BRIEF REPORT

Understanding Language Teacher Educators’ ProfessionalExperiences: An Exploratory Study in Hong Kong

Rui Yuan • Icy Lee

Published online: 6 September 2013

� De La Salle University 2013

Abstract This research explores six language teacher

educators’ professional experiences in Hong Kong. Draw-

ing on the data from their narrative frames, the study

identified some distinct roles in the participants’ profes-

sional lives, including teacher, supervisor, learner,

researcher, scholar, and change agent. While some of the

roles were satisfying and rewarding (e.g., teacher and

supervisor), conflicts and tensions occurred in other roles

(e.g., researcher and change agent), which could be

attributed to the lack of professional support for their

continuous learning, the institutional pressure to publish,

and the difficulty in bridging the research–practice divide.

By taking a reflective stance and exercising their profes-

sional agency, the participants attempted to cope with the

conflicting roles and found meaning and satisfaction in

their work. The study concludes that teacher educators

should be encouraged to inquire into their own professional

practice and provided with more opportunities and

resources to engage in their continuous professional

development.

Keywords Language teacher educators �Language teacher education � Professional development

Introduction

While the significance of teacher educators has been cel-

ebrated in current teacher education programs (Cochran-

Smith 2003), research into their professional experiences

and understanding is still in its infancy (Hamilton 2005;

Zeichner 2005). In the second language teacher education,

research and reflection on the practice of teacher educators

is also rare, and what teacher educators do and how they

manage the complexities of their work is a significant area

that warrants exploration (Wright 2010). The present study,

therefore, seeks to investigate the professional lives of

language teacher educators in Hong Kong by drawing on

the narrative accounts of their professional experiences.

Teacher educators refer to ‘‘those teachers in higher

education and in schools who are formally involved in pre-

service and in-service teacher education’’ (Swennen and

Klink 2009, p. 3). In this study, we focus on university-

based teacher educators. According to previous research,

teacher educators experience joys and gain rewards by

working with students and collaborating with colleagues

(Murray and Male 2005). A sense of satisfaction and pride

permeates their professional career as they see their work

as meaningful and significant to human growth and

development (Swennen et al. 2009). On the other hand,

teacher educators are also confronted with a range of

challenges in their work. They can be burdened with heavy

workloads through teaching an increasing number of stu-

dents, providing clinical guidance in teaching practicum,

engaging in academic research as well as other adminis-

trative duties (Cochran-Smith 2005). Besides, the new

managerialism and ‘‘audit’’ culture prevalent in universities

can create ‘‘schisms’’ between research and other types of

scholarship in their professional lives (Chetty and Lubben

2010). For example, in recent years, Hong Kong

R. Yuan (&) � I. Lee

The Faculty of Education, The Chinese University of Hong

Kong, Hong Kong, China

e-mail: ericyuanrui@hotmail.com

I. Lee

e-mail: icylee@cuhk.edu.hk

Present Address:

R. Yuan

The Faculty of Education, The Chinese University of Hong

Kong, Room 105, Ho Tim Building, Shatin NT, Hong Kong,

China

123

Asia-Pacific Edu Res (2014) 23(1):143–149

DOI 10.1007/s40299-013-0117-6

Universities, like their counterparts in other places (e.g.,

Mainland China and Taiwan), are putting stringent

requirements on academics’ research output. Under the

‘‘publish or perish’’ system, more and more academics,

including teacher educators, are suffering risks of demo-

tion, termination of contracts, and inability to obtain tenure

after long service (Lee 2012), which has pushed them to

shift their attention from more practice-based work to

academic research. Moreover, teacher educators are subject

to the ever-shifting curricular and policy imperatives in

their working contexts (Dinkelman 2011). In Hong Kong,

for instance, ongoing education reforms have put the onus

on teacher educators to enhance the professional develop-

ment of teachers (both pre-service and in-service), to

facilitate their uptake of reform initiatives (e.g., whole

school curriculum and diverse modes of assessment), and

to help transform their educational beliefs and mindsets

(Draper 2012). Additionally, the need to prepare proficient

and competent English teachers to help raise students’

English standards in an EFL (English as a foreign lan-

guage) context has made language teacher education an

ever challenging job. Therefore, how to attract and prepare

student teachers in their pre-service language education,

how to engage and support in-service English teachers in

their continuous professional development, and how to

improve the quality of language teaching and learning in

schools have become knotty but central issues confronting

all language teacher educators, especially those in Hong

Kong.

In the current literature, while a limited number of studies

has examined certain aspects of teacher educators’ practice

in Hong Kong and identified some challenges embedded in

their professional work (Law et al. 2008), there is a need for

more research on their professional practice and experiences,

which provides the point of departure for the present study.

This study not only adds to our limited understanding of

language teacher educators, but it also generates useful

implications in terms of what support needs to be in place to

help teacher educators cope with the complex demands and

challenges in other similar contexts.

The Study

The central research question that guides the study is: how

do language teacher educators engage in their professional

work? Specifically, what challenges do they face in the

various roles they play? To answer the research question,

‘‘narrative frame’’ is employed as a means of collecting

storied experience from language teacher educators. As

Barkhuizen and Wette (2008) suggest, narrative frame is an

effective approach for probing an unfamiliar context (in

our case, teacher educators in Hong Kong remains under-

researched). Also, different from interviews, narrative

frames can enable participants to engage in long and deep

reflection on their lived experiences and write narratively

about these experiences by providing guidance and support

in terms of the structure and content of what it is to be

written. However, Barkhuizen and Wette (2008) sound a

note of caution about the potential risk of narrative frame

in depersonalizing the experiences of participants. There-

fore, in our study, the three dimensions of the narrative

inquiry space (Clandinin and Connelly 2000) are adopted

to inform the design of the narrative frame in order to

personalize it. First, we incorporate the dimension of

‘‘time’’ to link the past, present, and future of the partici-

pants, and also focus on the dimension of ‘‘personal and

social’’ by looking inward (their emotions) and outward

(their social interactions). At the same time, the physical

setting or place is taken into account to embrace the con-

textual uniqueness of their professional work. The final

version of the narrative frame includes two sections. The

first section is a general questionnaire about the partici-

pants’ educational background and teaching experience.

The second section is a template with specific guidelines

focusing on the participants’ professional experience and

roles as a language teacher educator. In this section, the

participants are first required to write an autobiographical

account of how they became a teacher educator, the cir-

cumstances under which they work, what they have gained

personally and professionally as a language teacher edu-

cator, and their present feelings about being a language

teacher educator. Afterward, the focus of the narrative

frame shifts to the participants’ current perceptions and

practice in relation to a number of significant roles teacher

educators are generally believed to play, including program

administrator, teacher, researcher, collaborator, supervisor,

mentor, scholar, service provider, learner, and change

agent (ATE 2007; Zeichner 2005). These ten roles serve as

prompts for the participants to reflect and elaborate on their

related experiences as teacher educators. Furthermore, we

invite the participants to add new roles that are not inclu-

ded in the frame but they are attached to, and also reflect

prospectively on what roles they currently feel unassoci-

ated with but would like to develop in the future. To

improve the design of the narrative frame, it was piloted

with two teacher educators who completed the draft nar-

rative frame and gave comments. The draft was then

modified and revised based on their comments, which led

to the final version of the narrative frame.

For data collection, we contacted 18 language teacher

educators from four Hong Kong universities where lan-

guage teacher education is mainly provided. Six of them

agreed to participate in the research on a voluntary basis.

Generally speaking, in Hong Kong, the majority of lan-

guage teacher educators are locals with an increasing

144 R. Yuan, I. Lee

123

number of them from Mainland China and other countries.

While most of them have been classroom teachers before

entering teacher education, in recent years there have been

more newly recruited teacher educators with little school

teaching experience (but with strong research profiles). In

this study, the six participants (referred to as P1 to P6), five

males and one female, are from four different universities.

They are all Chinese, with three from Mainland China—

i.e., born and received the bulk of their education there (P1,

P3, and P6) and three from Hong Kong (P2, P4, and P5).

They all hold doctoral degrees in Education or Applied

Linguistics from Hong Kong or overseas universities. Their

experience as teacher educators ranged from three to

25 years. While P3 and P6 had no formal language

teaching experience in schools, the others had worked as

English teachers in secondary schools from 2 to 14 years

(three in Hong Kong and one in Mainland China). Table 1

provides detailed biographical information on each of the

participants. After gaining the consent of the participants,

the narrative frame was sent to each of them through email.

They completed the narrative frame within 1 month and

returned it to the researchers via email, which comprised

the database of the study. A qualitative approach was

employed in data analysis. After reading and re-reading the

collected narratives, we identified, through open coding,

commonly emerging themes and patterns with reference to

the professional roles suggested in the narrative frame and

then categorized and re-assembled the themes accordingly.

The categories were constantly compared and juxtaposed

within and across cases, which led to the final interpreta-

tion of the data. To ensure the validity of the study, the data

analysis was conducted by the two researchers indepen-

dently followed by discussion to reach a consensus of the

results of data analysis.

Research Findings

In the following, we report on the most interesting and

telling findings with regard to six out of the ten roles

suggested in the narrative frame, which can throw light on

the participants’ professional lives as language teacher

educators.

Teacher/Supervisor/Learner

All the participants attached great importance to their role as a

‘‘teacher.’’ A range of related roles emerged under the cate-

gory of ‘‘teacher,’’ including a ‘‘knowledgeable lecturer’’ in

transferring their own knowledge and experience to students

(P1), a ‘‘facilitator’’ in promoting students’ learning by cre-

ating the best possible learning environment (P2), and a

‘‘friend’’ in understanding students’ needs (P3) and ‘‘assisting

their personal growth’’ (P4). In addition to the teacher role, the

participants put a strong emphasis on the ‘‘supervisor’’ role.

They regarded their ‘‘teaching of teachers’’ as not only con-

fined to the university site but also taking place in the practi-

cum. By paying visits to the field schools, they would observe

student teachers’ teaching and provide constructive feedback

and suggestions in order to help them become better teachers.

In general, working as ‘‘teacher’’ and ‘‘supervisor’’ turned out

to be a satisfying and rewarding experience for all the par-

ticipants as they saw students benefit from their teaching and

supervision personally and professionally:

I find teaching both enjoyable and enlightening, and it

brings satisfaction when I see my students making

progress and becoming good teachers themselves.

(P1)

The joy of seeing my student teachers benefit from

what I have contributed through teaching is what I

treasure. (P5)

The teacher educators, however, did not necessarily ‘‘practice

what they preach’’ in their own professional practice. For

instance, while they advocated teacher collaboration (such as

collaborative lesson planning and co-teaching) as pivotal to

the professional development of teachers, none of the

participants referred to such form of collaboration in their

teaching courses and practicum supervision:

We (teacher educators) should try to practice what we

preach in the classroom so that student teachers not

Table 1 Biographical information of the participants

Name Gender Birth

place

Educational

qualifications

Title Number of years

as a school teacher

Number of years as

a teacher educator

P1 M Mainland BA, MA, PhD Associate Professor 2 9

P2 M Hong Kong BA, PGDE, MA, EdD Assistant Professor 11 5

P3 M Mainland BA, MA, PhD Associate Professor NA 5

P4 M Hong Kong BA, PGDE, MA, EdD Associate Professor 14 25

P5 F Hong Kong BA, PGDE, MA, PhD Assistant Professor 9 18

P6 M Mainland BA, MA, PhD Lecturer NA 3

Understanding Language Teacher Educators’ Experiences 145

123

only understand our ideas, but also know how to

apply these ideas to their future teaching practice…a

lot of colleagues seem to ignore this, and this is also

why a lot of pedagogical innovations advocated in the

universities failed to have any impacts on teaching in

schools. (P4)

Besides, the teacher educators found it difficult to integrate

educational theories into their teaching practice so as to

better prepare language teachers. For some who had

worked as English teachers, though their previous teaching

experience helped establish their ‘‘credibility’’ as a teacher

educator, they found it challenging to combine their

practitioner skills and understanding with the knowledge

they had accumulated from teacher education research and

to make it comprehensible and useful for prospective

teachers (P2, P4, and P5):

I always try to make my lessons substantial, inspiring,

and relevant to students’ needs. But sometimes, it is

difficult to change teachers’ perceptions given their

prior experience and lack of understanding of the real

teaching contexts. (P4)

For those without previous teaching experience (P3 and

P6), they found their theoretical understanding not condu-

cive to their current teaching practice:

What I had learnt in graduate and doctoral courses

would not be applicable in real classrooms and I

really need to work hard to figure out ways to bridge

the gap between research and practice. (P6)

It is, therefore, not surprising that apart from the nine

roles suggested in the narrative frame, all the participants

added the ‘‘learner’’ role in the others section, identify-

ing themselves as ‘‘learners’’ who are constantly reflect-

ing on their professional work and learning to develop

their knowledge and practice. For example, for P3 and

P6 who had no school teaching experience before, they

recalled how they learned through conducting workshops

for frontline teachers in schools and visiting student

teachers during teaching practicum. Through ‘‘learning

by doing,’’ they gradually deepened their understanding

of language teaching and developed their teacher educa-

tion practice:

I became familiar with school contexts and under-

stood how teaching has been shaped in schools and

what impacts a teacher educator can bring to teachers

and their teaching. I have been gaining confidence in

my practice. (P6)

As teacher educators sketched their directions for future

learning, they underlined the importance of the learner

role:

I am willing to invest efforts in improving myself as a

teacher educator. The most important thing for me is

to learn more about frontline teachers’ needs and

challenges in Hong Kong context. (P3)

The participants’ learning also resided in their research

activities, particularly through collaboration with other

teacher educators (P1, P2, and P3):

My role as co-investigator has been interesting as

well as rewarding. Through these research projects, I

developed new insights into certain key themes in the

areas of formative assessment and feedback innova-

tions. I also developed a better understanding of

school contexts in which our research is based. (P2)

Despite their eagerness and efforts to learn, teacher

educators are often looked upon as ‘‘experts’’ and ‘‘givers.’’

Their learner role seems much less prominent than the

teacher role and hence, the needs of teacher educators as

learners may not be sufficiently served. For example,

looking back on the transition from a school teacher to a

teacher educator, P2 mentioned the difficulties he met in

terms of the change of teaching content and different levels

of students’ expectations. Without much mentoring from

colleagues and guidance from the institution, he could only

rely on himself in ‘‘getting through’’ these discomforting

changes. Therefore, the lack of professional preparation

and institutional support can create both practical and

psychological problems for teacher educators, especially at

the induction stage (Murray and Male 2005).

Researcher/Scholar/Change Agent

The role of ‘‘researcher’’ is another prominent aspect of the

participants’ professional lives. They all engaged in

research independently and collaboratively, and dissemi-

nated the research results through publications, conference

presentations, seminars, and workshops. Most participants

(P1, P2, P4, and P5) focused their research efforts on the

symbiotic relationship between their own research and

teaching practice (Cochran-smith 2003):

I found myself engaged in intellectual exchange with

students about different educational topics in class,

which gave me new research ideas. (P1)

I believe my courses are sources of inspiration for my

students especially when my research is concerned

with language teaching and student learning. (P2)

One participant (P3), however, shared his difficulties in

bridging the gap between his research and teaching. He

admitted that his research on higher education ‘‘may not be

easily translated into something directly related to teachers’

146 R. Yuan, I. Lee

123

professional practice.’’ Thus he pointed out the need to

give more attention to teachers’ classroom teaching and

professional development in his future research. Overall,

the participants felt that as teacher educators, their research

should be related to or have an impact on practice:

In order to keep abreast of the new developments and

initiatives in education, teacher trainers must conduct

relevant research and go in-depth in our research to

improve our teacher education practice. (P6)

The participants’ role as researchers, however, was met

with challenge because of their multiple responsibilities

and heavy workload:

I would label myself as a struggling researcher as I

was assigned to teach many classes in a year cum a

number of administrative duties. (P2)

How to strike a balance between the research and

teaching has been a great challenge to me. (P6)

The ‘‘publish-or-perish’’ syndrome prevalent in Hong

Kong universities also posed a challenge. For P3, it placed

considerable stress on him to conduct research and publish

scholarly works:

It is really important for me to keep publishing as this

will determine my tenure in my current position. (P3)

For P4 and P5, the institutional requirement for publications

resulted in a conflict between the two significant aspects of

her professional life—‘‘teaching’’ and ‘‘research’’:

Coming from the background of a teacher educator, I

put teaching as the priority of all work…at the same

time the university’s demand for research output has

changed over these years, making it play a more

prominent role in the work of academics. I find it

difficult in managing my time to meet the demands

equally well. (P5)

The findings show that as researchers, the participants were

faced with different challenges and tensions in their work.

Furthermore, the participants perceived a strong con-

nection between the roles of ‘‘researcher’’ and ‘‘scholar.’’

They generally considered ‘‘scholar’’ to be someone who

makes contributions to knowledge discovery and theory

building through research. Publications and external rec-

ognition are thus significant criteria in defining ‘‘scholars.’’

From this perspective, the concept of ‘‘scholarship’’ is

strictly limited to research, while teaching and service as

the other two important dimensions of ‘‘scholarship’’

(Boyer 1990) are excluded. As a result, only P1 and P3

referred to themselves as ‘‘scholars,’’ which was primarily

based on their research activities and outcome. For the rest

of the participants, although they realized that sound

research findings could inform and promote their teaching,

the strong research orientation of a scholar to some extent

clashed with their practice-based work as teacher educa-

tors. Thus, P6 expressed his concern as follows:

Many scholars publish a plethora of research articles,

but how do we translate them into actual innovations

in schools? So the issue is our knowledge base on

teaching is experiencing exponential growth but we

have not produced more excellent learners. (P6)

For P6, the notion of ‘‘scholarship’’ was re-defined to

include knowledge transfer—i.e., having an impact on the

quality of language teaching and learning in schools, which

echoes an expanded conceptualization of ‘‘scholarship’’

defined not only in terms of knowledge discovery, but also

knowledge integration, application, and dissemination

(Boyer 1990; Chetty and Lubben 2010).

Aside from the ‘‘researcher’’ and ‘‘scholar’’ roles, the

‘‘change agent’’ emerged as a role central to the work of

teacher educators. Four participants (P1, P2, P4, and P5)

embraced the role as a ‘‘change agent,’’ which refers to the

application of research and implementation of innovations

in order to promote language teaching and learning. Inci-

dentally, these are the teacher educators who attached great

importance to the symbiotic relationship between research

and practice (as reported in the above). By taking up the

role as a change agent, the teacher educators not only

demonstrated their willingness to address practical chal-

lenges (such as those arising from resistance from teachers,

students, and parents), but they also formulated their own

‘‘educational vision’’ (ATE 2007) for language teaching

and teacher education. Take P2 as an example,

I consider myself as a change agent since my research

is to promulgate the implementation of alternative

assessments (e.g., portfolio assessment or self- and

peer assessment) at classroom level…Although I am

realistic that it is not possible to make ground-

breaking changes as a lot of teachers, students and

parents might not understand our ideas, I believe with

consistent efforts and forward-looking visions, pro-

motion of the use of alternative assessments will

eventually become feasible in Hong Kong. (P2)

As a change agent, however, their determination to bring

about change could be met with obstacles. The institutional

pressure on teacher educators to become more research

active, for instance, can ‘‘turn their attention away from

innovating and improving language teaching in schools’’

(P4). The findings show that the participants struggled

between their roles as researchers, scholars, and change

agents, finding it difficult to cope with the myriads of

demands that emanated from these roles.

Understanding Language Teacher Educators’ Experiences 147

123

Discussion

This research reveals the multilayered and complicated

nature of language teacher educators’ professional lives in

the context of Hong Kong. While certain roles are closely

interrelated (e.g., teacher and supervisor, researcher and

scholar), tensions and conflicts exist between the multiple

roles due to various challenges embedded in their profes-

sional lives. The first tension arises from the prominent

‘‘teacher’’ role teachers educators are expected to play on

the one hand, and the under-developed ‘‘learner’’ role they

consider important to their own professional development

on the other. The findings suggest that teacher educators

mostly engage in learning through their own teaching

practice (i.e., ‘‘learning by doing’’) and collaborating with

their colleagues in their research work. However, such

learning opportunities are inadequate, which could impede

their developing knowledge and expertise. The second

challenge lies in the perceived gap between research and

practice in teacher educators’ professional work, resulting

in a narrow definition of ‘‘scholarship.’’ While the partic-

ipants inquired into various educational issues as

researchers, whether and how the research findings could

be translated into actual teaching practice and bring inno-

vations to language teaching and learning in schools (as

change agents) presented a major challenge. This calls for

the reconceptualization of the role of teacher educators that

highlights a rich dialectic between research and practice,

wherein their professional practice and research can be

integrated, synthesized, and applied (Cochran-Smith 2003).

For teacher educators, under the current wave of education

reform, not only do they have to cope with the schisms

between reform initiatives and classroom realities, they

also face internal pressure from their own institutions in

higher education. The ‘‘publish or perish’’ syndrome, with

annual appraisal and promotion/tenure requirements, for

instance, drives them to publish more ‘‘scholarly’’ work,

which diverts their attention from other important dimen-

sions of teacher educators’ work, such as developing col-

laborative relationships with other stakeholders in order to

facilitate educational changes. In this sense, teacher edu-

cators are put in a constant tug of war between catering to

education reform as a change agent and meeting the

accountability needs of their institutions as an academic or

scholar.

Despite all the challenges, this study demonstrates that

the participants showed their strong commitment to teacher

education not only as teachers and supervisors but also as

learners, and to their educational vision not only as

researchers and/or scholars but also as change agents. This

suggests a strong sense of agency of teacher educators

(Dinkelman 2011). With this sense of agency, they are

likely to manage the tensions within their work, find

meaning and significance in their professional lives, and

gain joy and satisfaction as a teacher educator. Just as P2

and P4 remarked:

All in all, I like my current job and like to be a

teacher educator since I think without good teachers,

there are no inspiring students. My job is certainly

meaningful and rewarding. (P2)

Working as a teacher educator has stimulated my

thinking about the purposes of my work and life and

given me opportunities to connect with other human

lives. As I often said to my students, I love what I am

doing and I am doing what I love. (P4)

Implications and Conclusion

Although this study is conducted in Hong Kong, several

implications can be drawn which can inform the profes-

sional development of teacher educators in other similar

contexts (e.g., Mainland China and Taiwan). First of all,

language teacher educators should be supported in their

pursuit of ongoing professional development (in their role

as learners)—e.g., they could be given more opportunities

to engage in deep collaboration with their peers and

frontline teachers and to implement change and innovation.

Second, to integrate their roles as researchers, scholars, and

change agents, the notions of research and scholarship may

need to be broadened to include knowledge transfer

activities that emanate from their work with frontline

teachers in schools. Last but not the least, teacher educators

could be encouraged to examine and reflect on their pro-

fessional practice as a form of ‘‘practitioner inquiry,’’

which can help them take charge of their professional

development (Hamilton 2005).

The study is not without limitations. First, though the

narrative frame can shed light on the participants’ professional

experiences, some important themes (e.g., how they coped

with different challenges in their work) need further explo-

ration through follow-up interviews. Besides, as a form of self-

report data, the narrative frame loses sight of how the partic-

ipants engage in actual practice as teacher educators. There-

fore, in the future, we will conduct both in-depth interviews

and classroom observation in order to generate more insights

into language teacher educators’ professional lives in their

embedded institutional and socio-cultural contexts.

Highlights

• Language teacher educators take on various roles in

their work.

148 R. Yuan, I. Lee

123

• They gain rewards and satisfaction as a teacher

educator.

• They also face different challenges in their professional

life.

References

Association of Teacher Educators (ATE). (2007). Standards for

teacher educators. Manassas: ATE. Available at: http://www.

ate1.org/pubs/Standards.cfm.

Barkhuizen, G., & Wette, R. (2008). Narrative frames for investigat-

ing the experiences of language teachers. System, 36, 372–387.

Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities for the

professoriate. Princeton: Carnegie Foundation for the Advance-

ment of Teaching, University of Princeton.

Chetty, R., & Lubben, F. (2010). The scholarship of research in

teacher education in a higher education institution in transition:

Issues of identity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26,

813–820.

Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry:

Experiences and story in qualitative research. San Francisco:

Jossy-Bass.

Cochran-Smith, M. (2003). Learning and unlearning: The education

of teacher educators. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 5–28.

Cochran-Smith, M. (2005). Teacher educators as researchers: multi-

ple perspectives. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 219–225.

Dinkelman, T. (2011). Forming teacher educator identity: uncertain

standards, practice and relationships. Journal of Education for

Teaching, 37(3), 309–323.

Draper, J. (2012). Hong Kong: Preparation and development of

teachers in a market economy. In L. Darling-Hammond & A.

Lieberman (Eds.), Teacher education around the world: chang-

ing policies and practices (pp. 81–97). Oxon: Routledge.

Hamilton, M. (2005). Researcher as teacher: lessons modeled by a

well-remembered scholar. Studying Teacher Education, 1(1),

85–102.

Law, E., Joughin, G., Kennedy, K., Tse, H., & Yu, W. (2008).

Teacher educators’ pedagogical principles and practices: Hong

Kong perspectives. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(2),

247–261.

Lee, I. (2012). Publish or perish: The myth and reality of academic

publishing. Language Teaching. doi:10.1017/S0261444811000

504.

Murray, J., & Male, T. (2005). Becoming a teacher educator:

evidence from the field. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21,

125–142.

Swennen, A., & Klink, M. (2009). Introduction and Review. In A.

Swennen & M. Klink (Eds.), Becoming a teacher educator:

Theories and practice for teacher educators (pp. 1–7). Dordrecht:

Springer.

Swennen, A., Shagrir, L., & Cooper, M. (2009). Becoming a teacher

educator: voices of beginning teacher educators. In A. Swennen &

M. Klink (Eds.), Becoming a teacher educator: Theories and

practice for teacher educators (pp. 91–102). Dordrecht: Springer.

Wright, T. (2010). Second language teacher education: review of

recent research on practice. Language Teaching, 43(3), 259–296.

Zeichner, K. (2005). Becoming a teacher educator: a personal

perspective. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 117–124.

Understanding Language Teacher Educators’ Experiences 149

123