Cult Stud of Sci Educ (2009) 4:449–460 DOI 10.1007/s11422-008-9149-2 FORUM
Transferring schema or transforming cultures? Jennifer Gallo-Fox
Received: 13 October 2008 / Accepted: 13 October 2008 / Published online: 25 November 2008 Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008
Abstract Wassell and LaVan (this issue) make strong arguments about the value of coteaching as a model for learning to teach. This response paper draws upon recent sociocultural conceptualizations of human nature and development as a process of contribution and shared contribution to extend Wassell and LaVan’s findings about teacher learning and to further illuminate evidence of the transformative potential of coteaching. It is argued that the beginning teachers in Wassell and LaVan’s study appropriated the cultural practices, and ontological and epistemological stances of coteaching and used these perspectives and practices to transform the cultures of their in-service classrooms as well as the roles and epistemic perspectives of their students. Keywords Coteaching Sociocultural theory Transformative practice Epistemology Ontology Learning theory Development
Utilizing critical ethnography and cogenerative dialogue research methods, Wassell and LaVan (this issue) present a rich understanding of the experiences of two preservice teachers moving through their field experiences into their first years of teaching. This study provides important contributions to the field by addressing a number of gaps in the teacher education research literature. There is a documented need for longitudinal work like Wassell and LaVan’s to support on-going development of the field of teacher education (Clift and Brady 2005). Few studies have followed preservice teachers from their field experience into their first years in the classroom. Furthermore, a strong need exists for ecological studies that seek to understand social and cultural contexts in the process of learning to teach (Wideen et al. 1998). Additionally, it has been noted that innovative models of student teaching and teacher education exist. However, literature about these new models tends to be descriptive—describing the models, their development and
J. Gallo-Fox (&) Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USA e-mail:
[email protected]
123
450
J. Gallo-Fox
implementation while failing to study the models, how they work, and their implications for the field. Finally, as Wideen et al. (1998) point out, researchers frequently omit discussion about their own standpoints, involvement with participants, and the impact of the models and research on the participants themselves. Wassell and LaVan’s work addresses each of these gaps while illustrating the potential of coteaching as a strong model for supporting the learning of preservice teachers and beginning teachers in their transition into the inservice classroom. Wassell and LaVan (this issue) illustrate that during their preservice coteaching experience Jen and Ian developed schemas, ‘‘beliefs, values and ideas’’ that they then transferred to new contexts when they began their in-service practice. These are important findings that have become even more significant within the past year as expanded sociocultural theories around human nature and the conceptualization of learning and development have emerged. My work for this paper utilized manuscript versions of recent work by Stetsenko (2008) and Murphy and Carlisle (2008) that were unavailable to Wassell and LaVan when they developed their analysis. It is apparent to me that as sociocultural theories of learning continue to develop, new approaches for interpreting Wassell and LaVan’s data will emerge that will further enhance the significance of their findings. Grounded in the recent theoretical work of Stetsenko (2008) and Murphy and Carlisle (2008) this response paper seeks to extend Wassell and LaVan’s (this issue) findings about the beginning teachers’ experiences. I propose an alternative interpretation of what occurred as Jen and Ian shifted cultural fields from coteaching with other teachers to settings where independent practice was the norm. I argue that when viewed through a transformative activist stance of development and human nature (Stetsenko) these data illustrate that Jen and Ian appropriated both the cultural tools and the ontological and epistemological stances of coteaching. Then, in response to dissonance and cultural disconnects in the in-service setting, they transformed the cultures in the new settings from ones situated within, and aligned with, more traditional urban contexts to cultures embodying the ontology, epistemology and culture of coteaching. This paper begins with a discussion of the three different conceptions of learning and development reflected in Wassell and LaVan’s analysis (this issue). I present each of these conceptual frameworks to illustrate the different implications of these theories for study findings. Then I synthesize key ideas from the recent conceptual work developed by Stetsenko (2008) and expanded upon by Murphy and Carlisle (2008) to include coteaching. I believe that this new theoretical work about human nature and development provides a promising new lens for conceptualizing Wassell and LaVan’s findings and extending the significance of their work. I then reinterpret their findings through Stetsenko’s (2008) theory of human nature and development as transformative activist stance. In doing so, my goal is to further emphasize Wassell and LaVan’s findings that situate coteaching as a process of development through shared contribution and cultural transformation.
Conceptualizing learning and development Stetsenko (2008) describes the failure of sociocultural theorists to unify and integrate ideas around a grand theory of ‘‘human development and nature, including the broadest question of what it means to be human’’ (p. 475) and attributes problems that researchers experience when writing about human development to this gap. She writes,
123
Transferring schema or transforming cultures?
451
These ‘big questions’ [about human development and nature] do not and will not go away. When they remain under-theorized, the door is left open for essentialist premises to sneak right back into even the utmost critical and cultural conceptions of human development and, above all, into the practices of organizing social life including practices of education. Because no void remains unfilled, this is exactly what happens again and again (p. 475). Stetsenko explains that this ‘‘lack of theorizing’’ in the field diminishes the strength of arguments within sociocultural traditions, ‘‘disadvantaging all potential interlocutors and weakening their overall message and import in a wider context of societal debates about research and education’’ (p. 475). She argues that it is not unusual for reductionist standpoints of development to sneak into work framed by sociocultural theory ‘‘into even the utmost critical and cultural conceptions of human development’’ (p. 475). Wassell and LaVan’s work (this issue) is grounded in critical ethnographic methodologies that promote ideas of transformation and agency. However, their arguments about transfer are situated within a more positivist standpoint. Furthermore, they utilize language from three different conceptualizations of learning and development across their work. These conceptualizations include: development as acquisition, social participation and contribution. For example, they write, Once they [Ian and Jen] moved into their first year of teaching, which entailed a different field insofar as time, the participants involved, the physical space, and the underlying tacit ideologies and rules, both found that they missed their coteachers’ knowledge, collaboration and reflection. Both had learned to value collective responsibility and shared reflection and carried these practices with them into their initial years of in-service teaching. For instance, cogenerative dialogues, either during lunch or after school, were used as a means to ascertain student input and transform classroom structures without the constraints of using class time. Embedded within the quote above are references to three different conceptualizations of learning and development. Theories of relational ontology are apparent—in their new settings, Ian and Jen missed the collective process of coteaching, i.e. ‘‘their coteachers’ knowledge, collaboration and reflection’’. Notions of acquisition and transfer are incorporated when the authors talk about how Jen and Ian carried practices across fields from their preservice coteaching experience into the inservice setting. Finally, a transformative activist stance is visible in description about how cogenerative dialogues served as a vehicle for teachers to access student understanding about practice, to use the student insight to shape classroom practice, and to transform the use of school time. Across the paper it is clear that Wassell and LaVan are making strong arguments about coteaching as an approach for learning to teach. However the various conceptualizations of development conjure up various definitions of what it means to learn and lend to different implications regarding the significance of findings. I argue that unifying language and analysis within a single sociocultural frame would strengthen their arguments and also further enhance the significance of their findings for the field of teacher learning. Additionally, Wassell and LaVan’s findings can be extended. Viewing the data through a sociocultural lens of contribution as development enables one to understand how through the experience of coteaching participants develop new epistemologies, ontologies and cultural practices and become agents of change within the classroom, thus impacting their own learning as well as the development of other stakeholders.
123
452
J. Gallo-Fox
The section that follows describes the various conceptions of learning utilized by Wassell and LaVan in their analysis. On the surface my critique may appear to focus on a mere matter of the authors’ word choice. However, I argue that depending upon which language is used to describe learning and development different conceptualizations of human development and ontology are implicated. These conceptualizations significantly impact the way one can interpret the data and the experiences of the stakeholders. As Stetsenko writes, Broad theories and visions of human nature and development are not inconsequential abstract constructions; quite on the contrary, they are always intimately related, in a bi-directional way, to ideologies and policies of research and practice and have immediate practical ramifications in real life, worldly contexts, and everyday matters. (2008, p. 473) The language Wassell and LaVan use to discuss their findings is predominantly situated within sociocultural traditions of relational ontology with learning theories of acquisition as a conception for development. As I argue in this paper, when Wassell and LaVan’s data are consistently viewed through a unified lens of development and human nature as shared contribution, the transformative potential of coteaching becomes more evident. Coteaching as relational ontology: resources and schema development The central argument of Wassell and LaVan’s work (this issue) is that within the interaction structures of coteaching Jen and Ian both gained access to rich resources that supported their process of learning to teach. They argue that within the coteaching field experiences, Jen and Ian developed certain schemas for practice. These schemas were then transferred across fields, from preservice coteaching experiences to new in-service settings, where the beginning teachers drew upon these schemas to support their practice. For example, they write, ‘‘Jen’s and Ian’s participation in coteaching shaped their beliefs about the power of shared responsibility and enabled them to begin to create communities in their in-service classrooms.’’ These ideas are reflected in numerous sociocultural theories of relational ontology and frequently utilized in coteaching literature including Roth and Tobin’s At the elbow of another (2002). Stetsenko (2008) describes relational ontology as ‘‘processes [that] occur in the realm between individuals and their world’’ (p. 477, italics in original). She further describes this process as, ‘‘mutual coconstruction, co-evolution, continuous dialogue, belonging, participation and the like, all underscoring relatedness and interconnectedness, blending and meshing—the ‘coming together’ of individuals and their world that transcends their separation’’ (p. 477). Murphy and Carlisle (2008) delineate connections between theories of relational ontology and coteaching and cogenerative dialogues. As they describe it, in coteaching the assumption is that individual teachers share their expertise and thus provide expanded learning opportunities for both themselves and the students in class. The ‘expansion’ does not come from either coteacher but from the effects of their interactions both with each other and with the students. (p. 495) Wassell and LaVan (this issue) develop the importance of these interactional relations throughout their work. In fact, the schema that Jen and Ian developed reflect the importance of social interaction: building strong relationships with students, valuing shared responsibility, and collective reflection. These ideas are further enforced by their writing
123
Transferring schema or transforming cultures?
453
about how learning occurs during coteaching experiences through cogenerative dialogues and collaboration with researchers. As Wassell and LaVan (this issue) describe, when Ian and Jen moved to their new teaching settings and began to teach independently they missed the close collegiality and collaboration with colleagues in practice. In these new settings the beginning teachers experienced the isolation of teaching. They missed the collaborative nature of practice, and drew on schemas developed during coteaching to develop structures to provide ongoing support to help them reflect upon and improve their practice and to support work with individuals and small groups. Coteaching as acquisition: transfer of schema within and between fields Wassell and LaVan’s analysis (this issue) is predominantly situated in a frame of relational ontology, however their underlying conception of teacher development draws on a model of learning as acquisition and transfer. As they describe it, ‘‘we consider the extent to which the practices that they developed while teaching with others during student teaching transferred to their practices as individual beginning teachers’’. The argument carried across their paper is that Jen and Ian developed schema during their coteaching experiences that they internalized and then carried to their new settings where they drew upon them to shape their work. Wassell and LaVan’s argument about the teachers moving knowledge from external sources to an internal locus suggests a reductionist view of learning (Stetsenko 2008). This implies that the purpose of learning is to acquire knowledge or beliefs to be enacted or utilized in future settings and times. As Stetsenko writes, the emphasis of learning in an acquisition model is on ‘‘the individual mind and what goes into it [and the] test and control of acquisition outcomes’’ (p. 489). Wassell and LaVan’s findings about the transfer of schema across contexts are important and provide evidence of valuable teacher learning within a coteaching model. However I believe that their findings are even more significant when framed within sociocultural theories of development as relational ontology or as shared contribution. Coteaching as shared contribution: references to transformation Conceptualizations of development as transformation can be found in some sociocultural work (e.g., Wenger 1998) but has been recently most fully developed by Stetsenko (2008) and Murphy and Carlisle (2008) who explain that development occurs as participants interact within a setting and contribute to the collective learning process. Wassell and LaVan (this issue) describe the process of cultural transformation as emerging from coteaching in their discussion about research methodology. Here they clearly explain that transformative learning experiences were goals of the coteaching research. For example they write, This research sought to examine interactions of teachers and students from differing cultural and social backgrounds and attempted to transform these classrooms, it was essential that ontological and epistemological perspectives be pervasively accounted for and examined throughout all facets of the research. They also mention the transformative effects of the model, Through reflection, the teachers [in the preservice setting] collectively transformed classroom structures (e.g., the collective decision to dissect in Jen’s classroom or the
123
454
J. Gallo-Fox
decision to revisit the physics topic in Ian’s classroom), which made it possible for participants to take on new roles and responsibilities throughout their student teaching experiences. While insight into the transformative potential of coteaching is present in Wassell and LaVan’s findings, their writing about teacher learning and development tends to be situated in more positivist notions of transfer and sociocultural theories of relational ontology. Important insights about the transformative potential of coteaching are lost within the analysis that relies on these less critical perspectives of learning. One way to strengthen findings would be to situate all findings with conceptions of learning as relational. Another would be to focus on the transformative nature of the coteaching experience.
Moving from conceptions of transfer to transformation A unified analytic approach: development as relational Wassell and LaVan’s arguments (this issue) framed within a conception of teacher learning and development as relational are more significant than their arguments about transfer. The authors clearly describe how both Jen and Ian through their coteaching experience as preservice teachers came to value the relational knowing that developed during coteaching experiences. They argue that Jen, a biology specialist, appreciated the ways that working with coteachers supported her learning about classroom management and teaching of physical science. Additionally they write that through coteaching Ian was able to work closely with small groups of students and individuals. These were practices that he valued and later utilized as a central part of his in-service practice. Furthermore, both of the teachers valued the experience of learning through their reflective work with other coteachers. Describing and arguing for learning in such a way is consistent within a theoretical framework of relational ontology and provides a unified vision of what it means to learn within sociocultural settings. Furthermore, it illustrates how the teachers develop the schemas, Discourses (Gee 1992), and cultural practices of coteaching that also affect their ontological and epistemic stances and ways of being within classrooms. These arguments frame the teachers’ ways of knowing and practicing within classrooms as both socially and culturally shaped. This is one way to situate Wassell and LaVan’s findings within a cohesive theoretical framework; another is to draw upon Stetsenko (2008) and Murphy and Carlisle’s (2008) recent sociocultural frames of development as contribution and shared contribution. An alternative unified analytic approach: development as transformation for both individuals and cultures The learning as contribution frame offered by Stetsenko (2008) and extended by Murphy and Carlisle (2008) to conceptions of shared contributions within coteaching contexts, provides another unified approach for analyzing the data. My arguments benefit from access to Stetsenko and Murphy and Carlisle’s recent works, which were unavailable when Wassell and LaVan developed their analysis. Perspectives of development as transformation are embedded within the body of Wassell and LaVan’s work (this issue), however examining the data specifically through this lens amplifies arguments about the value of
123
Transferring schema or transforming cultures?
455
coteaching as a model for learning to teach. Stetsenko’s summary of her recent theoretical contribution captures the key points in her argument, An activist transformative stance suggests that people come to know themselves and their world as well as ultimately come to be human in and through (not in addition to) the processes of collaboratively transforming the world in view of their goals. This means that all human activities (including psychological processes and the self) are instantiations of contributions to collaborative transformative practices that are contingent on both the past and the vision for the future and therefore are profoundly imbued with ideology, ethics, and values. And because acting, being, and knowing are seen from a transformative activist stance as all rooted in, derivative of, and instrumental within a collaborative historical becoming, this stance cuts across and bridges the gaps (a) between individual and social and (b) among ontological, epistemological, and moral–ethical (ideological) dimensions of activity. (Stetsenko 2008, p. 471) Through this sociocultural perspective of learning, development, and human nature, development is both individual and social. As one learns they contribute to and change the social context. As Murphy and Carlisle (2008) have described, in coteaching and cogenerative dialogues this is a mutual, or shared, process of contribution. During analysis, development becomes visible in cultural changes as well as in participants’ changing practices and ontological and epistemological views. Central differences between the learning process of relational ontology and of transformative activist stance are situated in how one interprets what occurs during social interactions. When viewed through a lens of relational ontology, ‘‘individuals learn through social interaction and by being in and with others in a given field’’ (Wassell and LaVan, this issue). In transformative activist conceptions, learning occurs through purposive engagement and action in the cultural context. As Stetsenko (2008) writes, ‘‘the only access people have to reality is through active engagement with and participation in it rather than simply ‘being’ in the world’’ (p. 479). Interpreting the teachers’ experiences through this lens strengthens the arguments about the value of coteaching as an approach for learning to teach. The section that follows further develops these arguments.
Coteaching as transformation: transforming traditional teaching settings into cultures of coteaching Ontological and epistemic ways of knowing and being in coteaching cultures Wassell and LaVan (this issue) commit significant space to explaining their research and the research process. This extended methodology and attention to researcher reflexivity provide important insight into the experience of coteaching. As Wassell and LaVan illustrate, the role of the coteaching research and the involvement of the researchers in the experience appears to have been influential in the development of all participants and also the social context of the classrooms. The researchers played a critical role in supporting Ian and Jen in their new classrooms and encouraging the teachers to inquire into their practice. Furthermore, the researchers respected and valued the teachers as knowers. We encouraged Ian and Jen to continually question their development through our research. This facet of our work led to Jen and Ian becoming strong teacher
123
456
J. Gallo-Fox
researchers in each of their school communities. In taking this stance of inquiry, both Ian and Jen were better able to understand and question their decisions and the implications for their students’ success. (Wassell and LaVan, this issue) The researchers helped to foster reflective practice and an inquiry stance about practice, and in Jen’s case provided additional support for developing and implementing cogenerative dialogues with students. The coteaching model played a clear role in the transformation of the teachers and the classrooms. Coteaching and cogenerative discourses are not insignificant curricular ‘‘addons’’, but rather specific ontological and epistemic perspectives about what it means participate and know within coteaching classrooms. In their work, Wassell and LaVan (this issue) clearly describe the epistemic and ontological underpinnings embodied within cogenerative dialogues. A central theoretical underpinning of cogenerative dialogues is the belief that each participant brings unique understandings and experiences to the field of activity while experiencing and interacting with the field in different ways. A cogenerative dialogue is a field that allows all participants to be involved proactively in theorizing about and catalyzing change, rather than waiting for rules, policies and recommendations from educators, policy makers, and researchers. These views about what it means to know and participate within coteaching and cogenerative dialogues became a conceptual understanding held by the teachers and students. This was particularly evident in the ways that these cultural perspectives moved into the classroom practices of the participants. It is clear throughout Wassell and LaVan’s writing (this issue), that within the coteaching experience all participants (coteachers, researchers, and also students) were important contributors to the context and understood to be knowers with critical insight about practice. Valuing participant knowledge is an inherent part of what it means to coteach and learn as participant understanding is used reflexively to shape the classroom culture. This is a clear ontological stance about what it means to be and to practice within coteaching contexts. Furthermore there are specific epistemic understandings about what it means to know and learn. These critical epistemological and ontological perspectives challenge of many conceptualizations about knowledge construction in the field of teacher education where researchers and academics are often situated as those who develop knowledge for shaping classroom practice (Cochran-Smith and Lytle 1999). Through coteaching, Ian and Jen appropriated the culture’s ontological and epistemological stances about what it means to practice and collectively know as an inherent part of their work as teachers. As preservice teachers, Jen and Ian incorporated the following perspectives into their practice: collective knowing, shared responsibility for teaching and learning, and the valuing multiple perspectives of practice and interactions with others (including students) to support and enhance reflection about and for the improvement of practice. These cultural ways of being and knowing appear to have permeated the practices that Jen and Ian utilized in their in-service classrooms. As Wassell and LaVan (this issue) describe, Ian and Jen’s in-service settings initially reflected more traditional constructs of classrooms and power structures of students and schools. However, the teachers and researchers collectively utilized cultural frameworks from coteaching (incorporating the ontology, epistemology, and cultural practices) to change classroom structures, classroom instruction, and student roles and epistemic ways of knowing and participating in classroom practice and the broader context of school.
123
Transferring schema or transforming cultures?
457
Changing roles of students and teachers and epistemic and ontological stances Jen and Ian changed their classrooms to reflect practices and values developed during their preservice coteaching field experiences. Ian utilized pedagogical practices that supported interactions with small groups and individuals on a daily basis, and both teachers used out of class time to create a space for reflecting and talking about practice with students in cogenerative dialogues. Through coteaching and cogenerative dialogues Ian and Jen incorporated students’ insight in shaping their practice. Students became integral participants as the teachers shaped the classroom instruction and developed new understanding about practice. The data also indicate that students’ participation in the classroom and their roles as important contributors and knowers in the construction of practice began to shift. As Wassell and LaVan write, The structure of the dialogues encouraged participants to speak openly and assume shared responsibility for the quality of teaching and learning in the classroom. Over time, the roles that students took on in the dialogues transferred to the classroom and encouraged collective sharing of responsibility for teaching and learning. The student researchers and those involved in cogenerative dialogues had reconsidered their own constructions of the teacher’s role and began to consider Ian and Jen as resources for their own learning, as well as individuals who they could trust with issues outside of the realm of classroom activity. In cogenerative dialogues, as the participants shared understandings and worked together, they began to have a new appreciation of the events, the people and culture within the field. Through the use of cogenerative dialogues the teachers and students were able to reflect, inform and shape practice, and students began to assume increased responsibility for the learning of others in their classroom. Additionally, Jen encouraged students to share the responsibility of teaching and learning in the classroom. It appears that without other adult coteachers in the classroom Jen’s students became her ‘‘coteachers’’.1 As Wassell and LaVan describe it, ‘‘Although Jen no longer had coteachers to work with, the reframed roles adopted by Jen and her students contributed to the sense of shared responsibility for teaching and learning that became apparent in her classroom’’. In this reconceptualized role as ‘‘coteacher’’ the students both supported Jen’s reflective learning about practice and also assumed responsibility for the learning of other students in the classroom. Students even began to move coteaching practices beyond the walls of the classroom. Their actions provide further evidence of how students assumed: the culture of coteaching, new perspectives about what it means to be a student and community member, and also conceptions of themselves as knowers and producers of knowledge. As Wassell and LaVan describe, The students’ receptiveness to cogenerative dialogue and their involvement in restructuring the classroom environment demonstrated how this research fostered their own agency. A clear indicator of the catalytic and tactical nature of this study was the students’ desire to spread some of the practices that emerged in Jen’s and Ian’s classrooms, specifically those discussed in cogenerative dialogue, to other teachers and other classes. In both cases, students emerged who wanted to have a
1
Perhaps a broader definition of the term coteacher than is currently used in the literature is necessary so that it incorporates all those responsible for practice (and knowing) in the coteaching context.
123
458
J. Gallo-Fox
cogenerative dialogue with the principal regarding issues that needed to be discussed throughout the school. It is particularly interesting to see the ways that participation in coteaching and cogenerative dialogues impacted students. Together these teachers and students looked within their own experience to interpret what was occurring in their classrooms and move beyond traditional structures that appear to have been limiting their potential. Examining the data through a lens of coteaching as shared contribution and transformation illuminates how Ian and Jen shaped the ways that they and their students approached and participated in the world that they co-created. Their roles as participants moved beyond that of traditional teachers, students, and knowers to a culture in which they were active participants, together creating a culture of teaching and learning. Within a culture of coteaching these participants transformed the ways they understood their roles and responsibilities as teachers and contributors in the classroom. An important caveat to consider In the collective case study presented by Wassell and LaVan (this issue), the researchers were active participants in both classroom settings. Their involvement helped to foster the epistemological and ontological perspectives of coteaching within the classroom practices and cultures. The researchers’ approach is in keeping with the research tradition of coteaching in which researchers participate and learn as a part of the classroom community (Roth and Tobin 2002). Most beginning teachers do not have collaborators in their classroom to provide extra support for their practice. On the contrary, beginning teachers frequently begin teaching with the fewest classroom resources and most challenging classes (Chubbuck et al. 2001). Wassell and LaVan’s participation in the inservice settings leads one to wonder—What is the transformative potential of coteaching in settings where researchers are absent? What happens when researchers do not accompany beginning teachers to their new setting? Longitudinal work focused on another model of coteaching for the preservice student teaching experience may help address these questions. Juck and Scantlebury followed a cohort of preservice teachers who participated in a different model of coteaching into their first year of in-service teaching (Juck and Scantlebury 2006). While these beginning teachers had experienced coteaching as preservice teachers, cogenerative dialogues were situated in coplanning sessions and weekly seminars with other coteachers (interns, cooperating teachers, and also researchers and supervisors).2 Also, researchers had more limited involvement within inservice classroom settings. Data collection around the teachers’ first-year experience included two separate days classroom observations in each classroom and a series of interviews spanning the year. This unpublished research found that when the preservice teachers moved into their own classrooms each of the beginning teachers reported moving beyond their classroom walls to seek out and create collaborative networks. Although to varying extents, the first-year teachers each contributed to the culture of their new settings by creating networks and forums for working with colleagues in order to better inform their practice. Each of the five graduates of the coteaching cohort that moved into the classroom that year3 drew upon the collegial practices of coteaching to 2
For further description of that coteaching model see, Scantlebury, Gallo-Fox and Wassell 2008.
3
The sixth cohort member, Juck, studied the first year teaching experiences of his cohort members for his Master’s degree research thesis.
123
Transferring schema or transforming cultures?
459
shape their own practice and those of their fellow teachers. These first-year teachers established teacher networks for sharing ideas and developing labs. One of the program graduates even became a teacher leader among the other first-year teachers at her school; her experiences with coplanning helped her to lead the group as they developed new curriculum for their program. Another graduate was the only chemistry teacher in his high school. He reached beyond the walls of his school and found a colleague in another school in the district with whom he regularly communicated about practice.
Coteaching’s transformative potential The work reported by Wassell and LaVan (this issue) speaks directly to the questions about the value and authenticity of experience of coteaching as a model for learning to teach. These questions are important ones to examine whenever utilizing a new model for learning teach. With coteaching this is particularly important, because practitioners and those unfamiliar with coteaching frequently ask questions about the applicability of this model in light of the realities of the isolated nature of teaching. However, Wassell and LaVan’s longitudinal work, along with Juck and Scantlebury’s (2006) illustrates that preservice teachers who learn to teach in coteaching cultures develop in ways that support their independent and collaborative work in schools. When these teachers move into their own classrooms they draw upon coteaching ontology, epistemology, and cultural practices and work agentically to transform their settings and continue their development as teachers and learners. Furthermore, this research suggests that through coteaching coteachers impact the epistemic and ontological perspectives of others in their setting. In summary, I have explored Wassell and LaVan’s findings (this issue) as interpreted through three different perspectives about development: learning as acquisition, development as relational, and development as shared contribution. Taken through a lens of learning as acquisition, Wassell and LaVan illustrated how the preservice teachers learned specific schemas about teaching and transported them across contexts. These findings are important because within an acquisition model evidence of learning is illustrated through the transfer of ideas across contexts. When data are interpreted through a theoretical lens that views learning as relational, the authors illustrate how Ian and Jen drew on the resources and structures of coteaching to learn about practice and develop practice that valued the collective learning process. Furthermore they illustrated how Jen and Ian valued the relational aspects of practice in their in-service classrooms. When coteaching is framed through a lens of learning and development as shared contribution (Murphy and Carlisle 2008), the implications of Wassell and LaVan’s study become amplified. Instead of presenting evidence about how beginning teachers transferred learning from their field experience into in-service practice, or how they utilized relational ways of knowing and learning in both settings, we are able to see ways in which learning and teaching within the cultures of coteaching and cogenerative dialogue enable new teachers’ and students to collaboratively transform the culture of classrooms and schools. Interpreting data with attention to issues of transfer is probably most typical for research around issues of learning in education. The literature on professional development has identified difficulties teachers experience in moving new ideas from professional development arenas into classroom practice, and these are common questions that people ask about new models of learning and development. The issue here and reason I emphasize Stetsenko (2008) and Murphy and Carlisle’s (2008) conceptions of development as contribution and cultural transformation is because teachers need to continue learning about
123
460
J. Gallo-Fox
and improving their practice across the professional life span. Models of teacher development that hinge on the acquisition of knowledge from outside arenas require funding to support teacher participation, outside knowledge and expertise, and learning stimuli. In contrast, the work by Wassell and LaVan has illustrated an approach towards professional learning that situates learning and knowing within the classroom culture and also appears to become embodied in the practices of the teachers involved. Furthermore, their research illustrates how through the culture of coteaching, teachers serve as agents of change and involve students in the process, thus shifting students conceptions of what it means to learn, know, and contribute to the classroom environment in ways that enable them to improve their own learning experience. This is exciting work with important implications for teachers, students, and the broader field of teacher education. Acknowledgment I would like to thank Julie Zoino-Jeannetti for her thoughtful feedback on an early draft of this paper.
References Chubbuck, S. M., Clift, R. T., Allard, J., & Quinlan, J. (2001). Playing it safe as a novice teacher: Implications for programs for new teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 52, 365–376. doi: 10.1177/0022487101052005003. Clift, R. T., & Brady, P. (2005). Research on methods courses and field experiences. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA Panel on research and teacher education (pp. 309–424). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher learning in communities. In A. Iran-Nejad & C. D. Pearson (Eds.), Review of research in education (Vol. 24). Washington: American Educational Research Association. Gee, J. P. (1992). The social mind: Language, ideology, and social practice. New York: Bergin & Garvey. Juck, M., & Scantlebury, K. (2006, April). ‘‘Oh, you’re the newbie’’: The influence of coteaching on first year science teachers’ agency. Paper presented at the National Association of Research in Science Teaching Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA. Murphy, C., & Carlisle, K. (2008). Situating relational ontology and transformative activist stance within the ‘everyday’ practice of coteaching and cogenerative dialogue. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 3, 493–506. doi:10.1007/s11422-008-9124-y. Roth, W.-M., & Tobin, K. (Eds.). (2002). At the elbow of another: Learning to teach by coteaching (Vol. 204). New York, NY: Peter Lang. Scantlebury, K., Gallo-Fox, J., & Wassell, B. A. (2008). Coteaching as a model for preservice science teacher education. Journal of Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 967–981. Stetsenko, A. (2008). From relational ontology to transformative activitist stance in conceptualizing development and learning: Expanding Vygotsky’s (CHAT) Project. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 3, 471–491. doi:10.1007/s11422-008-9111-3. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Wideen, M., Mayer-Smith, J. A., & Moon, B. (1998). A critical analysis of the research on learning to teach: Making the case for an ecological perspective on inquiry. Review of Educational Research, 68, 130– 178.
Jennifer Gallo-Fox is a PhD candidate at the Department of Teacher Education, Special Education, and Curriculum and Instruction in the Lynch School of Education at Boston College. She is also an educational researcher in the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry at the University of Delaware. Her research interests include: teacher education research and practice; teacher learning and development; teaching, policy, and teachers’ work; and research methodology.
123
