In this paper, I consider the findings from a self study in which I considered how I, as a white female teacher educator, do and do not take up anti-oppressive pedagogies (Rodriguez and Swalwell, 2021) in the classroom. The theoretical framework, “rehumanizing praxis,” is informed by white supremacy logic (Enumah, 2021) to contextualise accountable inquiry with white teachers, including myself as a professor. It is within this understanding of white supremacy logic that “rehumanizing praxis,” referencing simultaneous inward and outward pedagogies, can be understood, making barriers and possibilities visible among the tensions.

This paper discusses a two-part research inquiry, with emphasis on phase two. In phase one, white in-service teachers participated in a project examining internal and external barriers, supports, and pedagogies related to their commitments to racial justice in their classrooms. While the field of education works to dismantle the persistent overrepresentation of white women in the field (Fenwick, 2021), teacher preparation programmes continue to require more robust support for diverse classrooms without perpetuating harmful pedagogies or reproducing injustice. From that study, many inward and outward pedagogies were identified across participants, seasoned teachers in school contexts ranging from early childhood through adolescence.

For phase two, I kept a teaching journal, recording observations and reflections of my opportunities to support racially just teacher education as informed by the findings in phase one. I noted barriers to my anti-oppressive education commitments at the university level. I cited personal and institutional supports as an experienced professor in a new, white-dominant college context. In addition, I described interactions and meetings through the lenses of my own inward and outward pedagogies. I will share findings from the self-study as I explored practices that supported and, at times, obscured my efforts.

Teacher educator knowledge is an emerging field of research. Berry (2007) conducted the first study which uncovered the typical tensions teacher educators had to resolve in their practice. More recently, Lay inquired into an online course (2021) where she revealed how seven themes of teacher educator knowledge informed decisions about planning, teaching and assessing. Through that project, we came to see assignments were repositories of teacher educators’ knowledge of teaching, teacher education, and their tacit knowledge. This understanding led us to wonder about what an assignment we co-constructed would reveal about our own knowledge of teaching and teacher education and what we might also uncover concerning our tacit teacher educator knowledge. We engage in self-study of practice. We began by identifying an assignment we designed and taught pre-service teachers as part of a course that taught them to teach multilingual students within their regular classrooms. We selected a curriculum development project based on the model developed by CREDE (Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and Excellence). For our analysis, we worked together identifying what the assignment revealed. We met three times. We kept careful notes for each session. At the end of each session, we identified what the assignment revealed about our teacher knowledge, our teacher educator knowledge and our tacit knowledge as a teacher educator. We integrated our assertions from the three sessions producing our findings. We found that our knowledge of teaching impacted our pacing, plans for group work, and reporting student work. Our teacher educator knowledge revealed our beliefs that the work needed to feel authentic, link together things learned in other classes, and demonstrate their knowledge of the underlying principles for instruction. Our tacit knowledge revealed our clear grounding of our pedagogy in sociocultural theory and commitment to equitable teaching.

This collaborative self-study was conducted by two faculty who teach research methodology to non-traditional students pursuing an educational doctorate (Ed.D.). Working together since 2022 in a Hispanic Serving Institution (HSI), many of our shared doctoral students work full-time jobs, have families, and often struggle with the demands of the doctoral program. The goal of this study was to inquire how we could leverage an already extant cohort model to improve student retention and outcomes of our students through improving small group work in our courses.

In the U.S., Ed.D. candidates are more likely to be older, employed full-time, female, and from minority backgrounds. Research indicates that factors such as lack of social support, faculty relationships, prior academic rigor, self-efficacy, and motivation contribute significantly to higher attrition rates among non-traditional doctoral students (Bain et al., 2011; Deshpande, 2017; Brill et al., 2014).

Beginning in 2022, we started meeting bi-weekly to reflect on our individual and collective teaching experiences (Hamilton & Pinnegar, 2016). We focused on revising the structure, pacing, and curriculum to strengthen small group pedagogy. Through joint journaling and synchronous discussions, we created interim texts (Clandinin & Connelly, 2010) that allowed us to identify resonances (Charmaz, 2010) grounded in our teaching experiences (Munby & Russell, 1994). Our analysis of course artifacts, student assessments, and previous self-study data suggested that students struggled with completing assignments and understanding methodological and programmatic goals.

To address these challenges, we improved the small group curriculum by embedding stronger reading and task support, establishing structured and accountable group meetings, incorporating classroom modeling, and ensuring transparency of goals and purposes. Preliminary findings indicate that students found the group work beneficial, particularly in helping them understand difficult concepts and apply their learning.

Expanded examples from teacher notes and student feedback will be included to further illustrate these findings.

This doctoral research aims to examine how I, as a primary teacher and teacher educator, respond to tensions produced by policy narratives of educational change, reflecting on how my practice is influenced by the system in which I work (GTCS, 2021). This research primarily builds upon Amanda Berry’s (2007: 132) reconceptualization of teacher education knowledge as tensions, specifically her assertion that tensions, “…serve as both a language for describing practice and as a frame for studying practice”. Data was gathered through analysis of six Scottish education policy documents using the framework, What’s the Problem Represented to Be? (WPR) (Bacchi, 2009). Reflecting the self-study methodology and to capture how changes made to practice are shaped by personal responses to policy, the policy analysis was supported with journaling (a policy response journal and a practice journal). Initial findings suggest that it is my response to uncertainty, and its simultaneous acceptance and denial in the Scottish policy landscape, that influences the practices I habitually adopt and find tension in enacting. This is because these practices, such as planning and modelling, provide a sense of control and stability, despite their incongruence with my personal beliefs and the beliefs put forth in policy that teachers should be adaptable, responsive, and creative to meet the needs of their students in present-day society. This research is relevant to the conference theme and sub theme of ‘characteristics of quality teaching’ as it highlights critical reflection as an integral part of teacher professionalism. This is particularly relevant to the need to support educators to cultivate and sustain a willingness to disrupt both external narratives of change, such as those found in policy, and internal narratives of change that inform the adoption of habituated practices.