The positioning of quality and expertise in initial teacher education
Policy enactment in the Australian context
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 21522426 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Mary Ryan (0000-0001-8395-6953, Australian Catholic University, corresponding author), Penny Van Bergen (0000-0001-9542-812X, University of Wollongong), R M ADLINGTON (0000-0001-8696-2347, University of New England), Olivia Maurice (0000-0002-4540-9868, Western Sydney University) |
| Year | 2025 |
| Volume | 52 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 1997-2020 |
| Publication date | 2025-07-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | The Australian Educational Researcher (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0311-6999 • E-ISSN: 2210-5328 |
| Publisher | Springer Science and Business Media LLC (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1007/s13384-024-00796-z |
| OpenAlex | W4406339167 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 30 |
Teacher quality and teacher education improvement have been central discourses for at least two decades in global education. In Australia, despite the pervasive nature of these discussions, there is a lack of substantial evidence indicating the existence of a problem in this regard. Policies aimed at enhancing the ‘preparedness’ of teacher graduates and elevating the ‘quality’ of ITE programs have nonetheless emerged as prevalent solutions over the past decade. The latest enactment of reforms in the policy chain is the Strong Beginnings report from the Teacher Education Expert Panel. In this paper, we align with Ball’s perspective that policy should be viewed as a dynamic process rather than a presumed, ready-made solution to a problem. We utilise systematic conceptual coding using Leximancer to enable a nuanced exploration of the understandings, practices, and conditions of influence for the policy actors inscribed in the TEEP report. We also analyse concept frequency and collocation in the final Strong Beginnings report, noting two main propositions: first, that there is a problem with quality in ITE; and second, that practice is foregrounded in professionalisation. We highlight the consistencies and contradictions within the discourses of the final report and the submissions from policy actors that contributed to this policy enactment process. We suggest that evidence is used when it suits a policy position, but ignored if it disrupts the platform position. We conclude by arguing that the policy actors in this policy enactment process should be afforded the professional authority to continue a well-established process of continual improvement
Business · Epistemology · Knowledge management · Medical education · Pedagogy · Political science · Public relations · Sociology · Teacher Quality · Computer Science · Education Systems and Policy · Higher Education Learning Practices · History · Medicine · Teacher Education and Assessments · Marketing
Teachers Matter
Evaluation of unsupervised semantic mapping of natural language with Leximancer concept mapping
Perceptions of a prescription model for accessing nicotine vaping products
How is impact defined in initial teacher education policy in Australia
The quality conundrum in initial teacher education
‘Quality and consequence’
Understanding Consumer Conversations Around Ads in a Web 2.0 World
The discursive positioning of graduating teachers in accreditation of teacher education programs
Dynamics of preservice teacher quality
Initial teacher education
A new political economy of teacher development
Mediating ‘School Direct’
Policy reform
Evaluating Prospective Teachers
It Is Complicated
What is policy? 21 years later
| Citation velocity | historical |
|---|---|
| Highly cited | No |