Teaching and Teacher Education 75 (2018) 83e92

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

How do teacher educators use professional standards in their

practice?
Terri Bourke a, *, Mary Ryan b, Paul Ould c
a
Faculty of Education, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia
b
Faculty of Human Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia
c
Office of Education Research, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia

h i g h l i g h t s

Discourse analysis was used to examine teacher educator practices around standards.

Teachers used standards developmentally but also in a compliant fashion.

A more productive approach to the use of standards is required.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In many countries, the professional standards agenda in education continues to colonize teacher prep-
Received 21 November 2017 aration through accreditation processes. This study investigates the lived experiences of teacher edu-
Received in revised form cators working within this increasingly accredited environment. Discourse analytic techniques
27 May 2018
determine the dominant discourses experienced by teacher educators regarding standards in their
Accepted 10 June 2018
practice. These discourses are cross-analyzed with the relevant accreditation document and academic
literature around standards. Findings reveal that teacher educators use standards developmentally but
more predominantly in a compliant fashion with a degree of resistance. The authors recommend more
Keywords:
Accreditation
productive uses of standards to enhance the quality of teacher education practices.
Discourse analysis © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Teacher education
Standards

1. Introduction 2013; Vanassche & Kelchtermans, 2014), empirical research on

Internationally, many governments and regulatory bodies seek
to ensure the consistent preparation, readiness, and performance of
teachers through accreditation policies and associated professional
standards implementation. Whilst the commodification of educa-
tion has been reported at length, as well as the effect on teachers,
schools, and classrooms ([Author 1], 2011; [Author 1], [Author 2], &
[Colleague], 2012; Clarke & Moore, 2013; Darling-Hammond, 2001;
Ingvarson, 2010; Marrongelle, Sztajn, & Smith, 2013; Ní Chro
inín,
Tormey, & O'Sullivan, 2012; Polikoff, 2013; Taubman, 2009), less
is documented on the impact on teacher educators (Solbrekke &
Sugrue, 2014). Indeed, according to many commentators (Davey,
* Corresponding author. Queensland University of Technology, Victoria Park
Road, Kelvin Grove QLD 4059, Australia.
E-mail addresses: theresa.bourke@qut.edu.au (T. Bourke), mary.ryan@mq.edu.au
(M. Ryan), p.ould@hdr.qut.edu.au (P. Ould).
those who teach teachers is scarce, often described as a poorly
understood occupational group who have been overlooked
(Murray & Male, 2005; Zeichner, 2006). With limited research in
tertiary education specifically around teacher educators and their
responses to accreditation/standards, further investigation in this
terrain is paramount.
The location for this study is Australia, a country that is
following the rest of the world, particularly America, in its educa-
tional reforms related to the “twin banners” of standards and
accountability (Taubman, 2009). After revisiting standards dis-
courses in the academic literature, the limited research around
accreditation/standards in teacher education is outlined before the
contemporary Australian standards context is briefly discussed.
Then, the methodological framework explicates how Foucauldian
archaeological analysis ([Author 1 & Colleague, 2014]) is used as a
template to examine teacher educators' practices in one university
regarding standards. The resulting discourses are cross-analyzed

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.06.005
0742-051X/© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
84 T. Bourke et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 75 (2018) 83e92
with discourses from the accreditation document at the time of
interview and then examined in the light of the academic literature.
The paper concludes with recommendations for a more productive
approach to the use of professional standards by teacher educators.
2. Developmental versus regulatory standards
The academic literature around standards has been reported at
length elsewhere so will be summarized here in the interests of
space. Over many years, various nomenclatures have been used for
professional standards, but most academics agree on two schools of
thought on how professional standards are viewed e a develop-
mental discourse and a regulatory discourse to borrow the termi-
nology from Mahony and Hextall (2000). These are summarized in
Table 1.
The lexical linking across the developmental discourse is that
these standards are developed by teachers and for teachers
(Darling-Hammond, 2001; Mahony & Hextall, 2000; Sachs, 2003),
what Mayer, Mitchell, Macdonald, and Bell (2005) have called
standards for teaching. They are owned and overseen from within
the profession and purport to improve the quality of teaching
through professional learning opportunities so teachers can
become more effective across their careers. Inadvertently, it is
hoped that better teachers will improve student outcomes (stan-
dards for quality improvements (Sachs, 2003)). Sachs (2003), in the
Australian context, advocated an autonomous professional teach-
ing group interested in improving effective teaching practices and
focusing on longer term gains for the profession. Other influential
commentators agreed with her point of view, including Darling-
Hammond (2001), and Flowers and Hancock (2003). For example,
Flowers and Hancock (2003) maintain that developmental stan-
dards are a powerful vehicle for professional development and a
good framework defining good practice.
On the contrary, regulatory standards (Mahony & Hextall,
2000) discourses are reported to remove autonomy and limit di-
versity of practice. Imposed by governments through accredita-
tion, certification, or registration processes, they focus on the
technical demands of teaching, and emphasize quality assurance
rather than quality delivery to improve quality outcomes. It may
be fair to assume that quality assurance would improve quality
teaching and student outcomes, but this may not be the case as
these types of standards according to Sachs (2003) merely focus
on accountability to the public. Sachs' (2003) other standards
discourses (see Table 1) include commonsense standards and
standards for certification or control which she maintains are both
regulatory. Commonsense standards as benchmarks of minimum
levels of achievement prescribe what teachers should know and
be able to do, and are usually used for teacher licensure (standards
for certification or control). Mayer et al. (2005) refer to these as
standards for accountability or standards for teachers. They are
not about quality teaching per se, but rather teacher control
mechanisms, standardizing in a high surveillance environment
and breeding compliance (Sachs, 2003). This academic literature
is useful for conveying the different messages about how stan-
dards have been viewed temporally. More recent studies on
Table 1
Discourses of professional standards in the academic literature.
Developmental standards

Developmental standards (Mahony & Hextall, 2000)

Standards for quality improvement (Sachs, 2003)

Standards for professional learning or Standards for teaching (Mayer et al.,
2005)
professional standards globally, rather than identifying types or
discourses of standards, are more concerned with arguing for a
degree of caution about their implementation ([Author 1], 2011;
[Author 1], [Author 2], & [Colleague], 2012; Clarke & Moore, 2013;
Ní Chro
inín et al., 2012; Tang, Cheng, & So, 2006). However,
regardless of how standards are viewed, their promulgation and
implementation continues both in schools and, more importantly
here, accreditation in teacher education. The overarching research
question for this study, therefore, is: how do teacher educators use
professional standards in their practice?
3. Positioning teacher educators in the accreditation/
standards agenda
Little attention has been paid to research about teacher educa-
tors and how they enact their professional practice (Vanassche &
Kelchtermans, 2014), or as Cochran-Smith (2005) has pointed out,
quite often teacher educator research on themselves is not taken
seriously or ignored. A decade ago, Murray, Nuttall, and Mitchell
(2007) surveyed the Australian teacher educator academic litera-
ture, revealing research on topics such as pre-service teachers'
knowledge and attitudes towards disciplines such as maths and ICT,
reflective practice, and practicum-related research, but very little
about teacher educators themselves.
More recently, studies around teacher educator identity have
entered the academic literature, and in 2011 a special issue of the
Journal of Education for Teaching was devoted to teacher educators'
identities from various countries including the USA, Norway,
Pakistan, UK, Australia, and Canada. These studies focused on, for
example, teacher educators' accidental pathways into academia
(Mayer, Mitchell, Santoro, & White, 2011), academic subtribes
(Menter, 2011; Murray, Gzerniawski, & Barber, 2011), and balancing
research and teaching as external forces (such as standards) inter-
vene (Dinkelman, 2011). However, teacher education policy has
become “front and centre of a nation's productivity agenda” (White,
2016, p. 252). Therefore, it is timely to investigate what research has
taken place around standards/accreditation policies and processes
at the university level.
In a quantitative study of 370 Serbian teachers and teacher ed-
ucators, Pantic and Wubbels (2010) examined teacher educators'
perceptions of competencies. They defined competence as inclusive
of knowledge and understanding, skills, abilities, beliefs, and values
and found four distinct perceptions of teacher expertise, namely:
values and child-rearing; an understanding of system re-
quirements; subject knowledge, pedagogy, and curriculum; and
self-evaluation and professional development, with the latter being
the most important. Broadly speaking, these respondents were
positive about the competence base for teacher education and
welcomed participating in formulating the definition. This positive
response was echoed in Holland where Koster and Dengerink
(2008) analyzed the use of standards by teacher educators. As
these teacher educators were involved in the development of the
Dutch standards they had powerful feelings of ownership. They
found standards helpful for individual accountability, and useful
instruments for professional learning. Similarly, in Ireland, teacher
Regulatory standards

Regulatory standards (Mahony & Hextall, 2000)

Common sense standards (Sachs, 2003), Standards for quality assurance (Sachs,
2003)

Standards for certification and control (Sachs, 2003)

Standards for accountability or Standards for teachers (Mayer et al., 2005)
 T. Bourke et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 75 (2018) 83e92
educators perceived subject-specific standards developed by the
profession as a proactive step to influence policy and normalize
what they believed to be legitimate knowledge in physical educa-
tion (Ní Chro
inín, O'Sullivan, & Tormey, 2013). The Irish, Dutch, and
Serbian cases reveal that these academics embraced the develop-
mental approach.
On a slightly different slant, DeLuca and Bellara (2013) investi-
gated teacher education curriculum and alignment of instruction
with state standards around assessment practices. This study based
in Florida revealed that whilst course content matched the pro-
fessional standards, quite often there were misalignments between
policies, standards, and curricula documents in terms of assess-
ment practices. These authors pointed out the importance of
developing and using professional standards concomitantly with a
coherent body of scholarship on assessment literacy to guide pre-
service assessment education planning. However, none of these
studies describe the impact of standards/accreditation on teacher
educators themselves.
There are, however, two American studies of this ilk, each
revealing different responses to California's State Senate Bill 2042
(SB2042) which included new state standards in teacher education
programs. Whereas the teacher educators in Kornfeld, Grady,
Marker, and Ruddell's (2007) study felt alienated, intruded on,
and demoralized from standards implementation, Peck, Gallucci,
and Sloan (2010), in a study of their own faculty, found that by
theorizing a research design based on inquiry rather than compli-
ance, a collaborative participatory response with a strong sense of
local identity and integrity of practice was maintained. The findings
from these studies demonstrate polar responses to the same
standards at the tertiary level.
In the Australia context, O'Meara and MacDonald (2004) studied
physical education at two university sites, recontextualizing stan-
dards by refocusing them to fit with existing structures. In this way,
the teacher educators exercised control over how standards influ-
enced their pedagogy. In 2007, Ingvarson, Beavis, and Kleinhenz
were commissioned by the Victorian Institute of Teaching to pro-
vide guidance to policy-makers about appropriate standards for
accrediting teacher education programmes. By surveying recent
graduates, they concluded that accreditation documents should
prioritize deep knowledge of content needed for the classroom,
knowledge for how students learn that content, as well as skills in
diagnosing students' understanding and improvement. Two years
later, Bloomfield (2009) highlighted the effects of accreditation on
professional experience. She advocated for learning communities
where pre-service and mentoring teachers could become “co-
learners” (p. 40), invigorating university/school partnerships
through the common language of standards. More recently, two of
the present authors ([Author 1], [Author 2], & [Colleague], 2016)
examined a teacher education accreditation document in Australia,
finding contradictory representations of what constituted a quality
graduating professional. However, once again none of the studies
investigate Australian teacher educators' lived experiences of
accreditation/standards.
A study where lived experiences of teacher educators were
investigated was in Ireland by Solbrekke and Sugrue (2014). They
investigated how four teacher educators navigated an accreditation
process contextualized within the analytical concepts of profes-
sional responsibility and accountability. Their findings revealed
“multiple performance scripts” of creative compliance, agency, and
resistance and urged colleagues to conduct further research in this
area. Here we take up the challenge from Solbrekke and Sugrue
(2014) and investigate the lived experiences of Australian teacher
educators in this ever-increasing accredited environment. No one
would argue against improving standards in teacher education, but
85
as Mayer et al. (2005) point out, it is not the use of standards per se
that is the problem but how they are used. Whilst many see
mandated standards implementation as problematic, as has
already been outlined, using a developmental approach is defended
in terms of defining knowledge needed for effective classroom
practice (Ingvarson, Beavis, & Kleinhenz, 2007; Pantic & Wubbels,
2010); providing a common language to enhance university/
school partnerships (Bloomfield, 2009); as a mechanism for influ-
encing policy (Ní Chro
inín et al., 2013); or for improving profes-
sional learning (Koster & Dengerink, 2008) that provides agency
(Solbrekke & Sugrue, 2014).
4. The Australian context
The history of accreditation in Australian universities is rela-
tively short in comparison with the USA where the National Council
for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) founded in 1954
accredited teacher certification programs in US colleges and uni-
versities. Now amalgamated with the Teacher Education Accredi-
tation Council (TEAC) to form the Council for the Accreditation of
Educator Preparation (CAEP), CAEP succeeds NCATE and TEAC as
the only accreditor specialized in accreditation of US educator-
preparation programs.
In Australia, the Australian Institute for Teaching and School
Leadership (AITSL) is the accrediting body. It is a public company
funded by the Australian government with the Minister for Edu-
cation and Training the only member. The organization operates
under its own constitution with decision making the responsibility
of a board of directors. Decisions are delegated to state authorities
who have jurisdiction to monitor implementation through
accreditation processes. This is regular practice in Australian
educational matters, where statutory authorities act on the gov-
ernment's behalf.
Another example of this practice is where the Australian Cur-
riculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) enact
legalization in curriculum and high stakes testing matters. AITSL's
focus area is to improve quality in Initial Teacher Education (ITE),
and their chosen method, following other countries like the USA,
has been accreditation and professional standards agendas. The
first accreditation document (and the one in use at the time of
interview for the purpose of this study), namely the Accreditation of
initial teacher education programs in Australia: Standards and pro-
cedures (AITSL, 2011), has three integrated elements: graduate
teacher standards, program standards, and the national accredita-
tion process. These mandated elements are the requirements that
ITE institutions must meet to be accredited. As part of this process,
teacher educators map their courses against the graduate
standards.
AITSL reported success in standards implementation in Austra-
lian ITEs with 93% of teacher educators having a “fair amount” or
more knowledge of standards and 80% saying that they have used
them since their implementation on a regular basis (AITSL, 2014,
2015). On the contrary, the Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory
Group (TEMAG) report highlighted weak application of standards
in ITE (Department of Education and Training (DET), 2014). Neither
the AITSL nor TEMAG reports detail specifically how standards are
used at present in ITE and with such contradictory findings in key
reports, this study is timely. Hence, this study details the discourses
present in the voices of teacher educators in one university
regarding standards. Specifically, the study investigates these
teacher educators' use of standards in their everyday practice and
the alignment (or not) with policy and academic literature. The
chosen method for examining alignment was Foucauldian archae-
ology which is now elaborated.
86 T. Bourke et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 75 (2018) 83e92
5. Methodological framework
The work of Michel Foucault around discourse is used to un-
derpin this study. For Foucault, discourses are about what is
thought, who can speak, when, and with what authority
(Foucault, 1995). Discourses are therefore not limited to spoken
language but also arise from institutions and power relations.
Therefore, it is important to ascertain the status of the voices
behind the accreditation document and here we allow teacher
educators to have a voice in the discourse by articulating through
interviews how they use standards in their practice. Where policy
is concerned, it is important to reveal the exercise of power
through the use of references to other policies. Ball (1990) refers
to this as intertextual compatibility. To examine the discourses
present in the policy document and the interview transcripts
(hereafter referred to as texts), there are four main steps to the
archaeological process:
1. Looking for continuities (sameness) in statements (i.e., state-
ments which are similar).
2. Looking for discontinuities (contradictions) in statements (i.e.,
statements which are different or contradict).
3. Looking for circulating competing discourses (comparative
analysis). Here, the discourses from the policy document are
cross analyzed with the teacher educators' discourses from in-
terviews and the academic literature.
4. Looking to see what transformations (if any) need to take place
(i.e., the implications for teacher educators and suggestions for
change).
Credibility is regarded “as the extent to which a study is seen as
investigating what it aimed to investigate, or the degree to which
the research findings actually reflect the phenomenon being
studied” (Akerlind, 2002, p. 12). This includes outlining the data
collection and analytical procedures in detail which are now
elaborated.
Step 1 is achieved by looking for statements that are the same.
According to Foucault (1969/1972), statements are the elementary
units of discourse, so it is important to pay attention to the conti-
nuities (sameness) between statements, as well as counting the
frequency of terms and words (repeatability), and examining their
arrangement and co-location within statements. Ball (1990)
maintains that certain thoughts are constructed by how words
are ordered, combined, displaced, and excluded. When statements
cohere and make core repeatable claims of knowledge, they form
discursive practices (or regimes of truth).
As well as looking for sameness in statements, Step 2 uncovers
discontinuities, or distances, between statements (fields of initial
differentiation) within the texts. Foucault (1969/1972) referred to
this as the analysis of “contradictions” (p. 149) and maintained
that contradictions should be described as “they are not appear-
ances to be overcome, nor secret principles to be uncovered” (p.
151). Therefore, in this step, any words, phrases, or statements
which contradict the main discourses identified in Step 1 are
highlighted.
Foucault (1969/1972) further maintained that archaeology is a
comparative analysis that is not intended to reduce the diversity of
discourses. Rather, the intention is to have a diversifying effect. For
this part of the analysis (Step 3) the findings are cross-analyzed
with academic literature on professional standards to highlight
the simultaneous and competing discourses in circulation.
Finally, the analysis of transformations (Step 4) reveals the im-
plications these competing, and sometimes contradictory, dis-
courses have for teacher educators. Interviewing procedures and
participant details used are now outlined.
5.1. Context and participants
Thirteen teacher educators engaged in individual face-to-face 1-
h recorded interviews with one of the authors. Participants were
identified from one large metropolitan university in Australia. The
participants (see Appendix A) consisted of two teacher educators
from Foundation, Curriculum, and Practicum units in the Primary
Bachelor of Education (BEd) course (n ¼ 6) and in the Secondary
BEd course (n ¼ 6). Compulsory for all primary and secondary pre-
service education students, Foundation courses include studies in
child development and socio-cultural studies. Curriculum units are
discipline-specific and develop knowledge and skills for teaching
practice in, for example, geography. Practicum units have a practical
emphasis in that theory is translated into practice during the pro-
fessional experience in schools. The thirteenth participant was
instrumental in conceptualizing the course in line with the pro-
fessional standards. Appendix A reveals details about hierarchical
level and the participants' areas of academic study as a further
measure to increase the credibility of the study.
The majority of participants in this study could be classified as
first order practitioners now working in a second order setting
(Murray & Male, 2005) with school experience ranging from 8 to 31
years (with one exception who qualified as a teacher but never
taught in a school). Many started their lives in academia as hybrid
educators (Zeichner, 2006): part-time tutors at university whilst
working full-time in schools as classroom teachers or members of
the school hierarchy. The authors of this paper started their aca-
demic careers in the same way but are now full time at the uni-
versity under investigation. One of the authors was the Assistant
Dean Research (ADR) at the time whilst the other author did not
hold a position of responsibility. To ensure no power relations with
participants, the ADR was not involved in interviewing.
After receiving university ethical clearance, informed consent
was obtained from participants, and they were assigned pseudo-
nyms for confidentiality purposes. Over one month, semi-
structured interviews took place with the overall research ques-
tion e How do you use professional standards in your practice?
Other questions included: How familiar are you with the profes-
sional standards?; What role do you believe standards play in the
course?; and, What impact do you think standards have for quality
teaching? Conversations used the stem-plus-query design (Cavana,
Delahaye, & Sekaran, 2001) (e.g., “Could you elaborate on that in a
bit more detail?”). Paraphrasing was used to clarify any mis-
conceptions and style of questioning was chosen deliberately,
avoiding why questions (these were avoided as accreditation will
not be granted if courses are not underpinned by standards), and
concentrating on what and how as the intent was to orient par-
ticipants towards their lived experiences (Sandberg, 1994). These
checking mechanisms during interviews were used as a measure of
credibility to ensure that what was being recorded was a true
reflection of the participants expressed. Each interview, therefore,
took a different path as the participants' responses were explored.
Reflexivity is an ethical/epistemological obligation on the part of
researchers to explore and disclose bias (Sanguinetti, 2000). Here,
we have explained our positioning in the research, adopting self-
reflective stances in the interpretation of data by consciously uti-
lizing a design that allowed contradictions as well as intersections
in the data. While there is no such thing as value free or objective
research, we kept an open frame of reference as much as possible
by looking at the data independently before coming together as a
team.
The university site had been accredited two years prior to the
time of interview. Leading up to the accreditation deadline, the BEd
course had been mapped against the graduate standards and all
teacher educators participated in this activity. At this point, the
 T. Bourke et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 75 (2018) 83e92
limitations of the study should be acknowledged in that the
participant sample was small and confined to one university which
had quite recently engaged in an extensive accreditation process.
The researchers also worked at this site; therefore, it is not assumed
that the findings are transferable to another site. However, as the
use of professional standards in accreditation processes is a global
phenomenon, as Hamel, Dufour, and Fortin (1993) maintain, these
local cases can be a reflection of a much larger global educational
force.
The next section outlines the status of the voices and the
authoritative texts used in the accreditation policy document
before the discourses from both texts (policy and interviews) are
elaborated. Then, following the archaeological approach, these
discourses are cross-analyzed and viewed in the light of the aca-
demic literature.
6. Findings
6.1. Status of voices and authoritative texts in the accreditation
document
The Accreditation of initial teacher education programs in
Australia: Standards and procedures (AITSL, 2011) was the accredi-
tation document in use at the time of interview (this has now been
replaced by an updated version). This policy is divided into five
sections: the Preamble; National Graduate Teacher Standards; Na-
tional Program Standards; National Accreditation process; and
Acknowledgements. The first line of the preamble states that the
document “reflects the shared commitment of the teaching pro-
fession, teacher educators, employers of teachers, schools, and the
education community more broadly to ensuring that entrants to
teaching are of the highest quality” (p. 2). However, examination of
the acknowledgements does not reflect this picture. Rather,
endorsement was by government ministers representing all states
and territories with Peter Garrett at the helm as the Australian
Minister for Education at the time. Many organizations are given
special thanks, most of which are government departments. The
AITSL National Accreditation of ITE Working Group is one such
group which consisted of seven government officials outnumbering
three academics, one who was the Deputy Chair of AITSL at the
time. Therefore, it appears that what is proclaimed in the preamble
is slightly misleading.
The consultation process is not reported in the document, but
details are given in the National system for the accreditation of pre-
service teacher education programs e Proposal for consultation:
Consultation report (AITSL, 2010). Whist this document appears to
be representative of the breadth of education stakeholders,
including for example professional bodies and teacher unions
through on-line surveys, forums, written submissions, and indi-
vidual teleconferences, some doubt is cast on the truths claimed.
For example, pre-determined questions were used to initiate re-
sponses, invite-only forums, data collection periods were short, and
there were non-responses for the answers to some questions,
particularly one claiming strong support for the accreditation
process. Thirty-five percent did not respond to this particular
question with 7% against the development of a national accredi-
tation for ITE. Once again, the statuses of the truths claimed are
questionable.
What is noteworthy is the lack of academics' voices in this
document. Rather, four other policy documents are referred to as
authoritative texts, namely the Australian Professional Standards for
Teachers (first developed by AITSL in, 2011), the Melbourne Decla-
ration on Educational Goals for Young Australians (endorsed by
MCEEYTA in 2008), the Australian Quality Framework (AQF), and the
Australian Curriculum (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and
87
Reporting Authority (ACARA)). Therefore, what is apparent is the
use of other government legalization singing with “one voice”
(Taubman, 2009, p. 16) to provide support for accreditation.
There are two dominant discourses in this policy document:
“quality” and “being professional.” The discourse analysis of this
policy document has already been published (see [Author 1],
[Author 2], & [Colleague], 2016), but as an important data set for
the comparative analysis which is Step 3 of the archaeological
process, some examples of the discourses are tabulated (see
Table 2) to show repetition and co-location, as well as statements
that are the same and contradictory (Step 1 and 2 of the archaeo-
logical process for the policy document).
As shown in Table 2, the discourse of quality is apparent by
repetition of similar statements such as “accreditation … is the key
element in improving teacher quality” and “entrants to teaching are
of the highest quality,” the word “quality” repeated over 100 times.
This particular example reveals that accreditation assures quality
entrants. However, what is also apparent is a discourse where the
notion of quality is questioned. This can be seen in statements such
as “performance needs to improve,” “to change,” to “add value.” It is
stated that entrants are in the top 30% for literacy and numeracy but
providers have the option of not adhering to these quality mea-
sures. This latter statement is an example of a contradiction to the
quality assurance process.
The discourse of being professional is divided into two discur-
sive themes, namely “knowledge” and “practice,” mentioned nearly
30 times in statements such as “productive professional practice”
and “current professional expert knowledge.” However, what is
contradictory is that some sections of the document refer to
“discipline specific curriculum and pedagogical studies,” something
any educator would equate with expert knowledge, whilst other
sections, namely the graduate standards (the standards teacher
educators in this study were asked about), merely refer to “stra-
tegies and practical approaches.” The complete discourse analysis
revealed that quality was seen predominantly in terms of quality
assurance rather than quality teaching, and that being professional
(in the graduate standards) equated to being a regulated technician
rather than a discipline expert.
The next section of the paper details the discourses that
emerged when teacher educators spoke about the use of standards
in their practice at the university site where the interviews took
place. There were four main discourses in teacher educators' voi-
ces: compliance, non-compliance, performance, and a researchable
agenda. These are outlined in detail using the archaeological
approach (Steps 1 and 2). For clarity, some discourses have been
divided into discursive themes.
6.2. Discourses in teacher educators' voices
Discourse of compliance. The discourse of compliance is divided
into two discursive themes: the “discursive theme of account-
ability” and the “discursive theme of no choice.” Here, compliance
is viewed in two different ways: compliance with agendas external
to the university (for example, accreditation processes), and
compliance in that teacher educators do not feel that they have any
choice but to use standards in their practice.
The discursive theme of accountability is recognized in the
repeatability of the term “accreditation” or some form of the word.
Eleven out of thirteen participants used this word in relation to
standards implementation, revealed in statements such as “reac-
creditation of existing courses” (Neo) and “accreditation of courses”
(Bonnie, Camilla, Max, and Jennie). “Accreditation” or “accredited”
is co-located with “program” (Matilda), “according to standards,”
“by the relevant authority” (Neo), “process” (Brad, Fernando),
“boards,” and “hoops” (Brad). The lexical linking across these
88 T. Bourke et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 75 (2018) 83e92
Table 2
Discourses present in the accreditation document.
Discourses Quality
Discursive Quality program delivery
themes Entry requirements
Quality assurance (accreditation)
Repetition Quality is mentioned 15 times in preamble alone
Accreditation mentioned over 100 times
Co-location “teachers,” “graduates,” “programmes,” “placements” promoting the
notion of quality programs in ITE including the practicum which produces
quality graduates
Statements “Entrants to teaching are of the highest quality”
that are the “accreditation … is a key element in improving teacher quality” promoting
same the notion that accreditation is needed to produce quality
Contradictions Teacher education portrayed in a deficit discourse where “performance
needs improvement,” needs to “change,” in order to “add value”
Entrants should be in top 30% for literacy and numeracy; however,
providers are given the option of not adhering to entry requirements
statements highlights participants' awareness that courses must be
accredited by an external authority to be offered to students. It is
clear from the numerous statements that accreditation is viewed as
integral and important by all levels of hierarchy. This is not sur-
prising as the faculty participated in an extensive accreditation
process a few years earlier. However, the second discursive theme
reveals that rather than being open to standards and accreditation,
some teacher educators believe that they have little choice.
This second discursive theme e one of no choice e is repeated
by seven participants. This is evident in statements using modals
such as “I have/had to.” For example: “I had to incorporate … them
[standards] … I know they have to be there” (Winston); “I put it in
there because I have to” (Felicity); “We have to write that in”
(Matilda); “I have to link them to assessment and that's fine”
(Camilla); “Our units are underpinned by the professional stan-
dards because we can't avoid that” (Jennie). The repetition of “I
have to” and phrases such as “we can't avoid that” positions teacher
educators as having no choice but to comply with using standards.
Some seem to be willing to do this, but others do not feel as positive
about such a top-down approach. Statements to reveal this are: “It's
a dance you have to do and … I do it in some sense in relative bad
faith” (Winston), and “I jump through the hoops” (Felicity).
Therefore, even though accreditation is seen as important, these
seven teacher educators comply because they have to. Camilla ac-
knowledges that she was allowed to pick relevant standards for her
units e “we were able to generate our own”; however, other re-
spondents have different views using definite verbs such as “I am
informed” (Neo), and “I'm told” (Bonnie). It becomes obvious from
the following statements that teacher educators are aware of the
consequences of not using standards. Some participants note that
courses cannot run without accreditation e “our whole course is
underpinned by … standards and if we don't show evidence that
we are addressing all of those standards across our course we won't
get accreditation” (Jennie). Modals such as “if we don't” and “we
won't get” reinforce the disempowerment teacher educators feel.
Neo takes this even further by saying
But we feel we have to do these sorts of things … if you don't …
unemployment could be the eventual outcome.
This statement is indicative of the threat and diminished au-
thority that some feel as part of the accreditation process.
In summary, it appears that this discourse is more concerned
with compliant quality assurance processes across all primary and
secondary subjects and felt by different levels of the hierarchy.
These sentiments lead to the second discourse apparent in
Being professional
Knowledge
Practice
Professional is mentioned 28 times
“practice,” “knowledge,” “standards” promoting the notion that standards
make you more professional
“graduates have the knowledge … necessary to build highly productive
professional practice”
“current professional expert knowledge” promoting the notion of
knowledgeable professionals
“discipline specific curriculum and pedagogical studies” in the program
standards as opposed to “strategies and practical approaches” advocated in the
graduate standards which promote a technical form of teaching
participants' responses, a discourse of non-compliance. This
discourse stands in contradiction to the compliance posited in the
first discourse.
Discourse of non-compliance. This discourse is divided into two
discursive themes: first, “a discursive theme of resistance,”
repeated by half of the participants, and second, a “discursive
theme of standards as deficit,” mentioned by three participants.
Resistance is apparent in statements such as: “the subject of
teacher standards has never come up once” (Winston), “I don't
make a direct reference to them” (Fernando), “I don't put them up
there as the driving force” (Felicity), “I don't jump up and down and
say this is a standard” (Matilda), and “I'm not really a box-ticking
kind of guy” (Winston). Neo's following statements epitomize
why he resists:
Can we just accept that those who are elected to political office
or those who occupy positions of power and authority … can we
take their word … at face value? I think it behoves any profes-
sional … to hold up those sorts of endeavors to manage conduct
and to promote certain sorts of policy and say is this in the best
interests … of students? I'm their teacher. If I don't think so …
that's my professional call.
I had to address certain … elements of a standard, even though,
in my professional opinion and that of my colleagues what was
being proposed made no sense in the context of that unit.
Statements such as “never come up” or “don't make direct
reference to them” reveal how teacher educators circumvent the
standards discourse. Neo in particular questions the legitimacy of
the discourse at the expense of his professionalism, especially
where standards seem to make “no sense” for his teaching. This is
further explicated in his following statement:
What gets sidelined are the professional decisions … and
expertise of teacher educators who might previously have had a
corpus of knowledge … that they, as professionals, considered to
be important and appropriate for the professional preparation
of teachers but now are being marginalized, downplayed or
deleted in favor of an external body of standards e that are being
imposed by national and state authorities.
Neo's assertive language e “sidelined,” “marginalized,” “down-
played,” “deleted,” and “imposed” e reveals his resistance to the
standards agenda. However, as outlined in the first discourse,
despite the strong sentiment, he still complies.
Furthermore, Felicity and Winston point out that the
 T. Bourke et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 75 (2018) 83e92 89

implementation of professional standards has made no difference they are aware that their pre-service teachers must provide evi-
to their practice. dence of meeting the standards to pass their placement experience
e “pretty soon you've got to tick these boxes” (Matilda), and “they
We didn't really change much at all. (Winston)
have to tick a box somewhere in their ePortfolio.” In contradiction
I don't think differently because of standards. I have a deeper to the activation of standards, here standards are reduced to a box
philosophical commitment to education. (Felicity) ticking exercise not likely to enhance quality teaching.
The second discursive theme is revealed in the following
statements e “university-based assessments are structured on the
This latter statement reveals the second discursive theme
standards,” “I design assessment targeting those standards” (Fer-
within this discourse which is centred on standards as a reduc-
nando), “they have to be … reflected in the assessment” (Neo),
tionist way of thinking e standards as deficit.
“assessments … are directly related to the standards” (Jamima).
This discursive theme is apparent in statements such as “those
Standards in co-location with assessment are mentioned by every
standards are often so generic” (Winston), “being a good teacher is
participant albeit with various interpretations. One of these state-
not just a matter of ticking all the boxes … There's more to it”
ments reflects the discourse of compliance previously discussed:
(Camilla), and “that's missing in these standards; there's nothing
“they have to … be reflected in the assessment because … the
about theory and how theory modifies practice” (Matilda). Here,
assessment … is one way … regulatory authorities … look for ev-
these teacher educators make it clear that they do not hold the
idence of the standards having been met” (Neo). However, in
standards up as a recipe or formulaic approach to teaching. They
contradiction, Neo uses the standards to promote critical thinking:
see teaching as a “deeper philosophical” endeavor, a commitment
“So they are brought in more as data to be analyzed e critically
to the profession that is not articulated in the professional stan-
analyzed e rather than … as literature … to inform our practice”
dards. That said, even though participants resist, circumvent, and
(Neo). Bonnie also encourages their use, in this instance reflection is
criticize the standards, the next discourse reveals how standards
used to inform what the pre-service teacher should focus on e
are used explicitly within their professional practice, once again
“they should pull that assessment item apart” (Bonnie). Therefore,
highlighting contradictions in their responses. It is also interesting
here standards are once again activated to promote critical reflec-
that some participants' statements have featured in all (Matilda) or
tion to improve performance in practice.
some of the discursive themes (Winston and Neo) mentioned thus
Discourse of a researchable agenda. The fourth discourse present,
far. These examples, with no specific pattern across hierarchical
albeit a minor discourse, is present in two participants' voices.
level or expertise are further indications of contradictions and
However, both teacher educators as researchers are investigating
highlight multiple performance scripts (Solbrekke & Sugrue, 2014)
standards from different viewpoints. The first focuses on standards
of the use of standards in some participants' practices.
use to find gaps in the knowledge of his pre-service teachers,
Discourse of performance. Common statements to illuminate the
including knowledge on “Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders,”
ways in which standards are part of the teacher educators' per-
“students with disabilities,” and “working with parents” (Max).
formance of practice include: “I point out where the standards are
in the lectures,” “each chapter highlights how the standards are Here, Max is using his research with over 300 pre-service
embedded,” and “workshops go very closely with the standards” teachers to ascertain how the activities he promotes in his
(Max). These statements with phrases such as “I point out” and “go courses may be lacking in the knowledge and skills needed for
very closely” provide evidence that these teacher educators use pre-service teachers to meet the standards and become class-
standards in lectures and workshops and embed them in resource room ready. Consequently, he uses his research findings to
materials. However, it does appear that standards are merely being inform his own practice.
paid lip-service rather than improving teaching quality as they are
In contrast, Neo's research focuses on the standards from a
purported to do.
different perspective:
The majority of statements within this discourse can be divided
into two discursive themes, namely the practicum experience, I look for ways in which … programs of government … are being
mentioned by seven participants, and university-based assessment introduced to activate teachers and school leaders … govern the
practices. conduct of teachers'
Common statements to reveal the first discursive theme include,
“field experience … is directly linked to the standards” (Bonnie), “I
Therefore, Neo comes from a more critical perspective and
dissect the … standards for them. So we talk about what they mean,
questions the standards discourse exemplified in his numerous
what they might look like in the classroom, and then we … look at
rhetorical questions during his interview:
activities and strategies that they would use to show they have
demonstrated those standards” (Jamima), “In one of the subjects How do they [standards] impact upon us as professionals or
we … have a video … of a student on a prac … we look at what the professionals in preparation? What do they seek to get us to do?
student is doing, and how he is demonstrating the standards” What are the effects of that? Are they professionally desirable?
(Jamima). These statements highlight the important part that
standards play in the practicum experience. Teacher educators
Therefore, whereas Max uses the standards to inform what
unpack the standards for their pre-service teachers and role model
might be excluded from his teachings in the university setting, Neo
how they could be used. Subsequently, pre-service teachers can
is more interested in the impacts that such mechanisms can have
then replicate effective teaching and learning strategies in the
on the professionalism of teachers and pre-service teachers.
classroom environment. In this instance, standards have been
activated, rather than just mentioned in passing. However, as
revealed in the discourse of non-compliance, some participants
7. Competing discourses in circulation (Step 3)
maintain that they have always demonstrated effective teaching
and learning strategies; the implementation of standards making
When the discourses from the teacher educators' voices are
no difference.
juxtaposed against the accreditation document and academic
Additionally, it is clear from the respondents' statements that
literature on standards, the dominant type of standard and their
90 T. Bourke et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 75 (2018) 83e92
intentions become visible. In the terms borrowed from Mahony and
Hextall (2000), this comparative analysis (Step 3) identifies the
dominant discourse as regulatory in nature and intent. This cor-
responds with the discourse of quality assurance from the accred-
itation document. Compliance as a response to this regulatory
discourse is prevalent in the participants' responses through the
discursive themes of “accountability,” “no choice,” and in some
aspects of “performance.” Quality assurance dominates with many
respondents using terms such as “ticking all the boxes.” Sachs
(2003) refers to this as standards for certification or control
which she maintains are bureaucratic, standardize procedures, and
reduce autonomy. The quality assurance discourses in the accred-
itation document align directly with Sach's (2003) quality assur-
ance standards. She maintains that these types of standards have a
focus on accountability. Their motives are political to raise the
status of the profession particularly in the view of the public. Ac-
cording to [Author 2 and Author 1 (2012), using standards as quality
assurance mechanisms merely presents the “veneer of quality”
rather than quality delivery to improve quality outcomes in
teaching. Graduates are being trained to become little more than
“tick box professionals” (p. 11) rather than classroom ready pro-
fessionals. These regulatory or quality assurance processes are part
of the wider neoliberal regime where education is increasingly
viewed as pertinent to a country's economic productivity, pros-
perity, and social cohesion. In order to survive in the marketplace,
universities and hence teacher educators need to be managed.
However, there are examples in the teacher educators' voices
that represent a more developmental approach (Mahony & Hextall,
2000) to the use of standards. These are visible in some aspects of
the discourses of “performance” and “a researchable agenda.” In
the discourse of “performance”, participants use standards to
encourage critical thinking and reflection, activities to improve
professional knowledge and practice. Sachs (2003) refers to these
as standards for quality improvement which advocate a strong and
autonomous professional group working collectively. Here, teacher
educators adopt a writerly approach to standards even though such
documents could be seen as readerly texts (Barthes, 1970/1974).
Instead, Neo, Jamima, and Bonnie in particular take control in the
active construction of meaning, even though critical thinking and
reflection are absent from the graduate standards. These teacher
educators promote higher order thinking and role model best
practice to enhance their students' knowledge and skills in the
classroom environment. In doing so, they maintain their autonomy
as professionals and rewrite the standards in a developmental way.
Rather than seeing standards as limiting as evident in some re-
sponses e “there's nothing about theory and how theory modifies
practice” e they become the writers of their own theoretical un-
derstandings and how this can translate into classroom practice. By
doing this, they encourage their pre-service teachers to use stan-
dards as a springboard to think critically and reflectively to improve
their classroom readiness. On first glance, this could align with the
discourse of being professional from the accreditation document.
However, the graduate standards in this document, rather than
promoting knowledgeable autonomous professionals ready to
enter the classroom, instead present a technicized, anti-intellectual
approach to teaching, what Davies and Edwards (2001) have
referred to as the pedagogical equivalent of painting by numbers.
A researchable agenda discourse also highlights standards being
used developmentally. Max uses them reflectively to expose de-
ficiencies in his teaching, particularly in relation to catering for
diverse learners and dealing with parents. From a different stand-
point, Neo does not accept the standards agenda as the taken-for-
granted truth and reveals responses which exhibit resistance.
However, this participant, with a thorough background in stan-
dards research, gives an excellent example of using standards
developmentally in his practice that encourages his pre-service
teachers to think deeply about their classroom practice. Both
these participants use criticality as developmental ways of using
standards to not only improve their own practice but also that of
their pre-service teachers. Many commentators believe that stan-
dards used in this way are more likely to improve quality teaching
and thus improve quality outcomes ([Author 2 & Author 1, 2012;
Mahony & Hextall, 2000; Mayer et al., 2005; Sachs, 2003).
In summary, whether obligingly or not, teacher educators'
spoken discourses reveal that, in general, they are yielding to the
regulatory professional standards discourse or the quality assur-
ance discourse present in the accreditation document. They are
speaking these vocabularies in a form of ventriloquism (Morley as
cited in Ball, 2003) and acting out docility as they are subtly coerced
into conducting their conduct in particular ways. Regulatory/qual-
ity assurance discourses dominate not necessarily because they are
more right, but because they have political strength. Standards and
accreditation have been mobilized as the regime of truth, a pro-
ductive form of power in the Foucauldian sense.
8. Conclusion
In response to the overarching research question e How do
teacher educators use professional standards in their practice? e it
becomes clear that these teacher educators use standards to fulfil
the requirements of accreditation purposes (discourse of compli-
ance) as well as using them in lectures, publications, workshops,
resource materials, instruction for professional experience place-
ments, university-based assessments (discourse of performance),
and in research (discourse of a researchable agenda). Some par-
ticipants under pressure from administration and recent accredi-
tation activities felt that they had no other choice. However,
counter discourses of resistance and reinterpretations of standards
as deficit are also evident as some strive to maintain their profes-
sional autonomy. These findings are similar to Solbrekke and
Sugrue's (2014) study where resistance, creative compliance, and
agency materialized. In juxtaposition with the accreditation docu-
ment and academic literature, more often the dominant themes are
regulatory, quality assurance processes foregrounded at the
expense of developmental ways of preparing pre-service teachers
as classroom ready professionals.
In Foucauldian terms, the final part of an archaeological analysis
is to identify transformations, particularly as the standards agenda
appears to be here to stay. Commentaries coming out of the UK by
Furlong (2013) and Ellis and McNicholl (2015) make suggestions as
to what teacher educators can do in this accreditation/standards
environment, including “retooling” professional education, work-
ing collaboratively with a range of education stakeholders for
knowledge mobilization and research. These commentators agree
that knowledge is contestable (Furlong, 2013) and not fixed in a set
of standards where human agency and creativity are diminished
(Ellis & McNicholl, 2015). Furlong (2013) specifically follows the
notions of extended professionality by Hoyle (1974) and practical
theories by Hirst (1996), and advocates for “practical wisdom”
where teacher educators educate pre-service teachers to think
critically about knowledge and to develop their own values and
judgements. To achieve such practical wisdom, the discipline of
education needs to be refocused as a collaborative community
where teacher educators “coconfigure” (Engestrom, 2007) on state-
of-art practice underpinned by research. Knowledge, therefore, is
transdisciplinary, reflexive, and networked. Lipman (2011) main-
tains that coconfiguration among diverse stakeholders can set new
parameters for possible solutions, transforming not reforming or
defending teacher education. There is some evidence of this way of
thinking in the teachers' voices but not the dominant notion.
 T. Bourke et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 75 (2018) 83e92
Whilst writing this paper, the second iteration of the accredi-
tation document was released for ITE Australian institutions.
Changes are evident such as primary specializations, the intro-
duction of Teacher Performance Assessments (TPAs), and evidence-
based practices that demonstrate impact. These priorities must be
incorporated for this university to fulfil accreditation requirements.
However, rather than using a compliance approach in this accred-
itation cycle, following Peck et al. (2010) or to borrow Stosich's
(2016) term, a process of “joint inquiry” is being adopted. Teacher
educators are working together to make sense (Spillane, Reiser, &
Reimer, 2002) of how standards interact with learning and teach-
ing even though standards policies are often contradictory which
takes away from the sense-making process. Prior knowledge, be-
liefs, values, emotions, context, and traditions are being considered
so that shared community understandings can enact policy to
practice (Spillane et al., 2002). Courses are being transformed as the
faculty invests in leadership structures and professional learning
support mechanisms (Coburn, 2016; Coburn, Hill, & Spillane, 2016)
so that new ideas and ways of working can flourish.
Previous school-based studies have highlighted the limited
impact of standards on practice (Coburn, 2004; Stosich, 2016), a
discourse also present in this current study. However, here the aim
is to show how policy from regulatory authorities that attempts to
direct action can be constructed and crafted by teacher educators
developmentally in their local context to influence teaching prac-
tice for the better. Accreditation treated as a tick box exercise will
not achieve this.
Furthermore, these teacher educators are working closely with
stakeholders in the creation of TPAs where they are collaborating to
produce valid assessment instruments. Whilst there has been a lot of
criticism around TPA construction especially from America
(Caughlan & Jiang, 2014; Duckor, Castellano, Te
llez, Wihardini, &
Wilson, 2014; Gargani & Strong, 2014; Sato, 2014) by coconfigur-
ing, they are trialling different ways to be practically relevant and
critically engaged against the odds of reductionist mandates.
Furthermore, pre-service teachers as co-learners (Bloomfield, 2009)
are included in this professional community conversation in a
“Students as Partners” program. It is hoped that these collaborative
participatory responses to accreditation invigorate partnerships and
maintain a strong sense of local identity and integrity of practice.
Here, we have presented a template for checking the status of
the truth (Foucault, 1980) and believe that teacher educators need
to push back against regulatory approaches through “sense mak-
ing” and “joint inquiry” to maintain and transform their practices to
promote standards developmentally. Tick box professionals con-
forming to quality assurance procedures do not make graduates
who are classroom ready, but collaborative preparation in critical
and reflective thinking and research-based activities does. Teacher
educators should maintain their professionalism and have confi-
dence to find “wriggle room” (Hoyle & Wallace, 2009) or “lived
space” to use Lefebvre's (1991) term, to re-imagine how standards
could be used more productively. They need to become part of the
culture that expects to challenge and interrogate taken-for-granted
practices and enter the public sphere in doing so. The successful-
ness of standards implementation postulated by AITSL and the
weak application of standards in universities claimed by TEMAG are
not the status of the truth in this university. However, this is only
one case. More widespread research into the implications of this
increasingly accredited environment is necessary as new elements
such as specializations, impact agendas, and teacher performance
assessments are introduced.
Conflict of interest
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
91
Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. All
authors have approved the final article.
Appendix A
Hierarchical level and area of academic teaching of the respondents
Foundation Curriculum Practicum
PRIMARY Bonnie Max (Prof) Jamima (Lecturer)
(Aspro) Jennie Xanthe (Senior
Brad (Aspro) (Senior lecturer) lecturer)
SECONDARY Patience Felicity (Aspro) Camilla (Lecturer)
(Aspro) Matilda (Senior Neo (Lecturer)
Winston lecturer)
(Aspro) Fernando (Senior
lecturer)
References
Akerlind, G. (2002, November). Principles and practice in phenomenographic
research. In Paper presented at the current issues in phenomenography conference.
Canberra: Australian National University.
Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL). (2010). National
system for the accreditation of pre-service teacher education programs e Proposal
for consultation: Consultation report. Melbourne: AITSL.
Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL). (2011). Accredita-
tion of initial teacher education programs in Australia: Standards and procedures.
Melbourne: AITSL.
Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL). (2014). Evaluation
of the implementation of the Australian Professional Standards for teachers:
Interim report on baseline implementation 2013 key findings. Melbourne: AITSL.
Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL). (2015). Evaluation
of the implementation of the Australian Professional Standards for teachers:
Interim report 2 e 2014 key findings. Melbourne: AITSL.
[Author 1], & [Colleague]. (2014). [Details hidden for blind review].
[Author 1]. (2011). [Details hidden for blind review].
[Author 1], [Author 2], & [Colleague]. (2012). [Details hidden for blind review].
[Author 1], [Author 2], & [Colleague]. (2016). [Details hidden for blind review].
[Author 2], & [Author 1]. (2012). [Details hidden for blind review].
Ball, S. (1990). Foucault and education: Disciplines and knowledge. London:
Routledge.
Ball, S. (2003). The teacher's soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Ed-
ucation Policy, 18(2), 215e228.
Barthes, R. (1974). S/Z. (R. Miller, trans. New York, NY: Hill and Wang (Original work
published 1970).
Bloomfield, D. (2009). Working within and against neoliberal accreditation
agendas: Opportunities for professional experience. Asia-Pacific Journal of
Teacher Education, 37(1), 27e44.
Caughlan, S., & Jiang, H. (2014). Observation and teacher quality: Critical analysis of
observation instruments in preservice teacher performance assessment. Journal
of Teacher Education, 65(5), 375e388.
Cavana, R., Delahaye, B., & Sekaran, U. (2001). Applied business research: Qualitative
and quantitative methods. Brisbane: John Wiley and Sons.
Clarke, M., & Moore, A. (2013). Professional standards, teacher identities and an
ethics of singularity. Cambridge Journal of Education, 43(4), 487e500.
Coburn, C. E. (2004). Beyond decoupling: Rethinking the relationship between the
institutional environment and the classroom. Sociology of Education, 77(3),
211e244.
Coburn, C. E. (2016). What's policy got to do with it? How the structure-agency
debate can illuminate policy implementation. American Journal of Education,
122(3), 465e475.
Coburn, C. E., Hill, H., & Spillane, J. (2016). Alignment and accountability in policy
design and implementation: The Common Core Standards and implementation
research. Educational Researcher, 45(4), 243e251.
Cochran-Smith, M. (2005). Teacher educators as researchers: Multiple perspectives.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 219e225.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2001). Standard setting in teaching: Changes in licensing,
certification and assessment. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on
teaching (4th ed., pp. 751e776). Washington, DC: American Educational
Research Association.
Davey, R. (2013). The professional identity of teacher educators. Career on the cusp?
New York, NY: Routledge.
92 T. Bourke et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 75 (2018) 83e92
Davies, M., & Edwards, G. (2001). Will the curriculum caterpillar ever learn to fly? In
M. Fielding (Ed.), Taking education really seriously: Four years' hard labour (pp.
98e109). London: RoutledgeFalmer.
DeLuca, C., & Bellara, A. (2013). The current state of assessment education: Aligning
policy, standards, and teacher education curriculum. Journal of Teacher Educa-
tion, 64(4), 356e372.
Department of Education and Training (DET). (2014). Action now: Classroom ready
teachers. Canberra: Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group (TEMAG).
Dinkelman, T. (2011). Forming a teacher educator identity: Uncertain standards,
practice and relationships. Journal of Education for Teaching, 37(3), 309e323.

llez, K., Wihardini, D., & Wilson, M. (2014). Examining
Duckor, B., Castellano, K. E., Te
the internal structure evidence for the performance assessment for California
teachers: A validation study of the elementary literacy teaching event for tier 1
teacher licensure. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(5), 402e420.
Ellis, V., & McNicholl, J. (2015). Transforming teacher education: Reconfiguring the
academic work. London: Bloomsbury.
Engestrom, Y. (2007). Enriching the theory of expansive learning: Lessons from
journeys towards coconfiguration. Mind, Culture and Activity: International
Journal, 41(1), 23e39.
Flowers, C. P., & Hancock, D. R. (2003). An interview protocol and scoring rubric for
evaluating teacher performance. Assessment in Education, 10(2), 161e168.
Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge. (A. M. Sheridan Smith, trans.
London: Tavistock (Original work published 1969).
Foucault, M. (1980). Truth and power. In C. Gordon (Ed.), Power/knowledge: Selected
interviews and other writings, 1972-1977 (pp. 109e133). New York, NY: Pantheon
Books.
Foucault, M. (1995). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.).
New York, NY: Random House.
Furlong, J. (2013). Education e an anatomy of the discipline. Rescuing the university
project? London: Taylor and Francis.
Gargani, J., & Strong, M. (2014). Can we identify a successful teacher better, faster,
and cheaper? Evidence for innovating teacher observation systems. Journal of
Teacher Education, 65(5), 389e401.
Hamel, J., Dufour, S., & Fortin, D. (1993). Case study methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications.
Hirst, P. H. (1996). The demands of professional practice and preparation for
teaching. In J. Furlong, & R. Smith (Eds.), The role of higher education in initial
teacher training (pp. 166e178). London: Kogan Page.
Hoyle, E. (1974). Professionality, professionalism and control in teaching. London
Educational Review, 3(2), 13e19.
Hoyle, E., & Wallace, M. (2009). Leadership for professional practice. In S. Gewirtz,
P. Mahony, I. Hextall, & A. Cribb (Eds.), Changing teacher professionalism: Inter-
national trends, challenges and ways forward (pp. 204e214). London: Routledge.
Ingvarson, L. (2010). Recognising accomplished teachers in Australia: Where have
we been? Where are we heading? Australian Journal of Education, 54(1), 46e71.
Ingvarson, L., Beavis, A., & Kleinhenz, E. (2007). Factors affecting the impact of
teacher education programmes on teacher preparedness: Implications for
accreditation policy. European Journal of Teacher Education, 30(4), 351e381.
Kornfeld, J., Grady, K., Marker, P. M., & Ruddell, M. R. (2007). Caught in the current: A
self-study of state-mandated compliance in a teacher education program.
Teachers College Record, 109(8), 1902e1930.
Koster, B., & Dengerink, J. J. (2008). Professional standards for teacher educators:
How to deal with complexity, ownership and function. Experiences from The
Netherlands. European Journal of Teacher Education, 31(2), 135e149.
Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space (D. Nicholson-Smith, Trans). Oxford:
Blackwell Publishers.
Lipman, P. (2011). The new political economy of urban education: Neoliberalism, race
and the right to the city. New York, NY: Routledge.
Mahony, P., & Hextall, I. (2000). Reconstructing teaching: Standards, performance and
accountability. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Marrongelle, K., Sztajn, P., & Smith, M. (2013). Scaling up professional development
in an era of common state standards. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(3),
202e211.
Mayer, D., Mitchell, J., Macdonald, D., & Bell, R. (2005). Professional standards for
teachers: A case study of professional learning. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher
Education, 33(2), 159e179.
Mayer, D., Mitchell, J., Santoro, N., & White, S. (2011). Teacher educators and ‘acci-
dental’ careers in academe: An Australian perspective. Journal of Education for
Teaching, 37(3), 247e260.
Menter, I. (2011). Four academic sub-tribes but one territory? Teacher educators
and teacher education in Scotland. Journal of Education for Teaching, 37(3),
293e308.
Murray, J., Gzerniawski, G., & Barber, P. (2011). Teacher educators' identities and
work in England at the beginning of the second decade of the twenty-first
century. Journal of Education for Teaching, 37(3), 261e277.
Murray, J., & Male, T. (2005). Becoming a teacher educator: Evidence from the field.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 125e142.
Murray, J., Nuttall, J., & Mitchell, J. (2007). Research into teacher education in
Australia: A survey of the literature 1995e2004. Teaching and Teacher Education,
24, 225e239.
Ní Chro
inín, D., O'Sullivan, M., & Tormey, R. (2013). Teacher educators' perspectives
on the implementation of beginning teacher standards for physical education in
Ireland: Developing and regulating the profession? European Journal of Teacher
Education, 36(3), 261e278.
Ní Chro
inín, D., Tormey, R., & O'Sullivan, M. (2012). Beginning teacher standards for
physical education: Promoting a democratic ideal? Teaching and Teacher Edu-
cation, 28, 78e88.
O'Meara, J., & MacDonald, D. (2004). Power, prestige and pedagogic identity: A tale
of two programs recontetualising teacher standards. Asia-Pacific Journal of
Teacher Education, 32(2), 111e127.
Pantic, N., & Wubbels, T. (2010). Teacher competencies as a basis for teacher edu-
cation e views of Serbian teachers and teacher educators. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 26, 694e703.
Peck, C., Gallucci, C., & Sloan, T. (2010). Negotiating implementation of high-stakes
performance assessment policies in teacher education: From compliance to
inquiry. Journal of Teacher Education, 6(5), 451e463.
Polikoff, M. S. (2013). Teacher education, experience and the practice of aligned
instruction. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(3), 212e225.
Sachs, J. (2003). The activist teaching profession. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Sandberg, J. (1994). Human competence at work: An interpretive approach. Go €teborg:
Bas.
Sanguinetti, J. (2000). An adventure in ‘postmodern’ action research: Perform-
ativity, professionalism and power. In J. Garrick, & C. Rhodes (Eds.), Research and
knowledge at work: Perspectives, case-studies and innovative strategies (pp.
232e249). London: Routledge.
Sato, M. (2014). What is the underlying conception of teaching of the edTPA?
Journal of Teacher Education, 65(5), 421e434.
Solbrekke, T. D., & Sugrue, C. (2014). Professional accreditation of initial teacher
education programmes: Teacher educators' strategies e between ‘account-
ability’ and ‘professional responsibility’? Teaching and Teacher Education, 37,
11e20.
Spillane, P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition:
Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational
Research, 72(3), 387e431.
Stosich, E. (2016). Joint inquiry: Teachers' collective learning about the common
core in high poverty urban schools. American Educational Research Journal,
53(6), 1698e1731.
Tang, S. Y. F., Cheng, M. M. H., & So, W. W. M. (2006). Supporting student teachers'
professional learning with standards-referenced assessment. Asia-Pacific Jour-
nal of Teacher Education, 34(2), 223e244.
Taubman, P. M. (2009). Teaching by numbers: Deconstructing the discourse of stan-
dards and accountability in education. New York, NY: Routledge.
Vanassche, E., & Kelchtermans, G. (2014). Teacher educators' professionalism in
practice: Positioning theory and personal interpretative framework. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 44, 117e127.
White, S. (2016). Teacher education research and education policy-makers: An
Australian perspective. Journal of Education for Teaching, 42(2), 252e264.
Zeichner, K. (2006). Becoming a teacher educator: A personal perspective. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 21, 117e124.