{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02914001421464108, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006396588486140725, 'mean_word_length': 5.610328638497653, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Researching teacher education in the context of teacher education reform

As we sign off on this issue of Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, the Executive of the Australian Teacher Education Association is finalising its submission to the Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group (TEMAG), announced in February 2014. By the time you receive this issue, submissions will have been closed and teacher educators across Australia will be bracing for the implications of yet another federal review of teacher education. Many readers will have been involved in preparing submissions from individual Faculties and Schools of Education and through professional bodies. In calling for public consultation, TEMAG has sought feedback on “pedagogical approaches”, “subject content”, and “professional experience”, thereby re-inscribing an outdated notion of teacher education as primarily a dialogue between theory and practice. In the Issues Paper accompanying the call for consultation, the term “relationships” is used only once, despite what we know about its centrality to teaching and learning; unsurprisingly, it appears as a call for “stronger relationships and partnerships between schools and universities” (TEMAG, 2014, p. 5). By contrast, the word “research” appears throughout the issues paper, albeit in a way that implies that teacher education does not capitalise upon research. For example: