Teaching and Teacher Education 67 (2017) 351e360

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education

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

Teacher education communities of practice: More than a culture of

collaboration
Kevin Patton a, *, Melissa Parker b
a
Department of Kinesiology, California State University, Chico, CA, USA
b
Physical Education and Sport Sciences, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland

h i g h l i g h t s

Engagement in communities of practice provided a foundation for collaboration and reduced isolation.

Social dynamics and group processes shaped community practices.

Results support the rethinking of professional development in higher education.

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

Article history: Teacher educator professional learning, like teacher education, can be messy and complex. This study's
Received 27 May 2016 purpose was to explore physical education teacher educators' understandings of how their participation
Received in revised form in communities of practice (CoP) supported their own professional development. More specically,
19 April 2017
signicant dynamics and group processes of CoP were explored. Results indicated that engagement in
Accepted 11 June 2017
CoP provided a foundation for collaboration and reduced isolation, allowing participants to extend
teaching and research capacities. Signicant social dynamics and group processes that shaped their
practice included a common focus, personal and professional relationships, safe but challenging spaces,
Keywords:
Communities of practice
and shared commitment.
Teacher education 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Physical education teacher education
Professional development
Professional learning

1. Introduction
The notion of professional development of teacher educators
has begun to emerge as a touchstone for not only what it means
to become a teacher educator, but also to learn as a teacher
educator. (Loughran, 2014, p.217)
Teacher educator professional learning, like teacher education,
can be messy and complex. As a result, developing as teacher ed-
ucators, committed to both practice and scholarship requires
mentoring and professional development support (Gallagher,
Grifn, Parker, Kitchen, & Figg, 2011, p. 880). Yet, content specic
professional development for teacher educators is rare (Berry,
2009; Cole, 1999; Murray, 2005). Because professional
* Corresponding author. Department of Kinesiology, California State University,
255 Yolo Hall, 400 West First Street, Chico, CA 95929, USA.
E-mail address: kpatton@csuchico.edu (K. Patton).
development programs are low on the priority list in most uni-
versity settings, teacher educators themselves are forced to seek
professional learning opportunities alone or collectively (Gallagher
et al., 2011), most frequently, taking their professional learning into
their own hands (Swennen & Bates, 2010). As indicated in
Loughrans (2014) opening quote, teacher educator professional
development serves as a trademark for becoming and learning as a
teacher educator, holding with it the potential to make a signicant
impact on the preparation of future teachers.
While the professional development of teachers has been
extensively studied (e.g., Darling-Hammond, Wei, Andree,
Richardson, & Orphanos, 2009), little is known about how
teacher educators develop professionally (Smith, 2003). In fact,
teacher educators themselves remain an, under-researched,
poorly understood, and ill-dened occupational group (Murray,
2016, p. 35). It is only recently that the teacher educators profes-
sional development has come to be a topic of both interest and
concern (Bates, Swennen, & Jones, 2011). Furthermore, Kosnik,
Miyata, Cleovoulou, Fletcher, and Menna (2015) provide a

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.06.013
0742-051X/ 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
352 K. Patton, M. Parker / Teaching and Teacher Education 67 (2017) 351e360
compelling argument for discipline specic studies of teacher ed-
ucators, indicating the work of teacher educators is multifaceted
and therefore studies, need to capture the complexity of their
work by examining their identities, practices, backgrounds, tran-
sition, challenges, individual talents, and contexts (p. 217).
1.1. Life as a teacher educator
While there are exceptions, academic life as a teacher educator
has been portrayed as lonely and personally demanding (Hadar &
Brody, 2010); characterized by stress, pressure, and uncertainty
(Austin, 2002). Expectations of colleges and universities in which
teacher educators work, serve, at times unwittingly, to add to the
uncertainty by conveying conicting messages. In one instance,
they represent, a culture of competition among institutions,
among programs and among faculty where cooperation is often
not only difcult to achieve but rarely rewarded (Diamond, 2006;
para. 4). Yet, in others, they are a place where conversations and
connections are viewed as a necessity for program development
and professional growth (Cole, 1999).
Research indicates that, when provided the opportunity, teacher
educators prefer to work with colleagues (Shagrir, 2010) and while
the programmatic and research benets of collaboration are well
documented (Graber, 1993; MacPhail, Patton, Parker & Tannehill,
2014; Pennington, Prusak, & Wilkinson, 2014), the organization of
colleges and universities sometimes hampers informal and open
dialogue while surreptitiously promoting individuality over colle-
giality. For example, the junctures to engage in more than casual
conversation regarding teaching and student learning or other
classroom challenges, quandaries, and ah-ha moments are few
(Berry, 2009; Gallagher et al., 2011; Hadar & Brody, 2010). In some
situations, most interaction among faculty is often limited to
cordial everyday talk (Hadar & Brody, 2010) and collegial inter-
change frequently stops at the classroom door (p. 1643).
1.2. Professional development for teacher educators
To address the unique working conditions and expectations of
teacher educators, professional development must be purpose-
fully conceptualized, thoughtfully implemented, and meaningfully
employed (Loughran, 2014, p. 10) to support growth and change
(Hadar & Brody, 2010). Smith (2003) identies the myriad of pro-
fessional competencies required of teacher educators to include,
but not limited to content, pedagogical, organizational, group
dynamic and communicative and developmental and personal
growth (p.202). In addition to their teaching roles, teacher edu-
cators are expected to conduct and disseminate research, add to the
teacher education knowledge base, develop reciprocal collabora-
tions with schools, and promote education in general (Oser, 1998;
Smith, 2003). The trajectory of a teacher educator's professional
development is, therefore, not limited to expanded theoretical
knowledge in a specic subject matter, but it is more a whole
person development with cognitive and affective aspects (Smith,
2003, p.203). This view of professional development is therefore
not constrained to time-defended, intentional activities meant to
achieve specic goals or standardsdrather it is a way of life (Barak,
Gidron, & Turniansky, 2010).
Physical education literature reects a relative absence of
contemporary research on the professional journeys of physical
education teacher educators (Graber, Templin, & Metzler, 2015;
McAvoy, MacPhail, & Heikinaro-Johansson, 2015). Similar to
teacher education in general (Kosnik et al., 2015), physical educa-
tion and as an extension physical education teacher education
(PETE), has long been described as a marginalized profession
(Pagnano, 2011). Exacerbating PETE marginalization in higher
education is a sense of isolation, as there are frequently only one or
two physical education teacher educators in a single university
setting, and PETE in many universities is housed outside of schools
of education (Ayers & Housner, 2008). Thus, opportunities to
engage in discourse about teacher education in these settings are
limited.
Providing a conceptual framework with which to expand our
knowledge of physical education teacher educators, Lawson (1991)
suggested future research including inuences on and questions
about their work lives, role orientations, productivity, and aflia-
tions. Using Lawson's suggestions as a starting point, McAvoy et al.
(2015) completed a review of literature on physical education
teacher educators (1990e2014). In particular, they noted scant
attention to paradigmatic and occupational communities to which
physical education teacher educators belong, highlighting an
almost 20 year void in studies focusing on, how, why, or to what
end PE teacher educators enact the scholarly aspect of their pro-
fessional work (p.172).
It is widely accepted that being part of a community, network, or
team offers one of the most powerful modes of professional
development (MacPhail et al., 2014; Parker, Patton, & Tannehill,
2012); suggesting that learning between members is even more
powerful than individual learning (Barak et al., 2010). Participation
within a community provides a space for authentic conversations,
where members nd reinforcement in and challenge each other's
experiences and stories (Gallagher et al., 2011). Further, knowledge
creation is social, produced through meaningful dialog and con-
versations that occur within communities (Barak et al., 2010).
Knowledge creation, therefore, is a non-linear process where, new
ideas and innovations emerge between rather than within people
(Paavola, Lipponen, & Hakkarainen, 2004, p. 564).
1.3. Communities of practice
Many educational theorists have promoted learning as partici-
pation (e.g., Dewey, 1916; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Scho n, 1983;
Vygotsky, 1978). In these situations learning is assumed to be so-
cial and situated; often occurring in informal contexts such as
communities through interaction, communication, taking part, and
gaining access to different contexts (Quennerstedt & Maivorsdotter,
2017). In recent literature, communities of practice (CoP) represent
a promising theme in the professional development of teacher
educators (Brody & Hadar, 2011; Hadar & Brody, 2010; Swennen &
Bates, 2010). While different interpretations of CoP make it chal-
lenging to apply the concept in meaningful ways (Boylan, 2010); it
nonetheless provides a powerful framework for examining teacher
educator learning. In one conceptualization, CoP are a social orga-
nization in which learning and participation takes place (Boylan,
2010). As such CoP are groups of people who share a concern or
a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as
they interact regularly (Wenger & Wenger-Trayner, 2015; p. 1).
Describing differences in conguration of CoP in practice, Wenger
and Wenger-Trayner, (2015; p. 3) stated:
They come in a variety of forms. Some are quite small; some are
very large, often with a core group and many peripheral mem-
bers. Some are local and some cover the globe. Some meet
mainly face-to-face, some mostly online. Some are within an
organization and some include members from various organi-
zations. Some are formally recognized, often supported with a
budget; and some are completely informal and even invisible.
These varied communities serve multiple purposes including
professional learning, increased research productivity, enhanced
instruction, and promotion of school improvement (Borko, 2004;
 K. Patton, M. Parker / Teaching and Teacher Education 67 (2017) 351e360
Table 1
Higher education communities of practice characteristics.
Location of CoP participants Type(s) of professional learning
1 North America Teacher Education, Research
2 North America, Europe Research
3 Europe Research
4 Scandinavia Research
5 Southeast Asia Teacher Education
6 North America, Europe Research
7 Europe Teacher Education
8 North America Teacher Education
9 North America, Europe Research
Little, 2002; MacPhail et al., 2014). They seek to break down walls
of solo practice (Byrk, 2016, p. 469) and create spaces where fac-
ulty learn from and with each other, promoting professional
growth (Hadar & Brody, 2010). They are not haphazard groups.
Rather, CoP are meaningful, purposeful, and revolve around
authentic tasks (Parker, Patton, Madden, & Sinclair, 2010). Conse-
quently, CoP provide a professional learning process that is mean-
ingful and relevant to individual members.
Wenger and Wenger eTraynor (2015) indicated that it is by
developing the three elements of domain, community, and practice
that a CoP can be established. First, the domain refers to a group's
identity which is dened by a shared area of interest. Participants
pledge allegiance to the domain, and therefore a shared compe-
tence that distinguishes members from other people (Wenger &
Wenger-Trayner, 2015; p. 2). Next, the community insinuates that
members pursue their interests through engagement in purposeful
activities and meaningful discussions, facilitating learning from and
with each other. Finally, the practice, represents a shared repertoire
of resources including experiences, stories, tools, and processes of
addressing any stumbling blocks the group may encounter along
the way. Creation of these resources takes considerable time and
sustained interaction.
Hadar and Brody (2010) proposed a three-layered model
regarding the effectiveness of CoP in teacher education, where each
layer is prerequisite to the following. The initial layer represents the
breaking of isolation. At this stage there is space for safe discussion,
social and professional interaction, and cross-area discourse
resulting in the development of a group that could make profes-
sional connections. This communication around the common
connections then leads to a second layer of improved teaching and/
or research. Professional learning regarding research and teaching
and a resultant increase in self-efcacy and competence provides
the third layer of the model. As Tannehill, Parker, Tindall, Moody,
and MacPhail (2015) indicate, The formation of a community of
teacher educators as a conduit for on-going dialogue, individual
and group reection, systematic action, and mutual respect, might
well create an environment that nurtures deep learning and
thought fostering individual and collective research capacity (p.
302).
The study of teacher educator professional learning can be
greatly enhanced when grounded in the distinguishing elements
associated with CoP. For example, trust and respect built within CoP
has been shown to lead to safe and supportive environments
(Whitcomb, Borko, & Liston, 2009). The creation of such environ-
ments, emphasizes the contribution of relationship, caring, and
mutual support within the group while at the same time focusing
on the professional development of individuals within their own
discipline (Brody & Hadar, 2015, p. 247). While much is known
about CoP potential to enhance professional learning substantially
less is known about the processes with respect to how they func-
tion, especially in higher education. To date, little research
353
Number of Number of Frequency/Duration
teacher educators universities involved
5 4 Ongoing (5 years)
3 2 Ongoing (2 years)
10 1 Ongoing (2 years)
2 1 Ongoing (10 years)
5 1 Ongoing (5 years)
2 2 Ongoing (8 years)
3 1 Ongoing (5 years)
3 1 Ongoing (2 years)
4 2 Ongoing (4 years)
(MacPhail et al. 2014; Tannehill et al., 2015) has been conducted
specically examining physical education teacher education CoP.
This paper attempts to begin to ll that gap.
1.4. Purpose
How physical education teacher educators engage in CoP as
professional development is important. The purpose of this study
was to explore physical education teacher educators un-
derstandings of how their participation in a CoP supported their
own professional development. More specically, signicant dy-
namics and group processes of CoP were explored. Insight on how
CoP members engage in a process of professional development can
contribute to our understanding of the features of effective pro-
fessional learning for teacher educators.
2. Methodology
2.1. Participants
Participants included 36 teacher educators representing nine
physical education teacher education CoP in the North America,
Europe, Scandinavia, and Southeast Asia (see Table 1). Participants'
teacher education experience averaged 13.7 years (range 2e34
years) and they held faculty ranks ranging from non-tenure track
lecturer to professor. Wenger and Wenger-Trayners (2015) ele-
ments of CoP were used to screen and identify suitable groups.
Prior to data collection, a list of potential participants was created
that included long term teachers educator communities known
rsthand or recently reported in academic literature. To be included
each group had to demonstrate an identity, dened by a shared
domain of interest (i.e., research, teacher education). Second,
collectively the members of the community had to actively pursue
their interests in their domain and, by doing so, engaged in
frequent social interactions (i.e., discussing, helping, sharing).
Finally, members had to have developed a shared repertoire of
resources and created a shared practice. All groups were self-
organized, non-mandated, and included inter- and intra-
university CoP in a variety of formats. As data were collected,
additional communities recommended by other participants that
met these criteria were included. Communication included face to
face meetings for groups composed entirely of members of a single
university (5 total groups). For the four remaining groups func-
tioning at a distance, meetings took place via Skype, or at profes-
sional conferences and personal visits. In all cases, group members
also engaged socially outside the workplace whenever possible.
Group size ranged from 2 to 10 with varied goals. Potential par-
ticipants were contacted via email or in person. All institutional
review board procedures were followed. Participating teacher ed-
ucators provided written informed consent, entailing their will-
ingness to participate in the study.
354 K. Patton, M. Parker / Teaching and Teacher Education 67 (2017) 351e360
2.2. Data sources
Data sources included formal and informal interviews, eld
notes, and related artifacts. First, to gain a more in-depth under-
standing of the CoP, we conducted focus group interviews
(60e90 min) with members of seven groups concentrating on
participants recalled events, people, contexts, and circumstances
salient to their collective professional learning experience. Because
of timing/convenience, members of two CoP were interviewed
individually. Second, descriptive eld notes from observations were
taken at formal and informal meetings of ve of the nine CoP
(1e2 h each), describing teacher educator interactions. Third,
informal conversational interviews (Patton, 2002) (average of 5 h;
range: 3e9 h) were conducted with individual CoP members at
professional conferences and university, and personal visits.
Informal conversational interviews were utilized because they
provide, exibility, spontaneity, and responsiveness to individual
differences and situational changes (Patton, 2002, p. 342). As such,
questions were personalized to deepen communication with par-
ticipants. Lastly, context for these programs was provided by
examining relevant artifacts (i.e., published accounts, documents
produced, email correspondence).
2.3. Data analysis
Data were analyzed utilizing inductively derived categories
from this data set and deductive categories based on a priori con-
structs from relevant literature. Open, axial, and selective coding
(Corbin & Strauss, 2008) were used to interpret data to develop
categories representing participants' understandings of their
participation in a CoP. During the open and axial coding phase we
individually read all interview transcripts several times, making
notations in the margins. From each transcript, signicant phrases
or sentences that pertained directly to professional learning were
identied. Also during this phase, analytic memos (Creswell, 2007)
were written for each data source to document and enrich the
interpretive process. Analytic memos consisted of questions, com-
ments, and ideas about emerging categories. Next, we conceptu-
alized and dened categories of results in terms of their properties
and dimensions. To accomplish this, individual analyses were
compared, taking turns sharing our insights and challenging each
other's interpretations, and making new interpretations where
necessary.
In the selective coding phase, we formed themes by relating
clusters of data to each other, determining which categories were
dominant. This was done by interrogating the initial data cate-
gories to determine which category encompassed the most data
from the perspectives of all participants. Based on our examina-
tion of teacher educator responses, data were originally organized
into two major categories and nine subcategories, which after
further analysis and discussion were collapsed into six. These
categories were then arranged according to procedures suggested
by Affara, Brown, and Mangione (2002) to delineate major and
minor categories. Because the focus was on the participation in a
CoP itself, the specic CoP characteristics (e.g., purpose, goals,
location) were not taken into account in data sorting (Creswell,
2007). Finally, newly created codes and categories were scruti-
nized until analysis produced no new codes or categories and
when accounting for all of the data. The most relevant excerpts
from each of the categories obtained by inductive coding were
integrated to portray how engagement in a CoP combated isola-
tion and promoted professional learning. Therefore, direct quotes
were identied from participants interviews. Participants are
identied by pseudonym.
2.4. Trustworthiness
Trustworthiness was established utilizing several separate
techniques. First, the triangulation was utilized using multiple in-
vestigators and multiple data sources to conrm the ndings
(Merriam, 2009). Data were triangulated for analytical purposes
across data sources (formal/informal interviews and artifacts).
Investigator triangulation occurred through the use of two in-
vestigators collecting and analyzing data. Next, a researcher journal
was kept to purposefully search for variations in participant un-
derstandings of their engagement in a learning community
(Merriam, 2009). Finally, an audit trail was maintained as a way of a
transparent description of the research steps taken from the start of
a research project to the development and reporting of ndings
(Patton, 2002).
3. Results
This paper focuses primarily on how participation in a CoP
supported teacher educators professional development by
exploring what signicant social dynamics and group processes
shaped their participation. Data analysis resulted in two over-
arching themes: a) three legged stools: better together than apart,
and b) paving the way: moving to collaboration.
3.1. Three legged stools: Better together than apart
Quite simply these teacher educators felt alone and insular in
their positions, prompting their engagement in a CoP. More
frequently than not comments such as, I was used to being in an
isolated space where I would prepare my teaching, but had limited
interaction with anything else (Martha) and, I was sort of isolated
in my program (Hilda) permeated conversations regarding aca-
demic life. There was a feeling of being alone in a crowd and they
just wanted someone to talk to and work with (Hilda) or needed
someone who I could talk to as a peer (Mattie). Two aspects de-
pict how participation in CoP furthered professional development:
a) I am not alone, and b) unleashing professional growth.
3.1.1. I am not alone
To a large extent, close association with like-minded colleagues
or at least colleagues of similar interests served to provide a
sounding board, combatting isolation and spawning professional
growth and development. When alone it was as if, You're in an
institution and there are not a lot of teacher educators around you
or you're in a very small program, how do you develop your prac-
tice? (Dianna). When working in isolation it was easy to wonder,
Am I doing it right; am I doing it wrong? (Faith). Engagement in
shared enterprise helped to foster shared alliances united by
mutual interests:
Previously, I wasn't with a group of people who had similar
interests to me; so I was isolated in some sense. Now they tried
to invite me in, but it wasn't my research area so you just don't
t in so we couldn't sit down and problematize and work
through stuff because there wasn't the understanding or the
interest. For me a space where there are people who are inter-
ested in what you are doing, where you can actually progress,
you can challenge yourself, you can link in with people who are
going to help you improve and help you get better. That's what
the key thing for me is. (Martha)
Belonging to a group of forward thinking physical education
teacher educators was refreshing as it breathes new life into me, it
gives me the passion and enthusiasm to try something new and try
 K. Patton, M. Parker / Teaching and Teacher Education 67 (2017) 351e360
something slightly different (Darlene). It was just re-energizing
as an overall sense of aloneness was replaced with belonging which
nurtured connectedness built on trust and sharing:
We have a deep friendship around what we are currently
thinking about. It's so fun to talk because we support each other.
We share so much around our academic lives and they [others]
don't get it. They don't understand your struggles, your in-
securities, but this group does. (Katy)
The belonging bred emotional support enhancing feelings of
self-efcacy and assurance. A young academic expressed that the
group gave me condence in what I know, what I might know
(Hilda). Engagement with the CoP served to shatter the silos of
isolation allowing people to get to know one another and initiate
conversations that began to negotiate the previous walls of
seclusion.
This new-found condence served to enhance professional
engagement that heightened learning, and allowed for unforeseen
accomplishments. Initially this professional engagement surfaced
as undiscovered opportunities for growth and development as
professionals:
I have had the opportunity to get involved in a variety of projects
with a variety of people. I would never had worked with Ellen on
a project, but because of random conversations that most often
happen in the group you start thinking, oh wouldn't that be an
interesting project if we linked this to that and so now I am
now working with people that I would never have worked with
before which is really valuable and without this group that
never would have happened. (Martha)
While the CoP at times were with colleagues in the same
institution, others functioned at a great distance. Despite the fact
that the geographical separateness had the potential to compound
feelings of detachment, proximity did not appear to be an issue as
one member of a long distance group relayed despite being
thousands of miles away and an 8-h time difference being a part
[of the CoP] helps to ght my sense of isolation, and pushes my
thinking as a teacher educator and researcher (Nathan). Regardless
of locale, the groups provided a network, a secret society (Hezro),
a safety net of sorts, of compatible individuals. There was a clear
sense that they were no longer alone.
3.1.2. Unleashing professional growth
As a sense of community was built, the CoP provided a platform
for professional growth, development, and learning through the
interaction with others. While this learning might in certain in-
stances be ordinary information such as something about the
computer or something with the Coke machine (Molly) which was
important to be able to ask, overall it was epitomized as something
much larger, deeper, and richer. It was about who you have
become (Morgan). The group and the interaction it triggered
provided a venue that, really has allowed me to be a learner, to
continue to be a learner (Nathan).
Ultimately, the groups afforded a backdrop to test out knowl-
edge while extending one another's knowledge, So any time I
question myself or my understanding I can kind of bounce that off
the group (Hilda). At the same time, they complemented, brought
different skill sets (Katy), to each other's knowledge. As Shannon
shared when discussing how to infuse technology in to a physical
education teaching methods course, I'm coming with one slant,
Jody's coming with another, but overall we are then thinking digital
learning and how we can improve our teaching by using this
355
technology.
The professional learning for others embodied increasing their
professional identity through lling perceived knowledge decits.
For example, Shannon shared how she overcame her limited prior
physical education teaching experience when asked to teach
elementary methods at the university level, I couldn't ll those
gaps, I knew I couldn't and that's why like straight away, I needed
people around me. At other times the support allowed for the
continuation of research activity. As Nathan, who was moving from
a research supportive environment to one with a higher teaching
focus, stated:
I wanted to continue to do research and present; all those
things. I knew that I needed that. And I knew that going to a
place where I'm teaching four classes a semester and several of
those had extensive eld experiences in schools; that was going
to be really, really difcult. So I knew I couldn't do it solo. So I
knew I needed help.
By uncovering one another's strengths, working together
resulted in an effectiveness that could not be found when working
alone. One group who was geographically isolated from any other
physical education teacher education collective and received all of
their knowledge from reading or electronically indicated:
We only survive by ourselves. Together we can gather knowl-
edge, new knowledge. Like from Charlie I got plenty of new
knowledge that I never expected before. From Alphonso I got a
more philosophical view; from It's like a puzzle for us.
Alphonso will complete me and then Antonio will complete me,
and I will complete (Hezro)
These groups were complementary and interdependent, like
three pronged stools (Darlene). At the end of the day you have a
richer mix with the ideas of one balancing the ideas of others. The
bottom line for all was we need each other. Quite simply they
were better together than apart:
The one thing that we both know; we wouldn't have been here
alone. We wouldn't have published the things. We wouldn't
have had the projects because we write all projects together. We
complement each other in different ways; we have different
competences. We do different things better than the other and
in different ways. If we would have been doing the same things
good and the same things bad they wouldn't have worked as
well. (Morgan)
3.2. Paving the way: The movement to collaboration
As a result of participation in a CoP, teacher educators collabo-
rated on topics of teaching and research capacities, personal pro-
fessional learning, and advocacy; topics about which they
genuinely cared. While both process and product accomplishments
were realized by these groups, signicant social dynamics and
group processes shaped their practice, paving the way to collabo-
ration. These included: a) identifying a common focus to spark joint
work, b) developing professional and personal relationships, c) safe
but challenging spaces, and d) shared commitment.
3.2.1. Identifying a common focus to spark joint work
Members of CoP were bound together by common practices, and
a collectively developed understanding about the focus of the
community. Groups came together in various ways as some grew
356 K. Patton, M. Parker / Teaching and Teacher Education 67 (2017) 351e360
from common research interests identied at academic confer-
ences, others spawned from an interest to improve teacher edu-
cation in a particular institution or region. The formation of groups
was sometimes simply, Find [ing] someone with some common
interest and just talk and talk (John). Other CoP discussed the
importance of beginning with a common task, I think what keeps
us together is we keep having authentic tasks that we decide we're
going to engage in; nding the project that in the moment is
meaningful (Katy).
Regardless of their focus, groups shared a concern or a passion
for something they did (i.e., research, teaching, advocacy), devel-
oped a clear sense of purpose, and worked towards shared facili-
tation of that purpose through sustained social interaction. When
providing advice to someone else with an interest in initiating a
similar CoP, Tammy shared the importance of nding common
ground:
Find a common focus, whether it be based on research, teaching,
students or whatever. Once a focus is determined attempt to
pull the group together on an ongoing basis to read about, talk
about and explore the area of interest in an in-depth way. This
might involve designing new pedagogies to investigate, devel-
oping a research question to examine, or designing a way of
mentoring one another.
To become formally established, CoP developed a structure for
their interactions and, especially early in their development,
negotiated boundaries for interaction. One group described how,
First, we created the safe environment over the teacher education
piece (Mattie). It was after the development of this initial common
interest that:
We were able to engage in more substantive issues; not that
discussion of elementary methods wasn't meaningful, but those
[conversations] were relatively safe. After that foundation was
established we were able to engage in research, share writing,
etcetera. Now we have a strong research collaboration, but that
really developed over time. (Nathan)
This progression was echoed by several groups in which the
development of a common focus served to provide an initial
boundary which dened interactions. One self-study CoP explained
that their common focus initially provided a structure around
which to share ideas, So the self-study gave that exibility as well
delimited, put a boundary around, what we [shared] (Dianna).
This initial structure and break from isolation then served to pro-
vide a foundation that allowed the relationship to talk about
things beyond those boundaries (Tony). Describing this process of
negotiating boundaries of the CoP, Dianna stated, These long dis-
tance relationships required negotiation and strategy. Tony is in one
country and I'm in another. We had to establish, So here's what will
be expected. Here's how it would operate.
3.2.2. Lasting personal and professional relationships
After determining a joint enterprise and negotiating initial
boundaries, building and maintaining meaningful relationships
was essential to the development and maturation of groups. This
was paramount to creating community and supported CoP to
overcome barriers. Relationships were developed initially via
informal social interactions:
I can't overstate just how important that informal social inter-
action is in building relationships. At least until the foundation is
laid. That makes a group a lot stronger. That notion of building
relationships and building them on safe ground is highly
important. It builds trust. Until you know you can trust someone
you are certainly not going to share the intimate details of your
work with them. (Morgan)
Relationships among group members were nurtured through
authentic, organic, often spontaneous conversations where power
was a non-issue:
The social aspect is huge. If there is not the opportunity to just
walk into somebody's ofce and have a conversation, then it
makes it more difcult. That creates some barriers; you haven't
broken the social barrier. Therefore, when you get a whole
bunch of people in the same room there are some social and
perceived power barriers going on; those prohibit some people
from being as open as they want to. (Tammy)
Before these social relationships were developed, interactions
within CoP were initially professional in nature. Over time, how-
ever, once trust was established they transitioned into something
much more signicant where potentially contentious ideas or
thoughts could be more easily discussed. Field notes of one US
intra-university CoP research brainstorming session hosted at a
local pub corroborated the establishment of trusting relationships.
As members arrive they are enthusiastically greeted with hugs
and smiles by the others. Food and drinks are enjoyed while the
group chats about personal and professional topics. As the food
arrives one member shares that she is eligible for promotion at
her university, yet is apprehensive about submitting her appli-
cation. Another member quickly responds just do it!, sharing
that she recently went through the process and offers to share
her own materials. Others chime in with their support and offers
to read and provide feedback prior to the submission deadline.
Once the discussion begins to die down, Donna shares the lo-
gistics of the upcoming national presentation and suggests the
CoP members submit a proposal. She also suggests including
one CoP member who was unable to make the meeting. Dis-
cussion ensued and the group negotiated different presentation
ideas. They ultimately decide on a topic and decide to work on a
formal proposal at their next meeting. (eld notes, 4/14/13)
As illustrated in this scenario, the power of relationships among
the members was evident. One participant stated, Yes, just trust, I
think that's our power, [Laughter] it's trust (Anne). Overall, these
relationships among the teacher educators were reported to be an
essential feature in the process and sustained their efforts. The
relationships (both personal and professional) were so powerful
that one two-person community was described by a colleague as
the most famous uncouple couple in sport pedagogy (Informal
conversational interview; 2/15).
3.2.3. Safe but challenging spaces
Due in large part to the development of trusting relationships,
CoP were described as a place where new opportunities could be
explored in an emotionally safe but challenging space. These en-
vironments were places where is was acceptable to say I can't
think; I can't do this; I need help. I need you (Morgan). It was a
space that allowed participants to learn in a really safe environ-
ment and talk about half formed ideas (Mattie). For Nathan,
engagement in a CoP pushed him to take risks he might not ordi-
narily take,
She's (CoP member) is more creative and I'm much more con-
servative. She has connections, she knows everybody. She'll go
 K. Patton, M. Parker / Teaching and Teacher Education 67 (2017) 351e360
and ask people things that I would never ask in a million years.
So as a result, we got access to all of these people, we inter-
viewed these people, visiting them If it was just me, I don't
know if it would have happened.
Once trust was established, CoP meetings provided a venue to
learn in a manner consistent with what worked for them. Betty
summed up this sentiment well when she stated:
The most signicant thing was creating an environment
where I felt safe to talk about things I was [initially] scared to
talk because I didn't think they mattered [laughter]. I think
probably because for all these years nobody has ever really
challenged me; and being challenged was very, very scary. It was
so important for it to be so safe for me to be able to say I don't
know what you mean by that. It was the acknowledgement of
the not knowing in that safe environment that made me really
think about what I did know and what I could know.
While this may have initially been viewed as risky, it was now
commonplace. Observations of an inter-university CoP's research
meeting conrmed the learning environment, indicating that when
members initially disagreed about the direction of a future research
project, they were able to reach consensus after much back and
forth discussion about the feasibility of the project and relation of
the research topic to group members' interests. Katy explained this
negotiation process:
I gured out how I learn. I learn by bouncing off my ideas, as
crazy as they might be, by other people and sort of seeing what
sticks when I interact with them it just helps me to get to new
places in my thinking.
In creating this safe and challenging space, members were
cautious of others' feelings:
We were really careful of each other's feelings. And I guess a
little bit you know protective because the reality is when you
type something [email] and you send it off to someone, you're
not there to see them crying at their desk. (Dianna)
Respect allowed communities to provide a space where mistakes
could be safely discussed and decits could be recognized without
feeling decient, For me it's a place to explore and learn; there's no
fear. There's no power piece, it's like a level playing eld and the
trust is huge (Darlene). Ultimately, members of CoP facilitated a
non-judgmental environment in which participants felt condent,
safe, and supported.
Safe, however did not always mean comfortable. Meetings
provided participants with opportunities to engage in critical
discourse which contributed to their learning. These challenging
discussions pushed participants to deepen their thinking and pro-
vided the condence to try new things:
She (CoP member) pushes me. She gets me to view things from a
different perspective. Our conversations are usually back and
forth, What about this, what about that. Though we often see
eye to eye, there are occasions where we at out disagree; that's
where we sometimes have a break-through or a new idea.
(Nathan)
Opportunities for teacher educators to be reective about their
teaching, research, and new ideas were also valued. Conversations
focused on essential elements of teacher educators' work, including
broader conversations where you get other perspectives; those
357
that are different from your own (Anne). Groups created a space
where teacher educators gathered to discuss common interests and
push individual's thinking:
It's (CoP) a space where there are people who are interested in
what you are doing; where you can actually progress; you can
challenge yourself; you can link in with people who are going to
help you improve and help you get better. (Martha)
Group interactions encouraged participants to use their collec-
tive experiences as a means for sharing ideas to increase knowledge
and skills. Morgan described that frequent dialog was enjoyable
and an essential aspect of his CoP:
It's fun to be able to go in and ask a question, can you read this
and can you do that? We wouldn't even think about doing it
alone. I would never write a paper which nobody had read or
submit that which people haven't commented on or send in an
application or anything. It wouldn't happen.
3.2.4. Shared commitment
There was an unmistakable sense of commitment to others
within the CoP. When describing their CoP focused on improving
teacher education, it was stated, Commitment. Commitment to
others. Committed individuals. It starts with commitment (Dar-
lene). As relationships among members were established, partici-
pants shared that they made closer connections because of their
work together Katy spoke about her commitment:
And then just a practical piece is that when we commit to
something we do not let each other down. If we say we are going
to do something, you're going to do it. I don't think anyone in
this group has every let me down.
At a foundational level commitment represented an account-
ability to complete tasks in a timely manner. But, for these groups it
was more than that:
For me, truly being part of a group means you are committed.
Committed to the project but also committed to others. If I
know, for example we are meeting on Friday to share what we
have worked on; I will do everything I can to contribute. Even if
it has been a crazy week and time is short, I will have something
to share. But if I'm doing that alone, I know it just wouldn't
have happened. (Nathan)
Scheduling time purposefully was also a characteristic of the
CoP studied, especially those with members who were at a dis-
tance. Meetings, generally Skype calls were conducted much like
regular face to face meetings. A day and time were set, an agenda
drafted, and they were never less than an hour and a half I'd say.
Like I've learned not to do it just before dinner (Dianna). Ses-
sions maintained some social sense, but tended to be:
. very productive when we do talk. And we're fairly directed in
that we mapped it out quite well so we needed to do that
abstract for an upcoming conference. We know already this next
abstract's going here and we know that paper needs to be
written or revised. So we're fairly structured and organized. And
I guess we prioritize it as well. (Dianna)
One participant described that to be committed to the group,
The key is we have to make some sacrice (Alphonso). This
358 K. Patton, M. Parker / Teaching and Teacher Education 67 (2017) 351e360
willingness to make sacrices and remain committed to the other
members of the CoP was a consistent feature among groups which
allowed participants to move from isolation to collaboration.
4. Discussion
This study explored physical education teacher educators' un-
derstandings of how their participation in a CoP supported their
own professional development More specically, signicant dy-
namics and group processes of CoP were examined. The groups
studied reect Wenger and Wenger-Trayners (2015) assertion that
CoP can and do vary in terms of size, geographic location, and
fundamental purpose. To be included in the study, CoP demon-
strated Wenger and Wenger-Trayners (2015) three elements of
domain, community, and practice. Even the two very small CoP
included adhered to these criteria and all were formed by in-
dividuals who engaged in a process of collective learning in a share
domain of human endeavor. Regardless of specic characteristics,
in all instances participation in a CoP served to break isolation and
support professional development. Engagement provided a foun-
dation for collaboration, allowing participants to extend teaching
and research capacities.
In the unpacking of the intracacies of these communities, pro-
fessional learning and growth, like the work of Hadar and Brody
(2010), appeared scaffolded and was more than working
together. Adhering to situated learning, trust and respect among
members was paramount (Whitcomb et al., 2009). As such, mem-
bers successfully engaged by listening and being respectful of
different opinions. This nding is dissimilar to studies reporting
that relationships and collaboration based on contrived collegiality,
congeniality, and power, can be a major roadblock (Hargreaves,
1992; Owen, 2015). Participants in this study successfully negoti-
ated and established genuine trust and respect within a safe and
supportive environment in which members were more willing to
take risks (Whitcomb et al., 2009), engaging in challenging
discourse that pushed them to deepen their understanding and
attempt new practices was created. This environment led to
enhanced condence, resulting in increased risk-taking. For
example, participants indicated that engagement in a CoP was
intellectually challenging, yet felt safe. Varying viewpoints were
seen as enhancing the learning process. Often this process resulted
in new collaborations and frequently informed each other's
research and teaching. Although participants regularly engaged
with colleagues on a departmental or programmatic level, they
infrequently engaged with colleagues in discourse about research,
teaching practice, or student learning. Our results emphasize pro-
fessional development within a group of teacher educators which
stands in stark contrast to the solitary academic, whose profes-
sional learning is partitioned from regular work. This perspective
supports breaking a higher education culture of isolation and is
driven by the belief that, one cannot learn in a vacuumdbeing an
expert novice has limited capacities (Brown, 1997, p.412).
For meaningful professional development to occur, supportive
conditions that allow teacher educators to freely share experi-
ences, attitudes, concepts (Ben-Perez, Kleeman, Reichenberg, &
Shimoni, 2010, p. 123) must be present. Like Hadar and Brody
(2010), the importance of the initial development of relationships
and the social nature of learning as a prerequisite to the discussion
of more substantive topics was vital. Teacher educators in this study
created the necessary structural and human supportive environ-
ment to facilitate intentional collaborative learning and the appli-
cation of that learning (Hord & Tobia, 2012), thus paving the way for
professional growth and development. While these structural and
human supportive conditions were necessary, they were not suf-
cient circumstances for learning. Instead, it was supportive
conditions coupled with a common identied focus, safe but
challenging spaces, and shared commitment that allowed for the
process of professional development to occur. In turn, participants
moved from isolation to collaboration, realizing Hadar and Brody's
third level benets of new dispositions toward teaching and
research.
Hadar and Brody suggest that it is the break in isolation which
leads to improved teaching and ultimately increased condence.
For the participants in this study, increased condence came earlier
as they began to engage with colleagues (reducing isolation) and it
was the increased condence which led to recognizing potential.
For example, results of the current study indicated that the
emotional support provided by the CoP enhanced their feelings of
self-efcacy, assuring their efforts to learn and explore new teacher
education practices.
Engagement with CoP supported teacher educators to get to
know one another and initiate meaningful conversations, resulting
in condence building. Finding their voices in a safe and, at times,
challenging space subsequently allowed increased interaction to
occur. With these groups it appeared that the more social dynamics
and group process aspects (e.g., shared commitment, safe and un-
comfortable space, personal and professional relationships, com-
mon focus), what might be considered environmental or
organizational factors, were attended to the more potential there
was for the breaking personal isolation. Hence the more potential
for professional learning and growth.
In the end, participants' understandings of how their partici-
pation in a CoP served to further their professional development
were remarkably similar. Though not a primary focus of this
investigation, the analogous responses from teacher educators
suggest that there was little variation in results with respect to
faculty rank, group's purpose, and geographic location. Interest-
ingly, roughly half of the CoP examined involved teacher educators
from different institutions prompting several questions about the
value and acceptance of inter versus intra university CoP. By
bringing another set of eyes to discussions, these groups,
enhanced, rather than detracted from work in their home in-
stitutions as group members became defacto contributors to
another faculty. In the end, these CoP effectively functioned despite
representing a variety of structures (face to face and at a distance;
inter and intra university). Regular, often informal, interactions
were valued and when typical meetings were not possible, as was
the case for groups with members in more than one location,
groups instead utilized technology as well as professional confer-
ences and personal visits to engage. Perhaps more important to the
participants in this study than rank or location, was that engage-
ment in CoP resulted in the creation of trusting relationships which
served to break their feeling of academic isolation. While safe, CoP
members frequently engaged in critical dialog which challenged
the status quo. This type of disequilibrium has been identied as an
effective means to facilitate learning (Fosnot, 2005). Teacher edu-
cators in this study challenged each other's thinking, successfully
introducing disequilibrium all the while creating an environment
in which teachers felt safe, supported, and able to take chances in a
non-judgmental setting.
Loughran (2014) submits that teacher educators, be able to
conceptualize and enact their own professional learning (p. 273)
requiring a vision for professional development that affords them
agency in the active development of their scholarship (p. 280). For
these teacher educators this was done through meaningful
engagement in a CoP. As such, we are not proposing CoP as a recipe
for action or panacea for teacher educators' professional learning.
In fact, from our experience there is no one recipe for the creation
and maintenance of CoP. The CoP investigated in this study were as
different as the people who comprised them. While no magic
 K. Patton, M. Parker / Teaching and Teacher Education 67 (2017) 351e360
bullet, we offer the tenets of effective CoP including, the identi-
cation of a common focus to spark joint work, developing profes-
sional and personal relationships (created during professional and
social interactions), creating safe (non-judgmental) but challenging
spaces, and developing shared commitment. For these participants
and in these instances, CoP with these characteristics not only
broke isolation and the competitive norms of higher education, but
provided a collaborative environment where faculty were
committed to their own learning, inspiring institutional growth
(Graff, 1996; Hadar & Brody, 2010).
Similar to learning communities which have being proposed as
a signature pedagogy (Shulman, 2005) for teachers' professional
learning (Parker, Patton & OSullivan, 2016), CoP have been iden-
tied as a potential signature pedagogy for teacher educators
professional learning (Ben-Perez et al., 2010). In response to
Lawsons (1991) call for the investigation of the paradigmatic and
occupational communities to which physical education teacher
educators belong, this study examined participants' un-
derstandings of how their participation in a CoP supported their
own professional development and served to enhance a culture of
collaboration.
Faculty in higher education institutions often function in silos;
yet such segregation is not good for the individual, the university, or
the profession. The CoP examined in this study appear to mediate
the isolationist culture of the university, allowing individual faculty
control over the quality of his or her academic life. In such in-
stances, learning is motivated and expanded when individuals
participate in the collective control over the conditions of their
learning (Roth & Lee, 2006, p. 38). These teacher educators have
shown us that working together is effective; that the cooperative is
a place where ideas belong to the group and where learning is
promoted and valued. We also believe that the practices of teacher
educators inuence the work of teachers, which in turn inuences
the success of pupils (Kosnik et al., 2015, p.219). This compels the
rethinking of the organization and structure of professional
learning in higher education, calling into question the necessity for
meaningful reection for true transformation in teacher education
professional learning and practice. Such CoP hold the potential
develop more than a culture of collaboration and provide a vehicle
for individuals to extend teaching and research capacities, thus
enhancing both teacher education and research on teacher educa-
tion. A consequence of this type of professional learning could be
teacher education programs that result in educational change
(Loughran, 2014).
References
Affara, V., Brown, K., & Mangione, T. (2002). Qualitative analysis on stage: Making
the research process more public. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 28e38.
Austin, A. E. (2002). Preparing the next generation of faculty: Graduate school as
socialization to the academic career. The Journal of Higher Education, 73, 94e121.
Ayers, S., & Housner, L. (2008). A descriptive analysis of undergraduate PETE pro-
grams. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 27(1), 51e67.
Barak, J., Gidron, A., & Turniansky, B. (2010). Without stones there is no arch: A
study of professional development of teacher educators as a team. Professional
Development in Education, 36(1e2), 275e287.
Bates, T., Swennen, A., & Jones, K. (2011). In The professional development of teacher
educators. London: Routledge.
Ben-Perez, M., Kleeman, S., Reichenberg, R., & Shimoni, S. (2010). Educators of
educators: Their goals, perceptions and practices. Professional Development in
Education, 36(1e2), 111e129.
Berry, A. (2009). Professional self-understanding as expertise in teaching. Teachers
and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 15(2), 305e318.
Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the
terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3e15.
Boylan, M. (2010). Ecologies of participation in school classrooms. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 26, 61e70.
Brody, D., & Hadar, L. (2011). I speak prose and I now know it. Personal devel-
opment trajectories among teacher educations in a professional development
community. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(8), 1223e1234.
359
Brody, D., & Hadar, L. (2015). Personal professional trajectories of novice and
experienced teacher educators in a professional development community.
Teacher Development, 19(2), 246e266.
Brown, A. L. (1997). Transforming schools into communities of thinking and
learning about serious matters. American Psychologist, 52(4), 399e413.
Byrk, A. (2016). Accelerating how we learn to improve. Educational Researcher,
44(9), 467e477.
Cole, A. (1999). Teacher educators and teacher education reform: Individual com-
mitments, institutional realities. Canadian Journal of Education, 24(3), 281e295.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and pro-
cedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among ve
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009).
Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher devel-
opment in the United States and abroad. Dallas, TX: National Staff Development
Council.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: Macmillan.
Diamond, R. (2006). Why colleges are so hard to change. Inside higher education.
https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2006/09/08/diamond.
Fosnot, C. T. (2005). Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Gallagher, T., Grifn, S., Parker, D. C., Kitchen, J., & Figg, C. (2011). Establishing and
sustaining teacher educator professional development in a self-study commu-
nity of practice: Pre-tenure teacher educators developing professionally.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 880e890.
Graber, K. C. (1993). The emergence of faculty consensus concerning teacher edu-
cation: The socialization process of creating and sustaining faculty agreement.
Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 12, 424e436.
Graber, K., Templin, T., & Metzler, M.. (2015, October). The state of and future of
research on physical education teacher educators. Paper presented at the So-
ciety of Health and Physical Educators HETE/PETE Conference, Atlanta, GA.
Graff, L. (1996). Committed to growth through learning organization. On the Hori-
zon, 4(2), 5e6.
Hadar, L., & Brody, D. (2010). From isolation to symphonic harmony: Building a
community of learners among teacher educators. Teaching and Teacher Educa-
tion, 26(8), 1641e1651.
Hargreaves, A. (1992). Cultures of teaching: A focus for change. In A. Hargreaves, &
M. G. Fullan (Eds.), Understanding teacher development (pp. 216e240). London:
Cassell.
Hord, S., & Tobia, E. (2012). Reclaiming our teaching profession: The power of edu-
cators learning in a community. New York: Teachers College Press.
Kosnik, C., Miyata, C., Cleovoulou, Y., Fletcher, T., & Menna, L. (2015). The education
of teacher educators. In T. Falkenberg (Ed.), Handbook of Canadian research in
initial teacher education (pp. 207e224). Ottawa, ON: Canadian Association of
Teacher Education.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lawson, H. (1991). Future research on physical education teacher education pro-
fessors. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 10, 229e248.
Little, J. W. (2002). Locating learning in teachers' communities of practice: Opening
up problems of analysis in records of everyday work. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 18, 917e946.
Loughran, J. (2014). Professionally developing as a teacher educator. Journal of
Teacher Education, 65(4), 271e283.
MacPhail, A., Patton, K., Parker, M., & Tannehill, D. (2014). Leading by example:
Teacher educators' professional learning through communities of practice.
Quest, 66, 39e56.
McAvoy, E., MacPhail, A., & Heikinaro-Johansson, P. (2015). Physical education
teacher educators: A 25-year scoping review of literature. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 51, 162e181.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research and case study: Applications in education,
Revised and expanded from case study research in education (3rd ed.). San Fran-
cisco: Jossey-Bass.
Murray, J. (2005). Re-addressing priorities: New teacher educators' experiences of
induction in higher education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 28(1),
67e85.
Murray, J. (2016). Chapter 16: Beginning teacher educators: Working in higher
education and schools. In J. Loughran, & M. L. Hamilton (Eds.), International
handbook of teacher education (vol. 2, pp. 35e70). New York: Springer.
Oser, F. (1998). Standards in teacher training. European Education, 30(2), 20e25.
Owen, S. M. (2015). Teacher professional learning communities in innovative
context: ah hah moments, passion and making a difference for student
learning. Professional Development in Education, 41(1), 57e74.
Paavola, S., Lipponen, L., & Hakkarainen, K. (2004). Models of innovative knowledge
communities and three metaphors of learning. Review of Educational Research,
74(4), 557e576.
Pagnano, K. R. (2011). Physical education teacher education: Creating a foundation
to increase the status of physical education in schools. Journal of Physical Edu-
cation, Recreation, and Dance, 82(7), 45e47, 56.
Parker, M., Patton, K., Madden, M., & Sinclair, C. (2010). The development and
maintenance of a community of practice through the process of curriculum
development. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 29(4), 1e22.
Parker, M., Patton, K., & OSullivan, M. (2016). Signature pedagogies in support of
teachers professional learning. Irish Educational Studies, 35(2), 137e153.
360 K. Patton, M. Parker / Teaching and Teacher Education 67 (2017) 351e360
Parker, M., Patton, K., & Tannehill, D. (2012). Mapping the landscape of Irish physical
education professional development. Irish Educational Studies, 31(3), 311e327.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pennington, T., Prusak, K., & Wilkinson, C. (2014). Succeed together or fail alone:
Going from good to great in physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical
Education, 33, 28e52.
Quennerstedt, M., & Maivorsdotter, N. (2017). The role of learning theory in learning
to teach. In C. Ennis (Ed.), Routledge handbook of physical education pedagogies.
London: Routledge.
Roth, W. M., & Lee, Y. J. (2006). Contradictions in theorizing and implementing
communities in education. Educational Research Review, 1(1), 27e40.
Schon, D. (1983). The reective practitioner: How professionals think in action (Vol.
5126). New York: Basic books.
Shagrir, L. (2010). Professional development of novice teacher educators: Profes-
sional self, interpersonal relations and teaching skills. Professional Development
in Education, 36(1e2), 45e60.
Shulman, L. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134(3),
52e59.
Smith, K. (2003). So, what about the professional development of teacher educa-
tors? European Journal of Teacher Education, 26(2), 201e215.
Swennen, A., & Bates, T. (2010). The professional development of teacher educators.
Professional Development in Education, 36(1e2), 1e7.
Tannehill, D., Parker, M., Tindall, D., Moody, B., & MacPhail, A. (2015). Looking across
and within: Studying ourselves as teacher educators. Asia-Pacic Journal of
Health, Sport and Physical Education, 6(3), 299e311.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: Development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wenger, E., & Wenger-Trayner, B. (2015). Communities of practice. A brief introduc-
tion. Retrieved from: http://wenger-trayner.com/introduction-to-communitie
s-of-practice/.
Whitcomb, J., Borko, H., & Liston, D. (2009). Growing talent: Promising professional
development models and practices. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(3),
207e212.