-7002-1_2.
Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL). (2011; revised 2018). Australian professional standards for teachers. https://www.aitsl.edu.au/teach/standards.
Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL). (2015; revised 2018, 2019). Accreditation of initial teacher education programs in Australia. https://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/default-source/national-policy-framework/accreditation-of-initial-teacher-education-programs-in-australia.pdf?sfvrsn=e87cff3c_28.
Ball, S. (1994). Education reform: A critical and post-structural approach. Open University Press.
Ball, S. J. (2003). The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), 215–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/0268093022000043065.
Biesta, G. (2017). Education, measurement and the professions: Reclaiming a space for democratic professionality in education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 49(4), 315–330. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2015.1048665.
Blackmore, J. (2010). Policy, practice and purpose in the field of education: A critical review. Critical Studies in Education, 51(1), 101–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508480903450257.
Bourke, T. (2019). The changing face of accreditation for initial teacher education programmes in Australia. In A. Gutierrez, J. Fox & C. Alexander (Eds.), Professionalism and teacher education. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-7002-1_2.
Charteris, J. (2019). Teaching performance assessment in the USA and Australia: Implications of the “bar exam for the profession”. International Journal of Comparative Education and Development, 21(4), 237–250. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCED-10-2018-0039.
Chase, S. (2018). Narrative inquiry: Toward theoretical and methodological maturity. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (pp. 546–560). SAGE Publications.
Cochran-Smith, M., Keefe, E. S., Carney, M. C., Burton, S., Chang, W.-C., Fernández, B., Miller, A., & Sánchez, J. G. (2018). Democratic accountability in teacher education: Now more than ever. Teacher Education and Practice, 31(2), 178–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2017.1385061.
Craven, G., Beswick, K., Fleming, J., Fletcher, T., Green, M., Jensen, B., Leinonen, E., & Rickards, F. (2014). Action now: Classroom ready teachers—Report of the Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group (TEMAG). Australian Government. https://docs.education.gov.au/documents/action-now-classroom-ready-teachers-report.
Dwyer, R., Willis, A., & Call, K. (2020). Teacher educators speaking up: Illuminating stories stifled by the iron-grip regulation of initial teacher education. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2020.1725809.
Fairclough, N. (2010). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language (2nd ed.). Pearson Education Limited.
Frank, A. (2012). Practicing dialogical narrative analysis. In J. Holstein & J. Gubirum (Eds.), Varieties of narrative analysis (pp. 33–52). Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781506335117.n3.
Hargreaves, A., & O’Connor, M. T. (2017). Collaborative professionalism. WISE: Qatar Foundation. https://www.wise-qatar.org/app/uploads/2019/04/rr.12.2017_boston.pdf.
Lillejord, S. (2020). From “unintelligent” to intelligent accountability. Journal of Educational Change, 21, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-020-09379-y.
MacGill, B. (2016). A paradigm shift in education: Pedagogy, standpoint and ethics of care. International Journal of Pedagogies & Learning, 11(3), 238–247. http://doi.org.elibrary.jcu.edu.au/10.1080/22040552.2016.1272531.
Rizvi, F., & Lingard, B. (2009). Globalizing education policy. Taylor & Francis Group. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/jcu/detail.action?docID=465373.
Rowe, E., & Skourdoumbis, A. (2019). Calling for ‘urgent national action to improve the quality of initial teacher education’: The reification of evidence and accountability in reform agendas. Journal of Education Policy, 34(1), 44–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2017.1410577.
Timperley, H., Ell, F., & Le Fevre, D. (2018). Developing adaptive expertise through professional learning communities. In A. Harris, M. Jones & J. B. Huffman (Eds.), Teachers leading educational reform (pp. 175–189). Routledge.
White, S. (2019). Teacher educators for new times? Redefining an important occupational group. Journal of Education for Teaching, 45(2), 200–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2018.1548174.
Wyatt-Smith, C. (2018). Graduate teacher performance assessment: An intervention project at the intersection of standards, professional knowledge and assessment. Australian Council for Educational Research. https://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1341&context=research_conference.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Doyle, T., Evans, N.S., Salter, P. (2021). Opportunities and Tensions in the Experiences of Collaborative Professionalism During the Enactment of the GTPA. In: Wyatt-Smith, C., Adie, L., Nuttall, J. (eds) Teaching Performance Assessments as a Cultural Disruptor in Initial Teacher Education. Teacher Education, Learning Innovation and Accountability. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-3705-6_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-3705-6_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-16-3704-9
Online ISBN: 978-981-16-3705-6
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)