Building Diversity-Responsive Teacher Education (using TE-DIP framework)

Building Diversity-Responsive Teacher Education (using TE-DIP framework)

The TE-DIP framework is not only a tool for individual reflection but also a framework for collective professional learning. By discussing both existing practices and the conditions that shape them, teacher educators can develop a more coherent and sustainable approach to diversity-responsive teacher education. The activity therefore supports both professional dialogue and institutional learning, helping programmes identify how diversity-responsive practices can be maintained, strengthened, and embedded over time.

(Note: the activity is completely available in Dutch, you can contact: Lieke.jager@ru.nl).

Purpose

This group activity is designed to help teacher educators collectively explore and reflect on diversity-responsive practices using the TE-DIP framework. The activity has two interconnected goals:

  1. Sharing practice
    • To exchange experiences regarding diversity-responsive practices that are already being used by teacher educators and teams.
    • To make existing expertise visible and learn from colleagues’ examples.
  2. Understanding implementation
    • To identify factors that support or hinder the implementation of diversity-responsive practices.
    • To explore what teacher educators, teams, and institutions need in order to maintain, strengthen, or further develop these practices.

By combining both goals, participants move beyond simply identifying “good practices” and begin to understand the conditions that enable such practices within teacher education programmes.

Learning Outcomes

After this activity, participants will:

  1. Be familiar with one or more categories of the TE-DIP framework.
  2. Gain insight into how diversity-responsive practices are currently implemented within their own teacher education programme.
  3. Identify practices that are already widely used and practices that are less common.
  4. Recognise knowledge, skills, attitudes, and contextual conditions that support implementation.
  5. Identify institutional barriers and opportunities for further development.
  6. Generate ideas for programme-level or institutional actions that may help strengthen diversity-responsive teacher education.

 

Materials (see for instructions: Activity_powerpoint)

  1. A short introduction to the TE-DIP framework. (see: (https://info-ted.eu/research/conceptual-framework/))
  2. The TE-DIP categories, A description of the categories. and example practices belonging to each category (see: this document: CompetencyFramework_activity)
  3. A discussion handout or worksheet (see this document: Hand_out)

 

Procedure/activity

Step 1: Explore the Framework (10 minutes)

Each group (4-6) receives an envelope containing the above mentioned materials. They open the envelope and review the materials. So they read:

  1. The short introduction to the TE-DIP framework. Note: This can also be presented by the host of the activity.
  2. The assigned or self-chosen category or categories. Note: either each groups gets assigned one or two different categories, or they can chose two categories by themselves.
  3. The short description of the categories and the accompanying example practices.

> Ensure that all group members have a shared understanding of the practices before continuing.

Step 2: Share Experiences (20 minutes)

Discuss each example practice.

For every practice, consider the following questions:

  1. Have you used this practice yourself?
  2. What does the practice look like? What are your experiences?
  3. What impact does the practice appear to have?

Encourage participants to draw on both successful experiences and challenges. The aim of this step is to make existing practice visible and learn from one another’s experiences.

Step 3: Rank the Practices (10 minutes)

As a group, arrange the practices from: Most used → Least used. The ranking should reflect the collective experience of the group rather than individual preferences. Discuss disagreements and seek consensus where possible.

Step 4: Analyse the Most Frequently Used Practice(s) (10 minutes)

Select the one or two practices that were ranked highest. For each practice, discuss: What makes this practice possible?

You might consider: What knowledge is needed to implement or guide this practice? What competencies do teacher educators require? What beliefs, values, or dispositions encourage the use of this practice? What organisational conditions support the practice? Are there supportive policies, resources, leadership structures, curricula, or professional learning opportunities? 

Record the most used practices and the factors that appear to contribute to the successful implementation and broader uptake of the practice on the hand-out.

Step 5: Analyse the Least Frequently Used Practice(s) (10 minutes)

Select the one or two practices that were ranked lowest. For each practice, discuss: What makes this practice difficult?

You might consider: Is there a lack of awareness or understanding? Do teacher educators feel insufficiently prepared? Are there concerns, uncertainties, or resistance? Are there structural barriers? Is there a lack of time, resources, support, or policy alignment?

Next, discuss: What would help?

For example: Professional development opportunities, Access to relevant resources, Peer support or collaboration, Curriculum redesign, Leadership support, Institutional policy changes, Additional staffing or time, etc. 

Record both barriers and potential enablers on the hand out.

 

Step 6: Plenary Reflection (20 minutes)

Bring all groups together. Invite each group to share:

  1. Their most-used practice and key enabling factors.
  2. Their least-used practice and key barriers.
  3. One recommendation for strengthening diversity-responsive practices within the programme.

The facilitator may capture recurring themes under headings such as: Knowledge, Skills, Attitudes, Resources, Leadership, Policies, Programme structures, Professional learning. This helps move from individual examples toward a broader understanding of institutional development.

General introduction of the activity:

 

Overview of the activity: