at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 649e660

Contents lists available

Teaching and Teacher Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ tate

Action research, pedagogy, and activity theory: Tools facilitating two instructors’interpretations of the professional development of four preservice teachers

Pier A. Junor Clarke a,*, Janice B. Fournillier b

aDepartment of Middle-Secondary Education and Instructional Technology, Georgia State University, 5066 Miller Woods Trail, Decatur, GA 30035, USAbDepartment of Educational Policy Studies, Georgia State University, GA, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 10 May 2011Received in revised form27 January 2012Accepted 31 January 2012

Keywords:Action researchPreservice secondary mathematicsPracticesProfessional developmentTeacher-researchersActivity theory

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 6782292514.E-mail address: pjunor@gsu.edu (P.A. Junor Clarke

0742-051X/$ e see front matter Published by Elseviedoi:10.1016/j.tate.2012.01.013

a b s t r a c t

This paper explores the value of action research in the understanding of the professional development of4 preservice secondary school mathematics (PSSM) teachers and their instructors in a teacher educationprogram. It draws upon data collected from multiple cycles in a research project (2007e2010). The goalof the long term project was to explore how PSSM teachers combined knowledge from their content areaand pedagogy courses with the action research course. This paper represents how activity theoryfacilitated the instructors’ interpretations and understandings of the benefits and challenges of usingaction research as a professional development strategy with PSSM teachers.

Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Teacher education and professional development continue to beat the center of the discussions on teacher quality and studentachievement in the United States, where our teacher educationprogram is located. Darling-Hammond’s (2000) review of thefindings of many studies showed that there was a significant rela-tionship between teacher quality and student achievement. Thisattention to teacher quality has affected teacher educationprograms and led to more authentic models of professionaldevelopment that begin as early as the preservice stage of teacherdevelopment (Darling-Hammond). However, Clarke, Lodge, andShevlin (2012) reminded us that there has not been much atten-tion paid to the “processes through which professional learning isacquired in teacher education” (p. 1). In this paper, we adoptedAvalos’ (2011) notion of professional development as “teacherslearning, learning how to learn, and transforming their knowledgeinto practice for the benefit of their students’ growth” (p. 10).

Teacher education programs in their varying formats aregenerally located in colleges of education that have come underattack for their failure to produce “quality teachers.” The faculty,classified as teacher educators in schools and colleges of education,face criticism and are under pressure to prove and improve theireffectiveness and their lowly status. More importantly, Weiner’s

).

r Ltd.

(2000) review points to the challenges faced by those whoprepare teachers for work in “urban” environments in the UnitedStates and the implications for teacher education. However,according to Labaree’s (2004) interpretive work, despite the lowoutlook on “Schools of Ed,” it is important that educators beproactive in their own development and that of their preserviceteachers for positive and exponential changes to occur.

As two teacher educators, one in mathematics education andthe other in educational research, our interest in these issuespropelled us to become proactive and to explore how we design,implement, and evaluate our curriculum. In so doing, we were“walking the walk and talking the talk.” By being actionresearchers, we were critically evaluating the process andoutcomes of our work with preservice secondary school mathe-matics (PSSM) teachers and demonstrating to our students that weplaced great value on the research activity. We were very awarethat, because of the variations in social and cultural contexts andthe personnel involved in professional development practices,there was, as Avalos (2011) stated,

a constant need to study, experiment, discuss, and reflect indealing with teacher professional development on the inter-acting links and influences of the history and traditions ofgroups of teachers, the educational needs of their studentpopulations, the expectations of their education systems,teachers’working conditions and the opportunities to learn thatare open to them (p. 10).

P.A. Junor Clarke, J.B. Fournillier / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 649e660650

This paper discusses (a) the complexity of the (PSSM) teachers’experiences in their use of action research as a tool provided forthem in the teacher education program and (b) how our use ofactivity theory as a tool informed our analysis and interpretationsof the processes. The following research questions frame ourinterpretations and understandings of the processes and outcomesof our professional development strategy:

1) How does the interaction between pedagogy and researchmethods work to develop preservice secondary school math-ematics teachers as becoming teacher/researchers?

2) What do the instructors learn about their repertoires and thoseof their students as they develop the research project withinand across the disciplines?

In the following sections of the paper, we discuss the context ofthe study. We follow this with an exploration of the conceptualframework that guided the study’s data collection, analysis, andinterpretation. We conclude with a presentation of the findings, aninterpretation and a discussion of them, and the implications forfuture research and practice.

1. Context

Policymakers at the state level in the United States createstandards and “rules” that govern the activities of classroomteachers and subsequently students’ performance. In addition,requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act (U.S. Department ofEducation, 2001) force local districts and states to make signifi-cant changes to their curriculum policy and standards of assess-ments. Members of the academy, who represent the variousdisciplines in professional organizations, like the National Councilof Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) and Interstate New TeacherAssessment and Support consortium (INTASC, April 2011), alsocontinue to make changes to their policies and standards. Thesepolicies and standards link directly to teacher and student reten-tion, instruction, and testing/assessment at the classroom and statelevels (NCTM, 1989, 2000). These policies guided the Initial TeacherPreparation (ITP) mathematics program of the urban Research Iuniversity, which is the context for this study. Each of these stan-dards specifies requirements that frame the design of our ITPprogram for PSSM teachers (See Table 1).

The courses of the program reflect these standards and thereis a requirement that the exit e-portfolio also demonstrates the

Table 1Sample program of study for secondary mathematics student teachers.

Semester Course number Course name

Summer I EDCI 6600 Introduction to Secondary TeachingEDMT 6560 Principles of Mathematics InstructionEPSF 7120 Social & Cultural Foundations of Educ.EXC 4020 Characteristics and Instructional

Strategies for Students with DisabilitiesFall EDMT 7560 Theory & Pedagogy of Math Instruction

EDCI 7660 Practicum I Begin Student TeachingIT 7360 Technology for TeachersMATH Content Course

Spring EDCI 7670 Practicum II Student TeachingEDCI 7680 Practicum III Student TeachingEPRS 7910 Action Research MethodologyMATH Content Course

Summer II EPY 7080 The Psychology of Learning & LearnersMATH Content CourseMATH Content CourseMATH Content Course

Emphasis on the pedagogy courses (in italics) and the research methods course (inbold italics) that were taught by the pedagogy methods teacher instructor and theaction research methodology teacher instructor.

NCTM and INTASC standards. The rules that emanate from thesedocuments are among the many tools that play an importantrole in our academic and social interactions as teacher educatorsand members of faculty in a college of education. These laws andstandards have an enormous impact on how they conceptual-ized and operationalized teaching, teacher education, andteachers. They are therefore crucial to our understandings andinterpretations of the processes and outcomes of our teachereducation research project. In addition, the theoretical frameand the methodology we used in the research study played animportant role in the interpretations and understandings of theprocesses and outcomes of the professional learning of PSSMteachers.

2. Conceptual framework

In our study, collaboration work among the PSSM teachers andthe two instructors lent itself to a teaching and learning commu-nity, where interactions among us are the basis for understandingthe development of early career teachers’ experiences. Beingattentive and focusing on the activities and events of individualPSSM teachers or the collective group within their urban schoolcontext, we have the opportunity to generate data through obser-vations, interviews, and other methods. In particular, we draw uponthe sociocultural theory of learning for both PSSM teachers and thetwo teacher educators. Sociocultural theory could help us toexplore themes of learning and relationships, instead of seekingabstract or generalized understandings (CETL, 2012; Lave &Wenger, 1991). A sociocultural theory of learning explains howcontexts influence human social endeavors and generate practice,meaning, and identity (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Specifically, wefurther drew upon cultural historical activity theory (CHAT),commonly called activity theory (Cole, 1996; Daniels, 2001;Vygotsky & Cole, 1978; Wertsch, 1991), which links to socioculturaltheories of learning. We used CHAT as a viable theoretical lens forour work. CHAT framed our exploration of the process andoutcomes of the professional learning of PSSM teachers and theirinstructors, two teacher educators. Researchers (e.g. Barab, Barnet,Yamagata-Lynch, Squire, & Keating, 2002; Engestrom & Engestrom,2000; Williams, Wake, & Boreham, 2001) suggested the potentialusefulness of activity theory in educational contexts. In addition,we found that CHAT’ was consistent with our epistemologicalcommitments to praxis. The emphasis, elements, and theoreticalorientation of CHAT made it quite suited to our needs asresearchers, who were trying to account for how various policiesand standards affected our teaching/learning practices and those ofthe PSSM teachers. In essence, CHAT emphasized the complex,situated, and distributed nature of ongoing educational activities(Cole & Engestrom, 1993; Grossman, Smagorinsky, & Valencia,1999; Jonassen & Rohrer-Murphy, 1999; Roth & Tobin, 2002) andtherefore made it a most appropriate and viable framework.

The difference in the focus of activity theory and action researchbenefitted our paper. It allowed us to explore not only the students’processes but also the contexts within which they were occurring.Concurring with Wertsch (1991), our belief was that “action ismediated and cannot be separated from the milieu in which it iscarried out” (p. 18). In addition, Orland-Barak and Becher (2011)suggested that:

while AR [action research] zooms into the dynamic processes ofparticipants’meaningmaking of their practice, as they engage inrecursive cycles of reflections, CHAT zooms out to displayconnections and tensions within these processes, consideringthe wider social and cultural contexts that are grounded in thehistory of that particular professional practice.(p. 116)

P.A. Junor Clarke, J.B. Fournillier / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 649e660 651

We therefore used Engestrom’s (2001) model of activity theory,Cultural Historical Activity Theory-third generation (CHAT-3rd; seeFig. 1), which “provided the conceptual foundation and frame ofreference” that served as a critical lens “in the analysis of evidence”or data (CETL, 2012 retrieved online). Specifically, we looked at twointeracting activity systems engaged in action researche one for theinstructors and another for the PSSM teachers. The two interactingactivity systems formed an overarching activity system (OAS).

3. Activity systems

Each element (subject, tool, object, rules, community, division oflabor, and outcomes) of an activity system, as shown in Fig. 1,represents specific, transactional aspects of human activity(Yamagata-Lynch & Haudenschid, 2009). The subjects in eachactivity system are the PSSM teachers and the two instructors. Forexample, in the activity system where the PSSM teachers are thesubjects, their engagement in the activity motivate them towarda purpose or attainment of the object, which is to becomea reflective secondary mathematics teacher-researcher. In thisactivity system, the object is the goal of their activity and theirmotivation for participating in the activity. The tools, which are thedocuments, processes, and engagements in the courses to developtheir conceptual and practical knowledge through learner-centeredpedagogy and action research methodology, allow the PSSMteachers to share cognitive and/or material sources that they canuse to attain the object of the activity. Informal or formal rules, suchas the state, national, and professional standards regulate the PSSMteachers’ participation while engaging in the activity. Thecommunity consisted of the institution, school systems, instructors,supervisors, mentors, and their peer groups to which they belong.The division of labor is the shared participation responsibilities inthe activity determined by the community, in this case the PSSMteachers and the two instructors. Finally, the outcomes are theconsequences that the PSSM teachers faced because of their actionsdriven by the object. These outcomes can encourage or hinder the

Fig. 1. Cultural Historical Activity Theory-3rd generatio

PSSM teachers’ participation in future activities (Yamagata-Lynch &Haudenschid, 2009).

There are similar elements in the two instructors’ activitysystem whose object was to facilitate PSSM teachers learning andactivity so that they could become reflective teacher-researchersand develop their pedagogical competencies. Through the mutualengagement between our two activity systems, we are a commu-nity having a joint enterprise. PSSM teachers becoming reflectiveteacher-researchers who develop a shared repertoire of actionresearch skills and pedagogical content knowledge (Cuddapah &Cayton, 2011, Wenger, 1998).

CHAT-3rd allowed us to explore how, as subjects (two instructorsand their PSSM teachers), the toolswe produced mediated what wecould do and subsequently affected our interactions. These twoactivity systems were not isolated from each other: The rules andstandards, mediating tools, division of labor, objects, and thecommunity actively engaged each teacher educator and the cohortof PSSM teachers as a bounded system (Engestrom,1987). The rulesand standards of the educational system, the institution, theprogram, and the binding rules, assignments, and rubrics in thecourse syllabi guided both groups. As part of a cohort, the PSSMteachers also belonged to a larger community within the institu-tion and the program and to diverse communities withinthe school systems in which they were practicing. We expected thePSSM teachers to work individually and in small groups in theclassroom or online. In so doing, they would satisfy the demands ofour syllabi, assignments, and rubrics that were guides for theirperformances as becoming reflective secondary mathematicsteacher-researchers. We, the teacher educators, also belonged toa larger group within our departments, college, and institution.Finallyandmost importantly, our desire to facilitate the professionallearning of the cohort of PSSM teachers who were preparing tobecome secondary mathematics teachers for urban environmentswas the foundation for our collaboration with the PSSM teachers.

We embedded a constructivist perspective of teaching in themathematics pedagogy and action research courses and the teacher

n systems (adapted from Engestrom, 2001, p. 136).

P.A. Junor Clarke, J.B. Fournillier / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 649e660652

preparation program. This way of teaching is embedded ina sociocultural approach to learning, which informed our researchdesign and made the CHAT-3rd model a suitable one for our work.The interactions consistently occurring in the activity systemsdemonstrated the social and cultural factors that mediate devel-opment and learning within the various contexts that could informactions and the activity, itself. Furthermore, the CHAT-3rd modelprovided us with the tools to identify and analyze the outcome ofour collaboration and interaction. Of even greater significance toour use of the model, was that CHAT-3rd was not a predictivetheory but rather a framework based upon a sociocultural theory ofhuman consciousness that aimed at explaining the character ofhuman behavior. Hence, CHAT-3rd served as a framework (seeFig. 1) that provided us with a critical lens for analysis as we askedquestions of the data and used those findings to answer ourresearch questions (Yamagata-Lynch & Haudenschid, 2009).

4. Action research: methodology and pedagogical tool

We are convinced that the disposition to study.the consequencesof our own teaching is more likely to change and improve ourpractices than is reading about what someone else has discoveredof his teaching (Stephen Corey, 1953, p. 70)

Individual teacher research is one type of action research and isdistinct from collaborative action research, school-wide actionresearch, and district-wide action research. Practitioners/researchers who conduct research and whose aim is to understandand improve practice in a local context value action research. Suchresearch has the potential to improve curriculum, instruction, andassessment (Ferrance, 2000). We view action research as one genreof practitioner inquiry, an umbrella term used to describe a range ofeducational modes, genres, and purposes. Cochran-Smith andLytle’s (2009) claims about the genre resonate with us. Theystate, “The efforts of action research center on altering curriculum,challenging common school practices, and working for socialchange by engaging in a continuous process of problem posing,data gathering, analysis, and action” (p. 40). Zeichner (1999)described this genre of research as “probably the single mostsignificant development ever in the field of teacher educationresearch” (p. 8).

Of greatest importance to us is action research’s relationshipto other genres of research in terms of the importance of sys-tematicity and intentionality (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009).Again, our research project was based on an action researchapproach to our own college classroom teaching that allowed usto understand what we do and how it affected the professionallearning of PSSM teachers and their learners. According toOrland-Barak and Becher (2011), “taking a personal-professionalorientation to action research attends to the insights gained bythe researchers as they engage in a critically reflective processbefore, during and after a situation that they are facilitating andinquiring into” (p. 120).

An action research project using an issue of personal interestwithin the mathematics content was a requirement for each PSSMteacher. As the instructors, we also conducted an action researchstudy of our own teaching of the courses. Action research becamea tool, paradigm for change, and process that could assist us inimproving our teaching and PSSM teachers’ learning. Our initialdialog, conversations, and reflections on what participants in theprevious research courses did and said brought us to the realiza-tions that we needed to understand the situation.

Although we are a research methodologist and a mathematicsteacher educator, there are some commonalities in terms of ourrepertoires; what we desire for the PSSM teachers with whom we

worked; and how we view professional learning. Daley (2001), inher study of learning and professional practice, found that inaddition to attendance at Continuing Professional Educationprograms, experiences, and dialogs with colleagues, “all contrib-uted to the continual growth and refinement of meaningfulknowledge” (p. 50).

We also recognized that, according to Adler, Ball, Krainer, Lin,and Novotna’s (2005) review, mathematics education is anemerging field in need of further research. Krainer, one of thecontributing authors of Adler et al. (2005), made a recommenda-tion that was significant to our decision we made to do our ownaction research project. Krainer stated,

In order to overcome the gap between theory and practice - tosupport teachers to come nearer to our field - more actionresearch is needed, combining first-order and second-orderaction research: Teachers investigate their practice, andteacher educators investigate their support processes. (p. 378)

In a sense, our project consisted of what Krainer was catego-rizing as “first and second order action research” (Adler et al., 2005,p. 378). Claims like this one, made based on a review of researchdone on mathematics education, confirmed for us the importanceof the project on which we embarked.

4.1. Participants

The action research project involved 2 university professors and44 PSSM teachers, Most of the participants in the ITP programweresecond-career students and a few had only completed their firstdegree in college. The program recruiters screened transcripts formathematics content (24 credit hours) and strong GRE scores 800and above. Most of them had over 1000 for GRE; some have therequired GPA of 2.5, and many have 2.8e4.0.We purposefully chosefour PSSM teachers from those who volunteered to participate inthe study: from our spring 2008 and spring 2009 cohorts. Suzie,Robert, Marie, and Stephen identified as important representationthat cut across variations, such as ethnicities, gender, and ideasthroughout the cohorts (Patton,1990). Two of the participants wereteaching on a provisional licensure and the other two were new toteaching.

4.2. Data collection

During the teaching of the mathematics pedagogy and actionresearch courses, we collected assignments and reflections thatbecame data for our action research project. These documentsbecame data sources that described (1) the changes in the PSSMteachers’ perspectives and (2) their use of knowledge and skillsgained from the action research course inwhich they explored theirteaching and students’ learning of mathematics. They were

(a) Statements of philosophy of education: a document prepared inthe pedagogical methods courses served as a working docu-ment as PSSM teachers continue taking courses throughout theITP program. The contents of this document served for analysisat the same time the research methods course instructorcollected the action research projects. Data extracted from thestatement of philosophy provided the PSSM teachers’ thinkingat that time.

(b) Transcriptions of focus group interviews: data stored in theoffice of the research professor’s department chair. In theseinterviews, the participants gave their views on the process ofthem learning to teach and learning about learners and theirenvironments.

P.A. Junor Clarke, J.B. Fournillier / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 649e660 653

(c) Action plans written, as a document of their initial intent toconduct research became evidence of teacher growth inpedagogical and action research skills during the process.

(d) Reflection memos: additional documents that provided recordsof teacher-thinking that could be lost otherwise.

(e) Online discussions: a source of reflective thoughts sharedamong others who may have various influences on theirthinking.

(f) Final action research project.

4.3. Limitations and ethical considerations

This paper is limited in terms of the number of participantsavailable for selection to participate in the research project andfrom whom we were able to choose. This however does not affectthe quality of the paper because our intention is not to generalizebut to relate the findings to specific local contexts. In addition, therequirements of the University’s Institutional Review Board thatstipulate knowledge of the participants, who consent, be keptprivate until after the course has been evaluated, prevented theresearchers from using observations as a data source. The graduateteaching assistants were responsible for interviews and theconsent forms lodged within the care of the Chair of the Depart-ment. Although this process limited the kinds of data we collected,it allowed for some freedom on the part of the students whomight have felt uncertain about how our knowledge of theirrefusal to participate might influence their grades. There is alsothe inability to use truly collaborative approach because of thehierarchical nature of classroom-based action research projects.Our roles, as researcher and instructor, influenced in some way therelationships among us and with our students as well. As Wells(2011) pointed out, there is “the perceived hierarchical powerrelationships between university and teacher-researchers andbetween both these categories of participants and the studentswhose educational experiences they are attempting to improve”(p. 168).

4.4. Data analysis

Analyzing the data collected from our action research studythrough the interpretive lens of CHAT-3rd framework allowed us toattend to both the PSSM teachers’ actions and reflections within theimmediate context (Orland-Barak & Becher, 2011, p. 116; Somekh,2006). We used the basic five central principles guiding CHAT-3rd: (1) unit of analysis, (2) multivoicedness, (3) historicity, (4)contradictions, and (5) expansive cycles, to ask the questions of thematrix e who, why, what, and how.

The guided matrix of CHAT-3rd asked four questions: (1) Whoare the subjects of learning? (2) Why do we learn? (3) What dowe learn? and (4) How do we learn? The analytical conceptuallens of CHAT-3rd allowed us to ask questions of the data from ouraction research study. We identified the unit of analysis, multi-voicedness, historicity, contradictions, and expansive cycles as weasked the questions of the data from the action research study.The matrix provided us with the ability to discover the outcomesof learning that occurred and we gained new understandingsfrom our interpretations of the interactions of these outcomes(see Fig. 2).

5. Findings

In this section, we provide responses to the four questions of thematrix of CHAT-3rd and identify those responses under the basicfive principles guiding CHAT-3rd (see Fig. 3).

5.1. Who are the subjects of learning?

The PSSM teachers and the two instructors are the subject oflearning within their individual activity systems. These two activitysystems are interconnected in an overarching activity system (OAS),where learning is distributed, both individually and collectively andbecomes a collaborative subject of learning in a bounded commu-nity of practice (Hutchins, 1995; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger,1998). As we were a task-oriented team working toward the samegoal of PSSM teachers’ becoming secondary mathematics teacher-researchers, the unit of analysis consists of PSSM teachers and thetwo instructors. Within their collaborative learning communities,their individual and collective voices played an integral role in theanalysis. The multivoicedness of the interactions was important inour interpretation and understandings of the teaching/learningpractices.

5.2. Why do we learn?

Historically teacher educators prepare preservice teachers toteach through theory in their college classrooms and practice asstudent teachers in real classrooms with students. In particular, theneed to be able to teach mathematics to students and becomeeffective mathematics teachers and teacher-researchers were themotivating factors for the PSSM teachers. While we, the instructors(who are teacher educators), were motivated to learn what wereneeded to develop or enhance our becoming educators who weremore effective. We also found that our assumptions about majorcontent and pedagogical knowledge of PSSM teachers “being inplace” were an overestimation based on the following:

PSSM teachers entered the ITP program with high scores ontheir grade point averages, Graduate Record Examination, andstate certificate basic examination. Thus, the expectation is thatthey have the content knowledge needed for the secondaryclassroom. The content pedagogical knowledge is developed inthe ITP program during the previous semester to studentteaching internship and the action research course (Reflectionsof the pedagogical methods and action research methodsinstructors, spring 2009)

Motivated to learn more about our PSSM teachers, we, the twoinstructors

brainstormed to figure out what was going onwith our students.Even with verbal guidance, written feedback, and rubrics to getthem started in identifying a teaching strategy for a particularconcept they will teach in the research timeframe and to letthem be aware of our expectations of them in the early phase ofthe project, only a few PSSM teachers were able to figure it outsomewhat. We pondered to know what was happening.(Reflections of the pedagogical methods and action researchmethods instructors, spring 2009)

We began to ask questions of ourselves:

Pedagogical methods instructor: Why are the PSSM teachers notable tomake the connections to a research study?What is it theyare not getting? Are they still in the traditional mode of reallywanting us to tell them the teaching strategy to study and theconcepts to teach? Actually, two students did say that jokingly,while otherswere coming upwith appropriate studies that werenot feasible for the research timeframe [meeting in spring 2010]

Action research methods instructor: Am I being too hard/demanding too much of them? Is my approach to teaching thecourse not a match for their learning style or development?

Fig. 2. Matrix for the analysis of expansive learning for PSSM teachers and instructors (adapted from Engestrom, 2001, p. 138).

P.A. Junor Clarke, J.B. Fournillier / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 649e660654

These questions were part of the motivating factors for ouraction research study.

5.3. What do we learn?

Through the readings, reflections, and discussions in thecollege classrooms, both activity systems learned about thehistorical views of pedagogy dealing with old and new mathe-matics standards, technology, classroom culture, expectations andcognitive demands within and across our classrooms. Althoughtensions developed from the teacher educators’ and PSSMteachers’ interactions, we (the instructors) held firmly to ourphilosophy of a “constructivist,” high-cognitive demand for gain-ing knowledge and consistently tried to find ways to adjust ourteaching approaches/strategies/techniques without minimizing

the learning desired. We began to think very hard about what wehad to do to make necessary changes for our next cohort ofstudents. But we also needed to focus on how to help our currentcohort be successful with their projects. Time was running out,and our students needed to get their projects completed. Weembraced one of the struggles that many teachers have “whentheir students don’t get it.” Usually, as their instructors, you aretempted to tell them what to do. Instead of taking them to thelowest level of cognitive demand for learning (Stein, Smith,Henningsen, & Silver, 2000), we stood firm.

Some students saw contradictions in the timeline set forth forthem to learn the material and their ability to complete their taskseffectively and efficiently. Although they often realized how it couldwork for them, they still felt stressed and anxious about theprocess. As one student reflected

Fig. 3. Expansive learning between instructors (A) and secondary mathematics student teachers’ (B) activity theory systems (adapted from Engestrom, 2001, p. 136).

P.A. Junor Clarke, J.B. Fournillier / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 649e660 655

but it’s kind of a time management thing and knowing from thebeginning how long everything is actually going to take andthen looking ahead at your own individual school schedule.(Focus group interview, spring 2008)

Stephen found that the time for the collection of data was a bittoo short to see realistic changes for some particular concerns in theclassroom:

I wish that I could have taken more than 6 weeks to collect data.It is difficult to analyze if the data collected represents anyperceivable trend of student engagement. (Stephen’s narrative,spring 2009)

PSSM teachers learned about the nuances of teaching to the test,implementing teaching strategies and observing the struggles,comfort, and needs to make a lesson work. The PSSM teachersstruggled with the theory and practice until they learned from theirown practice. Both PSSM teachers and instructors then shared andexpanded their new knowledge among the learning community.Each PSSM teacher also presented his/her action research study tothe current and new cohorts of PSSM teachers.

With the assumption that there is no competent teacher,Engestrom citing Bateson (1972) distinguished between threelevels of learning that form the basis of a systematic framework,known as the theory of expansive learning. “Learning level I refersto conditioning, acquisition of the responses deemed correct in thegiven context” (Bateson, 1972, p. 138). Learning level II refers towhen “people acquire the deep-seated rules and patterns ofbehavior characteristic to the context itself”. “Learning level III isusually a collective endeavor”(Bateson, 1972, p. 138). In the contextof the two activity systems for the PSSM teachers and instructors,Learning level I was whatever the PSSM teachers or the instructorsobserved in the student teaching site or in the college classrooms.Learning levels were usually not isolated; therefore, it was possiblethat Learning level II was occurring while you observed level I.According to Engestrom (2001), for example

in classrooms, students learn the “hidden curriculum” of what itmeans to be a student: how to please the teachers, how to passexams, how to belong to groups, etc. Sometimes the contextbombards participants with contradictory demands, [creatinga double bind]. Such pressures can lead to Learning [level] III,where a person or a group begins to radically question the senseand meaning of the context and to construct a wider alternativecontext. (p. 138)

For us, both PSSM teachers and instructors, Learning level IIImanifested as we faced contradictions that led to tensions thatdeveloped throughout the process. These three levels of learningcontributed to the object of expansive learning, which helped us toidentify the outcome of our OAS (see Fig. 3).

5.4. How do we learn?

The PSSM teachers learned from the readings and discussionsset forth for the course that included the various points of views,feedback from peers and instructors, reflections, and sharingsummaries of the class readings from current and old literature onmathematics education, among the PSSM teachers and theirinstructors. For instance, Marie experienced her challenges anddescribed how she tried to accommodate the process:

I immediately began to notice challenges in the coding, inter-esting side questions I wanted to explore, and e most of all ethat I was not asking the right question. After starting to collectdata, but before I began writing, I rephrased my main questionto focus less on student problem-posing (asking the questions)and more on student problem-solving (asking or answering).

Perhaps later, I can seek to improve student mathematicsproblem-posing but for this study, I found it was happening nextto never. I was aware throughout the research that studentsbehave differently when a camera is rolling. To mitigate thechallenge, I opted to begin video recording days before it was

P.A. Junor Clarke, J.B. Fournillier / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 649e660656

necessary. Those tapes were not analyzed for this project.(Marie’s narrative, spring 2009)

Robert realized that his tensions came from the various interestshe had in the classroom:

I seem towant to domany things inmyclassroombecause I couldprovide rationales for allmydecisions but it is impossible to do so.Reality strikes in the classroom, when I realized that I did notaccount for the effect of group work on student motivation andperformance though Iwanted to. (Robert’snarrative, spring2008)

Suzie’s challenges extended from the workload for collection ofdata to the reality of analysis and sense making of the data:

I realized that it would be too much work on me to have tocreate and grade so many different extra credit assignments aswell as to record the extra data for my action research project. Icorrected this approach tomove forward. The most difficult partof the action research project for me was putting all of the datathat I had collect[ed] together in a way that I could make senseof everything (Suzie’s narrative, spring 2008).

Feeling tensions about the grades for their work in the collegeclassroom and learning while being a novice at teaching wasa common concern for the PSSM teachers. However, the imple-mented design to have the PSSM teachers work in groups assistedthem in rethinking the process and in some cases eased the tension.During the focus group interview, one PSSM teacher expressed herfeelings on group work and grades: “I don’t like working in groups,but I think this kind of took some of the pressure off because therewere no grades.”

Fear about making changes in a mentor’s class stifled somePSSM teachers’ creativity to do things differently in the classroom-based on learned knowledge while in the ITP program. Theuniversity supervisors askedmentors to be flexible with the internsin allowing them to practice learned skills and pedagogy contentknowledge. However, there were cases where the PSSM teachersreported to their supervisors of their discomfort to conduct suchpractices because that was not the culture of their mentors’ class-room. Because of the environment supported by the No Child LeftBehind Act (U.S. Department of Education, 2001), some mentorteachers teach to the test, and our PSSM teachers faced such chal-lenges of not being allowed to explore their learned practices andthe new standards as they should. Under these pressures, our PSSMteachers navigated their learning community and the schoolsystems through observations, learning to teach, and developingtools to extend their teaching and learning repertoires.

Particularly, during the action research projects, the PSSMteachers were able to reflect on specific teaching strategies and seefor themselves what they have to face in the profession. This helpedthem to determine what they could do differently for better resultsevenwith the policies and standards in place and facing the diverseclassroom cultures maintained by their mentor teachers. Stephenwrote,

External distractions to student engagement are a major issue inthe classroom. Students talking during lecture, a single disrup-tive student, or teaching a class on the Friday before springbreak. Most of the distractions were related to students talkingoff topic. One of my long-term goals is to lead lessons thatengage students to talk a lot about the topic being presented.(Action Research Report, spring 2009)And Marie wrote,

My action research uncovered two interesting themes. First, thatI can increase student problem-solving engagement by movingaround the classroom. And second, that in moving away from

my role as lecturer, I can use the whiteboard as a repository ofworked examples. I have long struggled with a lecture style thatis simply ineffective. Moving myself into the role of “guide bythe side” (or more simply, mentor) seems to increase studentattention to task. When I review my own notes as a student inmathematics classes, I notice that the most valuable bits are theexamples.

One challenge I will have moving forward as a mentor ratherthan a lecturer is getting the students to write down workedexamples. Virtually all mathematics teachers came througha system rich in lecture. This is a radical shift. However, the Stateof Georgia seems to support the shift with its new GeorgiaPerformance Standards (Georgia Department of Education,2007). The standards are heavy on constructivist learning.Academics are also encouraging the shift. In their book, Math-ematics as a Constructive Activity, authors Watson and Masonwrite “mathematics is a constructive activity and is most richlylearned when learners are actively constructing objects, rela-tions, questions, problems, and meanings” (2005). I lookforward to refining my research into being a “guide on the side”teacher with other groups of students. (Action Research Report,spring 2009)

Each of Robert’s research questions preceded his findings andthen he summarized the outcome:

What will motivate low achieving students to succeed in a class ofrepeaters?

The three factors, which increased the motivation of studentsthe most were games, extra credit and contests [rewards].

How will the use of varied activities and rewards affect low per-forming students’ motivation to increase performance in a unit ofan Algebra I course?

During this time-period, students had increased motivation andproductivity, fewer distractions and an increased stake in theirown education. Even though students were motivated extrin-sically as well as intrinsically, there was an increase in motiva-tion as previously discussed.

What types of activities and/or rewards can be used to increase theamount of motivation students have in this class?

During the study, the students found review games to be themost effective methods to learn and review material. Studentsalso enjoyed group work and incentives. These were the resultsfor this one class, but a changing classroom culture may causethe results to change for another class.

Therewere a few factors that I did not account for but would liketo look at in the future. The first factor is group work. I usedsome group work in this Action Research study, but I would liketo conduct more research on the effect of group work onmotivation and performance. The second factor I would like tolook at is self-confidence. Self-confidence is an issue that I didnot think of until I coded and analyzed the results of the secondsurvey. Many of the students in this class were not confidentwhen it came to mathematical ability and only 10 out of the 20students who did better on the post-test said that theywould dobetter on the survey. Increasing self-confidence will now be justas important as increasing motivation to me.

In her report, Suzie wrote,

Although I had already decided to incorporate the semester-long extra credit option in my own classroom, on my final dayof student teaching, I had a plethora of students tell me how

P.A. Junor Clarke, J.B. Fournillier / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 649e660 657

thankful they were for all of the help that I had given themthroughout the semester, which validated my decision. Onestudent, in particular, took the time to write me a note thatmade me realize that my teaching method as well as my actionresearch project actually made a difference in some students’lives. This student took advantage of every extra credit oppor-tunity and would sometimes ask me for extra credit before itwas even offered. With the extra credit points, her final gradeincreased an entire letter grade. (Action Research Report, spring2008)

In the focus group interview, the PSSM teachers voiced theirrealities. One said,

I mean, I think that what I studied [researched] was somethingI’ve always been curious about and something I might haveeventually dabbled with, but it actually made me like jump inwith both feet and just do it and look at it and see because Ithink you kind of have to jump in with both feet before youfigure out [in] what direction you want to go . . . because if youjust kind of dabble, you’ll never really get anywhere.

Another PSSM teacher stated, “And it’s okay to change directionand redo things and that’s the nature of our profession anyway. Youknow, we have to be flexible.”

The PSSM teachers read, saw, and demonstrated curiosity for thevarious classroom behaviors and management styles. Marieexplored technology integration as enhancement tools in mathe-matics instruction and as a visual aid in presenting lessons. Marielearned how to use the whiteboard to her advantage as she stated,“I can use the whiteboard as a repository of worked examples.” Inher action research study, she realized that shifting her role asa guide on the side allowed her students to be more attentive andwrite down the worked examples. Another student teacher learnedthat students need “something to relate to” so they could beengaged in the mathematics lesson and the teacher needs “to use itnaturally in relating mathematics topics, concepts, or skills.”Another lesson learned by one student teacher was the benefit ofintroducing a semester-long extra-credit option. She found that“the low-achieving students who participated and took advantageof the opportunity were able to increase their achievement. “Therewas one student whose final gradewas increased by an entire lettergrade,” she reported, indicating the level of motivation the studentgained to work hard enough to get such an increase in grade.

We, the instructors, found that the PSSM teachers explored,reflected, and learned as they experience the process of doingaction research in their own classrooms. This claim was evident intheir reflection memos, action plans, focus group interviews, onlinediscussions, and final action research project. Developing theirattitudes and comfort to work within the urban school environ-ment was as important for them as was our seeing them throughthe process and learning what we needed to do better or differentlyfor future cohorts. We realized that as they learned, we learnedthrough their processes. The PSSM teachers learned first-hand ofsome of the historical views of pedagogy that they read about. Theypondered on dealing with old and new mathematics concepts,technology, and the classroom culture. As they implementeda teaching strategy, they observed their struggles with theory andpractice and then reflected on their comfort and needs for betterpractice in the urban classroom. The PSSM teachers shared theirresearch findings, reflections, and their new knowledge with thesmall learning community. We, the instructors, reflected on theprocess and outcomes, during and at the end of the research study.During the process of the study, we learned about the challenges,discomfort that our PSSM teachers faced, and we modified ourinstructions throughout the process.

6. Addressing the research questions

Our decision to integrate an action research project in theteacher preparation program for the PSSM teachers to investigatetheir own teaching practice allowed us, the teacher educators, totransition to a more learner-centered approach in teacher prepa-ration. According to Jones (2011), “teachers should shed didacticillusions of teacher consubstantiality with students. Instead a kindof learning-centred ‘situativity’ is needed, based on ‘authenticpractices’ that empower learners: ‘developmentally appropriateversions of the situated and meaningful practices of experts” (p. 9;see also Greeno, 1998).

Our research study addressed both “first-order and second-orderaction research” (Adler et al., 2005, p. 378) study for PSSM teachersand two instructors, respectively. Thematrix framework of CHAT-3rdwith the expansive learning cycles informed our analysis of theteacher educators’ and the PSSM teachers’ action research studies(see Fig. 2). We answered the research questions based on the find-ings through the CHAT-3rd framework. Responses from “How dowelearn?” under multivoicedness and contradictions in the CHAT-3rdframework served to answer the first research question. Responsesfrom “What dowe learn?” under the unit of analysis, historicity, andcontradictions served to answer the second research question. Andresponses under the expansive cycles of both questions “How dowelearn?” and “What do we learn?” served to provide the outcomes ofthe two interacting activity systems and assisted us in determinewhat we could learn from these two systems.

Our use of the CHAT-3rd theoretical framework gave us thelanguage and leverage to go in a direction where we can nowcritique ourselves differently and each other meaningfully to alloweach of us to grow professionally. According to Jones (2011), whatwe did in allowing our PSSM teachers to interact, collaborate, andperform differently was to venture into a state of an “apparentcomplexity of human behavior [that] over time is largely a reflec-tion of the complexity of the environment” (as cited Simon, 1981, p.65). As we reflected on the PSSM teachers’ experiences, we came torealize that each of them had different experiences though theywere all teaching in urban settings. This was an indication of thecomplexity of the context and teaching experiences.

The PSSM teachers learned through the interactions in theirstudent teaching and college classrooms. As they shared their viewsand experiences in class, through discussions, feedback from theirpeers and instructors, these participants had several and differentrealities. For example, Marie critiqued herself when she said thatmaybe, shewas not asking “the right question.” Robert realized thathis wanting to research too many things at once was impossible.Suzie contrasted her “collection of data to the reality of analysis andsense making of the data,” and Stephen found that “my actionresearch uncovered two interesting themes.” As they analyzed theiraction research study and the processes they experienced, wefound that they were critical of themselves and/or the behavior oftheir students. The criticism of “self” was honest, which could bea good characteristic as the PSSM teacher was more likely to seekand further develop her or his practice. Their experiences couldbecome the baseline for a progressive career in teaching as theycontinue to seek, learn, differentiate, and develop new teachingstrategies that can enhance learning.

We believe that because we allowed waiting time, constructivespace, and nurtured relationships and modeling collaboration asinstructors, the PSSM teachers had the opportunity to experiencethe “a-ha” moment through one of their peers. This was a greatlearning moment for them as well as for us. This learning momentwas not teachable but gained through exploration. As Sawyer (citedin Jones (2011), p. 10) stated, “knowledge is not just a static mentalstructure inside the learner’s head; instead, knowing is a process

P.A. Junor Clarke, J.B. Fournillier / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 649e660658

that involves the person, the tools, and other people in the envi-ronment, and the activities upon which knowledge is beingapplied” (2006, p. 5). As previously mentioned, PSSM teachersexpressed their knowing: “And it’s okay to change direction andredo things and that’s the nature of our profession anyway. Youknow, we have to be flexible.”

Our PSSM teachers received opportunities to learn throughdiscussions, multiple points of views, microteaching, feedback frompeers and instructors, their reflections, and sharing summaries ofthe class readings from current and old literature on mathematicseducation. As instructors, we learned from the delivery forum thatwe provided for the PSSM teachers and our meetings and inter-views with the PSSM teachers. We also learned through ouropenness to each other during our collaboration. During the feed-back and reflection phases, some contradictions converted tolearning and teaching moments. Both PSSM teachers and instruc-tors aligned or realigned strategies for current and future class-rooms. These PSSM teachers and instructors have a “work inprogress” agenda for their own development as mathematicsteachers and teacher educators. With our timeline for the actionresearch project, what we saw is an indication of provocation andtruly a sense of socialization through our association and interac-tion within our learning community and the action researchprocess (Jones (2011); Wenger, 1998). Thus, wemake the claim thatour interactions, the pedagogy and the research methods instruc-tors, were instrumental in the positive interactions among ourstudents, the PSSM teachers. We continued to work with them asa cohort group within and across disciplines. Over the semesters,the PSSM teachers built trust, which helped them to share theirchallenges with us. In this way, wewere able to provide the neededassistance while they were in student teaching and working ontheir action research projects. It is important, according to Labaree(2004), that we, the educators, be proactive in our own develop-ment and that of our PSSM teachers for positive and exponentialchanges to occur.

We also observed that most of our PSSM teachers’ foci were notdirectly onmathematics content knowledge but rathermore on theconditions under which students can acquire such knowledge, suchas classroom management and particularly issues to addressmotivation to learn mathematics. There seemed to be feelings ofimmediate need to address behaviors and some focus on teachingstrategies, but fewer emphases on the content. The pedagogymethods instructor realized that there needed to be a strongerconnection between the PSSM teachers’ content knowledge andpedagogical content knowledge. They were not choosing projectsinquiring directly on the effects of teaching strategies on themathematics learning in the classroom. However, the PSSMteachers gained more knowledge about the urban environment inwhich they plan to teach, about some possibilities for effectiveteaching, about how what they implemented could be donedifferently, about what seemed to appeal most to their students,and about some of what they needed to work on for their owndevelopment as classroom teacher-researchers. The PSSM teachershad hands-on experience and they are more confident to continuedoing action research and become more reflective in their ownclassrooms. On the other hand, we, the teacher educators are evenmore aware of the importance of being mindful of what we, asteacher educators, do and how it influences our learners. Hence, wewill continue to make the necessary changes in our teaching topositively influence the learning of PSSM teachers.

6.1. Expansive learning

Through the basic principles of multivoicedness, historicalchanges, and several contradictions of how and what both PSSM

teachers and teacher educators learn, cycles of expansive learningmanifest from their activity system. The interaction of these cyclesevolves into expansive learning that is specific to the subjects, time,tools, and context.

6.1.1. Improving the PSSM teachers’ practiceThe PSSM teachers enhanced their skills for students’ mathe-

matics learning context. They gained deeper understanding ofpedagogical practices for students in urban contexts. We believethe PSSM teachers are willing to share, question, model, examine,implement, and continue reflecting on their teaching. Theycontinue to build their relationships in the learning communitywith their peers particularly about the process of conducting actionresearch, becoming secondary mathematics teachers, and teacher-researchers.

6.1.2. Improving the roles and functions of the teacher educatorsBased on the analysis, we agreed that, as teacher educators, we

needed to be more open to sharing, questioning, modeling, exam-ining, implementing, and will continue reflecting on our ownteaching. Operating as another activity system under rules, tools,and the division of labor, we, the two teacher educators, agreed tocontinue maintaining high expectations for the PSSM teachers tofocus more on their students’ development in mathematicslearning. We learned what we could do differently to achieve theoutcomes desired, that is, to hold the PSSM teachers accountablefor choosing a teaching strategy suitable for a particular mathe-matics concept and to critique its suitability and have a plan ofaction for modification. In other words, the PSSM teachers neededto have intentional focus on instructional strategies and to observehow their teaching affected students’ mathematics learning. Inaddition, we agreed that learner-centered and collaborativeapproaches were worthy tools for this journey of becomingreflective secondary mathematics teacher-researchers. The peda-gogy methods teacher educator realized there was a need to focuson facilitating future PSSM teachers’ process of making connectionsto appropriate teaching strategies for teaching particular skills andconcepts in mathematics. The research methods teacher educatorneeded to continue her interrogation of projects that are mean-ingful to the PSSM teachers but that would also facilitate theirunderstanding that action research is a process and not a product.What we learned from the outcomes of this study already trans-formed our courses. We will continue using our action research asa methodology and a pedagogical tool. Our hope is that it wouldfacilitate the development and assist in preparing effective math-ematics teacher-researchers in urban contexts.

7. Discussion

According to Ellis (2011), “CHAT, like action researchapproaches, is an evolving intellectual project” (p. 192). Ourthinking is that teaching and learning are complex constructs andwe have only tapped into two systems with a small sample.However, before we think of other interacting systems, we wouldlike to study these two systems more deeply with a larger sample.We agree with Avalos (2011), who declared that there is “a constantneed to study, experiment, discuss, and reflect in dealing withteacher professional development” (p. 10).

Again, our attention to the issue of teacher development camefrom several directions, namely personal teaching goals, ourcollective inquiry on what we do, the impact of teacher educatorson our PSSM teachers, the development of the PSSM teachers asbecoming effective teacher-researchers, and what we learned fromthis research as we used CHAT and action research.

P.A. Junor Clarke, J.B. Fournillier / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 649e660 659

There is much controversy over the use of both CHAT and actionresearch, which is beyond the scope of this paper. However, wetook advantage of the opportunity to look at the individual beliefsand attitudes and the contexts, and in so doing, we produceda more holistic picture. Both of them served our purposes. Our useof CHAT as a conceptual frame allowed us to analyze two activitysystems that took advantage of the opportunity that actionresearch afforded us, that is, examining dynamic processes of thePSSM teachers and teacher educators while they made meaning oftheir practice and engaged in recursive cycles of reflection (Orland-Barak & Becher, 2011). CHAT served as a new lens to analyze ourdata and afforded a framework that accommodated our first-orderand second-order action research studies (Adler et al., 2005). Inother words, it helped us to analyze our action research data inauthentic ways.

We know that the result of this study cannot be generalized, butit gives us hope that we, PSSM teachers and teacher educators, canreflect at both levels and learn from the outcomes to make neces-sary modifications that can lead to effective practices at both levels.These outcomes can only strengthen our teacher preparationprograms when change is acted upon and we authentically realizethe need for change to occur (Avalos, 2011; Clarke et al., 2012;Labaree, 2004; Weiner, 2000). The limitations of our study tocollect student data in the urban schools did not allow us to focuson student achievement. However, we learned of another way toauthentically look closely at our repertoires, differences inperceptions of the teaching/learning practices, action researchprocesses, and our learners’ concerns. In essence, we are betterprepared for continuing the journey of developing teachers whomwe are preparing to be more reflective and aware of howwhat theydo and how they do it affect students’ learning.

8. Implications for future research and practice

We used activity theory (Engestrom, 2001), CHAT-3rd as ananalytical conceptual tool to interrogate the data of our actionresearch study. Working collaboratively, framing our actionresearch study, and analyzing the data helped us in our evaluationof our teaching and the PSSM teachers’ perceptions of the quality oftraining they received. We are now able to appreciate better thekinds of conceptual and practical tools that helped PSSM teachersto explore their growth as mathematics classroom teacher-researchers. Conducting action research adds value to the ITPprogram of the PSSM teachers who participated in the project.

CHAT-3rd as an analytical conceptual tool highlighted specificnuances that need addressing earlier in the content area andpedagogical methods courses with future cohorts of PSSM teachers.The pedagogy methods instructor has since redesigned thecurriculum to integrate instructions and explorations, to identifyteaching strategies that are of interest to them, and to developresearch questions for their student teaching internship where theywill continue to conduct their action research project.

Currently, negotiations are in progress with the content areaunit to redesign content courses for the secondary mathematicsteachers. We will continue to conduct similar research projectswith our PSSM teachers so that we can continue to be the reflectiveeducators who inspire becoming reflective secondary mathematicsteacher-researchers.

Notes on contributors

Pier A. Junor Clarke is a Clinical Associate Professor in theMiddle-Secondary Education & Instructional Technology Depart-ment, College of Education of Georgia State University, where shecoordinates the Initial Teacher Preparation e Secondary

Mathematics program. She teaches the series of secondary math-ematics methods courses and graduate courses in the MathematicsEducation Unit. Her current research focus is on the development ofmathematics knowledge of teaching to sustain high qualitysecondary mathematics teachers for urban environments.

Janice B. Fournillier is an Assistant Professor in the EducationalPolicy Studies department of Georgia State University. She workedat all levels of the educational system in Trinidad and Tobago for 28years before migrating to the USA. She has an interest in insider/outsider issues as they relate to native ethnographers, qualitativeresearch methodologies, learning/teaching practices in non-schoolcontexts, and teacher education.

References

Adler, J., Ball, D., Krainer, K., Lin, F., & Novotna, J. (2005). Reflections on an emergingfield: researching mathematics teacher education. Educational Studies inMathematics, 60(3), 359e381.

Avalos, B. (2011). Teacher professional development in Teaching and TeacherEducation over ten years. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(1), 10e20.

Barab, S. A., Barnet, G. M., Yamagata-Lynch, I. C., Squire, K., & Keating, T. (2002). Usingactivity theory tounderstand the contradictions characterizing a technology-richintroductory astronomy course.Mind, Culture, and Activity, 9(2), 76e107.

Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. New York: Ballantine Books.CETL. (2012). Theoretical underpinnings of the Centre for Excellence in Teaching and

Learning. Retrieved from. http://www.cetlrecord.ox.ac.uk/resources/resource04.php?reURL¼./themes/story.php#sdfootnote5sym.

Clarke, M., Lodge, A., & Shevlin, M. (2012). Evaluating initial teacher educationprogrammes: perspectives from the Republic of Ireland. Teaching and TeacherEducation, 28(2), 141e153.

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (2009). Inquiry as stance: Practitioner research forthe next generation. New York: Teachers College Press.

Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge, Mass.:Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Cole, M., & Engestrom, Y. (1993). A cultural historica approach to distributed cogni-tion. In G. Saomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educationalconsiderations (pp. 1e46). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Corey, S. M. (1953). Action research to improve school practices. New York: TeachersCollege Press.

Cuddapah, J. L., & Cayton, C. D. (2011). Using Wenger’s communities of practice toexplore a new teacher cohort. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(1), 62e75.

Daley, B. J. (2001). Learning and professional practice: a study of four professions.Adult Education Quarterly, 52(1), 39e54.

Daniels, H. (2001). Vygotsky and pedagogy. New York: Routledge/Falmer.Darling-Hammond,L. (2000). Teacherqualityandstudent achievement.EducationPolicy

Analysis Archives, 8(1), Retrieved from. http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/392.Ellis, V. (2011). Reenergising professional creativity from a CHAT perspective: seeing

knowledge and history in practice. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 18(2), 181e193.Engestrom, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to

developmental research. Helsinki, Finland: Orienta-Konsultit.Engestrom, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: toward an activity theoretical

reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133e156.Engestrom, Y., & Engestrom, R. (2000). An activity-theoretical study of expansive

learning among middle school teachers. In Paper presented at the annualmeeting of the American educational research association, New Orleans, L.A.

Ferrance, E. (2000). Action research. Providence, RI: Northeast and Islands RegionalEducational Laboratory At Brown University. Retrieved March 30, 2007 from.http://www.alliance.brown.edu/pubs/themes_ed/act_research.pdf.

GeorgiaDepartmentof Education. (2007).Georgiaperformance standards. Atlanta,GA:Author. http://www.georgiastandards.org/Standards/Pages/BrowseStandards/MathStandards.aspx.

Greeno, J. G. (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning and research. AmericanPsychologist, 53(1), 5e26.

Grossman, P. L., Smagorinsky, P., & Valencia, S. (1999). Appropriating tools forEnglish: a theoretical framework for research on learning to teach. AmericanJournal of Education, 108(1), 1e29.

Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC). (April 2011).

http://www.ccsso.org/Documents/2011/InTASC_Model_Core_Teaching_Standards_2011.pdf Retrieved May, 2011.

Jonassen, D. H., & Rohrer-Murphy, L. (1999). Activity theory as a framework fordesigning constructivist learning environments. Educational Technology,Research and Development. ISSN: 1042-1629, 47(1). ISSN: 1042-1629, 61e79.

Jones, A. (2011). Philosophical and socio-cognitive foundations for teaching inhigher education through collaborative approaches to student learning.Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43(9), 997e1011.

Labaree, D. F. (2004). The trouble with ed schools. New Haven [Conn.]: Yale UniversityPress.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning. Legitimate peripheral participation.Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press.

P.A. Junor Clarke, J.B. Fournillier / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 649e660660

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (1989). Curriculum andevaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2000). Principles and stan-dards for school mathematics. Reston, VA.

Orland-Barak, L., & Becher, A. (2011). Cycles of action through systems of activity:examining an action research model through the lens of activity theory. Mind,Culture, and Activity, 18, 115e128.

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). NewburyPark, CA: Sage.

Roth, W. M., & Tobin, K. (2002). At the elbows of another: Learning to teach throughcoteaching. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.

Sawyer, K. (2006). The new science of learning. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridgehandbook of the learning sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Simon, H. A. (1981). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. KarlTaylor Compton lectures at MIT, 1968, H. Rowan Gaither lectures at theUniversity of California, Berkeley, 1980.

Somekh, B. (2006). Action research: A methodology for change and development.Maidenhead, England: Open University Press.

Stein, M., Smith, M., Henningsen, M., & Silver, E. (2000). Implementing standards-based mathematics instruction. Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathe-matics, (IMSMI).

U.S. Department of Education. (2001). No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.Vygotsky, L. S., & Cole, M. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher

psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Watson, A., & Mason, J. H. (2005). Mathematics as a constructive activity e Learners

generating examples. Mahwah, NJ, USA: Erlbaum.Weiner, L. (2000). Research in the 90s: implications for urban teacher preparation.

Review of Educational Research, 70(3), 369e406.Wells, G. (2011). Integrating CHAT and action research. Mind, Culture, and Activity,

18(2), 161e180.Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Williams, J. S., Wake, G. D., & Boreham, N. C. (2001). College mathematics and

workplace practice: an activity theory perspective. Research in MathematicsEducation, (3), 69e83.

Yamagata-Lynch, L. C., & Haudenschid, M. T. (2009). Using activity systems analysisto identify inner contradictions in teacher professional development. Teachingand Teacher Education, 25(3), 507e517.

Zeichner, K. (1999). Action research and the preparation of reflective practitionersduring the professional practicum. International Journal of Practical Experiencesin Professional Education (Australia), 3(1), 1e26.