coteaching and disturbances. building a better system

7/24/2019 Coteaching and Disturbances. Building a Better System

1/28

Coteaching and Disturbances: Building a Better System

for Learning to Teach Science

Catherine Milne &Kathryn Scantlebury &

Jason Blonstein &Susan Gleason

Published online: 26 March 2010# Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Abstract Science education research has examined the benefits of coteaching for learning

to teach in elementary and secondary school contexts where coteachers bring variable levels

of experience to the work of coteaching. Coteaching as a pedagogical strategy is being

implemented at the university level but with limited research. Drawing from the field of

activity theory and our emic experience as coteachers, we examine the enactment of

coteaching in university science education courses. One of the tools central to our

examination of coteaching included the analysis of disturbances in the work and object ofpreparing science teachers. This analysis highlighted the role, during discursive

interactions, of problem posing and problem solving for addressing observed disturbances.

The presence of an extra instructor provided increased opportunities in the system for

recognizing and valuing disturbances as indicators of underlying contradictions or tensions

in elements of the activity system of the learning and teaching of science teachers. Our

analysis suggests that coteaching offers expanded opportunities for the evolution of the

activity system of preparing science teachers.

Keywords Activity theory . Coteaching . Science teacher education.

Preservice science education

Res Sci Educ (2011) 41:413440

DOI 10.1007/s11165-010-9172-7

C. Milne (*) :J. Blonstein

Department of Teaching and Learning, Steinhardt School of Culture, Education,

and Human Development, New York University, East Building, 6th Floor, 239 Greene Street,

New York, NY 10003, USA

e-mail: [email protected]

J. Blonstein


K. Scantlebury

Department of Chemistry & Biochemistry, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USA


S. Gleason

Middletown High School, 120 Silver Lake Road, Middletown, DE 19709-1494, USA



2/28

Introduction

Coteaching involves two or more professors working together in a teaching and learning

context. In science education programs, coteaching is becoming increasingly common as a

pedagogical strategy when experienced elementary or secondary teachers are paired withuniversity professors to teach science methods courses. The rationale for this practice is the

diversity of knowledge that an experienced classroom teacher brings to the theoretically

rich but at times practically limited aspects of an activity system focused on educating

students to become science teachers. Although there is an expanding corpus of research on

coteaching in science education in K-12 environments (Murphy and Scantlebury 2010),

there is less at the tertiary level especially in the context of examining the practice of

coprofessors.1 As coprofessors of two different science methods courses conducted at two

different universities, we were interested in empirically examining the question of what

coteaching brought to science methods courses. The study sites were two US universities

we called Mid-Atlantic and Urban.

Initially, we were interested in looking broadly within separate science methods courses

at two different universities, at how two coprofessors interacted with each other and with

the interns2 participating in these courses. We initiated an observational study to focus on

whether coteaching at the university level replicated already identified coteaching models

enacted at the K-12 levels (e.g. Roth and Tobin 2002). However, as we closely examined

the data from classroom interactions and data from student artifacts, we began to note a role

for coprofessors and other coteachers in identifying disturbances, ripples in the smooth

surface of course interactions (Engestrm1999). The co-authors of this paper, Jason, Pam,

Susan, and Kathryn, formed two analytical teams that explored their coteaching context andshared videotape of classroom interactions and critical analysis of their coteaching

narratives, videotape, and field notes, to develop a cross-site examination of the interaction

between coteaching and disturbances in the activity system of preparing science teachers.

Typically within other learning development paradigms, disturbances are ignored or

treated as isolated incidents (Helle2000). But for cultural historical activity theory (CHAT),

disturbances constitute visible manifestations of underlying contradictions that can exist

within elements of a system, between elements, between elements in old and new systems,

and between contemporaneous systems that share a motive. Disturbances are ripples in the

smooth ongoing communication, interrupting the information flow of the system and

disrupting learning and communication (Helle 2000). Engestrm describes disturbances asdeviations from standard scripts that indicate contradictions within the system but such

disturbances also offer potential for change within a system (2000, p. 965). According to

Engestrm, contradictions give rise to disturbances but it is often disturbances that are

noted first. Luff and Heath (1998) describe disturbances as deviations from the normative

script of the activity and disruptions to the flow of learning. As such, activity theory accepts

disturbances as essential features of a system providing opportunities for learning and

change (Norros1996).

We use data collected from an observational study to illustrate the role of coteaching in

identifying disturbances and theorize underlying contradictions within this system. Forchange to take place in the activity system, rather than ignoring disturbances, participants

1 We have selected this term for college-level coteaching to distinguish from coteachers at the K-12 level.2 We selected this term as a generic term for all student participants in the science methods courses otherwise

we would have had to refer to in-service teachers, pre-service teachers, and interns. Also we wanted to

restrict the term student to K-12 contexts.

414 Res Sci Educ (2011) 41:413440


3/28

need to construct the disturbance as a problem and then seek to develop a solution to that

problem. According to Engestrm and Mazzocco (reported in Helle) a possible source of a

disturbance might be the tacitly assumed traditions about teaching and learning that

participants bring to the system. Coteaching is a new tool imposed on old rules of

teaching offering the possibility of making disturbances to the activity system of preparingscience teachers evident and better supporting the learning of the interns3 in science

methods courses.

Evidence of tensions/disturbances and contradictions within the systems can be shared

with participants, providing a strategy for expanding their learning. For example, consistent

with other teaching contexts, classroom talk is informed by specific goal orientations

conventionally associated with the institution (Drew and Heritage 1992). Within such

systems there are usually constraints on what interns and professors will treat as allowable

contributions and talk may be associated with explicit and inferential procedures that are

context specific, based on each participants goals and shared needs that serve to limit

acceptable talk. In a science methods course, all participants expect the conversation will

support the outcome of preparing science teachers. In this study, even the introduction of

coteaching offered the possibility of a disturbance because coteaching was outside the

teaching and learning experiences of most interns and so existed as a possible contradiction

to the normative education system of one professor. But we also recognized that having

more than one professor in a class expanded the possibilities of identifying other distur-

bances in the activity system of learning to teach science. We postulate that the capacity to

identify and react to problems constitute a powerful set of actions that coteaching brings to

the activity of learning to teach science. These issues led us to two major questions that

framed this study:1. How can coteaching support the identification of disturbances associated with the

activity system of teaching/learning to become science teachers?

2. How can an identification of disturbances associated with the activity system of science

methods courses help professors support the learning of interns to become science

teachers?

Research Literature on Coteaching

Most commonly coteaching has used an inclusion model for K-12 classes involving special

education and classroom teachers (Kluth and Straut2003). The research on coteaching in

science education has focused on preservice and inservice teachers in K-12 settings.

Murphy and Beggs (2005) introduced coteaching into Irish primary schools by pairing

preservice teachers majoring in science with experienced teachers who had little or no

experience of using inquiry to teach science. Their studies noted improvement in the

preservice teachers teaching practice scores and elementary school childrens attitudes

towards science. Other studies explored how preservice teachers acquired and optimized

pedagogical knowledge, such as that associated with using inquiry, when coteachingwith their peers in a methods course (e.g. Eick and Dias 2005). In contrast to these

3 We selected this term as a generic term for all student participants in the science methods courses otherwise

we would have had to refer to in-service teachers, pre-service teachers, and interns. Also we wanted to

restrict the term student to K-12 contexts.

Res Sci Educ (2011) 41:413440 415


4/28

studies of K-12 teaching, our research examines the work of college professors coteaching

science education courses.

At the college level tag teaching, where professors divide the teaching load and course

administration, is more typical (Gilmer and Cirillo2007). For example, one professor might

teach the first half of the semester while another professor teaches the second half. Anegative outcome of tag teaching can be that the resulting courses lack coherence in both

planning and implementation. We argue that in contrast to tag teaching, where the goal is to

reduce the workload for each professor, a goal of coteaching is to improve the learning

opportunities for students so collaboration and cooperation are central to our concept of

coteaching. This coteaching model was informed by that proposed by Roth and Tobin

(2001), in which each teacher is expected to share responsibility for teaching during a

course.

Other researchers have identified a shared responsibility for teaching as team

teaching (Anderson and Speck 1998). According to Anderson and Speck, in team

teaching a dialogic learning environment emerges in which multiple perspectives are

supported and respected. In a study of Grade 8 mathematics, Jang (2006) defined team

teaching as involving, two or more professors whose primary concern is the sharing of

teaching experiences in the classroom, and co-generative dialoging with each other

(p. 177). These practices are similar to Roth and Tobins (2005) description of coteaching

indicating that contemporary team teaching and coteaching share values about teaching

that might not be the values of tag teaching. However, a possible difference between team

teaching and coteaching is the underlying learning and epistemological theory for

practice. Anderson and Speck (1998) argue that for team teaching, the underlying theory

is constructivism, and Roth and Tobin (2005) argue that for coteaching the underlyingtheory is CHAT.

Cultural Historical Activity Theory as an Explanatory Theory for the Practice

of Coteaching

Anderson and Speck (1998) argued that constructivism constituted a unified, but largely

unacknowledged, theory of learning, which supported various teaching strategies integral to

team teaching. Constructivism supported practices such as, an emphasis on experiential

learning, collaborative discourse, and reflection. These practices also constitute some, butnot all, the tools necessary to mediate student learning as theoretically understood using

CHAT. In this paper, we use CHAT to understand the use of coteaching for preparing

science teachers, to identify and explain the significance of disturbances in pedagogical

interactions that involve coprofessors and interns, and to learn whether the identification of

disturbances in a science methods course broadens opportunities for learning to be a science

teacher.

Exploring Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT)

The activity, in which subjects aspire to an object because of a specific need or motive, is

the central unit of analysis in CHAT (Leontev1981). In the context of this study, subjects

of the system include interns and professors participating in a science methods course. Each

subject in this system envisages goals of learning to be science teachers and also how these

goals might be achieved. For the subjects, an image of that result and being able to envisage

a path to that result engenders motive or motivating force for interns and professors. Thus

416 Res Sci Educ (2011) 41:413440


5/28

motive has both cognitive, because the activity is organized towards the need, and

emotional aspects, as subjects identify a reason for engaging in the activity (Leontev

1981). Goal-directed actions within the activity translate the need into something that is real

for the participants and are associated with a broader outcome, such as preparing science

teachers, that can be shared by a number of activity systems. The science methods coursesproviding the context for this study constitute one of the sites for preparing science

teachers. Other sites, such as the science practicum (field experiences and student teaching)

which share the same outcome, can impinge on the methods course site as interns use their

experiences in the practicum as resources or tools for some of the interactions that take

place in the methods courses.

The motive/need of learning to be science teachers is collective, shared by interns

and coprofessors and by other groups including governments, universities, and

employers and, as such, it exists as a component of an outcome for a networked set

of activity systems. Each subject or participant is involved in both individual practice

and a community of practice associated with being a citizen teacher. With a community

of interns and professors participating in an activity, each activity can manifest multiple

goals and the same action can accomplish different motive-oriented activities. For

example, an intern (individual practice) might attend class because s/he needs to learn

about becoming a science teacher but s/he might also want to connect with colleagues

to get information about part-time work. The action of attending class is designed to

achieve two different activities: learning to be a science teacher and obtaining part-time

work. Alternatively, one motive-oriented activity can be achieved by multiple actions.

Coteaching is one of many actions that can support the activity of learning to be a

science teacher. Direct instruction is another action that can have the same motive ofpreparing new science teachers. Thus, both of these actions can take place within the

same system. The activity of participating in a science methods course supports specific

action sequences and these actions contribute to the activity so the relationship between

actions and activity is dynamic (Roth and Lee 2007).

Students come to a classroom with expectations about how teaching will be enacted

and other teachers often share those expectations. Such expectations constitute some of

the norms or mores of a system which Engestrm (1987) also calls rules. Although

coteaching and individual teaching share the need of preparing science teachers,

coteaching might not fit the expectations that interns bring to a course constituting a

possible contradiction within the rule elements of the science methods course system.Teaching requires a range of actions including: selection and retention of information,

being knowledgeable, mastery of symbol systems, and problem posing and problem

solving as the need arises. Teaching should change the dynamics of classrooms in ways

that have the potential to expand students options for action to achieve their goals. Our

view is that coteaching offers the possibility of an expanded range of actions associated

with being a professor including ongoing activities that require cognition and support

interns learning.

In order to prepare science teachers, information must move through the activity system.

There are two types of information of note. The first type is information about our needs,such as what they are and whether we have achieved them. This information requires

personal and interpersonal reflection. The second is information about the types of

resources available in the environment and how subjects in a system can use these resources

to achieve those needs (Engestrm 1987). There are four types of information resources:

information based on interaction with the physical environment, interaction with others,

spoken, and written language. Tools assist us to manipulate the environment to access this

Res Sci Educ (2011) 41:413440 417


6/28

information. Language, concepts, mental models and physical objects all constitute tools

that can extend our physical and mental capacities. But tools are constructed by others and

are embedded with their values and understandings about how one should use them and

thus have limitations. How interns make use of the tools provided in the courses versus how

the professors think a tool should be used constitutes another possible source ofcontradiction within the system that may cause disturbances in interactions within the

system.

When using activity theory, we acknowledge that historically an activity system is

imbued with the meanings and values of the constructors, which in our case are the

historical precedents for a science methods course with its associated norms about power

and knowledge. Blackler argues that activity theory is weak in the analysis it offers of the

relationship between knowledge and power (1995, p. 1,039). Within activity theory,

knowing is a cultural activity and what counts as knowledge can be a source of disturbance

suggesting the possibility of a deeper contradiction in the activity system between the goals

and the motives of some interns and professors. Activity systems are reproduced if

elements, such as tools and rules of the system remain unchanged. One of our goals as

professors is to broaden interns options for action so that the science methods activity

system is both reproduced and transformed. Interactions between professors and between

professors and interns provide opportunities forpraxis, which can be understood as practice

based on tools of lived experience and professional conversations framed by educational

theories, to emerge and become a tool for beginning teachers to use in other systems.

Another area of concern was how specific discourses represented a regimen of power to

ensure that only one voice or discourse was produced during classroom interactions. In a

study of classroom interactions, Gutirrez et al. (1995) showed in classrooms with oneteacher that power was locally constituted, especially by teachers, through teachersuse of

monolingualism that served to reinforce dominant cultural values, which were resistant to

dialogue between classroom participants. Moje and Lewis (2007) argue that CHAT does not

possess the tools to show how power and powerful discipline-based discourses are

produced in day-to-day discourse and how such discourses serve to make solid,

manifestations of institutional power, but rather activity systems serve a normative function

because within the system are the elements that help to determine its parameters. However,

we argue that recognizing and using disturbances offers a strategy for valuing multiple

voices, distributing power more evenly, and constantly regenerating the activity system so

that change rather than stasis is accepted as normal.Typically, within CHAT the issue of power has been associated with a division of

labor. Engestrm (1993) wrote of division of labor as being associated with horizontal

division of tasks and vertical stratification of power. In a university classroom, this

division is typically identified between professors and interns. Anderson and Specks

(1998) analysis ignored the role of power in team teaching interactions. Eick ( 2004)

addressed power by arguing that coteaching blurred the power boundaries in teaching

interactions because experienced and inexperienced teachers learned from each other. In a

different coteaching context, Murphy and Beggs (2005) addressed the issue of power,

attributed to teachers through their years of experience, by including preserviceelementary teachers as science experts so that the tool of deeper content knowledge

served to level the playing fieldas a division of labor emerged between pedagogy expert

(experienced teacher) and content expert (inexperienced teacher). Although discussions

of power in activity systems typically focus on divisions of labor, we argue that tools each

coprofessor and intern brings to the system and the rules that are in place also mediate

participants interpretation of power.

418 Res Sci Educ (2011) 41:413440


7/28

Using Other Activity Systems to Distribute Power

Cogenerative dialogues (cogens), conducted in concert with coteaching, provide a separate

activity system for professors and interns to discuss disturbances and contradictions and

cogenerate decisions for further action, flattening the power structures that can exist inpedagogical contexts (Tobin and Roth2006). Although not framed from an activity theory

perspective, participants in educative settings have used cogens to examine disturbances

that prevent optimal learning and teaching and to articulate solutions for resolving these

issues (Martin2006). Like coteaching, cogens provide contexts for generative learning and

can contribute to a developmentally more sophisticated activity system associated with

preparing science teachers.

Tobin and Roth (2006) acknowledge the opportunities cogens afford for a more

equitable sharing of power as interns and professors negotiate future actions and shared

outcomes. Typically, a cogen consists of a group of interns meeting with coprofessors to

discuss their experiences of the science methods course, a shared system, to consider new

strategies for action, and reaffirm their collective commitment to a shared object of

preparing new science teachers. Cogens ensure that all participants have a voice, take

collective responsibility for future actions in the course, and also decide on a division of

labor for those actions. Not all cogens include interns with coprofessors. Tobin and Roth

(2006) argue thata huddle, a brief coming together of professors during class to generate

plans for future actions, is a variant of a cogen. At both Mid-Atlantic University and Urban

University, cogens constituted an activity in which both professors and interns participated

outside of class. Course planning and evaluation meetings also constituted small cogens and

provided a space and time for examination of disturbances that coprofessors had noted inthe artifacts produced by interns, by their reflections on the class, or in their examination of

videotape of a class.

Science Education Studies and CHAT

Science education researchers have shown increasing interest in using CHAT as they seek

to understand the social, cultural and historical dimensions of learning science. For

example, Engestrm (1991) used CHAT to provide an explanatory framework for the issue

of childrens misconceptions about what causes the phases of the moon. He argued that

CHAT assists us to recognize the multi-voiced nature of concepts and that often conceptsare presented in misleading ways in resources such as student textbooks. Van Aalsvoort

(2004) applied this multi-voiced nature of cognition to the development of chemistry

curriculum. In their study of coteaching, van Eijck and Roth (2007) used CHAT to theorize

the relationship between science and traditional ecological knowledge. Kirch (2007) in her

study of the role of uncertainty in elementary students learning science used CHAT to

theorize language and dialogue as mediating tools for learning. Roth and Tobin ( 2002) used

activity theory to explain the role of contradictions in making teaching and learning of

science virtually impossible in an urban high school.

Research Methodology, Disturbances, and CHAT

We chose CHAT for this study because of its value as a learning theory, and its explanatory

power in epistemology and analysis. One of the issues associated with using CHAT, is

choosing the unit or grain sizeof analysis (Barab et al.2004). There is no doubt that the

Res Sci Educ (2011) 41:413440 419


8/28

motive of preparing science teachers extends well beyond the science methods courses that

are the focus of this study. As participants in state-approved teacher-certification, our

institutions are required to provide at least one science methods course. So other groups,

apart from the interns and coprofessors, share the motive of preparing science teachers that

can work in public secondary schools across the state, region or nation. However for thisstudy, we have elected to use as the unit of analysis, learning episodes from the science

methods courses from both sites, transcripts of cogens, and intern produced artifacts, which

constitute tools or resources of the activity system. Our use of learning episodes is drawn

from Gaea Leinhardts study of craft knowledge (1990). Learning episodes are segments

taken from lessons where we learned about our roles as coprofessors and about ourselves.

Episodes are places in a lesson where professors exhibit skills that are then analyzed and

synthesized using CHAT. Such episodes constitute illustrative scenarios but are not

designed to be representative of an entire lesson. The decision to use two sites stems from

our desire to identify whether commonalities existed across sites when we expected

differences.

Barab et al. (2004) argue that, once the grain size is selected the researcher then mines

collected data to determine the content they view as constituting a component of the

activity system (p. 207). They note that currently there is no generally accepted

methodology for utilizing concepts and principles from activity theory (p. 208).

Additionally, they argue that case study, observational studies, ethnography, and design

experiments offer opportunities for extended holistic views that allow for the multiple

perspectives which are a central component of CHAT. Finally, CHAT is designed to be

descriptive to support the understanding of rich complex systems such as those associated

with learning, in this case, learning to teach science. For these reasons, CHAT as aframework for analysis served to help broaden our general understanding of how

coteaching might be a valuable tool for the activity of preparing science teachers.

CHAT requires a focus on interactions, accepting that such interactions are dynamic.

Rather than focusing on specific individuals, this study is an examination of how two or

more people are engaged in achieving an outcome. Such a focus requires examination of

classroom interactions so that participants discourse and actions can be established.

Engestrm (1994) argues that the most effective way to study an activity system is to

participate in a system that is undergoing change as new models of activity are enacted. Our

use of coteaching in science methods courses represents such a context as we participate as

coprofessors. Within a coteaching system, the activity of learning to teach science isreproduced. At the same time, new artifacts are produced that make possible the

transformation of this activity system. The need to focus on interactions and discourses

indicated to us the value of collecting video, audio, or field note data from the classroom

and cogens so that the data would be available for analysis. In order to focus on the practice

of coteaching, we videotaped about one third of the science methods classes at Mid-Atlantic

and Urban universities over 3 years.

According to Scribner (1997a) observational studies are necessary to determine the

persistent and interrelated actions and goal directed operations associated with practice. She

argued that educative institutions foster specialized intellectual achievements. However,developmental theorists ignored the role of educational institutions in fostering these

achievements. She argued for the concept of practical literacy in which practice is a

socially constructed activity organized around some common objects (Scribner 1997a,

p. 299). Practice involves bounded knowledge domains and determinate technologies

that include symbol systems. In the practice of coteaching, professors need to master

knowledge and technology associated with purposeful interactions for the seamless

420 Res Sci Educ (2011) 41:413440


9/28

implementation of coteaching while concurrently being engaged in the education of interns.

Scribner (1997a) argues that a native is needed to understand the culture and to conduct

research within the associated work environment. As coprofessors of the courses under

study, our collective involvement in coteaching meant that we were well placed to conduct

a research study of coteaching as practice. We brought an insider/outsider focus to the studybecause all of the data presented were drawn from the classes we teach. We analyzed data

from science methods courses from two institutional contexts where we teach these courses,

Mid-Atlantic University and Urban University.

Two groups of coprofessors, Jason and Pam at Urban University and Kathryn and

Susan at Mid-Atlantic University, analyzed the features of thinking and knowledge

construction associated with coteaching in our separate contexts, not to look for similar

disturbances across the two sites but instead to note how coprofessors identified and

responded to disturbances in the classroom. The generation of data from multiple

sources was an active process focusing on sites of interaction during classes,

coprofessor reflections, intern and coprofessor postings to discussion lists, and interns

artifacts, such as assignments and self-evaluation reports. This study emerged from the

deep engagement of all researchers in the practice of coteaching. By studying

interactions during classes and cogens, we gained a better understanding of whether

coteaching supported the identification of disturbances and how coprofessors responded

to disturbances in the flow of communication during classes. CHAT helped us to

explain possible relationships between disturbances and deeper contradictions within

and between elements in the activity system in which science methods courses and

coteaching were central.

Producing Transcripts

Selected segments of individualsbehavior when engaged in a conversation (e.g. our lesson

episodes) can be presented graphically through transcription (Kowal and OConnel2004).

In representing lesson episodes associated with the enactment of science methods courses

for analysis, we used the conventions for transcribing conversation and actions. Thus

transcripts are selective reconstructions of what occurred during part of a lesson. Much of

the transcripts presented for analysis are secondary data drawn from videotape of classroom

interactions. A literary transcript is presented taking into account deviations from Standard

English and representing where necessary colloquial language in terms of sound. Weincluded prosodic features, such as pauses, emphasis, intonation, lengthening and volume,

in the presented transcripts if relevant to the analysis but in longer transcripts less use was

made of these conventions.

Conventions we used for transcribing include:

[ indicates the site of simultaneous or overlapping speech

() indicates a pause of less than 0.1 of a second

(0.4) indicates a longer pause, in this case four-tenths of a second long

: indicates that the sound is prolonged= signals latching conversation where as soon as one person stops talking the next one

starts

(()) signals an action that has relevance to the talk that is taking place

In italics indicates emphasis

indicates a word that was said more quietly than the rest of the conversation

// indicates an interruption to the speech of one participant by another

Res Sci Educ (2011) 41:413440 421


10/28

Sites of Study

Urban University

As professors at Urban University, a private institution, Pam and Jason bring similar butdistinct experiences and personalities to their course preparation, classroom implementa-

tion, assessment strategies, and evaluation. They both taught high school science for many

years in public schools, Pam in Australia and Jason in New York City. Jason and Pam are

full time faculty members. Within the university structure, Jason has a role as possessing a

broad knowledge of schooling in the urban district in which Urban University is located

and he has responsibility for mentoring interns during their internship. Pam has a role as the

course coordinator and also has responsibility for supervising interns during their

internship. Often the school experiences of interns provide resources for concept

development in the science methods classroom. Typically, at Urban University the majority

of interns are women (about 70%) and mostly White with usually two to three interns per

course of twenty-five students who identify as Asian-American, African-American

(including Caribbean) or Hispanic.

At Urban University, interns seeking teaching certification are required to complete two

semester-long 45-hour science methods courses: one with a focus on classroom interactions

(CI) and the second with an emphasis on curriculum development (CD). Interns can be

undergraduate or graduate students but most students are enrolled in a masters program. In

general, in the science methods courses Pam and Jason attempt to tie theory to practice,

with the goal of assisting interns to create a personal theory of teaching and learning that is

both grounded in current theory and shaped by their field and classroom experience and todevelop the discourse that will serve them well as educators and leaders when they enter the

teaching profession.

With a focus on the use-value of the system (Engestrm1999), Pam and Jason also seek

to provide interns with resources that broaden their options for action as beginning teaching

professionals. A goal of these courses is to raise the consciousness of interns about the

evolution of their conceptions of curriculum, teaching, learning, and school and social

contexts. Strategies were developed by Jason and Pam to achieve this goal in the course of

coplanned activities, through support of interactions with each other, with students, and

between students, and through the evaluation processes used to support learning.

Mid-Atlantic University

As professors at Mid-Atlantic University, a state-assisted institution, Kathryn and Susan

began working together in preservice science education without framing the arrangement

they initiated as coteaching. However, they have re-structured and reconceptualized their

roles since introducing coteaching as a model for student teaching (Scantlebury et al. 2008).

While Susan is an adjunct instructor in the secondary science education program, her full-

time employment is as a chemistry teacher at Biden High School. She is the science

department chair and has over 20 years teaching experience. She described her role in thescience methods course as bringing the real world voice, the reality check, to

theoretical conversations and helping interns to code switchbetween the language used at

the university and that in the school setting. During the methods course she is the teaching

practice expert for students. Kathryn is a faculty member responsible for the secondary

science education programs coordination and courses. She taught high school in Australia,

and has been involved with science teacher education programs in different roles for

422 Res Sci Educ (2011) 41:413440


11/28

twenty-five years. Although Kathryn and Susan discuss the syllabus, assignments, and

student work, Kathryns role as the professor of record lead her to assume responsibility for

organizing class materials, maintaining the course web-site, grading student assignments,

and revising course materials. The science methods course Susan and Kathryn teach is

a 90-hour, semester-length course. Participating interns coteach during their internship,which commences the semester after the completion of the methods course.

The programs education courses are aligned with the universitys Conceptual

Framework for Teacher Education goal to educatereflective practitioners to servediverse

communitiesof learners asscholars,problem solvers, andpartners.An important focus of

this course is that interns learn some of the knowledge and symbol systems associated with

coteaching because when they begin their internship in a school they will be required to

coteach with at least two cooperating teachers and another intern. During the methods

course, Kathryn and Susan modeled actions associated with coteaching and cogens. For

example, to demonstrate to interns strategies for transferring the central teaching role in

class, Kathryn and Susan used shared actions, such as passing a marker from one to

another, to indicate who was taking the lead for that part of the lesson thereby making

explicit actions in order to achieve a seamless division of labor (Milne et al. 2006).

During the methods course, interns are required to coplan and coteach a 45-minute

lesson which is videotaped, reflect on the experience through co-authoring a joint review of

their coteaching, and engage in class discussions of the benefits and drawbacks to

coteaching and coplanning. Another requirement of the course was that interns coplan

curricular units to use during their internship. These units are based on the application of

Wiggins and McTighes backwards design curriculum development framework (1998),

because the state uses that framework for the content standards. Such experiences aredesigned to support interns developing awareness of the norms of good coteaching such as

coplanning, stepping forward and back to share teaching space, and specific actions that

communicate respect and some of the knowledge and symbol systems associated with

coteaching and cogens.

At Mid-Atlantic University, interns are undergraduate students seeking the universitys

endorsement for a teaching certification in biology, chemistry, earth science or physics by

completing a content degree in the major along with professional education courses. The

number of students in the methods course can range from seven to fifteen with about half

being biology majors, a quarter of the students major in earth science and a fifth in

chemistry and the others are physics majors. In a typical methods course, biology majorsconstitute a majority followed by chemistry and earth science with physics in the minority.

The universitys teacher education majors are predominantly White, although more recent

years have seen an increase in the numbers of Latino/Latina interns. Most of the interns

from both contexts are White and middle class. However, because of fellowships available

to minority teachers, interns at Urban University tend to be a slightly more diverse group

than that associated with Mid-Atlantic University.

Sources of Data and Interpretation

The data presented in this study comes from videotape and audiotape of classes and

cogenerative dialogues and artifacts produced by students and professors during nine

different science methods courses. Jason and Pam debriefed after each class and used these

meetings to decide whether they needed to make further arrangements for interns prior to

the next class. They also met before each class to reaffirm their focus for the upcoming

Res Sci Educ (2011) 41:413440 423


12/28

class and to decide who would take the lead for various activities in the class. These pre and

post class meetings constituted the major cogens, especially when they first began

coteaching. However, in the second and third years that Pam and Jason cotaught, there was

more intern involvement in cogens. Field notes were kept of the meetings and, during each

semester, at least one cogen was audio or videotaped. Another source of data were interns

self-evaluations submitted towards the end of each course. These evaluations provided

space for students to make a free response and any comments relating to the dynamics of

coteaching were recorded for this study constituting a rich source of artifacts for the activity

system of preparing science teachers. These comments were not examined or analyzed until

interns had completed their studies in the masters program and had given consent for their

participation in the study.

At Mid-Atlantic University, Kathryn and Susan videotaped about 20 h of the methods

class. They regularly met to plan and discuss the course. Typically, they de-briefed after

each class and used electronic methods, such as email and telephone, to coplan for

upcoming classes. Susan and Kathryn introduced the practice of engaging the interns in

cogens focused on improving the methods course. The use of cogens had the added goal of

assisting interns to become more knowledgeable about the symbols and structures of

cogenerative dialogues so that they would have experienced a model for cogens before

teaching in high school. During the semester, Susan and Kathryn conducted three cogens,

allowing for the implementation of the internssuggestions from first two cogens, while the

third became a course evaluation during which interns provided suggestions for the

following year. We transcribed vignettes from videotape and from audio recording of

cogens for analysis. However in this paper, we used only the data that we felt were useful

for examining disturbances.Applying Guba and Lincolns (1989) authenticity criteria of fairness, education,

engagement, and empowerment, we sought to ensure the fair presentation of participant

responses. A challenge that both sets of coteachers experienced was the importance of

examining their practice as captured on videotape and in field notes with a critical eye,

always cognizant of the elements of the activity system, looking for examples of

disturbances and how professors and interns responded to these disturbances. Illustrative

examples or lesson episodes were transcribed using some of the conventions for

transcribing vignettes. As mentioned previously, these episodes constitute illustrative

scenarios and we acknowledge their selectivity as partial reconstructions of classroom

action. We examined videotape, our field notes, and the artifacts produced by interns,looking for disturbances associated with various aspects of the activity system. The

following analysis is based on our examination of evidence of disturbances, evidence of

underlying contradictions, and how coteachers and interns responded to these disturbances.

Identifying Disturbances

Disturbances and Underlying Contradictions within an Activity System

Disturbances Within Goals that Support the Object of the Activity System

In order to encourage interns to think about their learning in a more holistic way, Pam and

Jason introduced self-assessment, self-evaluation, and self-grading into both science

methods courses taught at Urban. All interns generated a self-evaluation statement and

awarded themselves a grade that was consistent with the statements they made about their

424 Res Sci Educ (2011) 41:413440


13/28

learning. This strategy for assessing learning was a new and, for some, challenging

experience for interns whose prior experience of assessment typically consisted of exams

and laboratory reports. Pam and Jason introduced this requirement into the course with an

introductory protocol and using various group and individual strategies to support

reflection, provide feedback, and encourage interns to assess their learning as theyprogressed through the course. Throughout the course, interns noted the value that each

coprofessor ascribed to self-assessment and Jason and Pam modeled a process of reflection

and action with interns through the discussion list on the course management site. Perhaps

naively, Pam and Jason expected the interns methods course experience would be

sufficient for them to develop a richer understanding of their learning, which they could

apply to their self-evaluation and that they had developed with the interns an environment

where all would feel comfortable making explicit their thinking and learning.

However, one interns artifact about self-evaluation from Jason and Pams class was

enough to dispel this expectation:

I want to begin by stating that I am not sure I agree with this self-assessment exercise.

It is not that I do not see the value of self-assessment in general. In fact I am a firm

believer that self-assessment is a valuable tool. What I am challenging though, is this

individual summative self-assessment task as the most significant contributing factor

to my grade for this course. I know you will be determining my grade based on my

class participation as well as this paper. The fact remains that this single assignment

accounts for the majority of your decision in determining my grade. I do not see how

this single piece of work is enough for you to get a true sense of what I may or may

not have learned from this course. On top of this, we have not had to turn in one

assignment for a grade this semester. I therefore have no baseline in determining whatyou may or may not be looking for. I just thought I should get this off of my chest

before I begin...

Keeping in mind what I have stated above, I believe that I deserve an A in this course.

The reasons for this are as follows: First and foremost, I feel that I have grown as a

teacher (or teacher in training in my case) by participating in this class. In addition to

examining and understanding new concepts, I feel that my perspective on teaching in

general has been greatly influenced by this class.

Sheree, Self-evaluation, 2004As mentioned previously, the requirement that each intern self-assess her /his learning

was discussed with interns at the commencement of the course and practices were put in

place requiring that each intern participated in a series of activities to generate individual

and collective data that she/he could use to support her/his claims about her/his learning.

However, Pam and Jason recognized that for Sheree this was not enough. Even though

Sheree believed that she had learned more about being a teacher because she claimed she

had grown as a teacher her comments communicated the tension that she experienced

because she did not have grades on tasks that she could exchange for an overall grade.

For us, her comments constituted a disturbance indicative of a contradiction within the

outcome of preparing science teachers: some interns struggled within the system to

accommodate use-value and exchange-value goals for the object of learning to teach

science. Sherees self-evaluation became a resource for coprofessors, Pam and Jason

helping them to identify a need to explicitly address this issue. The following year they

initiated a cogen with interns during the early weeks of the next iteration of the science

methods course, rather than waiting to respond to a specific query or concern from an

Res Sci Educ (2011) 41:413440 425


14/28

intern. A further disturbance was noted during the cogen as Sonya, a science graduate

working in a research laboratory in the medical school, who was yet to begin as a teacher

intern noted:

How do we assess ourselves? Who are we comparing ourselves against? Because,

how do we say whether its really an A or a B or a C? You know? Its like, because

you hear in grade school especially, C is average; that its like, I know how hard I

might have tried. Did I get everything out of the readings that you intended me to

get? ((Other students are nodding including Ruth who was concerned about self-

assessment and self-evaluation)) So, its like, do you get the A for effort? (Rising

inflection). Sonya, October 4, 2005

Sonyas comments about whom she should compare herself against when asked to assess

herself and the characteristics she should use to make that assessment suggest that her strategy

for assessing the quality of her learning to become a science teacher was informed by prior

experiences. For example, many interns prior experience of assessment is undergraduate

science courses in which the norm or rule was that scores on an exam or a laboratory report

were exchanged for grades, which were accepted as indicators of achievement.

The comments of Sheree and Sonya provide evidence of disturbances to the flow of

communication between interns and coprofessors. Both comments suggest that some

subjects entered the system with an exchange-value approach to the motive or object that

drives their activity (Engestrm 1999). This is not surprising when considering the

emphasis placed on grades in many science programs at the college level. Often specific

courses operate as gatekeepers, restricting the number of students who are granted access to

further study in science fields. The interns involved in this cogen have been successful atthis process and it is not surprising that some of them feel challenged by the requirement of

the methods course that they think about learning differently. Our surprise was associated

with how entrenched we found this concern to be for some of the interns.

Sherees concern about having to self-evaluate was associated with an identity-mediating

activity, in this case getting good grades, and with the tools that supported moves towards

objects associated with that activity. We read Sherees comments to indicate that she

associated being a successful student with good grades awarded by an outside entity. Jason

and Pams classroom experiences with Sheree also supported this assertion. However, by

implementing self-evaluation they took away artifacts that Sheree valued highly, thus

challenging her identity (Leander 2002a). Their regret was that they did not reallyunderstand Sherees position until they reviewed her self-evaluation report and so the

changes they enacted based on her comments came into effect for the following iteration of

the course.

Based on Marxs philosophy, the issue of use-value and exchange-value is present for all

subjects participating in an activity system. Engestrm (2006) argues, objects are

contradictory units of use-value and exchange-value, generated materially, mentally, and

textually (p. 194). In our context, interns are required to fulfill state requirements for

certification. We define these requirements as the exchange-value of education where an

intern

s participation in a course is exchanged for a grade. However, we argue thatprofessors and interns also share goals about learning the capacities, skills, and insights

necessary to be thoughtful and critical educators. This represents the use-value of preparing

to be science teachers. Each participant believes that the goals they value will allow them to

achieve the outcome of becoming a science teacher. However, as coprofessors one of our

goals is that through their participation in the science methods courses and the use of self-

assessment for learning, interns at Urban University will value learning for its use. The

426 Res Sci Educ (2011) 41:413440


15/28

actions of other interns agreeing with Sheree about their apprehension with self-assessment

and self-evaluation, a disturbance, suggest a deeper-seated contradiction between some

internsgoals and the goals of the coprofessors as they work to meet the object of becoming

a science teacher.

The cogen provided an opportunity for interns to voice their concerns and for allsubjects, interns and coprofessors, to develop a strategy where the interns were encouraged

to think of scientific argument as a metaphor for self-evaluation and the coprofessors were

encouraged to structure the initial self-assessment and self-evaluation protocol with that

focus. The use of cogens reduced the number of disturbances associated with assessment

but we acknowledge that disturbances associated assessment will always be present because

this aspect speaks to the individual goals of participants within the activity system.

Additionally, cogens can disperse power by providing a space where interns and

professors have a voice and where interns and professors cogenerate actions. Similar to

Leanders (2002b) Walden cabin, a cogen can be thought of as a hybrid mediational

space (p. 213) that bridges the knowledge interns bring, in this case about assessment of

learning associated with the outcome of preparing science teachers, and the knowledge

professors bring. In this context, cogens provided a field in which interns could discuss the

disturbances related to evaluation and the cogeneration of actions and goals.

The disturbance of an interns response to the requirement that she self-evaluate led to a

cascade of actions including professors reflection on how they might have structured this

task differently. The presence of more than one professor during the cogen provided a

structure for a dialogue about the issue of Sherees comments and what structures

coprofessors needed to put in place for the next iteration of the course to help make their

goals more explicitly available to the interns. An outcome of this cogen, was that Jason andPam framed the self-evaluation task within the model of a scientific argument, a strategy

designed to assist communication and dispersal of information between interns and

professors. The metaphor of the scientific argument based on internsunderstanding of how

knowledge claims are framed in science, left interns feeling more comfortable framing

claims about their learning from the course. However, the use- or exchange-value of the

object was not the only source of disturbance associated with elements and aspects of the

activity system as we illustrate in the following sections.

Disturbances Using Tools: Problems and Solutions

The class is taking place in what is called a theatre room. These are rooms in the

university where the chairs are bolted to the floor in rows and the rows of chairs are

tiered. It is a relatively small room fitting a maximum of 40 students. In an

examination of pedagogical structures available to science teachers, the interns and

coprofessors have just finished watching a video segment of a high school science

teacher using a can crushing science demonstration with students studying the gas

laws. The reduction of the temperature of the water vapor inside the can results in a

much lower internal air pressure than the atmospheric air pressure. The higher

atmospheric pressure causes the can to implode. The segment is data from a study

that showed how powerful science demonstrations could be for students whose

previous experience of science had been very variable. The interns previously

completed a version of this demonstration themselves but had not carried out the

other two science demonstrations that had been the focus of the studythe inverted

Res Sci Educ (2011) 41:413440 427


16/28

cup and the egg in the flaskthat was part of the class conversation. The study

showed that the demonstrations had a powerful impact on student practices in the

classroom. Pam asks the interns how a teacher might justify using a science

demonstration as a pedagogical strategy.

01 Pam We have a theory about why these demonstrations were so powerful (0.5)

02 Sophie I guess teachers use demonstrations to prove to the kids that what they are saying is true (1)

03 Pam But why did these specific demonstrations make a difference? (2)

04 Sophie What? () Like they were particularly entertaining? (1)

05 Pam Why were they effective? (3) What happened was that students started doing things in class

theyd never done before (1 s) They started to ask questions (0.4) Make predictions about

what would happen if they did this or that [to the demonstration](2) They started describing

what was happening and began to develop explanations (2)

06 Pam ((Talking to the class)) We postulated reasons why these demonstrations were powerful (2)

07 Frances I think that they work because they are something the students have never seen before

((Frances wanted to suggest the water cyclea simulationbut Pam argued that simulations

removed the ability to experience the phenomena))

08 Pam We had a conversation on Monday about the importance of description in science and how you

needto value description before you value explanation otherwise you have no basis for the

explanation. But can anyone suggest why these were so (3)((Looking for an intern

response)) Why was it that the students got (3) ((Pam looks at the class))

09 Jason Maybe I can jump in?]

10 Sandra [Everyday objects

((Pam points to the student who responded indicating positive support for the comment as shemoves towards Jason signaling that he has the floor))

11 Jason Why did it go beyond entertainment?

12 Pam =Right

13 Jason =Which is basically engagement without educational value (1 s)

14 Jason ((Jason moves around so that he is facing towards the students)). Ill give you an example (1)

Right? (0.5) If I said I was talking about a friend who was very, very hairy (2)

15 Roslyn Hairy? (0.5)

16 Jason Hairy ((affirmation)) (1)

17 Roslyn =Ok

18 Jason =Hairy (1) He was very hairy (1) He was so hairy that when he jumped in the water he didnt

get wet (2)((A number of students chuckle))

19 Jason If you laugh about it ok thats entertaining ((Jason moves his hands apart at the wrists))(1)

Right? (2) But if you think about it you say () well,why didnt he get wet when he jumped in

the water?(1) Right? (1) Now to the extent that these demonstrations go beyond the laughter

entertainment value that was what Pam was talking about.

This lesson episode is a small segment of a much longer classroom conversation

about the purpose for various pedagogies or tools including laboratory experiences,

classroom discussions, and science demonstrations typically used in secondary science

classrooms. It followed a video segment from an urban chemistry class in which the

teacher used a demonstration of the gas laws to initiate a conversation with the students

about their shared observations and possible explanations for those observations. Based

on their viewing of the segment, actual experience of one of the demonstrations, and

classroom discussion of the other two demonstrations, interns suggested some possible

positive educational aspects of using demonstrations to teach science. This lesson

428 Res Sci Educ (2011) 41:413440


17/28

episode presents Pams effort to find a way to support the interns to understand that a

science demonstration in the hands of this teacher was a powerful pedagogical tool

rather than a strategy for entertaining students. She is trying to entice interns to

generalize from their observations of the video vignette and from their own

experiences. Pam asks the class why the demonstrations were powerful. The firstcomment from Sophie represents a general statement about why teachers might use

demonstrations to convince students that what the teacher has said about a phenomenon

is true. The pauses from the interns suggest that they are thinking about the question

Pam has posed but also struggling to articulate a richer understanding of the educative

possibilities demonstrations might offer.

Jason, understanding the main message that Pam is trying to communicate (although

she is not doing a very good job), and recognizing a disturbance to communication and

learning, steps forward with the comment, Maybe I can jump in? He proceeds to

present the interns with an analogy of a hairy man, entertainment, and engagement.

Moving from the abstract to the concrete, Jason uses a narrative analogy of the hairy

man to emphasize the difference between entertainment where demonstrations are used

purely for their thrill factor and engagement where demonstrations provide the basis for

a discussion that builds on student interest in the demonstration. In her analysis of

teacher analogies, Dagher (1995) identified narrative analogies as combining two

powerful structures for meaning-making, analogy and narrative. Dagher (1998) makes the

argument that construction of narrative analogies in which an analogy proceeds as a

narrative, is a creative act. We argue that Jasons narrative is creative, a problem, and an

analogy in which the action of an agent, in this case the hairy man, is placed into a frame

of reference that has consequences that can be resolved or solved, in this case, how theaudience can use his hairiness to understand the difference between entertainment and

engagement.

By framing his discourse as a problem Jason helps the other participants to become

aware of the disturbance. With the question: How did it go beyond entertainment, he is

really asking, how can we think of science demonstrations beyond their entertainment

value? He communicates to interns the importance of an interest factor in science

demonstrations but also that to be effective pedagogical tools demonstrations need more

than that. In framing his solution, Jason uses the analogy of the hairy man to make a

connection between observation and explanation. The observation of the hairy man not

getting wet, like the observation of a crushing can in the science demonstration, isimportant but equally important for learning is the focus on the why question: Why the

hairy man did not get wet or why the almost empty can crushed when it was placed in

cold water. This question is important because, through its asking, connections can be

made to previous class conversations about the role of teachers in assisting students in

secondary schools to make transitions between observations, explanation and communi-

cation and how important these transitions are for the learning of science. In this episode,

Jason notes a disturbance: the interns are not really following Pams argument, a tool that

Pam was trying to use to support intern understanding of how interns might start to think

about reasons for using science demonstrations in their own practice. He uses a questionto initiate a narrative that addresses the disturbance of communicating a major argument

for using science demonstrations in the classroom. We speculate that without the

coprofessors, this disturbance would not have been addressed in this way or would have

been ignored if only one professor had been present. The presence of coprofessors

provided the environment for Jason to develop his problem posing and problem solving

narrative.

Res Sci Educ (2011) 41:413440 429


18/28

Disturbances, Problem Solving and Tool Use

Under other conditions coprofessors can both participate in making a disturbance manifest

by using problem posing and problem solving. In the case presented here coprofessors,

Susan and Kathryn, use an interns questions to explain why a specific tool, in this case the

National Science Education Standards (NSES), were useful and necessary (NRC1996).

01 Mary They [the national science education standards] are so overwhelming, there is so much to look

at. The state standards had bullets and stuff and then the Federal? ((Mary hesitates))

02 Susan National

03 Kathryn =National

04 Mary The National are like a gigantic essay.

05 Kathryn ((Laughs))

06 Susan ((Looking at Kathryn)) Thats a really good description of them. I agree with you on theNational standards. I find them awkward to use because in a sense they are very wordy and

they are also aligned a little bit differently, there is a different break-down, K-4 [grades],

((Susan looks towards Kathryn for confirmation)) then 68, and then there is high school

standards. I find them less user friendly. You have to understand on the development of

standards and this is something ((Susan gestures with her arm towards Kathryn)) that you

know better than I. Delaware has had standards for over 10 years and they were published

before the National standards and now it is over to you because she [Kathryn] was on the

original committee ((Susan gestures towards Kathryn))

07 Kathryn So 10 years ago what was going at that time there was a national group talking about what

should every child who leaves the K-12 education system//

08 Susan Hold on let me take it back from you on that. Before that, what was taught in classrooms wasup to the professor, it was up to the districts, and in some cases districts had decided if you

were in biology this is what youd [teach] and there would be a bullet listing- it was long- it

went on for several pages. But there was no unified thought on what kids should learn and

even then it was up to the school or the district to hold you accountable, which they didnt.

So we always laughed about that if the kids had the right combination of science teachers in

their school experience, if you went back down to kindergarten, they could have only learned

about dinosaurs.

09 Kathryn =Or volcanoes

10 Susan =Or volcanoes, planting marigolds every Mothers Day.

11 Kathryn =Rainforests were a biggie.

Interns used the NSES as a basis for the development of a mini-lesson they cotaught to

the class. However some students, like Mary, were not sure that the NSES was a useful tool

for framing curriculum for her groups mini-lesson. Marys comment about the density of

the NSES when compared with the state standards becomes a resource for a series of

exchanges between Susan and Kathryn about the utility and history of curriculum standards

in science education. This exchange serves also as a resource for the class as Kathryn and

Susan emphasize the importance of the science standards for curriculum development

and teaching. This lesson episode illustrates the ability of Kathryn and Susan to

formulate and solve a problem associated with science curriculum. As Susan frames the

problem in move 08, before state and federal standards in science education there was

no consistency in the nature of science education available to students and little thought

given to theory of how children learn that might inform curriculum development in

science at a level beyond individual teachers decisions. Susan and Kathryn use the

environment consisting of Marys comment, and interns prior reading, and their

430 Res Sci Educ (2011) 41:413440


19/28

knowledge of the history of standards, to propose a solution to the problem they

formulated. Through their understanding of science education and its history, Susan and

Kathryn initiated an exchange that provided a context for the importance of this tool to

the activity of learning to become a science teacher. Susan and Kathryn are not trying

to change Marys experience that the NSES can be sometimes difficult to navigate,

what they are asking Mary and the rest of the class to think about is the question of

what do you have in science curriculum if you do not have a map like the NSES to

guide the educational and curricular decisions you make.

Disturbance between Elements: Division of Labor and Community

Any examination of practice raises questions about relationships between the division of

labor, power relationships, and building community. It was in the ongoing classroom

interactions and cogens that we hoped to find evidence to identify whether, as Moje and

Lewis (2007) claimed, all activity systems were constructed normatively with respect to

division of labor. The segment below captures part of a cogen between Pam, Jason and

three interns, Dorothy, Ruby, and Frances, after the conclusion of their science methods

course. These students voluntarily returned after they had graduated from the course to

discuss both self-evaluation and coteaching. Pam asked the interns how they responded to

coteaching:

01 Pam: What do you think of coteaching ()?

02 Dorothy: I like it ()03 Ruby: You guys bring two totally different fields to the table.

04 Dorothy: =Yeah.

05 Frances: =Yeah

06 Ruby: =And two different personalities.

07 Frances: =Ah Ha ((Francis is agreeing with Rubys comment)).

08 Dorothy: =And I liked it a lot (0.3).

09 Pam: I think there are some benefits for having coteaching but//

10 Jason: I thinktheres a great benefit(.5) It breaks the whole myth of, I learned it from Miss. . .In

other words it spreads out the kids perceptions of how they are learning (4.0)

11 Frances: Yes, thats true!

The beginning of this conversation contains statements from Ruby about the value of

coteaching as a tool for learning as each coprofessor brings a different skill set and

personality to the classroom to which Jason responds with a heartfelt emphatic statement.

The lengthy pause of four seconds following his statement suggests a disturbance to the

ongoing cogen conversation, which Frances ends with her affirmative statement. This

disturbance suggests an underlying contradiction associated with division of labor and

community elements of the activity system. Division of labor is associated with the source

of knowledge about learning to teach but community is about establishing a community of

learners within the activity system of preparing science teachers. Jasons statement suggests

that coteaching is a structure that removes a clear division of labor between the professor

and the interns and challenges the myth of the heroic individual professor as the conduit of

knowledge in the classroom. In many higher education classrooms, the myth of the heroic

knowledgeable educator is perpetuated with interns often choosing a course based on the

Res Sci Educ (2011) 41:413440 431


20/28

identity of the professor. Spreading out the division of labor also has implications for how

interns understand their practice in other fields such as the practicum. In the school context, the

myth that teachers are self-made perpetuates the model of the isolated teacher where the norm is

a clear division of labor between the teacher and the students in terms of the sources of

knowledge (Britzman,1991). However in a coteaching context where there is more than oneprofessor, the source of powerful knowledge becomes more disperse and more difficult to

identify in terms of division of labor both between the professors and the interns and between

the professors. Coteaching is a tool that can help to overcome the contradiction between

seeking to establish a community and maintaining a hierarchical division of labor.

Summarizing Disturbances within an Activity System

In the episodes presented, the hairy man and his experience in the pool became a tool for

Jason to illustrate the difference between entertainment and engagement and Marys

question became a resource for Susan to frame a problem about curriculum standards for

science. Consistent with CHAT, the activity associated with the outcome of preparing

science teachers provided a space for problems to be formulated and solved. Engestrm

(1991) argues that CHAT is unique as a learning theory because it takes discrete,

situationally occurring problems, phenomena, and procedures, as natural units of

learning. These problems and their solutions were not part of the initial plan for each

class. They are emergent, possibly becoming tools for further discussion, emphasizing the

dynamic nature of the activity system in which they are located and the role of the

coprofessors in creating a dynamic environment for learning. Some of the underlying

contradictions within elements of the science methods activity system associated withdisturbance-framing lesson episodes presented in this section are diagrammed (see Fig. 1).

Figure1represents a summary of the claims we have made about specific contradictions

suggested by disturbances identified by coprofessors. The episodes also illustrate how

Community

Science methods coursevs

Various contexts where

interns can learn to

become science teachers

Division of Labor

Professor as source of questions andanswers

vs

Distributed source of questions and

answers

Rules

One professorvs.

Coteaching

Subjects

Interns and Professors

Tool

Self-evaluation

vs.Set assessment tasks

Object

Use value

vs.Exchange value

Outcome

Science teacher

preparation

Fig. 1 Possible underlying contradictions identifiable from disturbances in communication or information

flow within the activity system associated with science methods courses

432 Res Sci Educ (2011) 41:413440


21/28

having more than one professor present supported an environment that was conducive

to the identification and use of disturbances. However, this analysis has focused on

contradictions within one activity system embedded within the science methods

courses. The following section examines an episode suggesting contradictions between

elements of this system and elements of other activity systems that share the outcomeof preparing science teachers.

Disturbances between Systems

Science methods courses also provide a space for interns to use their teaching

experiences as a resource for suggesting disturbances or problems that exist between

the system of the methods course and another system also associated with learning to

become science teachers: the practicum. For their practicum at Urban University,

interns are placed with a cooperating science teacher, usually an experienced tenuredteacher. Although this constitutes a form of coteaching, at Urban University there do

not exist formal structures associated with the Field Office, the office that oversees the

practicum placement (also called student teaching) of all interns from all programs,

K-12, that describe this placement as a coteaching environment. Thus, how coteaching

is enacted in these contexts depends very much on the coteaching participants. This

situation is very different from Mid-Atlantic University where interns complete the

science methods course before they are assigned a practicum and where coteaching is

the formal structure for the practicum.

The following episode is taken from a discussion of classroom management during

which a number of issues, including bullying, had been raised. The coprofessors voiced

their strong feelings that teachers had a responsibility to establish their classrooms as safe

spaces for students. Interns had read both newspaper articles and papers about a school

being exonerated from any culpability regarding the suicide of a student that had been

bullied. During the discussion, Sara, voiced a concern: feeling as though she was on the

side of a bully. She explained that during her initial internship she was dealing with a

situation where a girl had been aggressive towards a boy who did not pull his weight

during group activities. However, she also frames her experience of this episode as one

where she did not have as much control of the situation as she would have liked because

she was not the main

teacher.

13 Sara: I feel that so much of it is (0.4) we know whats going on [in the class] because were not the

main professor in the class because we have the ability to be half watching some of the time

(0.5)((Jason nods)) and we spend more time observing and they [students] feel more

comfortable telling you things they wouldnt tell their professor (0.5) How much of that goes

away when you become the sole professor in your class (1)

14 Jason: Thats what youre doing right now () early in your career is that youre developing your persona

of who you are//

15 Sara: Yeah

16 Jason: So right now youve expressed that youre not the professor (0.5) youre like a second person

(0.8) But you can have that same persona as the professor if you chose to have it (0.5) Its a lot

how you feel about it (0.8)

17 Sara: Yeah

18 Jason: If you (0.4) we ((Gestures towards Pam)) (0.4) were talking about having pedagogical

responsibility=

Res Sci Educ (2011) 41:413440 433


22/28

19 Pam: So true (0.4) Thats my mantra (0.5)

20 Jason: So I dont believe that you donthave it even though youre the second person in the room (0.5)

I would say you still have a sense of responsibility in the room as far as the learning and trying

to be responsible about their work and yet you might not have that feeling of accountability

that that professor has (0.5) So its that extra weight of accountability//

21 Sara: I think Id feel more comfortable if I did have it (0.4) If I had the accountability because I mnever really sure//

22 Jason: I think you would too (1.2)

Although on the surface this is a conversation about bullying, as Jason engages with

Sara he recognizes that this episode also could be a resource for the other interns present

during the discussion as he identifies a possible disturbance indicative of a contradiction

between the activity system of the science methods course and the activity system of the

practicum. This conversation offers him an opportunity to emphasize for all interns the

challenge they face working with a teacher in a secondary school and negotiating their rolewithin that context. Jason uses this conversation to emphasize what, for each intern, might

form part of their concept ofpedagogical responsibility. Based on the writing of Van Manen

(1999), this concept had been the basis of previous classroom conversations about teaching

philosophy and practice. When he says But you can have that same persona as the

professor if you choose to have it,Jason is making the argument that when working with a

cooperating teacher, each intern is working in a coteaching context and should be thinking

about her practice in the secondary classroom as coteaching and thinking how such practice

can support the education of all students in the room.

Jason and Pams actions, his gesture towards her and her agreement of their discussionsabout pedagogical responsibility, served to ensure that the coprofessors presented a united

front to the interns about the importance of pedagogical responsibility. Jason used Saras

question to signify a disturbance about responsibility sharing in the practicum activity

system compared with the science methods activity system where Jason and Pam shared

responsibility for making pedagogical decisions. By gesturing towards Pam and using the

term, pedagogical responsibility Jason brings Pam into the conversation where she

endorses the importance both coprofessors assign to pedagogical responsibility. Saras

question and Jasons response became a resource for the coprofessorsactions to emphasize

that all interns should be making decisions about their teaching philosophy that include an

assumption of responsibility which may be contradictory to how a cooperating teacherinitially understands the division of labor.

Disturbances, Addressing Contradictions, and Coteaching

These episodes provide interns with ideas for their practicum, but also with evidence of the

coprofessorsexperience and knowledge as educators. Scribner (1997b) argues that experts

make greater use of environment than novices to frame problems and develop solutions.

For example, Jason and Susan were experienced enough to recognize disturbances within

the environment of the methods course and used interns questions and comments as

resources to suggest problem solving strategies. Part of an interns enculturation into the

work of teaching is the capacity to connect a problem or issue with her/his working

experiences.

Interns questions and comments, such as those from Mary, Sonya, and Sheree, are

indicative of disturbances and underlying contradictions. These questions and comments

434 Res Sci Educ (2011) 41:413440


23/28

need to be valued and acted upon because such acknowledgment serves to help subjects to

identify whether they function as a member of the community of that activity system (Barab

and Duffy 1998). In coteaching the coprofessors, especially those not directly interacting

with interns at a specific time, have responsibility for monitoring the flow of

communication and information in interactions, stepping in when they notice a disturbanceor see an opportunity to problematize and perturb the flow of information. For example,

Jason reformulated Saras question for the interns from an issue about bullying to an issue

about the pedagogical responsibilities of being a coteacher in the context of their secondary

school practicum.

Coteaching as a model in a science methods course also opens up new contradictions

between the old practice of a single professor and the new practice of coteaching. Through

coteaching, the activity system of science methods is changed and this change is ongoing.

Through their expert knowledge of coteaching Kathryn and Susan understood there was

value in advocating for a change to the practicum model used for secondary science

education at Mid-Atlantic University. Traditionally, the model had consisted of one intern

usually working alone in a science classroom with one cooperating teacher sitting on the

side of the classroom evaluating the interns performance. The new model consisted of two

or more interns working with multiple cooperating teachers and peers.

These examples are also illustrative of knowledge sharing within the context of the

science methods classroom where all participants can observe what knowledge can do in

a context where meanings are symbolic and inherently ambiguous. Sometimes interns

come to the activity of learning to teach science with the expectation that they will learn a

set of rules that will make them a good science teacher, coprofessors can use these

episodes to emphasize that the teaching and

coteaching and disturbances. building a better system

Documents