Thefindings identified an unanticipated contradiction with the ECTE program—
while the program’s early childhood pedagogy is based on student-centered, cul-
turally relevant, hands-on activities, and ways of accommodating to diverse needs
of students. This model was not visible in the ways in which the program expected
candidates to adhere to state standards for demonstration of teacher competencies.
As indicated in the analysis, thefield-based team (re)formulated, and provided a
rationale for what counted as appropriate ways of planning and teaming. However,
the university-supervisory program did not adjust to their rationale and continued to
use standards to assess teacher competencies that conflicted with thefield place-
ment’s standards for instructing third graders.
Although Amy and Brad did not complete requirements according to the
university-supervisory program, they both met the graduating teacher competen-
cies. The following year both secured elementary teaching positions. Brad who is
teaching near the ECTE Program has returned to the program to share his experi-
ences as a practicing teacher and what he learned from the program.
The unanticipatedfindings of the impact of competing policies contributed to a
decision within the program leadership to (1) focus more on student learning and
not just teacher performance, (2) rethink program requirements for lesson-planning
to further align with the languaculture of thefield-based placement, and (3) rethink
supervisory practices that support teacher-candidate(s) as being part of a
school-based team with their mentor-teacher. These unanticipatedfindings were
influenced by the insider–outsider ethnography team by creating a reflexive stance
for further in-depth analysis. Green, as the outsider, was able to make visible from
the archive of data, in this case email trails, the roots and routes taken by the actors
between the languacultures that were not visible from only an insider perspective.
In summary, this insider–outsider approach is critical for teacher education pro-
grams as they continue addressing the challenges of preparing competent teachers
for Twenty-First Century Learning.
References
Agar, M. (1994).Language shock: Understanding the culture of conversation(pp. 140–163). New
York, NY: Wm. Morrow.
Agar, M. (2006). Culture. Can you take it anywhere?International Journal of Qualitative
Methods, 5(2), 1–12. Retrieved fromhttp://www.ualberta.ca/*iiqm/backissue/5_2PDF/agar.
pdf
Avalos, B. (2011). Teacher professional development in teaching and teacher education over ten
years.Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 10 – 20.
Bakhtin, M. (1986).Speech genres and other late essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Bloome, D., Carter, S. P., Otto, S., & Shuart-Faris, N. (2005).Discourse analysis and the study of
language and literacy events: A microethnographic perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Bloome, D., & Egan-Roberston, A. (1993). The social construction of intertextuality in classroom
reading and writing lessons.Reading Research Quarterly, 28(4), 304–333.
250 L. Katz and J. Green