at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education 30 (2013) 47e59

Contents lists available

Teaching and Teacher Education

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

Identity in activity: Examining teacher professional identity formation in thepaired-placement of student teachers

Dang Thi Kim Anha,b,*

aMelbourne Graduate School of Education, The University of Melbourne, Level 7, 100 Leicester Street, Carlton VIC 3010, Australiab Faculty of English Language Teacher Education, Vietnam National University, 144 Xuan Thuy Street, Cau Giay District, Hanoi, Viet Nam

h i g h l i g h t s

< The study examined teacher learning in a paired-placement context.< The teachers experienced qualitative shifts in their teaching identities.< Activity theory was effective in revealing the complexity of their learning.< Paired-placement is a promising model for reforming the practicum.

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 31 March 2012Received in revised form16 October 2012Accepted 22 October 2012

Keywords:Teacher learningIdentityPaired-placementTeacher collaborationActivity theoryContradictionsPerezhivanieZPD

* 332 Barkly Street, Brunswick VIC 3056, Australia.E-mail addresses: t.dang6@pgrad.unimelb.edu.au,

0742-051X/$ e see front matter � 2012 Elsevier Ltd.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.10.006

a b s t r a c t

This paper examines the evolution of the professional identities of student teachers (STs) in a paired-placement teaching practicum in Vietnam. The study draws on activity theory, its notion of contradic-tion, and Vygotsky’s concepts of ZPD and perezhivanie, to identify the factors driving the intricatelearning process. Opportunities for learning were initially manifested in conflicts within the teacher pair,for example negotiation of their multiple identities, as friends, students and teachers in training.However, within the framework of planned and supervised collaboration, the STs resolved most of theirconflicts constructively and experienced qualitative development in their teaching identities.

� 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

During their practicum, student teachers (hereafter ‘STs’ orsimply ‘teachers’) commonly teach individually, under a supervisingteacher. On the first day of school the ST is expected to assumeresponsibilities similar to those of experienced teachers despitelimited experience and preparation (Westheimer, 2008). STs oftenencounter problems in transferring teaching theory into practice.Many experience isolation and lack of support, and lack of knowl-edge about their students, having to focus on survival rather thanlearning (Bullough et al., 2003; Johnson, 1996; Westheimer, 2008).

One response to these challenges is paired ST placements duringthe practicum. Studies on paired placements (e.g. Bullough et al.,

Tel.: þ61 430113068.dangthikimanh@gmail.com.

All rights reserved.

2002; Gardiner & Robinson, 2009; Heidorn, Jenkins, Harvey, &Mosier, 2011; King, 2006; McKeon, 2006; Nokes, Bullough, Egan,Birrell, & Hansen, 2008; Smith, 2004; Sorensen, 2004; Vickery,Sharrock, Hurst, & Broadbridge, 2011) highlight multiple benefits,and invite further investigation into this mode (Gardiner &Robinson, 2009; Sorensen, 2004). Prior research suggests the STsgain from the tensions, dialogue, reflections, and increased supportthat result from being placed with a peer (Bullough et al., 2003;Nokes et al., 2008). The question left open is how the factors specificto pair-work mediate teacher learning and identity formation.

The purpose of this study is to better understand teacherprofessional development in a paired-placement context. It focusesspecifically on how two teacher students in Vietnam, Hien andChinh, develop their professional identities in the collaborativesetting, and how factors specific to pair-work mediate this process.It uses activity theory and its notion of contradiction (Section 2.1),Vygotsky’s concepts of ZPD and perezhivanie (Section 2.2), plus

Dang T.K.A. / Teaching and Teacher Education 30 (2013) 47e5948

studies of teacher identity (Section 2.3), to help elucidate thelearning process. Given the focus and theoretical framework, thefollowing questions framed the investigation:

� What contradictions were identified in the teachers’ joint-activitysystems?

� To what extent were the contradictions resolved or not in thecourse of the study?

� What are the implications of the trajectories of contradictions forteacher development in the paired placement context?

2. Theoretical framework

2.1. Activity theory

2.1.1. Key tenetsActivity theory has origins in Kant, Hegel, Marx and Engels, and

the Soviet Russian socio-cultural psychology of Vygotsky, Leont’ev,Luria and Ilyenkov. It explores the ways sociocultural historicalcontexts shape human activity. It is an evolving theory that hasproven fertile in educational research. There are various strandswithin the tradition, derived in part from divergent readings of thefoundational Russian works (see Bakhurst, 2009; Engeström, 1999;Smagorinsky, 2009). For Bakhurst activity theory is not an“unproblematic, coherent, theoretical paradigm”. He promotes“self-critical dialogue” between its different “styles of thinking”(2009, p. 209).

The research design of the present study draws largely onEngeström (1987, 2001, 2008a, 2008b). The study uses thirdgeneration activity theory, elaborated below, to analyse teacherlearning in the paired-placement context. It also draws on otheractivity theorists including Roth and Tobin (2002), Grossman,Smagorinsky, and Valencia (1999), and Smagorinsky, Cook,Jackson, Moore, and Fry (2004). These different theorists shareseveral broad tenets relevant to the study.

First, human consciousness develops within practical socialactivity settings in which relations between human agent andenvironmental objects are mediated by tools and signs (Engeström,1987; Grossman et al., 1999; Roth & Tobin, 2002; Smagorinsky et al.,2004). The teacher is not solitary but part of a larger social setting(Smagorinsky et al., 2004). Their principal mediating artefacts arepedagogical tools. The process whereby “a person adopts thepedagogical tools available for use in particular social environ-ments”, and “through this process internalizes ways of thinkingendemic to specific cultural practices”, is known as “appropriation”(Grossman et al., 1999, p. 15). Degrees of appropriation range fromlack of appropriation, appropriating a label, appropriating surfacefeatures, appropriating conceptual underpinnings, to achievingmastery (pp. 16e18). Appropriation of tools when happening

Potentially s

Subject Object

Mediating tools/ artefacts

Rules Community Division

of labour

Fig. 1. Two interacting activity systems: minimal model for third generation activity th

involves adaptations and modifications (Athanases et al., 2008;Newell & Connors, 2011) rather than straight-up internalization. Inthe present study, Hien and Chinh demonstrated different levels ofappropriation of pedagogical tools, such as video clips for teachingEnglish.

Second, the unit of analysis is the collective activity system(Engeström,1987,1999; Roth, 2012). In the present study the unit ofdata collection and analysis is the teachers’ (joint) activity system ofteaching English, in which they are also learning “to be someonewho teaches” (Akkerman & Meijer, 2011, p. 317).

Third, the driving force of change and development in activitysystems is internal contradiction, as powerfully conceptualized byIlyenkov (1977, see also Engeström, 1987, 2001; Roth, 2012; Roth &Tobin, 2002). In a parallel approach Smagorinsky et al. (2004) seetensions that “require a socially contextualized intellectual reso-lution” (p. 22) as potentially productive for teacher identityformation.

2.1.2. Third generation activity theoryThird generation activity theory develops conceptual tools for

understanding dialogue, multiple perspectives and voices, andnetworks of interacting activity systems (Engeström, 2001). Thethird generation model includes at least two activity systems witha potentially shared object (Fig. 1).

The subject of an activity system is a person or group withagency (Engeström, 2001). In the present study the subject is the STwhose activity is influenced by the sociocultural historical contextwithin which he/she teaches and learns to teach. Object describesthe orientation of the activity, derived from motivation to achievean outcome. There is no objectless activity (Engeström, 2008a). TheST’s motive could be to perform a student teaching task successfullyfor assessment purposes, or to promote student learning. Themediating tools/artefacts used by the STs include lesson plans,rehearsals, video clips, and other pedagogical tools.

The study conceptualizes planning and teaching in pairs asa joint-activity system, that is the interacting activity systems oftwo individual teachers, embedded in their broader socioculturalhistorical context. Their common object could be (teaching) thestudents. This framework enables the researcher to analyse howthe individual teacher’s professional learning emerges fromwithineach individual system, and interacts with the other system.

In Fig. 1 the mediated relationship between subject and objectoccurs within a sociocultural setting that includes community, rulesand division of labour. Within the paired-placement model,community refers to the teaching pair, other STs in the cohort,supervising teacher, and classroom students. In impacting uponstudent teaching activity this community could support or hinderprofessional learning. Rules refer to explicit and implicit regula-tions, norms, and conventions that constrain actions and interac-tions within the activity system (Engeström, 2008a). Here, they

hared object

Object

Mediating tools/ artefacts

Division

of labour

Community Rules

Subject

eory (Center for Activity Theory and Developmental Work Research, 2003e2004).

Dang T.K.A. / Teaching and Teacher Education 30 (2013) 47e59 49

include the professional and cultural rules regulating co-workingactivity and social relationships between the paired STs as bothfriends and colleagues. Division of labour refers to work relation-ships and power relationships between members of the commu-nity, including between the ST pair.

Activity systems emerge and can be transformed over time.Contradictions within activity systems generate disturbance butdrive change and development (Engeström, 2001) on a collectivebasis, through innovations in activity designed to resolve thosecontradictions. Third generation activity theory has been appliedby Engeström himself and others to research in different settings,including formal school settings (e.g. Cross, 2009; Engeström,2008b; Junor Clarke & Fournillier, 2012; Tsui & Law, 2007).

2.2. ZPD and perezhivanie

2.2.1. Zone of proximal development (ZPD) and contradictionsVygotsky introduced the concept of ZPD to elucidate the role of

social conditions in the development of thinking (Moll, 1990, p. 12).He saw thinking as a characteristic not just of the child but of thechild-in-social-activities with others (Moll, 1990). What childrencan perform collaboratively or with assistance today, they canperform independently and competently tomorrow. ZPD is:

the distance between the actual developmental level as deter-mined by independent problem solving and the level ofpotential development as determined through problem solvingunder adult guidance or in collaboration with more capablepeers (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86).

Moll (1990) states that children “internalize and transform thehelp they receive from others”, using this guidance “to direct theirsubsequent problem-solving behaviours.” Therefore “the nature ofsocial transactions is central to a zone of proximal developmentanalysis” (p. 11). In the present study Vygotsky’s ZPD is used toexamine what the STs could accomplish by performing collabora-tively or with assistance today as an indication of what they couldperform independently tomorrow. Paired placement, as a teaching/learning strategy, can be understood as an institutional embodi-ment of ZPD. Arguably, paired placement here either enlarged theZPD (as is apparent in Hien’s case) or provided scaffolding foractivities within the ZPD (as is apparent in Chinh’s case).

In Vygotsky’s work ZPD indicated a change of analytical focus,from sign-mediated activity to socially mediated activity, and fromthe individual-as-such to the individual-in-social-activity (Minick,1985; Moll, 1990). However, he retained “the significance of signand tool mediation in understanding human learning and devel-opment” (Moll, 1990, p. 5). This change in theorization helped toground the later shift to activity under Leont’ev. In further devel-oping Vygotsky’s ZPD, Engeström defines it as “the distancebetween the present everyday actions of the individuals and thehistorically new form of societal activity that can be collectivelygenerated” (1987, p. 174). New forms of societal activity aregenerated by contradictions. Contradictions are not the same asproblems or conflicts. They are “historically accumulating struc-tural tensions within and between activity systems.” (Engeström,2001, p. 137) Within an activity system, they include tensionswithin each of its components and tensions between its two ormore constituent components (Engeström, 2008a,b).

Tensions are not necessarily obstructive. They can be potentiallyproductive in creating an environment conducive to professionallearning. In the present study the collective journey of the STsthrough their ZPD is mapped in terms of contradictions in their jointactivity system, and how those contradictions were resolved or notover a period of time. This trajectory shaped the potential andprocess of development. Contradictions weremanifest as tensions in

the negotiation of STs’ multiple identities (see Section 2.3) withinpaired placement, for example, friends versus colleagues, or studentsversus teachers.

2.2.2. PerezhivanieTogether with ZPD, Vygotsky developed the interrelated

concept of perezhivanie in the last years of his life (Mahn & John-Steiner, 2008). Perezhivanie describes “the affective processesthrough which interactions in the ZPD are individually perceived,appropriated, and represented by the participants” (p. 49). Vygot-sky’s Russian notion of ‘perezhivanie’ has been roughly translated as‘emotional experience’ (Vygotsky, 1994), or ‘intensely-emotional-lived-through-experience’ (Ferholt, 2010, p. 164). Smagorinskyrefers to ‘meta-experience’; that is, ‘how one experiences one’sexperiences’, noting that “people frame and interpret their expe-riences through interdependent emotional and cognitive means,which in turn are related to the setting of new experiences” (2011,p. 337). Vygotsky used perezhivanie in studying the relationshipbetween child development and its setting, writing of finding “theparticular prism through which the influence of the environmenton the child is refracted”:

. the child’s emotional experience [perezhivanie], in other wordshow a child becomes aware of, interprets, [and] emotionally relatesto a certain event. This . prism . determines the role andinfluence of the environment on the development of, say, thechild’s character, his psychological development, etc. (Vygotsky,1994, p. 341, emphasis in original)

The “prism” encompassed both the child’s cognition (“aware of,interprets”) and emotion (“emotionally relates to a certain event”).Vygotsky noted that “if children possess varying levels ofawareness. the same event will have a completely differentmeaning for them” (1994, p. 343). Their responses were affected bydiffering emotional experiences, which in turn related to thecognitive meaning they made of the situation. When the situationchanged, sometimes one component of personality playeda primary role, sometimes another. In analysing how an environ-ment influenced child development, it was important to identifywhich characteristics were decisive in determining the child’srelationship to the situation (Vygotsky, 1994). In the present study,these characteristics include the various components of teacheridentity, and the tensions between them.

2.3. Teacher learning as identity formation

Learning to teach is “learning to think like a teacher, learning toknow like a teacher, learning to feel like a teacher and learning to actlike a teacher” (Feiman-Nemser, 2008, p. 698, emphasis in original).For Kelchtermans and Hamilton (2004 in Akkerman &Meijer, 2011)it moves beyond learning to ‘know how to teach’ to learning ‘to besomeone who teaches’ (p. 317). Teacher identity development is animportant component of learning to teach (Alsup, 2006).

In a critical review of the research Akkerman and Meijer (2011)describe teacher identity as unitary and multiple, continuous anddiscontinuous, individual and social. The identity of someone whoteaches is

an ongoing process of negotiating and interrelating multiple I-positions in suchaway that amore or less coherent and consistentsense of self is maintained throughout various participations andself-investments in one’s (working) life (p. 315).

The definition suggests the dynamic nature of teacher identity,its social origin, and the tensions in its construction. “The presenceof multiple, possibly conflicting I-positions” is especially helpful in

Dang T.K.A. / Teaching and Teacher Education 30 (2013) 47e5950

understanding identity “when teachers face dilemmas or tensionsthroughout their work” (p. 311). The natural desire for a consistentand coherent sense of self motivates the self to create a dialogicalspace between different I-positions. Thus “the self is also a negoti-ated space” (p. 312).

From an activity theory perspective, Smagorinsky et al. (2004)likewise view teacher identity formation as a process of negotia-tion between different conceptions of teaching. STs see themselvesas students in university settings but as teachers in school settings,triggering tensions in their self-construction of teaching identity.Further:

Learning to teach is thus in part a process of constructing anidentity in the midst of systems of relations. During studentteaching, there are multiple systems of relations involved inoverlapping, often conflicting activity settings that make thisidentity formation quite challenging. (Smagorinsky et al.,2004, p. 10)

In a similar vein, Grossman et al. (1999) argue that activitytheory can help:

.understand how prospective teachers and those around themdefine the problems they face and how they engage in solvingthese problems, using the resources around them. This processcontributes to the identities that they develop as teachers. (p.12)

2.3.1. Teacher identity and perezhivanieThese accounts of teacher identity parallel Vygotsky’s account of

perezhivanie. Both constructs refer to relations between subject andenvironment, such as how one engages with the settings(Grossman et al., 1999) or multiple systems of social relations(Smagorinsky et al., 2004). Perezhivanie varies depending on whichcharacteristics of personality are at play in the given situation; theteacher adopts identities, and shifts between them, in response torelevant others such as colleagues, to time and to context(Akkerman & Meijer, 2011).

Perezhivanie is especially relevant to the present study in threeways. First, it helps to explain how the individual STs constructeddifferent meanings of the same planning and teaching event,depending on how they each emotionally related to that event,reflecting Moll’s (1990) view that: “Change within a ZPD is usuallycharacterized as individual change” (p. 12). Vygotsky considers“emotion and human development to be reciprocally related to oneanother” (Smagorinsky, 2011). Second, it identifies both emotionaland cognitive dimensions of teacher development: in research intoteacher development, the former is often overlooked. How the STswere aware of, interpreted and emotionally related to paired-placement events all influenced their actions in their environ-ment. Third, the concepts of perezhivanie and identity togethershed light on professional development within paired placement.The teachers’ identities influenced how they cognitively andaffectively experienced their experiences. Likewise, their cognitiveand affective response to experience could affect their identityformation, strengthening, weakening, or transforming certainidentities. Their identities thus help to explain the ‘prism’ throughwhich the context affected learning.

Akkerman and Meijer (2011) note studies of changing teachingidentities have yet to identify ‘what’ is shifting and what deter-mines the direction of shift. Beijaard, Meijer, and Verloop (2004)call for research into the role of context in professional identityformation, and research perspectives other than cognitive ones.The role of affect in teacher identity formation has been acknowl-edged, either explicitly or implicitly (Alsup, 2006; Smagorinsky,Lakly, & Johnson, 2002), but still seems under-researched.

In adopting an activity theory perspective plus Vygotky’s ZPD andperezhivanie, to illuminate two teachers’ professional developmentover time, this study contributes to filling in those gaps.

3. Method

The present study is part of a larger research project concerningthe learning-to-teach-English practices of a cohort of 10 pairs ofVietnamese student teachers (see Dang, 2012; Dang & Marginson,2012). The present study focuses solely on one of the ten dyads,Hien and Chinh (these are pseudonyms to ensure participantanonymity). They were selected because their pair interactionswere sufficiently complex and varied to allow a wide range ofdevelopmental aspects to be explored. Hien and Chinh wererepresentative of the cohort in terms of gender, background,including prior teaching experience, and length of participation.

3.1. Context and participants

3.1.1. ContextThe larger research project was conducted in the settings of a ST

practicum at a university in Vietnam. The teachers, all females intheir early twenties, had been selected as high achieving studentsof English for a special four-year course in English LanguageTeaching (ELT). The practicum, in their final year, consisted of15-weeks teaching English to second year university students. TheSTs worked in pairs for planning and teaching lessons. They werepaired by ballot. All lessons were observed by one of the universitysupervisors, and the other STs in the cohort. Lessons were followedby feedback sessions involving the supervisor and STs. This modelof teacher education (TE) had been used at the university for eightyears prior to the research.

Most participants, including Hien and Chinh, chose to beteachers because in Vietnam teaching is seen as a noble professionand highly suitable for women. In the Confucian tradition theteacher is a benchmark of morality, the most important source ofknowledge, and the highest authority in the classroom. Englishteaching has gained popularity since the country opened itself tothe world in the 1986 Doi Moi reform, which replaced centralplanning with a regulated market economy. Vietnam joined theWorld Trade Organization in 2007. The growth of internationalbusiness, including transnational education, has multipliedEnglish-related jobs and demand for English teaching skills. Englishnow enjoys special status as means of communication and 99.1 percent of junior secondary schools teach English (Do, 1999; Nguyen &Nguyen, 2007).

3.1.2. The teaching dyad: Hien and ChinhHien and Chinh had been friends for three years, though not

very close. Hien lived in the city with her family. Chinh was fromthe countryside and lived away from home. They had workedtogether in group and pair projects in the first three years atuniversity. Each emphasized they had worked well together,peacefully, with little argument. Consensus was easy to reach.However they had not found the outcome productive, and haddifferent views of collaboration. Hien emphasized the need forpartners to be critical in order to improve the quality of ideas.Chinh, however, preferred harmony and described herself as happywhen there was little argument. Their personal histories were alsodifferent.

3.1.2.1. Hien. Hien appeared cheerful, friendly, confident, andarticulate. She had long lived in an environment where peopleappreciated the English language. Her elder sister was fluent inEnglish and worked for Sony Ericsson. Hien attended a Hanoi

Table 1Data sources and focus of data collection and analysis.

Pre-service teachers

Data sources Focus of data collection and analysis

Pre-interviews with individualteacher (N ¼ 2)

Experience as language teacher/tutorExperience as language learnerPersonal backgroundPrevious group/pair work experience

Post-teaching interviews withindividual teacher (N ¼ 8)

Perceptions of the paired placementexperience: lesson by lesson, both planningand teaching stages

Dang T.K.A. / Teaching and Teacher Education 30 (2013) 47e59 51

school for talented students specializing in foreign languages andparticipated in the national contest for high-achieving students inEnglish. She had prior experience teaching English as a one-on-onetutor for school students and a classroom assistant at an interna-tional foreign language centre. She seemed confident whenrecalling her teaching experience:

At the beginning, some of my students did not like to learn, didnot want to learn English, but I was able to create a relaxedatmosphere. Now almost all of my students like English better.(Hien, Pre-interview, p. 15)

Joint activity system of co-teaching and itsevolutionSystemic contradictions in the joint activitysystemTrajectory of contradictionsRelevant biographical details

Classroom observations duringpaired placement(N ¼ 4; 240 min)

Pair interaction during the lessonsUses of teaching toolsSocial context of teaching

Video-recordings of lessonstaught by the pair(N ¼ 4; 240 min)

Pair interaction during the lessonsUses of teaching toolsSocial context of teaching

Artefacts (lesson plans,instructional materials, emailcorrespondence betweenpartners when planninglessons, etc.)

Evidence of planned division of teachingtasks between the partnersEvidence of use of teaching toolsEvidence of pair interactions whenplanning lessons

3.1.2.2. Chinh. Chinh looked calm but became emotional in severalinterviews. Her family was not well off financially. Chinh eased herparents’ burden by working as a part-time teacher assistant fora foreign language centre in Hanoi. She supported herself by privatetutoring. Like Hien she participated in the national contest for highschool students gifted in English and won a prize. However, hertransition from high school to university was painful. Unlike Hien,who knew English pronunciation from a very young age, beforeChinh entered university she experienced listening, speaking andwriting as alien. She described her experience of entering the TEprogram as frightening:

It was really scary, because all I had was grammar. In the Fast-track program, you need to learn Listening, Speaking, Readingand Writing. (Chinh, Pre-interview, p. 16)

Chinh believed teaching was often a matter of accommo-dating students and their emotional needs. Having fun was animportant motivator. But Chinh found motivation a challenge: “Itis hard to make them like foreign languages” (Chinh, Pre-interview, p. 19).

3.2. Data collection

As noted, the unit of analysis is the joint-activity system in eachteaching round. In the practicum Hien and Chinh taught fourlessons. Each round comprised co-planning and co-teaching onelesson. To plan each lesson Hien and Chinh met face-to-face, andcommunicated via Internet chat tools and emails. Teaching taskswere shared.

The data consist of individual semi-structured interviews inVietnamese with each ST prior to the practicum (pre-interviews)and after each lesson (post-teaching interviews); video-recordingsand observations of the lessons; field notes of observations duringthe lessons; and artefacts like lesson plans, instructional materialsand other documents (see summary in Table 1). Post-teachinginterviews were conducted within 48 h of each lesson tostrengthen data reliability (Nunan, 1992). The semi-structuredinterview format enabled open-ended questioning around thethemes of the research. All interviews were recorded and tran-scribed verbatim. Field notes, instructional materials, and lessonplans were used as stimuli in interviews and to enhance reliability,triangulating findings from interviews.

3.3. Data analysis

3.3.1. Analysis of each teaching roundThe primary data source was the interview transcripts. The

interviews provided much insight into ST learning, and into rela-tions between the STs and their context. At times in interview theSTs were asked to recall relevant biographical details (see Table 1),generating data that helped to explain their experiences in thepracticum.

In data analysis the researcher first reviewed the video-recordings, observations, and artefacts for each teaching round tore-activate field knowledge and begin to reconstruct the observablecomponents of Hien and Chinh’s joint activity system, such asidentification of the artefacts they used. Then the interview tran-scripts were analysed line by line using a directed content analysisprocedure (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005, pp. 1281e1283) with thesupport of Transana, a software package for transcription andqualitative analysis of audio data. Initial coding categories werebased on the subject, object, tools/artefacts, rules, community anddivision of labour in each of the four joint-activity system (i.e. eachteaching round), as advised by Barab, Evans, and Baek (2004).

The analytical method was also informed by prior research intoteacher practice using activity theory (Cross, 2006; Engeström,2008a,b; Roth & Tobin, 2002; Tsui & Law, 2007; Yamagata-Lynch& Haudenschild, 2009) including research on pair-work (Cross,2009; Storch, 2004). This prior research guided refinements inthe coding of each sub-category. (See Table 2 for a summary of thecoding scheme used to reconstruct the pair’s joint activity system.)The strategy of relying on prior research was important for tworeasons. First, there is much controversy over the use of culturalhistorical activity theory (Junor Clarke & Fournillier, 2012),a discussion which is beyond the scope of this paper. Second, thereare different methodological approaches to using concepts andprinciples from activity theory (see Barab et al., 2004; Yamagata-Lynch, 2010). Indeed, as noted, there are various strands withinthe tradition.

Drawing on related studies, this study presents one suchapproach to research design.

For each teaching round, Hien and Chinh’s individual interviewswere analysed separately, using the code scheme presented inTable 2. They were then compared and contrasted to identify themisalignments perceived by the teachers. Contradictions withinthe joint-activity systemwere then distilled, helping to explain thetensions or challenges in pair work (see Table 3 for a summary ofmajor contradictions and their occurrences). Because the analysisfocused on identifying systemic contradictions and their trajecto-ries within a limited time period, nuances, suggesting qualitative

Table 2Codes and sub-categories to identify joint activity system.

Codes Sub-categories from the data setLevel 1

Sub-categories from the data setLevel 2

Subject Teacher’s prior teaching experience Years of teachingClassroom teachingOne-on-one tutoringAdult studentsSchool children

Teacher’s experience as language learner Years of learning EnglishExposure to CLT(Communicative Language Teaching)Exposure to grammar-translation method(Test and grammar oriented)

Teacher’s personal background Family backgroundRationales to become a teacherTransition to the TE programExperience within the TE program

Teacher’s previous group/pair work experience Working with pair partnerWorking in groups in general

Object Teacher’s conceptions of student teaching Teaching to improve students’ EnglishTeaching as faithful to the lesson plan

Teacher’s orientation towards the collaborative work Collaboration as equal work shareCollaboration as harmonyCollaboration to improve quality of work

Mediational tools & artefacts Resources to perform the perceived paired placed teaching tasksSubject content knowledge Knowledge of English grammar and vocabulary

Knowledge of English pronunciationKnowledge of language skillsEnglish competency

Pedagogical content knowledge Lesson planningKnowledge about the studentsLanguage teaching skillsStudent engagementTeacher-led discussionSmall-group workStudent presentationsModellingUsing instructional materials

Instructional materials PowerPoint slidesVideo clipsGamesHandouts

Syllabus Course programTools for pair-work Internet chat

Email correspondenceFace-to-face meetingRehearsals

Division of labour Perceptions of self and partner’s roles andresponsibilities in the pair-workContribution to co-planning Brainstorming ideas

Improving ideasSearching for teaching materialsFinalizing lesson plan

Contribution to preparation Preparing handoutsCarrying out ICT related tasksPreparing logistics

Contribution to co-teaching Teacher talk-timeTeacher control of lessonTeacher interruption (of each other)Teacher correction (of each other)Share of teaching tasks

Power relationship between pairpartners and others in the communityIn co-planning, preparation,& co-teaching stages

Who took the lead in planning?Who made major decisions?Who controlled the lesson?Who controlled the process?Who gave feedback?

Community Teachers’ identification of the broadercommunity regulating the performance of the activityPair partnerOther peersUniversity supervising teacherStudentsOthers Teaching colleagues

Previous (school) teachersFamily

Dang T.K.A. / Teaching and Teacher Education 30 (2013) 47e5952

Table 2 (continued )

Codes Sub-categories from the data setLevel 1

Sub-categories from the data setLevel 2

Rules Teacher’s perceptions of explicit and implicitrules that regulated the activityProfessional rules Teaching correctly

Start/finish on timeFollowing syllabus

Cultural rules Keeping face for partnersKeeping face for studentsStudents subject to teacher’s authorityIndirectness with partnerAvoiding confronting problems

Class rules Co-teachingGiving feedback

Collaboration rules Equal responsibilitiesEqual rolesReaching consensusPolite turn taking

Dang T.K.A. / Teaching and Teacher Education 30 (2013) 47e59 53

rather than quantifiable changes, were significant. Hence ‘occur-rences’, rather than ‘frequencies’ of the incidence of contradictionswere deemed appropriate to this study. Analysis of the differentcomponents of data was interactive and cross-referenced. Forexample, findings from the interviews that revealed teachers’interrupting each other during the lesson prompted further anal-ysis of the video-recordings. See Fig. 2 for a diagrammaticdescription of the pair’s joint activity system and identifiedcontradictions. The left triangle represents Hien’s activity systemand the right triangle represents Chinh’s activity system of co-teaching.

3.3.2. Analysis across the teaching roundsData from the four joint-activity systems were content analysed

and cross-referenced to see if the identified contradictions wereresolved or not in subsequent systems (Table 3), mapping theevolution of joint activity and professional development over time.

4. Findings

The findings are reported in the sequence of the researchquestions: contradictions; trajectories of development; and impli-cations for teacher professional development. Data analysis iden-tified threemain contradictions in the joint-activity systems, tracedover the four teaching rounds, between: 1) subjects and objects ofactivity; 2) subjects and division of labour within the community;3) the community and mediational tools (Fig. 2 refers to thecontradictions, using the numbers 1e3).

Hien and Chinh drew on different and conflicting identities intheir co-teaching and co-planning activities. The respective dispo-sitions triggered contradictions that affected the way theyperceived their experiences, cognitively and affectively. As thecontradictions became identified, with some partly resolved, there

Table 3Contradictions and occurrences.

Contradiction Definition

1. Subject e object Conflicting perceptions of studentteaching: student learning versusbeing faithful to the lesson plan

2. Subject e division of labour Unequal division of roles andresponsibilities, and unequalpower relationship

3. Community e mediational tools Tensions attributed to differentlevels of appropriation of pedagogical to

was continual reflection and change in the pair’s joint-activitysystems. Both Hien and Chinh worked within their jointly-createdZPD on the identified contradictions, leading to qualitativechange in their professional development. Chinh appeared to bedeveloping a teacher identity in addition to her continued studentidentity. Hien, on the other hand, appeared to be developinga mentor and colleague identity in addition to her continuedteacher identity.

4.1. Contradiction between subjects and objects of activity

Hien and Chinh entered the practicum with conflictingconceptions of student teaching. In their joint activity system, theyworked towards different objects. Throughout the four teachingrounds, apparently Hien’s object was student learning, comingfrom her strong teacher identity. Hien’s object contradicted Chinh’sobject of faithfulness to lesson plans, resulting from her dispositionas a student. Chinh’s object for her took priority over being flexibleto students’ needs. In the later teaching rounds the contradictionwas partly resolved when Chinh began to realise the need todevelop her role as a teacher and partly transformed her object tostudent learning.

From the first teaching round, Hien emphasized teacherauthority, which she wanted. She talked about being flexible withlesson plans and addressing students’ learning needs. In the secondround, this positioning shaped her definition of collaboration: “Thebottom line [of collaboration] is to achieve the objective of thelesson.” In round three, her disposition as a teacher was alsodemonstrated in the way she helped one student in response tothat student’s need. “I had not expected to spend that much timehelping her with her pronunciation”, said Hien. She appearedconfident and articulate about her role as a teacher, which seemedto derive from her successful prior teaching experience.

Occurrence

Lesson 1; Lesson 2; Lesson 3; Lesson 4 (partially resolved)

Lesson 1; Lesson 2 (partially resolved); Lesson 4 (partially resolved)

olsLesson 1; Lesson 2; Lesson 3; Lesson 4

Desirable outcomes?

- Student learning - Teacher learning about teaching - Good assessment results for the PSTs - Good collaboration

Subject 2:

ST: CHINH

Obj 1b:

TP: faithful

to LP

Mediating tools/ artefacts:

Lesson plans, instructional materials, other pedagogical tools…

Rules:

Class rules Collaboration rules Professional rules Cultural rules

Community:

Pair partner Other peers Students Supervising lecturer

Division of labour:

-Co-planning & teaching

-Giving comments on LP and lesson

Subject 1:

ST: HIEN Obj 1a:

SL - TC

Mediating tools/ artefacts:

Lesson plans, instructional materials, other pedagogical tools…

Rules:

Professional rules Cultural rules Class rules Collaboration rules

Community:

Pair partner Other peers Students Supervising lecturer

Division of labour:

-Co-planning & teaching

-Giving comments on LP and lesson

[1] [1]

[2]

[3]

[3]

[2]

Obj 1a Obj 1b

Shared

Object?

ST=Student teacher SL=Student learning TC=Teacher collaboration TP=Teacher performance LP=Lesson plan Obj= Object =Contradiction

Fig. 2. Joint activity system of Hien and Chinh (adapted from Engeström, 2001, p. 136; Tsui & Law, 2007, p. 1293).

Dang T.K.A. / Teaching and Teacher Education 30 (2013) 47e5954

Unlike Hien, Chinh saw herself as a ‘student’ almost throughoutthe practicum. This identity seemed to influence how she perceivedand processed the emotional aspects of the experience. In the firstteaching round, she referred to the university supervising lectureras a figure of authority in defining who she was in the practicum:

Ms. Vien (the University lecturer) said, why we are here, we arehere to tutor, not to teach them. We are here to try to help, helpthem. (Chinh, Rnd1 Interview, p. 20)

She emphasized that teachers must be faithful to lesson plans.Student teaching, as she saw it, was performing to the observers ofthe lesson, her classmates and the supervising lecturer. In roundthree, Chinh still saw teaching from a student’s perspective. Sheexpressed her concern about being “blamed”, “reprimanded” andgaining a “bad reputation” if she taught something badly. Theperezhivanie seemed connected to her painful transition into the TEprogram, as described earlier. Chinh’s focus appeared to be oncontrolling the lesson. Shewasmost comfortablewhen things wentas planned.

Co-planning the lesson with Hien challenged Chinh’s dispositionas a student. Commenting on the lesson plan, she reluctantly said: “ifit is to help them [the students], the major part should come to thefront, and no need for a warmer”, indicating she was negotiating thetwo roles. The dyad’s interactions during co-planning and co-teaching appeared to scaffold Chinh’s development of a teacheridentity. In round two, in Chinh’s words, she “just sat and listenedattentively, without noting down details”, so she could provide only“superficial” feedback to students. Not until Hien started givingdetailed comments, did Chinh comprehend “focusing on key areasfor the students to improve later on”. The incident suggests Chinhwas experiencing a transition from student to teacher, with muchawareness of it when her object inclined towards student learning.In the last lesson Chinh showed better awareness of the issue, whilestill struggling between the two positions:

I realized that I did not put myself completely in the position ofa tutor. It was because I forgot that I should be helping the

students, not testing them. That was why I went through thelesson so fast and went straight to the exercises. (Chinh, Rnd4Interview, p. 21)

The excerpt also suggests how her teaching identity influencedher teaching practice, and the meaning she made of the experi-ence. It shows Chinh’s increased understanding of Hien’s viewthat they should divert from the lesson plan if necessary tofacilitate student learning. From an activity theory perspective,with active pair-work, the object of Chinh’s activity was undertransformation, and a new historical form of activity was information.

4.2. Contradiction between subjects and division of labour in thecommunity

Hien and Chinh came to pair-work with different perceptions ofit, a difference compounded by the contradictions between objectsin their joint-activity system. These differences created tensions inboth co-planning and co-teaching, manifest in the unequal divisionof power and labour between the STs. These contradictionsrecurred. Both Hien and Chinh tried to resolve them tactfully. BothSTs developed in this process. Hien learned more about how tocollaborate and developed her identity as colleague/mentor inrelation to Chinh, in addition to her continued teacher identity.Chinh’s orientation still came from her identity as a student but sheseemed to learn about co-teaching.

4.2.1. Co-planningThe contradiction involving unequal division of power and

labour between the teachers arose in planning for the first teachinground. They negotiated between their identities as friends and ascolleagues. Hien admitted finding herself dominant in the planningprocess. She made final decisions regarding the lesson, whileexpecting Chinh to be critical and active in developing Hien’s ideas.Chinh chose to be low-key. Preferring harmony, a desirable trait ofa Confucian culture, she expressed herself content because they did

Dang T.K.A. / Teaching and Teacher Education 30 (2013) 47e59 55

not argue much. She recognized, however, that their contributionsto planning were unequal.

Hienwas aware of the unequal division of labour and power, andattempted to resolve it by setting for herself a hidden rule. Infocusing on equal work sharing, she appeared to be developinga colleague/mentor identity in relation to Chinh. She insisted Chinhtake the lead:

The first time, I presented my ideas first, I still remember that.Then in the following rounds, I let Chinh speak first. In fact I hadideas, but after several times working with Chinh, I realized thatshe was quite easy. For example, any ideas I proposed she wouldok immediately. So I thought I would let her speak first, thenweboth improve the ideas. But not me presenting ideas first. (Hien,Rnd4 Interview, p. 5)

The journey to resolution was not smooth. In round two, thecontradiction seemed partially resolved when Hien let Chinh leadthe planning. However, after their face-to-face meeting Hienexpressed her dissatisfaction with the agreed plan. She activelysought advice from other people in improving the lesson. Shesuggested major changes in the lesson plan and convinced Chinh toagree. To Hien, her object of achieving good student learning tookpriority over the need to even up the pair work. Her identity asa teacher again seemed to overwhelm her position as a friend.Chinh “felt ashamed as Hien made most of the contributions”. Thecontradiction recurred.

The contradiction seemed to be resolved in round three whenboth Hien and Chinh were equally engaged in planning, despitetheir lack of confidence in the subject matter, pronunciation.Collaboration during planning lessened the challenges in teachingpronunciation. Hien continued encouraging Chinh to lead co-planning. She described herself as pleased with Chinh’s efforts inpreparing the lesson and giving critical feedback on the pair’s ideas.Chinh’s engagement with planning had improved. Chinh appearedhappy with the co-planning process, which she believed was equal.

The contradiction recurred in round four, when Chinh’sengagement subsided. Chinh led the planning but failed to providecritical comments to develop the lesson. Hien found the materialsprepared by Chinh to be irrelevant. They both looked for othermaterials. Hien tried to accommodate Chinh’s involvement in theplanning, but she still played the key role in decision making.

The trajectory of this contradiction in co-planning suggests theneed for collective resolution, not a hidden, individually led reso-lution. To achieve satisfactory identity formation, what was neededwas mutual awareness and engagement in the collective resolutionof the contradiction. Given the social origin of identity, individualswith whom a person interacts are significant to the self. Theymotivate a person to act and develop in specific directions(Akkerman & Meijer, 2011). The observation was true of both Hienand Chinh.

4.2.2. Co-teachingTwo major tensions emerged and recurred during co-teaching

which seemed largely resolved in the later rounds. The way Hienand Chinh handled these contradictions in the last round wascognitively and intellectually more advanced than in previousrounds when their responses were either emotional or spontaneous.

The first contradiction involved the unequal division of labour inco-teaching, manifest in the STs’ unequal share of teacher talk time.In the first lesson, Chinh felt the teaching tasks were unequallydivided. She noted the part assigned for Hien took much longerthan planned, which Chinh said made her uncomfortable. She sawthe division of teacher talk time as the indicator of whether thelesson contributions were equal. She wanted to interrupt Hien butdecided not to. She seemed to be negotiating the tension between

her identity as a student (teacher) and identity as a colleague. Thiscontradiction was manifested in her interpretation of the studentteaching requirements (fair share of teaching time) and herperception of pair-work (maintain harmony which prohibitsinterruption).

In lesson four, Chinh appeared to be more conscious of thetension. She handled it while increasing her presence in the lesson.She finally interrupted Hien during a later section:

I was afraid that if Hien had completed that section [on her own],it would be too long. And so I asked: “Can I help you?”, knowingthe answer would be “Yes”, because by asking that question, Iexpressed my need to interrupt, then Hien had to say “Yes”. Itwas just because I wanted to avoid solo-teaching, meaning onlyone person teaching the lesson. (Chinh, Rnd4, pp. 29e30)

Chinh had prepared her act by reading the part of the lesson thatHienwas leading and carefully planning how best to interrupt. Hienfelt surprised by Chinh’s move but welcomed it. By re-interpretingpast experiences and taking action, Chinh seemed to have resolvedthe conflict between two identities and maintained some conti-nuity in her identity formation (Akkerman & Meijer, 2011, p. 313).The continuity was accompanied by a higher level of cognitionwhereby she demonstrated increased awareness of the experience.

The second contradictionwas manifested in Hien’s correction ofChinh’s mistakes. In the first lesson, Hien observed as Chinh wasteaching, and intervened immediately when she felt Chinh’sinstruction was unclear. In the second round, the tension recurred.However, when reflecting on the incident, Hien found it wrong tointervene while Chinh was in charge. Her understanding of thepurpose of the lesson (student understanding) conflicted with herperception of pair-work (the necessity to refrain when there areproblems, typical of Vietnamese culture). Her emotional responsesappeared to be “culturally mediated and appropriated”(Smagorinsky, 2011, p. 338). Hien recalled the incident:

The words Chinh gave have vowels before /s/ so the letter /s/must be pronounced as /z/, but she taught it as /s/. I kept onwondering whether I should join in. Finally, I decided to join in,but I think yesterday neither they [the students] not everyoneelse [my classmates] noticed that I intended to make a correc-tion. In fact I was trying to avoid. correcting each other in frontof the class e something absolutely to avoid. Then I thought tomyself, I looked at the students and they looked confused... Theyreally looked confused, so I thought I must speak up... (Hien,Rnd2 Interview, p. 7)

She later explained:

I think, first is to let the students trust the teachers. I hate thisthought but. teachers mostly must not make mistakes. Ingeneral, students will not fully trust teachers if they makemistakes... However, if I point out my partner’s mistake in frontof everyone, first she will lose face. Second, the students willquestion about the tutors: first, the competence of the tutors;second, they would wonder what kind of cooperation it is thatallows tutors to contrast each other right in class like that... If thestudents find out that I pinpointed Chinh’s mistakes, I would notknow what to do. Luckily people did not notice it. I do not wanther to lose face in front of everyone. I need to cooperate well.(Hien, Rnd2 Interview, p. 9)

The excerpts suggest that Hien was facing a conflict betweendifferent rules internal to the teaching profession. One rule dictatesthat teachers must teach correct information. Another rule dictatesthat teachers should not be criticized in front of the students.Keeping each other’s face in public also indicates good

Dang T.K.A. / Teaching and Teacher Education 30 (2013) 47e5956

collaboration from a Vietnamese cultural perspective. The incidentalso reveals Hien’s negotiation between her identity as a teacherand her identity as a cooperative friend/colleague/team member.

In lesson one Hien corrected Chinh’s mistakes; and it was notuntil the second round that she really grasped her dilemma, byengaging in the experience and (re)-interpreting it. Although thetension between her two identities was not resolved, by re-interpreting her experience, she was able to access the concep-tual tool that helped her make sense of the experience and reduceits ambiguity (Akkerman & Meijer, 2011).

In response to the incident, Chinh expressed concern about howthe students felt about the incident, and about her:

I was not fully shocked but I found that the students would besuspicious and would think “as one tutor has corrected like this,then another has to re-correct for her. Then it means she cor-rected us wrongly”. I do not know if they thought like that.Maybe yes. (Chinh, Rnd 2 Interview, p. 11)

Chinh’s identity as a student teacher related to the emotionalresponse that accompanied her teaching. She seemed more con-cerned about her students’ judgement of the incident than abouttheir learning.

In the last lesson, Hien’s internal conflict between the differentprofessional rules was repeated. Despite her belief that she shouldnot correct her partner’s mistakes in front of the class to saveChinh from losing face, she corrected Chinh’s mistake in thislesson, though in a subtle way. She was able to provide correctinstruction to the students but also keep her partner’s face. Thecontradiction seemed largely resolved, in a way that resulted inless confusion about the act of correction and more awareness ofthe collaboration. Hien’s increased understanding informed heraffective reaction to the situation e from having no feeling inround one, ‘correcting immediately’, to feeling torn in round two, tobeing in control and knowing how to intervene in round four. Hersense of identity as a teacher collaborator also increased duringthe process. Her growing understanding and affect to the experi-ence interacted with the learning event and enlarged her ZPD inthe context. Pair-work was both the context and driver of thisprocess.

4.3. Contradiction between community and mediational tools

Observations and interviews suggested that Hien and Chinhwere at different levels of appropriation of pedagogical tools. Thedifference in levels of appropriation explained the contrastingmeanings the STs made of common events, and triggered tensionsin their joint activity. The difference in appropriation seemed torelate to different identities they brought to pair-work. Thedifferent perezhivanie they experienced was manifested in theirdifferent cognitive and affective response to the same experience.The tensions however created opportunities for professionaldevelopment, especially in Chinh’s case.

In lesson one both STs were aware their students were notinterested in the lesson. Each however gave different explanations,and approached the problem differently. Chinh tried to make jokesto get close to the students. She explained that jokes were intendedto create rapport with the students to enable her to understandtheir difficulties. She responded to the situation from a learner’sperspective, drawing on her own experience as a student to makesense of it. Her approach was an affective one, trying to make thestudents feel good and engaged. Hien dealt with the passive class ina more rational manner, and from a teacher’s position. She believedthe problemwas caused by her wrong choice of learning materials.She modified the tasks, providing suggestions and lowering thelevel of requirement.

The use of video clips in lesson three presented differentmeanings to Hien and Chinh. Similar to Newell and Connors’s(2011) study, Chinh’s interview analysis suggested her pseudo-conceptual (Vygotsky, 1987) understanding of how to use videoclips in teaching English pronunciation. Her basis for using thetool was grounded in making the lesson look professional:“students could see that we have a firm foundation to teach thempronunciation”. Her focus was more on the credibility of thelesson and gaining students’ trust rather than on their learning. InHien’s interview, however, she demonstrated a more sophisti-cated understanding of the tool. Hien liked the video files becauseshe wanted the students to listen to native speakers of English tohelp them to communicate in English. Although tools need to beadapted and tailored to local needs (Athanases et al., 2008; Newell& Connors, 2011), Hien and Chinh appeared to be at differentlevels of appropriation (Grossman et al., 1999) of this particulartool.

The differences created discomfort and tensions for the teachersat times but were conducive for teacher learning. Chinh’s appro-priation of pedagogical tools suggests she was closely focused onher own performance. It was still the case in the last lesson:

I was quite nervous at times. In fact the situation was not thatserious to be nervous about. The lesson was to calm down.Calmly dealing with the situation rather than making studentswonder “Oh, dear! She is not okay today”... I felt quite uneasybecause I made so many mistakes, so that affected the smooth-ness of the lesson. (Chinh, Rnd4 Interview, p. 17)

The excerpt however also demonstrates her increased aware-ness of the experience (“the lesson was to calm down”, and “thesituation was not that serious”) in regulating her responses.

Chinh’s perception of lesson planning transformed dramaticallyin the last round as a result of working with Hien. She moved frombeing faithful to the lesson plan to seeing the significance of beingflexible to address students’ learning. During planning, the mate-rials Chinh had chosen were agreed to be irrelevant and werereplaced by new ones. During teaching, the lesson diverted fromthe original plan. They synchronously and spontaneously changedthe last activity. They both took risks. In her reflection of the events,Chinh commented:

I think Hien just wanted to improve the work, the product. Thatexplained why we changed activity one, from the other readingtext to this one. Also that explained why our actual follow-upwas different from our planned one. (Chinh, Rnd 4, P. 16)

The decision to change the follow-up activity was like both of ustaking a spontaneous leap at one snap, like taking full risk.(Chinh, Rnd 4, P. 31)

Chinh became more aware of the rationale behind Hien’schanges in planning and teaching. She had learned that lessonplans should not be rigid. She said she was pleased that:

Everything was changed a bit, a lot compared to the plan, butmore effective, I think more effective than in the original plan.(Chinh, Rnd 4, P. 16)

She realized that the lessonwas more effective with the changesthan it would have been if the original plan was followed. Chinhwas starting to mention the “effectiveness of the lesson”, indicatinga shift towards Hien’s position. Vygotsky “posited that childreninternalize and transform the help they receive from others andeventually use these same means of guidance to direct theirsubsequent problem-solving behaviours.” (Moll, 1990, p. 11). Co-teaching with Hien has provided scaffolding for Chinh’s activitieswithin the ZPD, as Chinh’s final interview showed.

Dang T.K.A. / Teaching and Teacher Education 30 (2013) 47e59 57

5. Discussion

The study offers several findings with implications for teachereducation and for developmental research in the socioculturalactivity theory tradition.

5.1. Social relations, contradictions and ZPD

Studies on teacher learning in collaborative settings emphasizethat “when two student teachers disagree there is an enhanced richpotential for interaction and reflection” (Hargreaves & Jacka, 1995;Nokes et al., 2008, p. 208). Nokes et al. (2008) reported moments oftension arising from paired-placed partners’ incompatiblepersonalities, philosophies of teaching, discipline strategies, andideas about instructional activities. They also documented dialogueand reflection as essential elements of teacher development inpaired-placements. The nature of the tensions in the present studyis distinct from that documented in previous studies (Nokes et al.,2008), in that the findings show the STs experienced contradic-tions in their conflicting perceptions of student teaching (subject/object), the unequal power relationship between them (subject/division of labour), and differing levels of appropriation of peda-gogical tools (community/tools). The present study confirmsprevious research in showing that pair-placements constitute anenvironment featured by tensions, a key element in teacherlearning (Smagorinsky et al., 2004).

One of the most valuable implications of the findings is theunderstanding of how the contradictions emerged, and (some)were resolved, leading to teacher development. Within the pair-placement setting, the teachers operated within their dynamicZPD. The developmental trajectories of the contradictions theyencountered indicate a process of development. As ST awarenessincreased, for the most part their contradictions were recognisedand fully or partially resolved. For example, the ways Hien dealtwith correcting her partner’s mistakes in lessons differed acrossrounds one, two and four. She also demonstrated growing aware-ness of what collaboration meant in the contexts of Vietnam and ofprofessional work. Chinh’s conception of lesson planning changedduring the study, as a result of working with Hien and her obser-vations of Hien’s responses in different pedagogical situations.Chinh moved from adhering to the lesson plan, as commonly doneby beginning teachers (Edwards, 2005), to admitting satisfactionwhen the pair deviated from the plan in response to students’needs. Pair-work mediated both learning to collaborate with otherteachers and learning to respond to students’ needs. The othercontradictions were not resolved but their trajectory indicates thedevelopmental potential of activity systems (Engeström, 1987).

In imagining child development and ZPD Vygotsky (1978)combines forward movement with repetitive cycle. “Develop-ment, as so often happens, proceeds here not in a circle but ina spiral, passing through the same point at each revolution, whileadvancing to a higher level” (Vygostky, 1978, p. 56). As Manningand Payne (1993) remark, “development is not simply quantita-tive increments but qualitative shifts as the unique past experi-ences and previous knowledge of individuals interact with thepresent learning event” (p. 362). In cases where the two STs facedsimilar contradictions several times during the course of the study,without exception their successive responses indicate a progres-sion through ascending levels of consciousness. Their learning wasnot linear but spiral. Their planning, teaching, and reflecting wereincreasingly sophisticated. Consider Chinh. Throughout the fourteaching rounds her identity as a student was tied to her rela-tionship with the supervising teacher. This relationship, emotion-ally and cognitively, reflects a Confucian teacherestudentrelationship typical in Vietnam. This disposition retarded her

evolution as an independent practitioner. She talked of being toldto do things and being nervous when making mistakes. However,pair-work over the four rounds challenged this positioning andtriggered qualitative shifts in her professional identity. She startedto see the need to respond directly to students’ needs (lesson two)and realised she should exercise her role as a tutor (lesson four). Inthe last lesson, she also self-regulated her emotions more effec-tivelye “the situationwas not that serious to be nervous about. Thelesson was to calm down” e indicating a shift in cognition anda stronger teacher identity.

The study also underlines the value of investigating teacherdevelopment in terms of social transactions. Vygotsky emphasizedthe central role of social transactions to a ZPD analysis (Moll, 1990).Social transactions showed repeatedly in the data; for exampleHien’s development of her mentor/colleague identity when inter-acting with Chinh during co-planning or when correcting Chinh’smistakes. The finding is consistent with Cohen’s (2010) thatcolleagues are key actors in the formation of professional identityvia collaborative exchanges.

5.2. Identity formation, perezhivanie and ZPD

Student teaching in a pair-placement setting entails a complexsystem of relations: with teaching tasks and students; withsupervising teacher and observing peers; and with the pair partner.Each relationship is associated with perceived rules and STresponsibilities. For example, as pair-partners, the STs need tosustain and demonstrate collaboration, as in keeping their partners’face in public, and their equal contributions to pair-work.

Learning to teach is a process of constructing an identity in themidst of this system of relations (Smagorinsky et al., 2004). Itmeans becoming a different person with respect to the responsi-bilities enabled by the according systems (Lave &Wenger, 1991). Ananalytical framework derived from activity theory provides oneapparatus for making sense of ST experience. Pair-placementprovided an environment in which professional identity wasformed while also crystallising the tensions between emergent andestablished ST identities.

For Hien there were tensions between her established role asa teacher, with successful prior teaching experience, and heremerging identity as a colleague of Chinh. These roles linked to heremotional and cognitive perceptions of the teaching tasks, relationsto the students, and perceptions of teacher collaboration. Hercontradiction between professional and cultural rules camouflagedthe negotiation of her conflicting identities when working withChinh. With Chinh, as discussed, her identity as a student (teacher)was largely tied to her relationshipwithher supervising teacher. Thisdisposition seemed to frame her affect and cognition in the prac-ticum in a certain way. The pair interactions in co-working createda context in which Chinh’s disposition was challenged. Her identityas a teacher was emerging, amid negotiation between her identitiesas student and colleague. As colleagues, the pair ought to worktowards a shared object, delivering a successful lesson. As suggestedby Akkerman and Meijer (2011), Chinh implicitly constructed andnegotiated her identity in relation to the various people sheencountered, and her community of engagement. Smagorinsky et al.observe, “one’s identity... is not simply the emergence of internaltraits and dispositions but their development through engagementwith others in cultural practice” (2004, p. 21). The present study overfour consecutive lessons also reveals how the teachers brought priorelements into the observable systems of relations.

As noted, Smagorinsky emphasizes that emotion and humandevelopment are reciprocally related to one another (2011). In thepresent study the teachers’ different identities served as ‘prisms’ inexamining the affective and cognitive relations between the STs

Dang T.K.A. / Teaching and Teacher Education 30 (2013) 47e5958

and pair-placement environment. As in Vygotsky’s (1994) analysisof the three children in his lecture on ‘The problem of environ-ment’, Hien and Chinh responded to the same teaching contextdifferently. They demonstrated different levels of understandingand made different meanings out of the situation. The differenceswere attributed to the varying prior elements Hien and Chinhbrought to the situation and the different identities they drew on.They had different relations with the settings, demonstratingdistinctly different perezhivanie, which affected their learningdifferently. While Hien was confident in her established role asa teacher, Chinh was often nervous and worried about being rep-rimanded in her identity as a student. By investigating the nego-tiation of their multiple identities in context it becomes possible tounderstand why they responded differently in pair-placement andachieved different levels of cognition.

6. Conclusion

This paper began by noting the multiple difficulties for STs in thetraditional practicum. Like other research this study in Vietnamsuggests that pair-placement is a promising model for practicumreform. It begins to elucidate the process of how teachers mediatelearning to teach in a collaborative setting. Conflicts within thecollaboration, for example as manifest in the negotiation of teachers’multiple identities as friends, students and becoming teachers,opened up initial opportunities to learn. Findings from this studysuggest that an individual teacher’s identity influences her/hiscognitive and affective perception of an event. Paired-placementcreated an environment whereby the student teachers’ conflictingidentities, associated with different cognitive and affective percep-tions of the experience, were challenged, leading to contradictions.The contradictions in turn enabled the student teachers to work toresolve these contradictions. Through planned and supervisedcollaboration the STs resolved most of the conflicts, leading to qual-itative change in their teachingprofessional identities, though ineachindividual case it was rather different. From an activity theoreticalperspective, shared community, past experiences, division of labour,and potentially shared objects were all part of this process. The studysuggests that more attention needs be paid to the process of collab-oration in paired placements, so as to optimize the resolution ofconflict, and to the conditions that affect teacher learning in pairs.

The present study also highlights “the complexity of learningwhen thought, emotional experience, and practical action arebrought together in the analysis” (Mahn & John-Steiner, 2008, p.47). It has done so by combining in its theoretical frameworkactivity theory and the concepts of contradictions, ZPD and per-ezhivanie. Both “meaning making and affective aspects of socialinteractions affect learning in the ZPD” (p. 50). In addition, theaccounts of Hien’s and Chinh’s identity construction have shed lighton the how andwhat in the shift of teacher identity formation, a gappreviously identified by Akkerman and Meijer (2011). The studysuggests a new line of inquiry into teacher learning in collaborativesettings capable of many further applications.

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by a doctoral scholarship from TheUniversity of Melbourne. The preparation of this manuscript wassupported by a grant from Melbourne Graduate School of Educa-tion, The University of Melbourne.

References

Akkerman, S. F., & Meijer, P. C. (2011). A dialogical approach to conceptualizingteacher identity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(2), 208e319.

Alsup, J. (2006). Teacher identity discourses: Negotiating personal and professionalspaces. Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Athanases, S., Abrams, J., Jack, G., Johnson, V., Kwock, S., McCurdy, J., et al. (2008).Curriculum for mentor development: problems and promise in the work of newteacher induction leaders. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 40(6), 743e770.

Bakhurst, D. (2009). Reflections on activity theory. Educational Review, 61(2),197e210.

Barab, S. A., Evans, M. A., & Baek, E.-U. (2004). Activity theory as a lens for char-acterizing the participatory unit. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research oneducational communication and technology (2nd ed.). (pp. 199e214) Mahwah,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Beijaard, D., Meijer, P., & Verloop, N. (2004). Reconsidering research on teachers’professional identity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(2004), 107e128.

Bullough, R. V., Jr., Young, J., Birrell, J. R., Clark, D. C., Egan, M. W., & Erickson, L.(2003). Teaching with a peer: a comparison of two models of student teaching.Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 57e73.

Bullough, R. V., Jr., Young, J., Erickson, L., Birrell, J. R., Clark, D. C., & Egan, M. W.(2002). Rethinking field experience: partnership teaching versus single-placement teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 68e80.

Center for Activity Theory and Developmental Work Research. (2003). Culturalhistorical activity theory. Retrieved on 02.12.08, from. http://www.edu.helsinki.fi/activity/pages/chatanddwr/chat/.

Cohen, J. L. (2010). Getting recognized: teachers negotiating professional identitiesas learners through talk. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(2010), 473e481.

Cross, R. (2006). Language teaching as activity: A sociocultural perspective on secondlanguage teacher practice. Unpublished PhD thesis. Monash University.

Cross, J. (2009). The development of metacognition of L2 listening: A neo-Vygotskianjoint activity analysis. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Mel-bourne, Melbourne.

Dang, T. K. A. (2012). Impact of globalization on ELT pre-service teacher education ina Vietnamese context: a sociocultural perspective. In C. Gitsaki, & R. Baldauf(Eds.), The Future of Applied Linguistics: Local and Global Perspectives (pp. 140e157). Newcastle upon Tyne, England: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Dang, T. K. A., & Marginson, S. (2012). Global learning through the lens of Vygot-skian sociocultural theory. Critical Studies in Education, 1e17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2012.722557.

Do, H. T. (1999). Foreign language education policy in Vietnam: the emergence ofEnglish and its impact on higher education. In Paper presented at the fourthinternational conference on language and development: Partnership and interac-tion, Hanoi, Vietnam.

Edwards, A. (2005). Relational agency: learning to be a resourceful practitioner.International Journal of Educational Research, 43(3), 168e182.

Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach todevelopmental research. Retrieved 02.12.08, from. http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Paper/Engestrom/expanding/toc.htm.

Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. InY. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R.-L. Punamaki-Gitai (Eds.), Perspectives on activitytheory: Learning in doing (pp. 19e38). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: toward an activity theoreticalreconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133e156.

Engeström, Y. (2008a). From teams to knots: Activity-theoretical studies of collabo-ration and learning at work. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Engeström, Y. (2008b). Crossing boundaries in teacher teams. In Y. Engeström (Ed.),From teams to knots: Activity-theoretical studies of collaboration and learning atwork (pp. 86e117). Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.

Feiman-Nemser, S. (2008). Teacher learning: how do teachers learn to teach? InM. Cochran-Smith, S. Feiman-Nemser, D. J. McIntyre, & K. Demers (Eds.),Handbook of research on teacher education: Enduring questions in changingcontexts (3rd ed.). (pp. 697e705) New York: Routledge and the Association ofTeacher Educators.

Ferholt, B. (2010). A synthetic-analytic method for the study of perezhivanie:Vygotsky’s literary analysis applied to playworlds. In M. C. Connery, V. John-Steiner, & A. Marjanovic-Shane (Eds.), Vygotsky and creativity: A cultural-historical approach to play, meaning making, and the arts (pp. 163e180). NewYork: Peter Lang.

Gardiner, W., & Robinson, K. S. (2009). Paired field placements: a means forcollaboration. The New Educator, 5, 81e94.

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

Hargreaves, A., & Jacka, N. (1995). Induction or seduction? Postmodern patterns ofpreparing to teach. Peabody Journal of Education, 70(3), 41e63.

Heidorn, B., Jenkins, D. B., Harvey, R., & Mosier, B. (2011). The effectiveness of usingpaired placements for student teaching. In Paper presented at the annual meetingof the National Association for Physical Education/American Association for Health,Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, in San Diego, CA, March 2011.

Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis.Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277e1288.

Ilyenkov, E. (1977). Dialectical logic: Essays in its history and theory (Trans. by H.Campbell Creighton). Moscow: Progress.

Johnson, K. E. (1996). The vision versus the reality: the tensions of the TESOLpracticum. In D. Freeman, & J. Richards (Eds.), Teacher learning in languageteaching (pp. 30e49). Cambridge [Eng.] & New York: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Dang T.K.A. / Teaching and Teacher Education 30 (2013) 47e59 59

Junor Clarke, P., & Fournillier, J. (2012). Action research, pedagogy, and activitytheory: tools facilitating two instructors’ interpretations of the professionaldevelopment of four preservice teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education,28(2012), 649e660.

Kelchtermans, G., & Hamilton, M. L. (2004). The dialectics of passion and theory:Exploring the relationship between self-study and emotion. In J. J. Loughran,M. L. Hamilton, V. Kubler LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International Handbook ofSelf-study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices (pp. 785e810). Dordrecht,Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

King, S. (2006). Promoting paired placements in initial teacher education. Interna-tional Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 15(4), 370e386.

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

Mahn, H., & John-Steiner, V. (2008). The gift of confidence: a Vygotskian view ofemotions. In G. Wells, & G. Claxton (Eds.), Learning for life in the 21st century:Sociocultural perspectives on the future of education (pp. 46e58). Oxford, UK:Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 10.1002/9780470753545.ch4.

Manning, B. H., & Payne, B. D. (1993). A Vygotskian-based theory of teachercognition: towards the acquisition of metal reflection and self-regulation.Teaching and Teacher Education, 9(1993), 361e371.

McKeon, F. (2006). Partnerships within a paired teaching placement and support forthe trainee teachers’ professional development. In Paper presented at the 31stannual conference of Association for Teacher Education in Europe, Slovenia,October 2006.

Minick, N. (1985). L.S. Vygotsky and soviet activity theory: New perspectives on therelationship between mind and society. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.

Moll, L. C. (1990). Introduction. In L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instruc-tional implications and applications of sociohistorical psychology (pp. 1e30).Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Newell, G., & Connors, S. (April 2011). “Why to you think that?” A supervisor’smediation of a preservice English teacher’s understanding of instructionalscaffolding. English Education, 43(3), 219e224.

Nguyen, T. M. H., & Nguyen, Q. T. (2007). Teaching English in primary schools inVietnam: an overview. Current Issues in Language Planning, 8(2), 162e173.

Nokes, J. D., Bullough, R. V., Jr., Egan, M. W., Birrell, J. R., & Hansen, J. M. (2008). Thepaired-placement of student teachers: an alternative to traditional placementsin secondary schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 2168e2177.

Nunan, D. (1992). Research methods in language learning. Cambridge; New York, NY,USA: Cambridge University Press.

Roth, M.-W. (2012). Cultural-historical activity theory: Vygotsky’s forgotten andsuppressed legacy and its implication for mathematics education. MathematicsEducation Research Journal, 24, 87e104.

Roth, M.-W., & Tobin, K. (2002). Redesigning an “urban” teacher education program:an activity theory perspective. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 9(2), 108e131.

Smagorinsky, P. (2009). The culture of Vygotsky. Reading Research Quarterly, 44,85e95.

Smagorinsky, P. (2011). Vygotsky’s stage theory: the psychology of art and theactor under the direction of perezhivanie. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 18(4),319e341.

Smagorinsky, P., Cook, L. S., Jackson, A. Y., Moore, C., & Fry, P. G. (2004). Tensions inlearning to teach: accommodation and the development of a teaching identity.Journal of Teacher Education, 55, 8e24.

Smagorinsky, P., Lakly, A., & Johnson, T. (2002). Acquiescence, accommodation, andresistance in learning to teach within a prescribed curriculum. English Educa-tion, 34(3), 187e213.

Smith, J. D. H. (2004). Developing paired teaching placements. Educational ActionResearch, 12(1), 99e125.

Sorensen, P. (2004). Learning to teach collaboratively: the use of subject pairs inschool practicum. Canadian Journal of Education Administration and Policy, 32,1e24.

Storch, N. (2004). Using activity theory to explain differences in patterns ofdyadic interactions in an ESL class. The Canadian Modern Language Review,60, 457e480.

Tsui, A., & Law, D. (2007). Learning as boundary-crossing in school-universitypartnership. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 1289e1301.

Vickery, R., Sharrock, J., Hurst, R., & Broadbridge, J. (2011). What models of pairedtrainee placements in secondary ICT departments provide the kind of envi-ronment that enhances the quality of the placement and improves the men-toring process? In Paper presented at the BERA conference, Institute of Education,London, September 2011.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychologicalprocesses. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thinking and speech. (N. Minick, Trans.). (Orig. 1934). InR. W. Rieber, & A. S. Carton (Eds.), The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky. Problems ofgeneral psychology, Vol. 1 (pp. 37e285). New York: Plenum Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1994). The problem of the environment. In R. van der Veer, &J. Valsiner (Eds.), The Vygotsky reader (pp. 338e354). Oxford: BlackwellPublishers, Retrieved from. http://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/1934/environment.htm.

Westheimer, J. (2008). Learning among colleagues: teacher community and theshared enterprise of education. In M. Cochran-Smith, S. Feiman-Nemser, &D. J. McIntyre (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education: Enduringquestions in changing contexts (3rd ed.). (pp. 756e783) New York: Routledgeand the Association of Teacher Educators.

Yamagata-Lynch, L. (2010). Activity systems analysis methods: Understanding complexlearning environments. New York: Springer.

Yamagata-Lynch, L., & Haudenschild, M. (2009). Using activity systems analysis toidentify inner contradictions in teacher professional development. Teaching andTeacher Education, 25(2009), 507e517.