Article Preview
TopIntroduction And Context
Research that endeavors to define and quantify teacher identity has been ongoing (Hanna, Oostdam, Severiens, & Zijlstra, 2019; Izadinia, 2013), and seen through postmodernist and poststructuralist lenses, these efforts are themselves problematic (Moya, 2000; O’Keefe & Skerritt, 2021) because from these perspectives, terms like “identity,” and “experience,” must be handled carefully, lest they result in essentialism, and/or marginalization (Moya, 2000). Further, a postmodernist lens reminds us that experiences cannot be exemplary; rather, they can only be read as arbitrary constructs (Moya, 2000).
Despite the absence of a universal definition of teacher identity, there are however, areas of consensus about what constitutes it. Teacher identity is generally agreed upon to be characterized by the following descriptions or their approximations: holistic; complex; multi-faceted; and ongoing (Beauchamp & Thomas, 2009; Beijaard, Meijer, & Verloop, 2004; Hanna et al., 2019). Beijaard et al. (2004) concluded that “identity is not a fixed attribute of a person, but a relational phenomenon,” therefore the question “Who am I at this moment?” (p.108) is one that represents the ongoing and relational aspects of teacher identity.
As transitions abound in in identity formation, liminality is a recurring phenomenon in the life of an educator (Cattley, 2007; Cook-Sather & Alter, 2011; Pierce, 2007; Piro & O’Callaghan, 2019 a,b). There is a recursive, inherent, and overlapping relationship between teacher identity and liminality (Beech, 2011; Devitt & Kerin, 2014; Piro, et al., 2019a; Smagorinsky, Cook, Moore, Jackson, & Fry, 2004) and the literature has spoken to liminal experiences both informing and undermining teachers’ perceptions of their teacher identities (Chang, 2018; Pierce, 2007; Petersen, 2017; Sinner, 2012). The relationship between liminality and teacher identity is also illustrated via their shared affective dimensions. The affective dimension of liminality includes motivation, agency, self-efficacy, and resilience (Rattray, 2016), and these elements are also found in the literature to be features of teacher identity (Beijaard et al., 2004; Chong, Ling, & Chuan, 2011; Hanna et al., 2019; Nguyen & Yang, 2018).
Mixed reality simulations elicit affective responses that require emotional regulation, and have also approximated the complexity of the classroom in a virtual environment (Thompson, Owho-Ovuajporie, Robinson, Kim, Slama, & Reich, 2019). A growing body of research has documented the role of mixed reality simulations in the context of teacher preparation (Bautista & Boone, 2015; Gundel, et al., 2018; Hudson, Voytecki, Owens, & Zhang, 2019; Dawson & Lignugaris/Kraft, 2017; Piro, et al., 2019a). Therefore “digital simulations hold promise for increasing opportunities to approximate professional practice” (Thompson, et al., 2019, p. 144), including identity development.