Research in Science Education

, Volume 41, Issue 3, pp 413–440 | Cite as

Coteaching and Disturbances: Building a Better System for Learning to Teach Science

  • Catherine Milne
  • Kathryn Scantlebury
  • Jason Blonstein
  • Susan Gleason
Article
First Online:

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 of preparing 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 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Anderson, R. S., & Speck, B. W. (1998). “Oh what a difference a team makes”: Why team teaching makes a difference. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14, 671–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barab, S. A., & Duffy, T. (1998). From practice fields to communities of practice. Center for Research on Learning and Technology (CRLT) Technical Report No. 1-98. Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana.Google Scholar
  3. Barab, S. A., Evans, M. A., & Baek, E.-O. (2004). Activity theory as a lens for characterizing the participatory unit. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 199–214). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  4. Barnes, S. B. (1995). Elements of social theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Blackler, F. (1995). Knowledge, knowledge work and organizations. Organization Studies, 16, 1021–1046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boland, R. J., & Tenkasi, R. V. (1995). Perspective making and perspective taking in communities of knowing. Organization Science, 6, 350–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Britzman, D. P. (1991). Practice makes practice: A critical study of learning to teach. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  8. Dagher, Z. R. (1995). Analysis of analogies used by science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 259–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dagher, Z. R. (1998). The case for analogies in teaching science for understanding. In J. J. Mintzes, J. H. Windersee, & J. D. Novak (Eds.), Teaching science for understanding: A human constructivist view (pp. 195–211). San Diego: Academic.Google Scholar
  10. Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (1992). Analyzing talk at work: An introduction. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings (pp. 3–65). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Eick, C. J. (2004). Coteaching in a secondary science methods course: Learning through a coteaching model that supports early teacher practice. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 15, 197–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eick, C. J., & Dias, M. (2005). Building the authority of experience in communities of practice: The development of preservice teachers’ practical knowledge through coteaching in inquiry classrooms. Science Education, 89, 470–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit Oy.Google Scholar
  14. Engeström, Y. (1991). Non scolae sed vitae discimus: Toward overcoming the encapsulation of school learning. Learning and Instruction, 1, 243–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Engeström, Y. (1993). Developmental studies of work as a test bench of activity theory: The case of primary care medical practice. In S. Chaiklin & J. Lave (Eds.), Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context (pp. 64–103). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Engeström, Y. (1994). Teachers as collaborative thinkers: Activity-theoretical study of an innovative teacher team. In I. Carlgren, G. Handal, & S. Vaage (Eds.), Teachers’ minds and actions: Research on teachers’ thinking and practice (pp. 43–61). London: Falmer.Google Scholar
  17. Engeström, Y. (1999) Innovative learning in work teams: Analysing cycles of knowledge creation in practice. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, R.-L. Punamäki-Gitai, & International Congress for Research on Activity Theory (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 377–406). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Engeström, Y. (2000). Activity theory as a framework for analyzing and redesigning work. Ergonomics, 43, 960–974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Engeström, Y. (2006). Values, rubbish, and workplace learning. In P. H. Sawchuk, N. Duarte, & M. Elhammoumi (Eds.), Critical perspectives on activity (pp. 193–207). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gilmer, P., & Cirillo, J. (2007). Using cogenerative dialogue with undergraduate biochemistry students to improve learning environment. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans LA.Google Scholar
  21. Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  22. Gutiérrez, K., Rymes, B., & Larson, J. (1995). Script, counterscript, and underlife in the classroom—Brown, James versus Brown v. the Board of Education. Harvard Educational Review, 65, 445–471.Google Scholar
  23. Helle, M. (2000). Disturbances and contradictions as tools for understanding work in the newsroom. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 12, 81–114.Google Scholar
  24. Jalongo, M. R. (1992). Teachers’ stories: Our way of knowing. Educational Leadership, 49, 68–73.Google Scholar
  25. Jang, S.-J. (2006). Research on the effects of team teaching upon two secondary school professors. Educational Research, 48, 177–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kirch, S. (2007). Re/production of science process skills and a scientific ethos in an early childhood classroom. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 2, 785–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kluth, P., & Straut, D. (2003). Do as we say and as we do: Teaching and modeling collaborative practice in the university classroom. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(3), 228–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kowal, S., & O’Connell, D. C. (2004). The transcription of conversations. In E. Flick, E. von Kardorff, & I. Steinke (Eds.), A companion to qualitative research (pp. 248-252). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  29. Leander, K. (2002a). Locating Latanya: The situated production of identity artifacts in classroom interaction. Research in the Teaching of English, 37, 198–250.Google Scholar
  30. Leander, K. (2002b). Polycontextual construction zones: Mapping the expansion of schooled space and identity. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 9, 211–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Leinhardt, G. (1990). Capturing craft knowledge in teaching. Educational Researcher, 19(2), 18–25.Google Scholar
  32. Leont’ev, A. N. (1981). Problems of the development of the mind. Moscow: Progress.Google Scholar
  33. Lompscher, J. (2006). The cultural-historical activity theory: Some aspects of development. In P. H. Sawchuk, N. Duarte, & M. Elhammoumi (Eds.), Critical perspectives on activity (pp. 35–51). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Luff, P. K., & Heath, C. C. (1998). Mobility in collaboration. Proceedings of the 1998 American Computer Machinery (ACM) conference on computer supported cooperative work (pp. 305–314). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  35. Martin, S. (2006). Where practice and theory intersect in the chemistry classroom: Using cogenerative dialogue to identify the critical point in science education. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 1, 693–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Milne, C., Scantlebury, K., Blonstein, J., & Gleason, S. (2006). Yours, mine and ours: Modeling professional collaboration by coteaching in professor education Paper presented at the Association for Science Teacher Education International Conference 2006, Portland, OR, January 12–14, 2006.Google Scholar
  37. Moje, E., & Lewis, C. (2007). Examining opportunities to learn literacy: The role of critical sociocultural literacy research. In C. Lewis, P. Enciso, & E. B. Moje (Eds.), Reframing sociocultural research on literacy: Identity, agency, and power (pp. 15–48). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  38. Murphy, C., & Beggs, J. (2005). Coteaching as an approach to enhance science learning and teaching in primary schools. In W. Roth & K. Tobin (Eds.), Teaching together, learning together (pp. 207–231). New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  39. Murphy, C., & Scantlebury, K. (2010). Coteaching in international contexts: Research and practice. London: Springer Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards: Observe, interact, change, learn. Washington: National Academy.Google Scholar
  41. Norros, L. (1996). System disturbances as springboard for development of operator’s experience. In Y. Engeström & D. Middleton (Eds.), Cognition and communication at work (pp. 59–176). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Patriotta, G. (2003). Sensemaking on the shop floor: Narratives of knowledge in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 349–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Roth, W.-M., & Lee, Y. J. (2007). “Vygotsky’s neglected legacy”: Cultural-historical activity theory. Review of Educational Research, 77, 186–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Roth, W.-M., & Tobin, K. (2001). The implications of coteaching/cogenerative dialogue for teacher evaluation: Learning from multiple perspectives of everyday practice. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 15, 7–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Roth, W.-M., & Tobin, K. (2002). At the elbow of another: Learning to teach by coteaching. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  46. Roth, W.-M., & Tobin, K. (Eds.). (2005). Teaching together, learning together. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  47. Scantlebury, K., Gallo-Fox, J., & Wassell, B. (2008). Coteaching as a model for preservice secondary science teacher education. Teaching & Teaching Education, 24, 967–981.Google Scholar
  48. Schultz, A. (1967). The phenomenology of the social world. G. Walsh and F. Lehnert (Trans.). New York: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Scribner, S. (1997a). Mind in action: A functional approach to thinking. In E. Tobach, R. J. Falmagne, M. B. Parlee, L. M. W. Martin, & A. S. Kapelman (Eds.), Mind and social practice: Selected writings of Sylvia Scribner (pp. 296–307). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Scribner, S. (1997b). Knowledge at work. In E. Tobach, R. J. Falmagne, M. B. Parlee, L. M. W. Martin, & A. S. Kapelman (Eds.), Mind and social practice: Selected writings of Sylvia Scribner (pp. 308–318). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Tobin, K., & Roth, W.-M. (2006). Teaching to learn: A view from the field. Rotterdam: Sense Publishing.Google Scholar
  52. Turner, J. (2002). Face to face: Toward a sociological theory of interpersonal behavior. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Van Aalsvoort, J. (2004). Activity theory as a tool to address the problem of chemistry’s lack of relevance in secondary school chemical education. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 1635–1651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. van Eijck, M. W., & Roth, W.-M. (2007). Keeping the local local: recalibrating the status of science and Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) in education. Science Education, 91, 926–947.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Van Manen, M. (1999). The practice of practice. In M. Lange, J. Olsen, H. Hansen, & W. Bÿnder (Eds.), Changing schools/changing practices: Perspectives on educational reform and teacher professionalism. Luvain: Garant. http://www.phenomenologyonline.com/max/articles/practice.html. Accessed 27.07.08.Google Scholar
  56. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandra: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Catherine Milne
    • 1
  • Kathryn Scantlebury
    • 2
  • Jason Blonstein
    • 1
  • Susan Gleason
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Teaching and Learning, Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human DevelopmentNew York UniversityNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Department of Chemistry & BiochemistryUniversity of DelawareNewarkUSA
  3. 3.Middletown High SchoolMiddletownUSA

Personalised recommendations