Abstract
Based on an analysis of 60 empirical articles, this review examines the experiences of student teachers and teacher educators engaged in social justice–oriented teacher education practices. We explore how student teachers respond to these practices, highlighting the development of their understanding alongside their embodied and emotional experiences. Findings illustrate that new understandings of structural inequity can evoke strong emotional responses and clash with existing beliefs. From these responses, several challenges and tensions arise for teacher educators: (1) navigating tensions between reproducing and transforming inequity in interactions; (2) decentering whiteness in predominantly white contexts; (3) addressing the vulnerability inherent in social justice education; and (4) challenges in putting social justice education into practice. These tensions underscore the complexity of social justice teacher education and highlight the delicate balance and judgment required of teacher educators in navigating discussions of inequity in the classroom.
Keywords
“Social justice means rejecting interpreting problems of people of color and/or from low-income communities mainly as personal failures, and instead, interpreting their problems as effects of unfair policies and systems.” (Sleeter, 2015, p. 1)
For decades, teacher educators and researchers have been addressing themes of equity and justice in their work (Cochran-Smith, 2004; Freire, 2005[1970]; Ladson-Billings, 1995; Nieto & Bode, 2017). In a growing recognition of how education may reproduce or even enforce systemic inequities apparent in society, scholars have presented critical perspectives on teacher education that challenge how education contributes to the persistence of disparities. This includes the examination of seemingly neutral curricula that inadvertently silence marginalized perspectives, implicit reinforcements of perceptions of white supremacy through language or actions, the impact of neoliberal systems of accountability, or the notable incongruence between an increasingly diverse student population and a predominantly white and middle-class teaching force (Apple, 2019; Cochran-Smith, Ell, et al., 2016; Cochran-Smith, Villegas, et al., 2016; Sleeter, 2008, 2017; Villegas, 2007; Zeichner, 2003).
Advocates of a social justice agenda in education draw on various theories rooted in historical struggles for justice and equity in education, such as multicultural education, critical pedagogy, and critical race theory. Within these theories, processes and outcomes of marginalization are viewed as a result of structural inequity rather than deficits (Cochran-Smith, 2004; Gorski, 2016). Some researchers use social justice concepts as the theoretical basis for their work, citing authors such as North (2006) or Fraser (2008), while others use frameworks such as anti-oppressive education (Kumashiro, 2000) or critical race theory (Ladson-Billings, 1998).
Social justice teacher education (hereafter referred to as SJTE) is sometimes mistakenly used to describe any form of teacher education that addresses diversity or equity (Cochran-Smith, 2010; North, 2006). It is important to note, however, that not all attempts to address inequality or its specific manifestations, such as deficit perspectives on communities of color or other marginalized students, do so from a structural perspective. As Kolluri and Tichavakunda (2023) point out, approaches to addressing inequality that focus on challenging deficit perspectives have become more popular. However, they often focus more on individual overcoming of racial stereotypes than on racism as something inherent to a capitalist structure and institutionalized in education and other parts of society and, therefore, requiring structural change as well.
Within the literature on teacher education aimed at such structural change, it is often emphasized that interpretations of SJTE risk being diluted if they do not acknowledge the critical roots of the theories on which they are based, such as the legal elements of critical race theory (CRT) or the Marxist elements of critical pedagogy (Aronson & Laughter, 2016; Busey et al., 2023; Philpot, 2016). Thus, in line with Cochran-Smith (2010), we define SJTE not by its name or activities but by its recognition of the structural, historical, and political nature of persistent educational inequities.
From this perspective, social justice–oriented teacher education refers to approaches to teacher education that strive toward justice while recognizing that injustice does not merely result from differences between individual students but is rooted in systemic unequal power relations apparent both in the classroom and the social and political context of education. It acknowledges and aims to fight the education systems’ role in processes of marginalization due to the misrecognition of students’ knowledge, needs, and perspectives and the unequal distribution of resources (Cochran-Smith, 2010; North, 2006, 2008; Picower, 2012). It recognizes the political and ideological character of teaching, not just of social justice teaching but of teaching in general. It also considers teacher education a site for social change, acknowledging both the limitations and potential of education in fighting inequity (Cochran-Smith, 2010) while embracing the character of social justice–oriented teacher education and scholarship as an ongoing pursuit that requires continuous reflection, critique, and adaptation to address persistent and emerging inequities.
One of the goals of SJTE is to prepare teachers to teach all students, including those from marginalized backgrounds who are currently underserved in the education system, from a perspective of equity (Cochran-Smith, 2010; Cochran-Smith, Ell, et al., 2016). Furthermore, in SJTE, student teachers are stimulated to develop a form of critical consciousness of structural causes of inequity, unequal power relations, and their role in (unintentionally) reinforcing them in practice (Cochran-Smith, 2004; Freire, 2021[1965]; Mills & Ballantyne, 2016).
Existing review studies characterize SJTE practices in various ways. Hosseini et al. (2024) distinguish five common principles that characterize SJTE practices: (1) challenging students to identify structural aspects of inequity; (2) acknowledging marginalized perspectives; (3) stimulating awareness of context, community, and (local) activism; (4) striving for socially just instruction and teaching practices; and (5) disrupting hierarchies in knowledge construction. The review explicitly refrains from providing best practices, as the authors highlight the non-unequivocal nature of SJTE and emphasize that no approach is beyond critique. Liao et al. (2022) distinguish several levels at which an equity-focused approach can be applied. First, they describe programmatic configurations, such as an explicit social justice focus throughout the entire program. A second level is the use of curricular opportunities, such as a course or field experience. Third, they describe interventions at the level of pedagogical approaches, such as emphasizing the role of critical reflections or challenging student teachers to leave their comfort zone. The fourth level encompasses other teaching and learning activities like co-teaching or modeling. Reagan and Hambacher (2021) distinguish between short-term and long-term opportunities for SJTE, which refers to the difference between integrating a social justice focus into either a single activity, such as a course, or embedded in a more extended program.
As different theories of justice intersect within the field of education, social justice is generally considered a complex and intersectional concept that involves multiple, sometimes conflicting, struggles for justice (Cochran-Smith, 2010; North, 2006; Reagan & Hambacher, 2021). North (2006) highlights the tensions that can arise between different dimensions of justice, such as the struggle for (economic) redistribution versus (cultural) recognition, the goals of equal treatment versus recognizing and accommodating difference, and the focus on micro- versus macro-level interactions. Although these dimensions may appear to be at odds, North argues they are, in fact, interconnected. This interconnectedness requires social justice–oriented educators to navigate these challenges and operate simultaneously on multiple levels. For example, while addressing systemic inequalities at the macro level, they must also remain attuned to how these injustices manifest in micro-level interactions.
Empirical studies have shed light on how these tensions are experienced in practice and can have implications for teacher educators. For example, K. S. Ahmed (2020) demonstrates that tensions experienced by student teachers, such as conflicts between their ideals and the expectations placed on them, significantly shaped student teachers’ understanding of teaching for social justice. These expectations included adhering to strict standards, managing scripted curricula, and punishing students perceived as misbehaving. K. S. Ahmed (2020) asserts that guiding and supporting student teachers through such challenges could help them critically engage with and reflect on these tensions. While studies of this nature provide valuable insights, it is essential to recognize, as Mills and Ballantyne (2016) argue, that research in SJTE is predominantly qualitative and often focuses on small-scale, context-specific interventions by researcher-practitioners. This predominance of single-case studies, though insightful, limits the ability to draw broader generalizations across diverse educational settings.
Previous review studies have focused on several aspects of SJTE, such as its practices or its effect on student teachers. For example, Liao et al. (2022) recently examined the impact of equity-oriented interventions, Mills and Ballantyne (2016) explored student teachers’ understanding and beliefs about social justice and how these may evolve through SJTE practices, and Reagan and Hambacher (2021) offered insights into the experiences of student teachers and novice teachers learning to teach for social justice through various activities and programs. As these reviews illustrate, SJTE holds the potential for positive social change, such as increasing student teachers’ awareness of inequity. However, it can also lead to negative outcomes. Liao et al. (2022), for example, report that equity-oriented interventions in teacher education can result in stress, anxiety, and the development of deficit perspectives. Reagan and Hambacher (2021) cite studies that reveal unintended outcomes, such as student teachers rejecting social justice principles. Furthermore, they emphasize that learning about social justice is not solely a cognitive process; it can also be emotional and impact student teachers’ health and well-being.
While these review studies confirm the existence of tensions within SJTE, they do not explore how teacher educators address these tensions and the challenges that arise from them. We believe it is essential to gain deeper insights into these tensions, which are often claimed to be inherent to the field. To date, no review studies have addressed how tensions manifest for social justice teacher educators and how teacher educators deal with these tensions in their commitment to social justice. This study builds on the existing knowledge base by examining how teacher educators navigate both wanted and unwanted responses of student teachers to their teaching practices. It is important to point out that we do not view unwanted or negative outcomes as signs of poor teaching but rather as inevitable and essential aspects of learning about social justice. In line with Biesta (2014), we view education as a “beautiful risk” and a social art where the teacher’s judgment is pivotal. By incorporating the experience of teacher educators alongside student teachers’ responses, this study acknowledges the teacher educator’s significance in the art of teaching for social justice—both as a professional and as a human being who is part of the society that SJTE seeks to challenge and transform. This approach illuminates both student teachers’ and teacher educators’ experiences, rejecting a perspective on education in which negative effects or insecurities are automatically deemed problems, and aligns with the predominantly qualitative and reflective nature of SJTE research. Our primary research question is: What challenges and tensions can be identified in the literature on social justice-oriented teacher education practices?
However, to fully grasp the origins and complexity of these challenges and tensions, it is essential first to examine what is known about student teachers’ responses to SJTE practices. This involves not only identifying both the desired and unintended effects but also analyzing patterns and variations across different studies, as well as exploring the underlying processes driving these responses. Therefore, we begin this review by addressing the question: How do student teachers respond to social justice–oriented teacher education? This discussion will serve as the foundation for exploring the challenges and tensions that emerge from these responses in our examination of the main research question. This structure illuminates why these challenges and tensions arise, offering a comprehensive understanding of the complexities involved in SJTE. We build upon an earlier review by the same authors (Hosseini et al., 2024) that explored what shared principles characterize practices of social justice–oriented teacher education.
Method
Search Process
To answer our research questions, we have decided to perform this review using PRISMA guidelines for scoping reviews (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005; Tricco et al., 2018). This provided us with the opportunity to use a rigorous and transparent approach to the selection and screening of the literature but more flexibility in assessing the results of the included papers compared to a systematic review.
The search was performed in scientific databases Web of Science, ERIC, and PsycINFO. The search string was developed and tested by the first author and a specialized subject librarian. It focused on peer-reviewed papers over a period of 10 years, containing both justice and teacher education—or synonyms or equivalents of these terms and related subject headings—in the title, abstract, or keywords. Similarly to other reviewers on this topic, such as Mills and Ballantyne (2016), the terms “diversity” and “multicultural education” were not included in the search since SJTE not only discusses diversity but also the political character of education and the systemic causes of inequity and injustice beyond the pedagogy of an individual teacher (Cochran-Smith, 2004; McDonald & Zeichner, 2009; Mills & Ballantyne, 2016). Approaches to diversity or multicultural education that contained this aspect of SJTE, such as critical multiculturalism (Gorski, 2009), were expected to be found by searching for “(in)justice,” “(in)equity,” and “(in)equality” in the abstracts, keywords, and titles.
Assessing Eligibility for Inclusion
The 3794 identified records were deduplicated using Zotero and Rayyan, resulting in 2832 unique papers. All abstracts were screened by the first author using Rayyan. For the screening process, we developed a general set of screening criteria and further fine-tuned these criteria along the screening process, as is typical for scoping reviews (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005).
Because our search string did not define the perspective from which inequality was addressed in teacher education, we added a criterion based on our definition of SJTE to assess whether papers were based on a social justice orientation. We included papers if they discussed the following elements in their conceptualization: (1) does not only describe diversity but also injustice and/or unequal power structures, (2) describes an intent to contribute to changing these injustices, (3) acknowledges systemic causes of inequality, and (4) discusses inequity related to education and teaching. For example, papers that focused on issues such as improving multicultural competencies or assessing attitudes toward diversity without framing these attitudes as manifestations of larger systemic injustices were excluded. This criterium also led us to exclude papers that did not make their perspective on justice or equity explicit, either by providing a clear definition of their own or by explicitly positioning themselves in relation to other researchers in the field. We focused on papers on preservice teacher education written between 2010 and 2020.
We have chosen not to limit our focus to those papers that explicitly choose SJTE as their theoretical framework. Instead, we welcomed papers with a variety of approaches with different theoretical frameworks, from critical race theory to anti-oppressive teacher education or feminist post-structural theories, if they met our selection criteria. For example, Robinson et al. (2018) grounded their practice in the concept of translanguaging. However, they did so specifically from a justice perspective: translanguaging was seen not just as a pedagogical approach but as a means of liberation. Sometimes, authors integrated different frameworks. For example, Bright (2015) characterized her teaching as social justice education but drew from multiple theoretical perspectives, including blues epistemology, critical constructivism, critical race theory, and feminist epistemology.
Based on the selection of abstracts, 2075 papers were excluded. Another 36 of these articles were excluded because they were not available through the online databases to which the authors had access. The first author then assessed 739 full papers using the criteria developed during the screening process of the abstracts. All papers that could not easily be included or excluded based on the criteria were discussed with another author or, in case of disagreement or doubt, by all four authors. Around 7% of the full papers were read and assessed by multiple authors, aside from the 5% that multiple authors already discussed during the abstract screening phase.
We limited our scope to empirical papers evaluating (and therefore also describing) specific teacher education practices with a clear research question and methodology that allowed for some form of critical appraisal. For appraising the quality of the papers, we used the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research because of its relative suitability for assessing qualitative research with a critical perspective (Lockwood et al., 2015). We included all papers with a score of 6/10 and critically discussed those with a score between 5 and 6. This process led to a final selection of 60 papers. Figure 1 shows the PRISMA flowchart for this review (Page et al., 2021). In Table 1, all included articles are represented.
PRISMA 2020 statement.
Overview of included studies.
Analysis of the Included Papers
Important aspects of the included literature were structured using the process of data charting. In our data charting file, we included the following categories: type of article, location, forms of inequality, researcher/teacher educator positionality, research questions, activity and program, important elements of activity, participants, research design or methodology, data collection, analysis, central concept/theory, and outcomes/conclusions. The first author also summarized every paper and added the central themes that the authors discussed to the data charting file. This could be a theme present in the practices (such as “using discomfort”) but also in the analysis of student teacher responses (for example, “unfamiliarity with social justice concepts,” “resistance,” “need for concrete solutions,” or “white guilt”) or the experiences of teacher educators (e.g., “uncertainty” or “institutional support”). This open coding was conducted manually.
Subsequently, a random sample of 25% of the included papers was then read by the second author, who also identified the most prominent themes. She coded the papers independently, after which both authors compared their codes. This demonstrated a solid conceptual agreement between the authors, as both consistently recognized the same core themes across the articles. When there were slight variations in interpretation or use of terminology, these were addressed through discussion, ultimately resulting in a consensus on the key themes of each article. The first author then proceeded with the analysis.
Based on the themes identified across all 60 papers, the first and second authors collaboratively looked for similarities and patterns in the codes, grouping papers that discussed related themes. In the first coding phase, the authors maintained the original terminology used by the paper’s authors to ensure accuracy. In this phase, the authors looked for similarities and grouped together papers with conceptual overlap. For example, a paper coded “small interruptions” was matched with a paper coded “dismantling structures vs everyday act” because they addressed a similar issue. This process led to the development of a coding scheme in which themes identified in multiple papers were organized together under broader, overarching categories. This analysis was further discussed with the other two authors and resulted in an initial draft of the six sections of the results section: (1) Development of student teachers’ understanding; (2) student teachers’ emotional and embodied responses; (3) navigating the risk of reproducing inequity; (4) de-centering whiteness in predominantly white contexts; (5) coping with vulnerability; and (6) struggling to practice social justice education within the current system.
After finalizing this preliminary structure, the first author began drafting the results sections. This involved a thorough re-reading and re-analysis of the papers to explore how each addressed the specific themes of the section, paying close attention to similarities, nuances, and critical notes. This draft was then critically assessed by all authors several times during the writing phase, which allowed for iterative refinement of the analysis as it is presented in the final manuscript.
Results
In the first section of the results of this paper, we discuss common responses to SJTE from student teachers as an important context for the challenges and tensions that arise from these responses. By providing this context, we clarify the backdrop against which the challenges and tensions identified in the literature are discussed in the subsequent sections. In these sections, we also explore how teacher educators address these challenges.
Student Teachers’ Responses to Social Justice Teacher Education
Development of Student Teachers’ Understanding
In this section, we have structured our analysis of the cognitive elements of the development of student teachers’ understanding of social justice in a way that is inspired by Alsup and Miller’s (2014, p. 205, cited by Lillge & Knowles, 2020) statement that there are many different forms of social justice knowledge on “a continuum of learning, unlearning, and relearning” that can be reached by critical reflection and inquiry. We analyze how student teachers gain new insights about inequity, how they unlearn dominant discourses that are reproduced in education and society, and finally, how they try to restructure earlier beliefs to deepen their understanding of structural inequity.
Learning New Concepts
In multiple papers, scholars mention how many student teachers, mainly those from dominant backgrounds, are often not familiar with concepts such as institutional racism, whiteness, or heteronormativity before learning about this through SJTE practices (Anthony-Stevens & Langford, 2020; Berry et al., 2021; Galman et al., 2010; Hyland & Heuschkel, 2010; Lynch & Curtner-Smith, 2019; Matias & Grosland, 2016; Ohito, 2020; Rolon-Dow et al., 2020; Schiera, 2019). Based on analyses of student assignments, classroom discussions, or interviews, multiple authors report a visible change in awareness of oppression and privilege as a result of their practices (Anthony-Stevens & Langford, 2020; Matias & Grosland, 2016; Rolon-Dow et al., 2020). Student teachers of color, on the contrary, seemed to have fewer difficulties or new experiences with examining race-related experiences and the structures underlying them, as became clear from their descriptions of lived experiences with, for example, microaggressions and exclusion (Berry et al., 2020; Galman et al., 2010; Rolon-Dow et al., 2020; Souto-Manning & Emdin, 2023).
Another form of learning that is emphasized in some papers concerns the notion of how teaching, and therefore also teacher education, is not a neutral act but inherently political (Cochran-Smith, 2010; Picower, 2013). This understanding involves examining education as a platform where unjust power dynamics unfold, with norms like whiteness being institutionalized—manifesting not only in educational policies but also in explicit or implicit norms about what knowledge, language, and behavior are valued (Beneke & Cheatham, 2020; Picower, 2013; Quan et al., 2019; Robinson et al., 2018). A few authors report slight changes in student teachers’ awareness of this political nature of teaching. For example, the analyses of Reagan et al. (2016) show that, as student teachers became more aware of the sociopolitical context in which their work was situated and the power relations within these contexts, their opinions about the responsibilities of teachers working toward social justice changed. They became more open to the idea of teaching as an act of resistance to oppressive structures rather than a way of compensating for the problems urban youth experience from a perspective of charity.
Picower (2013) describes how a political economy workshop by a local social justice teacher group led student teachers to see the political nature of education and how unequal power relations limit the power of marginalized communities. Although not all students were initially excited to learn about political economy, they stated that the workshop contributed to stopping seeing the status quo as neutral and learning about the political motivations behind important decisions in education that affect both their classrooms and the lives of people in the communities they would be teaching. The political analyses of decisions that students previously perceived as neutral (or at least as not connected to race) also helped them see the role of race in such decisions, the importance of learning to be able to make these analyses themselves and to collaborate with local, politically involved community actors that worked toward social change (Picower, 2013).
Unlearning Dominant Discourses
In multiple papers, SJTE is characterized as not only a place of learning about forms of oppression and privilege but also a place of unlearning dominant discourses in society that deny and perpetuate structural injustices. This process of unlearning entails the re-examination and correction of earlier beliefs and tendencies, either about the structures that cause inequality or about the people affected or privileged by it. We distinguished four examples of beliefs that can be unlearned in SJTE: (1) deficit ideology, (2) color-evasiveness, (3) the banking model of education, and (4) neoliberal notions of meritocracy and individual responsibility.
Firstly, many authors report on the unlearning of so-called deficit perspectives (Beneke & Cheatham, 2020; Conner, 2010; Gorski & Dalton, 2020; Han, 2013; Hyland, 2010; Lazar & Sharma, 2016; sj. Miller, 2014; Picower, 2013; Quan et al., 2019; Robinson et al., 2018; Roegman et al., 2021; Schiera, 2019; Solic & Riley, 2019; Souto-Manning & Emdin, 2023; Varelas et al., 2018). For example, Picower (2013) reports that visiting community meetings led to students’ reconsideration of their previous deficit perspectives on urban communities, which prevented them from developing a “white savior” perspective but made them see the strength of the local community and collaborate with them less hierarchically. Conner (2010) describes how a service learning program confronted student teachers with their deficit views and those represented in dominant media discourses (Conner, 2010).
Another conception that students are taught to “unlearn” in SJTE is “colorblindness” (Acquah & Szelei, 2020; Lynch & Curtner-Smith, 2019; Matias & Grosland, 2016; Riley & Solic, 2017), also described as “color-evasiveness” by Annamma et al. (2017). Matias and Grosland (2016) mention this “colorblind racism” as an element of whiteness that sustains white supremacy by upholding the idea that structural inequalities deriving from systemic racism result from the superiority of white people. They describe a student teacher who learned to critically analyze her color-evasive upbringing and self-reflect on how she benefits from racism and color-evasive ideology. For example, her knowledge or expertise was never doubted because of her race; she did not have to deal with microaggressions and had the privilege of deciding to “not see color.”
A third conception that is reported to be unlearned in SJTE is the “banking model of education” that positions teachers as all-knowing and students as empty vessels to be filled with knowledge (Deckman & Ohito, 2020; Luguetti & McLachlan, 2021; Luguetti & Oliver, 2020; Lynch & Curtner-Smith, 2019; sj. Miller, 2014; Trout & Basford, 2016). The students interviewed by, for example, Marco-Bujosa et al. (2020) report that their student teachers’ view of their role as teachers changed as they became more critical of scripted curricula, taking an authoritarian stance and focusing on knowledge transfer over meaningful learning. They also learned new strategies to adjust their pedagogical approach to children’s needs, for example, by embracing multilingualism.
Finally, papers describe the unlearning of neoliberal notions of individual responsibility and meritocracy for overcoming structural inequalities: a discourse that is often dominant in discussions on educational inequality but justifies inequality by presenting it as a consequence of individual success or failure rather than a result of a system of oppression or privilege, thus upholding ideas of white superiority (Charles, 2017; Han, 2013; Hill et al., 2018; Lazar & Sharma, 2016; Souto-Manning & Emdin, 2023).
Relearning: Trying to Match New Insights With Earlier Beliefs
The combination of acquiring new awareness of inequity and unlearning dominant discourses requires student teachers to reconsider their earlier views on inequity. Many included papers show student teachers trying to integrate their new ideas about systemic inequity into their existing knowledge about inequality, discrimination, and bias on a more individual or interpersonal level, which we describe in this section. Although SJTE also includes explicit unlearning of earlier beliefs and dominant discourses, earlier beliefs can still interfere with student teachers’ newly developed awareness of structural inequalities, creating a form of cognitive dissonance (Acosta et al., 2017).
Multiple authors show that students still struggle to see injustices such as racism as a function of oppressive systems such as white supremacy or capitalism rather than interpersonal acts of discrimination. For example, Lemley (2014) asked participants to reflect on a critical incident of discrimination and analyze whether they could connect this to institutional discrimination and agency. This showed that some participants were able to view the discrimination and their agency to counter it through an institutional lens, but others mainly focused on interpersonal acts of discrimination. Some students even came up with personal incidents in which advantaged people (often themselves) had been treated what they considered “unfairly” as they were denied privileges.
Hyland and Heuschkel (2010) describe how students did learn to recognize issues of restricted access and misrepresentation through their institutional inquiry assignment but that they did not grasp the full complexity of institutionalized forms of oppression as they mainly analyzed fairly obvious forms of linguicism, classism, and sexism but were unable to mention less visible inequalities. Schmidt et al. (2012) also conclude that students struggle to recognize the structural aspects of inequalities. Although they learned to recognize sexuality-based injustices, they found it difficult to move beyond a focus on homophobia to seeing heteronormativity and heterosexism. Jones (2016) describes how some students resorted to stigmatizing remarks about how poor people should not have a dog or raise their kids in a certain way rather than discussing the injustices caused by a system in which people are struggling with poverty. Furthermore, students often struggle to connect different forms of inequity in an intersectional way (Beneke & Cheatham, 2020; Hyland, 2010; Hyland & Heuschkel, 2010).
Learning to see inequality without understanding the structural nature of oppression and privilege, the intersections between different axes of inequality and power relations can lead to the development of misconceptions and inconsistencies in students’ thinking, especially as they try to navigate between theory and practice (K. S. Ahmed, 2020; Pham, 2018; Schmidt et al., 2012). If students see social justice teaching as mainly concerned with personal biases, racism, and empathy, this may lead them to either adopt white saviorist views or a fear of being seen as a bad person for having privilege or participating in the reproduction of inequality (K. S. Ahmed, 2020; Charles, 2017; Han, 2013; Pollock et al., 2010; Rolon-Dow et al., 2020). They can also feel like they are not ready to engage in social justice teaching, as they may not have gotten rid of all of their beliefs grounded in racism yet (Pollock et al., 2010).
Multiple authors describe that in SJTE, many teacher educators incorporate reflecting on one’s personal bias as an essential aspect of action against injustice (Gorski & Dalton, 2020; Hill et al., 2018; Schiera, 2019). However, Gorski and Dalton (2020) also note that reflecting on one’s own biases and competencies without relating them to unequal power structures and more profound social critiques fits more within a liberal approach to multicultural education than within the critical approach they consider central to SJTE. A critical approach still pays attention to the self but analyzes one’s positionality in relation to privilege, marginalization, and resistance.
Picower (2013) provides an example of how an explicit emphasis on the political nature of education can support student teachers in developing an understanding that moves beyond individual bias, mistreatment, and discrimination. From their introduction to political economy and community activism, students learned how their perspectives were limited and no decision was ever neutral. They, therefore, learned that everyone’s agenda should be questioned and marginalized perspectives should be actively sought out before deciding on critical educational issues or continuing the status quo.
Student Teachers’ Emotional and Embodied Responses
The process of (un)learning in SJTE is not only a cognitive process but also entails emotions and bodily experiences. Different types of affective and embodied responses were reported in the papers analyzed for this review: student resistance and embodied learning through discomfort.
Resistance and Emotions
The literature on SJTE shows that many teacher educators who discuss oppression, privilege, and power relations encounter forms of emotional resistance from their students, especially white students (Deckman & Ohito, 2020; Gachago et al., 2014; Galman et al., 2010; Han, 2013, 2018; Hyland, 2010; Lynch & Curtner-Smith, 2019; Matias & Grosland, 2016; Mthethwa-Sommers, 2012; Pollock et al., 2010; Rolon-Dow et al., 2020; Schmidt et al., 2012; Trout & Basford, 2016; Walton-Fisette et al., 2018). For example, Rolon-Dow et al. (2020) describe how their program raised feelings of racial stress for the white students in their group. While the students of color were used to discussing race and felt comfortable sharing their lived experiences, most white students experienced thinking and talking about their whiteness and privilege as discomforting. They showed signs of guilt, anger, and denial. These negative emotions were often paired with accusations of “reverse racism” (Ohito, 2020).
Although most researchers agree that resistance is to be expected during SJTE, different explanations are given for the development of these feelings. Multiple authors, such as Han (2013), Bright (2015), and Mthethwa-Sommers (2012), analyze resistance from interest convergence theory, a concept in critical race theory that describes how measures to fight racial inequities are only adopted by the white population as long as it is in their interest too. Other researchers emphasize the role of teacher educators—for example, by building on caring relations with students—in dealing with resistance (Lynch & Curtner-Smith, 2019; Trout & Basford, 2016).
However, when discussing strategies to avoid student resistance, it is important to take teacher educators’ positionality into account. Mthethwa-Sommers (2012) describes how, as an African-born Black teacher educator, she always faced much resistance from students. An intervention of co-teaching with a white male American colleague who never experienced resistance showed that students attributed more authority to the white male co-teacher while still showing resistance to Mthethwa-Sommers. For example, she was criticized for her marking when her co-teacher graded the papers in question. Mthethwa-Sommers (2012), therefore, concludes that part of the resistance against her teaching is not related to problems with the content or her abilities as a teacher but to the fact that SJTE is taught by someone with her racial and ethnic background.
Bright (2015) supports this point with an example of a white professor who critically analyzes how her positionality as a white person allows her to freely participate in social justice work without being silenced or labeled as angry or unprofessional, even if she voices frustration or uncertainty. By sharing these considerations with her students, she invites them to reflect on the role of their own identities in the process of becoming a social justice–oriented educator.
Embodied Learning Through Discomfort
While some teacher educators try to avoid resistance and discomfort in SJTE, others state that trying to avoid discomfort can hinder in-depth explorations of issues such as racism (Galman et al., 2010). Ohito (2016) and Lazar and Sharma (2016) describe how the use of discomforting images, words, and activities can create meaningful emotional and physical experiences that allow students to go beyond theoretical discussions on racism and other forms of systemic oppression. Such an approach can be shaped through a pedagogy of discomfort (Boler & Zembylas, 2003), a theoretical framework that acknowledges discomfort and feeling vulnerable as an unavoidable and even valuable part of learning, as discomforting experiences can invite a process of challenging beliefs and practices and developing a deeper understanding of oppression and ethical responsibility toward others. By allowing or even inviting situations that bring out these emotional responses, students are faced with the uncomfortable realities of structural injustices they may not always experience themselves. Discomforting experiences can introduce students to structural obstacles and privileges in ways that they had not considered before (Lazar & Sharma, 2016).
Even unplanned forms of discomfort, for example, the discomfort that derives from a racist or transphobic incident in the classroom, can be productive if students are encouraged to explore further the meaning of their emotions and responses and how this relates to white supremacy (Ohito, 2016). Moments of tension, dissonance, or conflict can, therefore, become “sticking points” that create meaningful change that goes beyond reading literature on social justice–related topics (Lillge & Knowles, 2020). When learning through conflict, Ohito points to the potential of doing this through an embodied approach in which bodily and affective experiences are included in teaching and analyzing how whiteness is enacted. This can create more opportunities to learn from conflict and discomfort and, at the same time, disrupt Eurocentric views on rationality and what is considered knowledge (Ohito, 2020).
Challenges and Tensions in Social Justice Teacher Education
In the previous paragraphs, we discussed the various responses to SJTE that are often mentioned in the literature, such as resistance, conflict, and the (attempted) unlearning of dominant discourses. The following section explores how these responses may create challenges or tensions for teacher educators and the experiences of teacher educators in navigating these challenges and tensions.
Navigating the Risk of Reproducing Inequity
In this section, we discuss a common challenge for teacher educators in SJTE: bringing up structural inequity bears the risk of unintentionally reproducing the inequities one is trying to fight. Although the previous section has shown how some forms of resistance and emotional responses are to be expected and can make for learning opportunities, they also carry the risk of creating situations that are unsafe or place a significant toll on student teachers, especially those from marginalized backgrounds. Hyland (2010) experienced that bringing up topics of white supremacy and white privilege in the labor market caused a conflict and made multiple white students cry. This led to Black students spending their spare time comforting and educating their white peers during a break to resolve the conflict.
According to, for example, Matias and Grosland (2016) and Berry et al. (2020), it is common for SJTE to create situations in which students of color feel forced to share their personal experiences with racism and bear much emotional labor to educate their (mainly white) peers in order for them to be willing to understand, accept, and discuss their reality. In another session described by Hyland (2010), discussing heterosexism led to homophobic statements from some students, while other students mainly stayed silent. Although the author also describes how some students came to a new understanding of how their responses to heterosexism were not consistent with their ideas about racial justice, she also shares her worries about how the homophobic comments from classmates made lesbian students less comfortable discussing their sexual orientation, thereby enforcing the heterosexism that was supposed to be challenged during the course (Hyland, 2010).
Concerns about bringing up topics such as white supremacy and heterosexism and unintentionally inviting stigmatizing comments that create an unsafe situation for students from marginalized groups can cause educators to become extra careful when navigating social justice issues. Unfortunately, this also carries the risk of unintentionally silencing specific topics or the people bringing them up, which can also reproduce the inequities teacher educators are trying to fight. For example, Galman et al. (2010) critically reflect on their own unreadiness in dealing with resistance, leading them to unintentionally silence race talk in their classrooms. As they unconsciously perceived their students not to be ready to engage in anti-racist teacher education, they minimized conversations about race, failed to disrupt color-evasive statements or insufficient participation by the white students in the course, and used euphemistic language. By doing so, the authors implicitly discouraged white students from committing to anti-racism actively while silencing students of color who wanted to discuss racism (Galman et al., 2010).
Furthermore, Jones (2016) discusses the risk of staying “neutral” in conversations about issues such as poverty from a critical perspective. With her analysis of the class discussions in which some students made stigmatizing remarks about people affected by poverty, Jones states that her efforts to be seen as neutral may have prevented critical discussions in which misconceptions and stigmatizing comments could be examined and disrupted. She criticizes the desirability of facilitator neutrality in teacher education that is aimed at raising awareness of structural inequality and concludes that reciprocity may be a more important characteristic of dialogic inquiry in SJTE than neutrality.
The students interviewed by Galman et al. (2010) also wished teacher educators would have taken a more active role in the disruption of harmful discussions and silences. Ohito (2020) also discusses a situation in which a teacher educator was hesitant to engage in a discussion about whiteness and racism after being called out on including a book in her teaching that is, from a critical perspective, considered problematic for containing racist elements. According to the author, by choosing not to engage with the discomfort and interracial dialogue, the teacher educator misses a vital opportunity to challenge whiteness.
As described by Kearns et al. (2017) and emphasized by the previous examples, “in-the-moment” interactions can be of vital importance in SJTE. This asks teacher educators to analyze occurrences of discomfort, silence, or conflict and make active decisions on when and how to interrupt acts of reproduction (Kearns et al., 2017; Ohito, 2016; Walton-Fisette et al., 2018). Ohito (2016) provides an example of turning a moment of reproduction into a teachable moment in which the opportunity arises to address ideas or actions that create inequity. When a white student used the n-word out loud, the teacher educators and student teachers examined the feelings of discomfort they felt in their bodies. They used it to analyze white supremacy rather than avoiding discomfort by speaking about it as an abstract concept unrelated to their bodies and emotions. Although this moment was not planned, the teacher educator used a pedagogy of discomfort to actively create a teachable moment.
Walton-Fisette et al. (2018) add that teachable moments can also be actively invited. Educators do not have to wait until topics are raised by their students but can provoke conversations that can be turned into teachable moments with their actions, such as the choices they make in selecting groups, language, games, or clothes. Furthermore, they analyzed the implicit and explicit strategies that more than 70 teacher educators in physical education use to address social justice and sociocultural issues and conclude that teachable moments are not transformative by default but that teachable moments mainly have an impact when they are part of a consistent strategy rather than being limited to one isolated situation. For a teachable moment to lead to transformation, it needs to include challenging earlier beliefs and challenging and changing practices.
De-centering Whiteness in Predominantly White Contexts
Previous sections have provided some examples of whiteness being reproduced in SJTE, for example, in the persistence of color-evasive ideology, the resistance teacher educators often encounter from white students, and the tendency to resort to niceness to avoid conflict and discomfort. In this section, we further delve into how these and other reproductions of whiteness may be strengthened by the privileging of whiteness in teacher education and how social justice–oriented teacher education deals with this challenge in their practices. In teacher education, especially in the United States, many scholars have written about how the current teaching force, student teachers, and teacher educators mainly consists of white middle-class women, a racial demographic that significantly differs from primary and secondary schools’ student population (Galman et al., 2010; Souto-Manning & Martell, 2019). Furthermore, Souto-Manning and Martell (2019) point out the dominance of white Eurocentric knowledge in schooling. This dominance of whiteness in teacher education can be seen as an important context that poses challenges for teacher educators trying to disrupt this hegemony in SJTE.
Exposing student teachers to racial diversity, for example, through working in urban contexts is often seen as a crucial element in the process of becoming a social justice-oriented educator (Berry et al., 2020; Han, 2018; Riley & Solic, 2017; Roegman et al., 2021). Some teacher educators actively incorporate activities in which students would meet people of color, for example, to evoke compassion and emotional connections (Trout & Basford, 2016) or learn from their expertise (Riley & Solic, 2017).
However, there are some caveats to this approach. Firstly, Matias and Grosland (2016) warn that doing so without explicitly examining white supremacy bears a risk of placing the burden of eliciting critical consciousness on people of color. They conclude that racial diversity is not necessary for racial dynamics to come to the surface. Indeed, they suggest that a predominantly white institution is a particularly appropriate context to investigate white supremacy by aiming to decolonize the minds of the colonizers—namely white students. Instead of learning about “the other,” white student teachers should also learn about their own racial identities and the role of whiteness in the perpetuation of racism. This can disrupt the normalization of white norms and shift focus from good intentions in teaching children of color to combating a racist system.
Secondly, Charles (2017) highlights the complexities of having white people visit marginalized communities to introduce student teachers to these communities’ strengths and struggles. She discusses a student teaching placement in remote Aboriginal communities and its ethical challenges that are connected to the historical colonial oppression of these communities. For example, if student teachers construct their identities as tourists or saviors, this reproduces unwanted colonial and neoliberal discourses that are brought into the work with children in the Aboriginal communities. Charles critically examines the program’s ability to prepare student teachers for socially just teaching while potentially allowing them to participate in the reinforcement of unequal power structures (Charles, 2017). This underscores the importance of considering who benefits from such experiences, a question that is not always addressed in SJTE.
Thirdly, racial dynamics within a classroom can also create inequity in those whose needs are being met in SJTE. After having a Black student point out the dominance of whiteness in teacher education through a comment on how one of their exercises seemed to be “created for white people,” Deckman and Ohito (2020) critically challenged the racial dynamics in their classroom and for whom their approach is beneficial. This question is further examined by other authors who have studied the experiences of student teachers of color in SJTE (e.g., they provide examples of how SJTE can harm these students). Berry et al. (2020) concluded that student teachers of color in teacher education often felt unseen and unheard, a finding that seemed to be in stark contrast with the experiences of white students who felt included and supported. Their counternarratives revealed how student teachers of color experienced frustration with white peers who refused to discuss race, exclusion by faculty members, a curriculum that silences race issues, and misrecognition of their lived experiences and knowledge.
To counter this hegemony of whiteness, the authors suggest that critical race theory and storytelling should become an integral part of teacher education aimed at equity and justice. Souto-Manning and Emdin (2023) draw from interviews with recent graduates of 20 urban teacher education programs with social justice goals, highlighting the potential harm that SJTE can cause to students of color. Grounded in historical trauma theory, their analysis connects student teachers’ experiences to the historical and generational trauma endured by communities of color. The authors reveal how students relive historical trauma through the perpetuation of racist narratives and cite instances of microaggressions, silencing, and psychological violence. For instance, students share experiences of feeling invisible, having to conceal aspects of their identity to assimilate, and psychological distress such as anxiety and low self-worth due to their experiences in teacher education. The authors argue that the commonly presented image of teacher education focused on equity, diversity, and justice does not align with the actual experiences of students of color. They argue that to break with the current reality of empty rhetoric while reproducing historical trauma, teacher education needs to centralize the lived experience and expertise of Black teacher educators and student teachers and use this as a conceptual map to actively address historical injustices in SJTE (Souto-Manning & Emdin, 2023).
An example of actively making space for the lived experiences of students from marginalized groups to share their previously untold stories was provided by Gachago et al. (2014). By giving students space to express themselves and analyze their lived experiences through multiple storytelling techniques, students challenged dominant discourses such as color-evasiveness, contributed to community building in their group, and challenged racism, sexism, and other forms of oppression, using personal stories as a starting point (Gachago et al., 2014).
Since SJTE often focuses on student teachers becoming aware of injustice that does not negatively affect them, Pham (2018) warns of neglecting the learning needs of student teachers of color based on the perception that their racial identity already equips them for socially just teaching of diverse classrooms. She acknowledges how the expertise of teachers of color is often misrecognized but emphasizes the importance of supporting them in their learning process as well as combining learning from peers with curriculum and policy changes. Based on analysis of the experiences of two student teachers of color during a field placement of an SJTE program, she shows that learning from peers of color can be valuable, for example, by stimulating student teachers to reflect on how differences between their personality and that of their peers can make them overlook the needs of students with a different background than their own. However, a lack of guidance from mentor teachers and/or universities can also allow student teachers to stay in their new comfort zone and hinder them from gaining new insights regarding social justice.
Clark (2019) analyzes the potential teacher practices that de-center whiteness by analyzing a social justice–oriented physical teacher education program at a historically Black university that aims to counter the hegemony of whiteness and misrecognition of Black knowledge. For example, the program works with Black feminist and womanist interpretations of care theory that move beyond color-evasiveness. Student teachers report experiencing the way they are cared for as different from their previous predominantly white institutions where they were confronted with, for example, deficit views and honoring white supremacist historical figures. Teacher educators explain how they are familiar with Black culture and make sure their teaching aligns with student teachers’ ways of interacting to keep them engaged. Furthermore, they combine their approach to care theory with setting high (academic) standards and expectations. Clark emphasizes the role that historically Black universities can play in disrupting whiteness. He asserts that other institutes can learn from how student teachers are taught and approached in these universities. This supports Souto-Manning and Emdin’s (2023) recommendation to learn from the history and reality of Black social justice–oriented teachers and teacher educators.
Ohito (2019), who performed a phenomenological study on Black female anti-racist teacher educators, notes how they built on three interconnected types of racialized knowledge: knowledge through family histories, knowledge through their own schooling experiences, and embodied knowledge through the consciousness of the bodies they are in. These knowledges influence what, how, and why teacher educators teach, not only for Black teacher educators but also for white faculty members. For example, a white teacher educator’s embodied knowledge of racism may lead them to invite guest lecturers to discuss those aspects of racism they will never be able to experience because of their white body. This analysis of what forms of knowledge social justice–oriented teacher educators build on, that actively takes into account teacher educators’ bodies, is a vital addition to Philpot’s (2016) exploration of similarities and differences in teacher educators’ understandings and practices of aspects of critical pedagogy, such as their view on power or democratic education.
Although Clark shows that the historically Black university he analyzed offers a valuable approach to decentering whiteness in SJTE, a hegemonically white context is still the reality at most institutions. Hudson-Vassell et al. (2018) point to the importance of experienced Black women teacher educators in supporting new Black women in SJTE in navigating challenges within the institution but note this is often difficult due to the lack of representation of Black women in teacher education. Even when SJTE modules are provided by Black faculty, teacher educators can still be more adjusted to the needs and feelings of their white students than their Black students (Deckman & Ohito, 2020). Therefore, the dominance of whiteness in teacher education remains a challenge for teacher educators.
Coping With Vulnerability
As discussed in the previous sections, inviting discomfort and critically challenging one’s beliefs and actions are integral parts of SJTE. This requires both teacher educators and student teachers to allow a certain amount of vulnerability. In several papers, teacher educators explicitly reflect on the limitations of their own practices, either through honestly presenting unwanted outcomes or through discussions of painful realizations that their own beliefs, fears, or positionality has played a role in obstructing their own goals (Galman et al., 2010; Hudson-Vassell et al., 2018; Quan et al., 2019). They also reflect on their own insecurities, the ways in which they have felt vulnerable as social justice–oriented teacher educators, and how this influenced their practice (Deckman & Ohito, 2020; Galman et al., 2010; Lucas & Milligan, 2019).
In some examples, teacher educators actively share these vulnerabilities with their students (Bright, 2015; Trout & Basford, 2016). For example, Lucas and Milligan (2019) found that their openness about uncertainty created more room for student teachers to share their theoretical and pedagogical uncertainties as well. In a setting where most student teachers were already somewhat familiar with social justice teaching, examining uncertainty rather than looking for clarity allowed for problematizing assumptions and uncovering new and unexpected insights. Deckman and Ohito (2020) examined their own insecurities and vulnerabilities to analyze whether their practices were as humanizing as they were intended to be. Authors who engage in this process of critically examining their own practices not only contribute to improving their own practices but also to the knowledge about tensions and dilemmas teacher educators encounter when teaching for social justice.
Although Deckman and Ohito (2020) mention the importance of embracing the uncertainty of social justice teaching as it is valuable and educational, they also report on the fears of judgment that teacher educators, especially Black women, may feel when opening up about their uncertainties, vulnerabilities, and doubts. In this review, we have included multiple examples of women of color analyzing how they receive a lot of resistance and are often in a more vulnerable position at their university compared to other faculty members. For example, Mthethwa-Sommers (2012) discusses the negative comments she received on course evaluations (although they were mainly about her identity as an African-born Black woman rather than the content of her teaching) and how they can negatively impact Black lecturers’ careers.
Han (2018) reports on different microaggressions she experienced as a Korean woman of color in SJTE, such as negative and biased evaluations, lawsuits by angry white students, and hostile co-workers making comments about her accent or her views on equality and justice. For example, she reports how her research work was undervalued and described as “non-rigorous, non-scientific, and subjective” (Han, 2018, p. 605) and how she received a personal “warning letter” after raising an issue concerning the lack of diversity at the institute. Bright (2015) explicitly reflects on how her experiences in positioning herself are influenced by her white body, as she does not fear students seeing her as less knowledgeable, angry, or pursuing her personal agenda, things women of color are often accused of (Bright, 2015; Han, 2018; Mthethwa-Sommers, 2012).
Hudson-Vassell et al. (2018) discuss the challenges faced by two Black female anti-racist teacher educators at a predominantly white teacher education institute. Although they had clear social justice–oriented goals and practices, they felt unprepared for the amount of resistance. Furthermore, they struggled with their dual role as facilitators and learners when they positioned themselves as insiders participating in the learning process while maintaining their authority. They aimed to encourage critical consciousness by pushing students who were hesitant to delve deeply into the course content. The paper explores their initial underestimation of the impact of race-related social dynamics in their group and how their aspirations to engage in a liberatory pedagogy led them to student non-participation. They assert that being a Black (female) teacher educator in a predominantly white institution requires one to think about the implications of teaching from a liberatory pedagogy, positioning themselves as both teacher and learner in a community of learners, and how this can bring up challenges in responding to student resistance because of the power dynamics in the classroom.
While the previous paragraphs discussed vulnerability coming from opening up about insecurities or from racial dynamics in the classroom, other scholars discuss how lack of institutional support can put teacher educators in an unwanted vulnerable position (Gorski & Parekh, 2020; Han, 2018; Ovens et al., 2018; Walton-Fisette et al., 2018). Experiencing or expecting resistance and lack of support can impact (teacher) educators’ willingness to engage in social justice issues. Multiple authors discuss how either teacher educators or student teachers report feeling limited in engaging in social justice–oriented practices based on a fear of losing their job, receiving negative evaluations, or getting critiqued by colleagues or mentor teachers who don’t share their views (Lillge & Knowles, 2020; Marco-Bujosa et al., 2020; Mitton-Kukner et al., 2016; Pham, 2018; Schmidt et al., 2012; Walton-Fisette et al., 2018). One of the explanations for the lack of support that social justice–oriented teacher educators experience is the extent to which teacher educators pursue critical (rather than liberal or conservative) goals. Gorski and Parekh (2020) found in a survey that teacher educators who incorporate more critical content (such as white supremacy, feminist theory, critical race theory, or critical disability theory), rather than an approach that is more liberal, more often reported that they felt that their values were not supported at their teacher education institute.
As engaging in social justice–oriented practices can create experiences of vulnerability and can put faculty of color in a vulnerable position at their institution, several authors emphasize the importance of (white) teacher educators not leaving social justice to BIPOC faculty. They recommend integrating it into the curriculum, requiring white colleagues to critically examine their positionalities and beliefs as well and to support faculty members of color raising issues about the perpetuation of racism within the institute (Han, 2018; Mthethwa-Sommers, 2012; Walton-Fisette et al., 2018).
Han (2018) argues that faculty of color should keep fighting for justice, seeing potential in the forming of coalitions between BIPOC faculty, collegiality from white faculty, and introducing faculty to theories about race and whiteness. Ovens (2018) states that the institutional anchoring of social justice within teacher educator institutes can strengthen the position of teacher educators who dare to be vulnerable. However, within PETE, teacher educators often report that social justice is not part of teaching standards and is not seen as a priority within the institute. They are also often uncertain about their own expertise but lack time to delve into it (Ovens et al., 2018).
Struggling to Practice Social Justice Education Within the Current System
A common challenge in SJTE is for student teachers to struggle with bringing newly developed social justice knowledge into practice. As highlighted by Acosta et al. (2017), being a social justice educator extends beyond awareness and requires critical reasoning in teaching practice. Student teachers’ struggles in bringing social justice teaching into practice often lead to teacher educators being confronted with challenges, such as student teachers perceiving SJTE as disconnected from the real world or even rejecting the structural perspective central to SJTE (Kavanagh & Danielson, 2020; Lillge & Knowles, 2020; Marco-Bujosa et al., 2020; Pollock et al., 2010; Robinson et al., 2018; Schiera, 2019; Schmidt et al., 2012). We further discuss how teacher educators deal with a tension experienced by student teachers that seems to be underlying this challenge: a perceived trade-off between social justice principles and preparing students for what they see as “the real world.”
According to K. S. Ahmed (2020), tensions between “navigating the system” and “disrupting the system” are prominent in SJTE practices. In its focus on stimulating structural change, SJTE asks teachers to teach against the grain and try to make a difference while also recognizing the ways in which the educational system maintains and enforces inequity through institutionalized oppression that goes beyond the scope of an individual teacher (K. S. Ahmed, 2020; Bright, 2015; Charles, 2017; Gorski, 2016; Gorski & Parekh, 2020; Luguetti & McLachlan, 2021; Marco-Bujosa et al., 2020; Quan et al., 2019). This leads to trying to develop transformative practices that question and disrupt unjust systems instead of affirmative strategies that compensate for them (Schmidt et al., 2012).
However, K. S. Ahmed (2020) describes how students becoming more aware of how the education system reproduces structural inequities also led to a decrease in the transformative goals student teachers pursued with their teaching practices. By raising awareness of the structural and persistent character of inequity, student teachers were keener on preparing their students from marginalized communities to find ways to succeed within these inequitable structures than on preparing their students to change them.
Similarly, Schiera (2019) describes how student teachers gained the idea that they should primarily prepare their pupils for “the real world” rather than contribute to changing that world. They often see a trade-off between providing equal opportunities through supporting people from marginalized backgrounds to adjust to the norms of dominant groups in society and fighting the misrecognition of the worlds of these students. In this perceived trade-off, they preferred focusing on the former. For example, student teachers struggled with valuing students from nondominant backgrounds who had a difficult relationship with the schooling system, as the “real world” would also not accept them as they were. Other authors also report on student teachers struggling with coming up with transformative solutions rather than adjusting or becoming resilient to inequitable structures (Gachago et al., 2014; Kearns et al., 2017; Schmidt et al., 2012).
Although the persistence of structural inequity creates real challenges for teachers, this also raises the question of whether student teachers recognize the relationship between big structures and daily acts and the potential of teaching practice in interrupting norms, procedures, and power relations reproducing inequity (Kavanagh & Danielson, 2020; Marco-Bujosa et al., 2020; Pollock et al., 2010; Schiera, 2019). Robinson et al. (2018) assert that student teachers’ demands for practical tools can often (partly) stem from misinterpretation of theoretical concepts. In their case, students reported being skeptical about the feasibility of translanguaging, mainly because they did not always fully understand that it did not require them to become multilingual themselves. Misinterpretations of central concepts, such as systemic inequality and the role of teachers in perpetuating or disrupting systems, could also play a role in student teachers’ perceived lack of agency in social justice teaching. Student teachers viewing the fight against structural inequality as something “overwhelming” outside of their own acts is described by several authors (Marco-Bujosa et al., 2020; Mitton-Kukner et al., 2016; Pollock et al., 2010; Tompkins et al., 2017).
Challenges to bringing social justice teaching into practice have led some teacher educators to move toward practice-based approaches to teacher education in SJTE that centralize teaching practice rather than theory or student teachers’ dispositions (Kavanagh & Danielson, 2020; Schiera, 2019; Souto-Manning & Martell, 2019), although this is a controversial topic in SJTE as many scholars have warned for the possible dilution of equity in practice-based teacher education (Cochran-Smith, 2020; Philip et al., 2019). Kavanagh and Danielson (2020) analyzed the pedagogical practices of both teacher educators and student teachers in a practice-based course that combined social justice with literacy. They conclude that teacher educators did not employ their full range of teaching strategies when teaching about social justice topics. Student teachers learned about different instructional strategies to facilitate discussions about books but were not taught to relate these strategies to social justice. When studying the teaching practices of these student teachers, the authors found that they often did not recognize relationships between social justice and their instructional practices: they integrated social justice principles in their lesson planning (mainly in choosing the book to read with their class) but not in the decisions they made around instruction. They also did not reflect on whether some of these practices could lead to (groups of) students being underserved in education.
Unlike the researchers who point to practice-based teacher education as a solution to challenges related to implementing SJTE in practice, Pollock et al. (2010) and K. S. Ahmed (2020) recommend explicitly inviting the process of working through tensions in the classroom and learning to see the relationship between big structures and daily acts. Pollock et al. (2010) assert that seeing structural injustice as separate from “good teaching” can hinder the development of change agency. Students who saw good teaching and anti-racist teaching as a trade-off rather than interrelated struggled most with bringing social justice teaching into practice. Understanding the structures underlying inequality and how they can be reinforced through education can, therefore, support student teachers in developing daily practices that disrupt oppressive norms rather than reproducing them or focusing on what individual teachers cannot change (Pollock et al., 2010).
Marco-Bujosa et al. (2020) provide examples of how graduated students find their way in making small changes to their teaching to make their practices more equitable. Most participants describe changes in their instruction to make it more inclusive. However, the authors also describe a beginning teacher who stood up to injustices in school policy and tried to implement change outside his own classroom by proposing curriculum changes within the school. Mitton-Kukner et al. (2016) discuss examples of student teachers who disrupt hetero- and cisnormative discourses in informal conversations with colleagues. Although the students do not always recognize the transformative potential of such daily actions and still feel a lack of agency, the authors emphasize how these can be small but important acts of resistance.
Furthermore, the analysis of Tompkins et al. (2017) shows four ways in which student teachers developed ways of creating opportunities to become advocates for social justice. First, they learned to use the informal curriculum to challenge gender norms, for example, by emphasizing to children how books and activities are not gendered. Secondly, they included LGBTQ+ history and justice movements in the formal curriculum. Thirdly, some student teachers became involved in gender and sexuality alliances to create space for LGBTQ+ leadership. Finally, student teachers gained more confidence in social justice–oriented teaching by learning from watching colleagues or mentor teachers integrate justice issues into their teaching.
As student teachers often encounter tensions around working toward change within persistent unjust structures, K. S. Ahmed (2020) advises to explicitly integrate discussions on the tensions they experience into SJTE. This can prevent students from joining the teaching force leaving these ideas and practices undiscussed, which could allow them to develop practices that do not align with their goal of social justice. Additionally, it could stimulate them to more critically question whose interests are (not) being served and to recognize the potential of daily acts that disrupt norms or inequitable practices.
Discussion
In this review, we analyzed student teachers’ and teacher educators’ experiences when engaging in SJTE practices. The included papers reveal that participating in SJTE, as either a student or lecturer, involves more than just developing new understandings and beliefs—it is also an affective and embodied experience. For many students, learning new concepts referring to systemic inequity challenges existing beliefs about equity and justice, which are grounded in dominant discourses. This process often evokes resistance or discomfort, which illustrates that the development of critical consciousness is not a linear process or epiphany; rather, new insights often clash with existing understandings, beliefs, or practices.
While we have discussed the cognitive and affective elements of this experience separately in the results, it is important to emphasize the inseparability of “head” and “heart” as described by De Oliveira Andreotti et al. (2014), who illustrated different head-heart spaces where feelings such as distress, shame, excitement, and guilt are connected to student teachers’ conceptual understanding. This paper also highlights how teacher educators provoke and respond to discomfort and other bodily responses, illustrating the link between cognition and affect. This underscores the significance of embodied learning and acknowledging emotion in the pursuit of social justice education.
Numerous authors have explored the emotions that come up during social justice teaching. When analyzing these emotions, it is important to acknowledge that they are not individual, apolitical experiences: Emotions can stem from systemic inequities, influence the sense of connection or distinction between groups, and hinder social change (S. Ahmed, 2014). Zembylas (2012) discusses how emotions can complicate SJTE but also shows the importance of engaging with emotions in a strategic way. He argues that critical theory, while valuable, may not sufficiently support teacher educators in managing racist comments in their classrooms due to its emphasis on structures, ideologies, and power, sometimes overlooking the affective dimension of (conflicts in) social justice teaching. Zembylas (2012) illustrates the emotionally complicated nature of challenging student teachers’ views on racism and social justice and emphasizes the importance of strategically using emotions and empathy to help students reconsider their “troubled knowledge” and develop new perspectives. The papers reviewed here, such as those based on Boler and Zembylas’s (2003) pedagogy of discomfort, offer insights into how teacher educators shape this in practice and strategically elicit emotions to explore and challenge understanding.
In the second part of our results, we have illuminated the challenges and tensions inherent to SJTE. They highlight how SJTE is often a balancing act, requiring teacher educators to work within the tension between reproduction and transformation, often aiming for contradictory goals—like making the predominantly white student teacher population aware of their privileges but not neglecting the needs of BIPOC students or prioritizing marginalized perspectives but not putting people in uncomfortable and vulnerable positions in which their lived experiences with marginalization are exploited; not disregarding students’ knowledge but also taking responsibility for actively challenging their ideas if they contribute to the reproduction of discourses such as colorblindness or deficit ideology; and making sure that student teachers feel empowered to put their new ideas into practice but not overlooking the importance of theory, uncertainty, and critical reflection.
Navigating these tensions characterizes SJTE. For instance, addressing and avoiding discussions on structural inequality both carry risks of reproduction. Addressing it may evoke stigmatizing remarks or put students from marginalized backgrounds in a position where they must explain or defend their own oppression. On the other hand, not addressing it or staying “neutral” can result in silencing or missing opportunities to disrupt dominant discourses. Practices that evoke emotions or centralize marginalized perspectives can break through dominant discourses but may also elicit unwanted effects requiring “in the moment” interruptions. These tensions underscore the complex landscape of teacher education for social justice, emphasizing the delicate balance needed to navigate discussions on inequity in the classroom.
Implications for Research and Practice
In the included papers, teacher educators and scholars have taken us along on their path of “walking the road” of being a social justice teacher educator (Cochran-Smith, 2004), including their insecurities and (un)expected challenges. In SJTE, feeling defeated or fatigued is understandable, given the knowledge that good intentions are not enough, and even practices aimed at social justice can inadvertently cause harm to marginalized students. However, it is vital to stress that this potential harm does not necessarily fault teacher educators but mainly exemplifies the tenacity of systemic injustice. For instance, a racist comment or unequal power relation in a predominantly white institution is not created by a teacher educator but already exists beneath the surface and is exposed through practices that challenge its taken-for-grantedness.
As emphasized by other authors, such as Zembylas (2015) and Arao and Clemens (2013), there is no true safe space in environments with unequal power relations. Safety for marginalized groups may require confronting beliefs reflecting power, privilege, or white supremacy while students from dominant groups may feel personally challenged or attacked and experience safety through non-confrontation (Acosta et al., 2017). Despite the comfort and unsafety SJTE may evoke, it is crucial to stay involved and work through this discomfort together, as many of the authors discussed in this review have illustrated.
The findings of this review also reveal that SJTE goes beyond preparing student teachers for primary school teaching—it also has strong implications for teacher educators’ practices and teaching contexts. As teacher educators expect their students to become conscious of how their actions perpetuate structures like white supremacy or heteronormativity, they must undergo the same process regarding their own practices. North (2006) argues that without ongoing reflection and adaptation, efforts to promote social justice in education may reinforce existing inequalities rather than challenge them. With this review study, we have demonstrated how this risk manifests in practice and how teacher educators address it. With this, we aim to inspire and support teacher educators in reflecting on their practices and making adaptations if needed.
Earlier reviews provided insights into different aspects of SJTE, such as practices and effects. Choosing to focus on responses, challenges, and tensions rather than effects allowed us to move beyond a discussion of “what works.” In every paper, researchers make decisions on what responses and tensions they focus on. Papers in which teacher educators highlight the lessons they have learned from “failures” or uncertainties are no less important than papers that focus on the positive changes in student teachers’ understanding. This review provides a platform for educators’ reflections, epiphanies, struggles, and insecurities, offering a realistic portrayal of SJTE. By bringing these papers together, we provide a practical perspective that we hope supports (beginning) teacher educators and scholars in understanding the practical implications of working within the field of SJTE.
The SJTE practices discussed in the various included papers in this review often differ significantly—some authors have been working in the field of SJTE for decades while others are novices; some work at institutions that put social justice to the forefront, while others are met with resistance in every step they try to take or work with students for whom everything is new. In our search, we have deliberately chosen not to limit our scope to authors that explicitly label their work as SJTE but also include papers based on other theoretical frameworks that align with the goals of SJTE. In doing so, we have made use of SJTE’s conceptual ambiguity and embraced the way the concept has been reinterpreted and broadened through practice. We did this using an intersectional approach, including inequity based on different identity markers such as race, class, and gender. This has led to a variety of theoretical and practical approaches in the papers we have included.
This variety reveals the importance of what questions are being asked in the research, as this impacts what side of the story is told and what side may be (unintentionally) silenced. For example, as one paper discusses the improvements made within an urban teacher education program, other authors are researching how urban teacher education programs often bring harm to BIPOC students. Almost every approach chosen in the included papers can be challenged or criticized based on the theoretical framework or ethical considerations discussed in another paper. But collectively, they offer a nuanced view of what it means to be a teacher educator for social justice, bringing together different perspectives and experiences.
Limitations and Recommendations for Further Research
We acknowledge potential limitations in our selection process and the eligibility criteria used to define SJTE. It is possible that papers were overlooked due to the limitations of our search terms or because we did not recognize critical perspectives during the screening phase. For example, critical research of systemic inequality from a framework such as multicultural education, inclusive education, or postcolonial theory was only identified if the title, keywords, or abstract contained terms like (in)equality, (in)equity, or (in)justice. Perspectives on SJTE engaging with systemic inequities without explicitly naming them might have been incorrectly identified as liberal or colorblind approaches. Although this review focuses on critical approaches, various included authors have emphasized that, in reality, many teacher educators combine critical and liberal elements in their practices (Gorski & Dalton, 2020; Gorski & Parekh, 2020; Hill et al., 2018). This complicates any attempt to separate critical from liberal approaches in practice.
The results highlight how contextual factors—such as time allocated for engaging with critical frameworks or institutional demographics—impact the experiences and practices of teacher educators. Given the significance of the social and political context for SJTE, further research is needed to examine how recent social and political changes shape teacher educators’ practices and the challenges they face. It is likely that the increased prevalence of far-right legislation and fearmongering against critical race theory and LGBTQ+ visibility in education, particularly in parts of the US and Europe, have a profound impact on teacher educators’ practices and experiences. For example, the rise of moral panic and repressive legislation may compel teacher educators to moderate their practices or avoid publishing their insights to prevent potential repercussions (R. Miller et al., 2023).
Further research is crucial to understand what new challenges emerge and how teacher educators navigate these evolving contexts. However, as emphasized by both R. Miller et al. (2023) and Threatt (2023), it is also essential to learn from historical struggles under repressive, anti-emancipatory legislation—such as the Jim Crow laws in the United States or Section 28 in the United Kingdom—as these past experiences offer valuable insights and parallels to current challenges in the fight for social justice.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Janneke Staaks (subject librarian and information specialist at the University of Amsterdam) for her help and expertise in developing our search strategy.
Funding
This work was supported by “Johan W. van Hulst Stichting” and “Stichting tot Steun bij Opleiding en Begeleiding van Leerkrachten in het Christelijk Basisonderwijs in Amsterdam e.o.”
Authors
NINA HOSSEINI, MSc. is a PhD candidate and teacher educator at the University of Applied Sciences IPABO, Postbus 90506, 1006 BM Amsterdam, Netherlands; and the Research Institute of Child Development and Education, University of Amsterdam, Postbus 15776, 1001 NG Amsterdam, Netherlands; Email:
DR. MONIQUE LEIJGRAAF is a researcher and teacher educator at the University of Applied Sciences IPABO, Postbus 90506, 1006 BM Amsterdam, Netherlands; email:
PROF. DR. LISA GAIKHORST is an associate professor at the Research Institute of Child Development and Education of the University of Amsterdam, Postbus 15776, 1001 NG Amsterdam, Netherlands; email:
PROF. DR. MONIQUE VOLMAN is a full professor of Education at the Research Institute of Child Development and Education of the University of Amsterdam, Postbus 15776, 1001 NG Amsterdam, Netherlands; email: