leander osborne

Upload: mahirahhhh

Post on 03-Jun-2018

248 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

  • 8/11/2019 Leander Osborne

    1/40

    Complex Positioning 1

    Complex Positioning: Teachers as Agents of Curricular and Pedagogical Reform

    Kevin M. Leander

    Department of Teaching and Learning

    ander!ilt "niversit#

    $ashville% T$

    &evin.leander'vander!ilt.edu

    Marger# D. (s!orne

    Department of Curriculum and )nstruction

    "niversit# of )llinois at "r!ana*Champaign

    Champaign% )L

  • 8/11/2019 Leander Osborne

    2/40

    Complex Positioning 2

    m*os!or'uiuc.edu

    Complex Positioning: Teachers as Agents of Curricular and Pedagogical Reform

    A!stract

    )n this article% +e develop an anal#sis of t+o narratives of teacher*facilitator teams +ho are producing

    elementar# science curricula and disseminating it to their peers. ,e dra+ on these stories to interpret

    ho+ teacher*facilitators position themselves +ith respect to other educators -e.g.% peer teachers and

    development team mem!ers% to real and imagined students and parents% to &no+ing and learning

    science% and in relation to pedagogical practices and texts. ,e read these acts of positioning relationall#

    and responsivel#. Teacher*facilitators position themselves and their +or& in highl# complex +a#s to

    multiple political and social others. These multiple positions raise a range of anxieties and /uestions for

    the teacher*facilitators and shape !oth their curricular and leadership roles. (ur purpose is first of all to

    tease out these complexities of positioning and su!0ectivit#% and secondl#% to more !roadl# consider the

    relationships of teachers% and ho+ the# construct their roles as pedagogical and curricular leaders

    amongst their peers. This anal#sis illuminates our thin&ing a!out !oth ho+ reform is enacted in schools

    and ho+ leadership roles are constructed.

  • 8/11/2019 Leander Osborne

    3/40

    Complex Positioning: Teachers as Agents of Curricular and Pedagogical Reform

    1ac&ie is standing% +ith her partner Diane% in front of a group of fourth grade teachers. The# are

    all gathered together on a professional development da# to hear 1ac&ie and Diane present the

    ne+ science curriculum that the t+o teachers have developed. 23ee% here +e have the scientific

    method.4 1ac&ie indicates some pages in a note!oo& she is holding up in front of the group.

    Diane: ,e reall# should !e stressing this at all levels**the scientific method.

    1ac&ie: There is a sheet in ever# unit +ith the ans+er &e#**one clean sheet% one

    transparenc#% one ans+er &e# -removing one set from its plastic sleeve.

    Teacher 5: That6s #our text!oo& right there7

    Diane: Ah% #es. Certainl# more !ac&ground than #ou have right no+8 People do have

    their mini*units. )6m sure #ou all have #our mini*units.

    Teacher 9: ,hat do #ou mean

    Teacher ;: ) don6t have an# mini*units.

    1ac&ie and Diane are engaged in the development and +riting of ne+ science units for the fourth grade

    at

  • 8/11/2019 Leander Osborne

    4/40

    position themselves and construct voices to mediate these tensions seem important +hen loo&ing at ho+

    reform agendas are ta&en up as +ell as our understanding of ho+ leadership is constructed% negotiated

    and enacted.

    Current discussions of school reform -for example arris -9??F in her anal#sis

    of recent scholarship on theories of distri!uted leadership in schools listed three inherent difficulties or

    !arriers to distri!uted leadership:

    First, distributed leadership requires those in formal leadership positions to relinquish

    power to others. [...] Secondly, the top-down approaches to leadership and internal

    school structures offer significant impediments to the development of distributed

    leadership. [...] Finally, distributed leadership poses the major challenge of how to

    distribute development responsibility and authority. (p 260)

    To these we would add the question of operationalizing distributed leadership roles and it is to

    that question this paper is addressed.

    ,hen teachers are activel# engaged as curriculum and staff developers in school contexts% their +or&

    offers us a uni/ue opportunit# to interpret the complex relationships of school change% an occasion to

    Gredra+ !oundariesG -Hall I Cohen% 5JJ% p. !et+een teachers% ne+ materials% and teaching practices

    and thin& a!out ho+ leadership roles are constructed +ithin these relationships -3pillane% Diamond I

    1ita% 9??;. Curriculum development activities% historicall# and geographicall# distant to schools% are at

  • 8/11/2019 Leander Osborne

    5/40

    times separated from discussions of situated school change. >o+ever% +hen teachers themselves are

    developing and disseminating curricula% these contexts or activit# s#stems -olland% Lachicotte% 3&inner I Cain%

    5JJ% +e consider ho+ teachers assume agenc# in constituting their su!0ectivities% and at the same time

    ho+ this agenc# is dialogicall# responsive to and shaped !# social and political others. ,hat voices and

    practices do teachers% as agents of professional development% ta&e up or position themselves against

    3econdl#% our interest in positioning and teacher su!0ectivit# is related to a !road discussion of school

    change. ,hat positions relevant to reform are teachers offered and +hat positions do the# construct

    >o+ might +e move !e#ond a language of teacher GcenteredG reform to understand ho+ reform is

  • 8/11/2019 Leander Osborne

    6/40

    Gdecentered%G ho+ teachers are not sole reform actors% !ut are relationall# positioned in the process of

    enacting reform

    Locating Teachers in 3chool Reform

    3arason6s mapping of school cultures -5J9% 5JJ?% including his important anal#ses of the sociopolitical

    positions of teachers -5J9% criticall# foregrounds the limitations teachers face +ithin schools. 3arason

    and others -3ch+ille et al.% 5J9 have also criti/ued the gap !et+een those +ho call for change and

    those +ho teach% arguing that focusing upon one or the other is misleading in conceiving of schooling in

    practice. More recent +or& on pedagogical reform -3pillane% 5JJJ Hall and Cohen% 5JJ ,ilson and

    Herne% 5JJJ% ,ine!urg and rossman% 5JJ suggest that +e need to explore the interpla# !et+een

    institutions% leadership and teacher propensities to+ard practice and change% and ta&e a situatative

    perspective on teacher change -Putnam and Hor&o 9???% Hor&o% 9??E and leadership roles -3pillane et

    al% 9??;. )n the present stud#% +e focus still further upon the su!0ect positions of teachers as a location

    through +hich to !etter understand micro and macro% personal and institutional tensions of change.

    >o+ever% unli&e the anal#ses a!ove% +hich move from !road institutional forces and suggest their

    converging effects upon teachers% +e construct a perspective from teachers out+ards% a perspective that

    traces the multiple and multi*directional lin&ages of the personal% social% and institutional. )n doing so

    +e flesh out the complexities of the distri!uted leadership role -3pillane et al 9??;% ho+ it evolves and

    is negotiated !et+een teachers% and the inherent pro!lematics in this process.

    3hotter6s -5JJ; description of 60oint action6 is provocative and suggestive of our intentions in this

    anal#sis. >is argument that G0oint actionG descri!es human activit# much more than does rational%

    planned action suggests a relational% responsive% situated perspective on reform:

  • 8/11/2019 Leander Osborne

    7/40

    Action of this &ind occurs in response to +hat others have alread# done% and +e act 0ust as much

    6into6 the opportunities and invitations% or 6against6 the !arriers and restrictions the# offer or afford

    us% as 6out of6 an# plans or desires on our o+n. Thus% the ston# loo&s% the nods of agreement% the

    failure of interest% the as&ing of /uestions% these all go to+ards +hat it is one feels one can% or

    cannot do% in an# situation . . . as an outcome of the 0oint action !et+een them% people find

    themselves 6in6 a seemingl# 6given6 situation% an 6organi@ed6 situation that has a 6hori@on6 to it and

    is 6open6 to their actions. -3hotter% 5JJ;% p. EN

    Hall and Cohen6s -5JJ argument that curriculum materials need to !e created +ith a heightened

    a+areness of Gcurriculum enactmentG suggests that !oth materials and practices could !ecome more

    meaningful +ere the# explicitl# conceived of as a t#pe of G0oint action.G ive Gintersecting domainsG are

    posited !# Hall and Cohen as descriptive of the landscape through +hich teachers enact curriculum%

    including teachers6 thoughts a!out their students% their understandings of the material% their practices of

    material use% the nature and needs of the classroom as a group% and their vie+s of polic# and the !roader

    communit# -5JJ% p. N. These GdomainsG are po+erful as imaged and actual contexts of curriculum

    enactment.

    )n this paper% +e !uild on a relational and situated perspective of curriculum enactment -Hall I

    Cohen% 5JJ% relating the social practices of curriculum enactment to those of teacher positioning and

    su!0ectivit#. ,e +or& to locate the reform*motivated teacher% creating portraits of the responsive nature

    of curriculum construction and teacher development. ,e consider ho+ t+o teacher*facilitator teams are

    engaged in developing curricula and practice% and simultaneousl#% their su!0ectivities as particular &inds

    of teachers% leaders% scientists% and persons. ,e interpret the 0oint action involved in curriculum

    enactment in relation to the 0oint action of assuming and producing positions and su!0ectivities for

    oneself and others.

  • 8/11/2019 Leander Osborne

    8/40

    )n the first stor#% +e consider ho+ +riting is related to self and peer evaluation of a completed

    curriculum% and also to the presenting team6s positioning vis*a*vis curriculum. )n presenting to their

    peers% this team uses their +ritten texts to separate themselves from authorit#% assuming positions

    GoutsideG of their curriculum*as*artifact. ,e further consider ho+ practices of +riting and evaluation are

    manifest +ithin the science unit developed !# the team% affording students positions in relation to

    science similar to those assumed !# the teacher*facilitators. )n the second description% +e !uild upon this

    general coarticulation of classroomOpeer audience and examine the internal relationship of a staff

    development pair% and ho+ their different voices% practices% and interpretations create complex

    communicative h#!rids and difficulties +ithin the context of relating to their peers. This has

    implications for the effectiveness of the curriculum reform% !oth in the representations of the teacher*

    authored texts and the ultimate goal of altering classroom practices.

    Hac&ground of the 3tud#

    The primar# goal of the school*!ased% teacher centered% science curriculum reform pro0ect at

  • 8/11/2019 Leander Osborne

    9/40

    development program% and teachers as learners. -Hor&o% 9??E

    3pecificall#% the pro0ect served teachers from grades K*F of the insdale

  • 8/11/2019 Leander Osborne

    10/40

    peers in note!oo& form. The materials are primaril# lesson plans% !ut also include !ac&ground

    information% !i!liographies% materials lists% parent letters% assessments% etc. Choice of appropriate

    materials +as left open to the teachers !# pro0ect facilitators% as +as the degree to +hich teachers +ere

    told to create Gne+G material% s#nthesi@e from pu!lished sources% or simpl# collect and index existing

    materials.

    Presentations !# the grade level staff development teams +ere scheduled on t+o separate occasions

    -spring and fall as a means to introduce the units to their peer teachers. The presentation format +as

    unspecified !# facilitators% and the time length -one hour +as negotiated !et+een the development team

    and the administrators. Hoth presentations considered here occurred in the teachers6 respective school

    li!raries during staff development time. )n !oth cases% the teachers sat at ta!les% and the development

    teams stood !efore them and discussed the unit note!oo&s. )n the second stor#% the team demonstrated

    science materials as +ell.

    Positioning as Response to 3cience% Texts% Peers% and 3tudents: 1ac&ie and Diane

    )n this first description% +e discuss a set of relationships that extend !e#ond science teaching and engage

    pedagogical practice at a more general level. Texts permit 1ac&ie and Diane as staff developers to

    depersonali@e experience and disavo+ their o+n voices. urther% given the sta!ilit# of texts and

    textOperson distancing% +riting permits an efficient and institutionall# supported form of evaluation% a

    0udgment of experience. These meanings of +ritingOevaluation guide our interpretation of ho+ 1ac&ie

    and Diane6s staff development practices and voices are dialogic to their class.

  • 8/11/2019 Leander Osborne

    11/40

    or Diane and 1ac&ie% their staff development efforts involve their historical and social positioning in

    relation to +hat the# thought of as a splintered and difficult school communit#. istoricall#%

    there +as a rift !et+een Diane and some others on the staff% a pro!lem that predated 1ac&ie6s hiring and

    +as little discussed. 1ac&ie onl# remar&ed: G3omething happened in regards to Diane% and ) thin&

    opinions are sometimes formed +hen the# shouldn6t !e% and the#6re not fair.G )n the fourth grade% a fe+

    of the unofficial leaders had over t+ent# #ears of experience in the same school. H# contrast% Diane and

    1ac&ie +ere !oth relativel# ne+ to the school -six and three #ears respectivel# and 1ac&ie +as ne+ to

    teaching -three #ears experience in pu!lic school. Thus% 1ac&ie and Diane expected resistance to the

    science development pro0ect from the outset% an anxiet# that the# often voiced. Reflecting !ac& on the

    occasion of their first formal presentation to their peers% Diane noted: G,e +ere !oth extremel#

    apprehensive**) +as ver#% ver# apprehensive.G

    )n the presentation of their unit to their peers% Diane commented earl# on% GThis is not meant to !e

    the definitive +ord on simple machines !# an# means%G a statement +hich indexes tensions of social

    positioning and positioning in relation to the unit as a text. Diane introduced the entire presentation +ith

    a comment that she and 1ac&ie did not need the full hour that the# had !een given !# the principal to

    present the unit. The guiding idea of the event seemed to !e to limit the amount of time the# +ere

    positioned as authorities !efore their peers% and% during this time% to focus attention a+a# from

    themselves% their practices and classrooms to the unit note!oo& itself. The presentation proceeded !#

    turning the pages of the note!oo& and discussing them% setting up the occasion as a peer evaluation of

    the text% an examination of Gthe +ord.G

  • 8/11/2019 Leander Osborne

    12/40

    The social positioning of persons and groups is considered a primar# means through +hich

    su!0ectivit# forms. Categories of persons -e.g.% Gauthor%G Gleader%G Gthe teacherG are created through

    regimes of po+erO&no+ledge% and people are offered or GaffordedG positions in relations to these

    categories ->olland I Leander% 9??E. et% the practice of identit# is not mechanistic and does not

    operate as a single social*personal dialectic or dialogue. Rather% positioning occurs in historicall#

    specific times and places% and particular acts of positioning serve to produce -and reproduce culturall#

    imagined identit# t#pes -including Gthe authorit#G that are used as resources in future acts of positioning

    ->olland I Leander% 9??E.

    He#ond presentation of the curriculum% 1ac&ie and Diane6s rhetorical forms in +riting the note!oo&

    esta!lished authorit# in the unit text itself. )n their overvie+% 1ac&ie and Diane demonstrated ho+ the

    text included an introduction% a glossar# of items% and an overvie+ of Gthe scientific method.G

  • 8/11/2019 Leander Osborne

    13/40

    and social Gothers.G Ha&htin -also% oloshinov% 5JN; insists upon the responsive nature of discourse.

    The meanings of utterances cannot !e understood apart from their responsive relations to their discursive

    contexts% and all utterances index +ithin them other utterances -thus% other spea&er6s voices. Discourse

    is thus essentiall# dialogical in its ongoing formation and practice.

    or example% Diane6s remar&% G#ou all have #our mini*unitsG moves in a complex and contrasting

    direction. GMini*unitG is a term used at times to descri!e topicall#*organi@ed curricula less extensive

    than a full unit% !ut more developed than a single lesson. Diane assumed that Gmini*unitsG are part of the

    common professional culture of her peers the statement is li&el# intended as a recognition of their

    expertise and their agenc# in producing materials !e#ond district*mandated text!oo&s. >o+ever% !#

    implicating her o+n &no+ledge and o+nership of 6mini*units6 !e#ond the official text!oo&% Diane !egan

    to recruit a personal authorit# that she +as positioning against in other +a#s. )ronicall#% Diane6s attempt

    to !e sociall# open to+ard the audience and not fixed in an official text +as experienced as closure !# a

    peer: G) don6t have an# mini*units.G Diane responded that she and 1ac&ie Gdon6t +ant to lead an#one

    astra#G a!out the unit !eing complete% as it +as Gtotall# strippedG except for G!asic units%G turning the

    audience !ac& to the text and a+a# from an# discussion of +hat the 6mini*units6 ma# !e and +ho might

    actuall# possess them.

    Tensions !et+een the authorit# of the unit text and the authorit# of the peer teacher audience +ere

    evident in other moments of positioning during the presentation. Again and again the presenters deferred

    to peer &no+ledge and experience. 1ac&ie urged the audience to Gtell us +here +e need to add

    comments%G and Diane reminded her peers repeatedl# that much of +hat is contained in the unit +as not

    ne+: Gou all &no+ +hat messing a!out is%G . . . G(!viousl#% the science 0ournal is something +e6ve all

    seen !efore.G At one point% Diane also solicited a stor# from an audience mem!er a!out ho+ a particular

    experiment% descri!ed in the text% had previousl# +or&ed in her o+n class. urther% the team constructed

  • 8/11/2019 Leander Osborne

    14/40

    the unit as 0ust one text among man#% as captured !# Diane6s comment: G)f #ou +ant to do this% fine% )6m

    0ust a teacher . . . )n fact% for m# science test% )6m using the one from the !oo& and supplementing +ith

    other stuff.G This last comment indexes the team6s disavo+al of authorit#% and their separation of their

    teaching selves from their text*creating selves in this moment of positioning: even the# didn6t su!scri!e

    to all of the unit6s advice and material.

    As our discourse is filled +ith var#ing degrees of GothernessG and Gour*o+n*nessG -5J

    discourse itself is multi*voiced% or GheteroglossicG in nature. Hecause of this% an individual6s voice% or

    Gspea&ing consciousnessG ->ol/uist I

  • 8/11/2019 Leander Osborne

    15/40

    ,hile peer relations among teachers +ithin the same school can !e readil# conceived as an important

    tension in reform% these ph#sicall# present relations are onl# part of the stor# in understanding

    addressivit# and response.

    1ac&ie reflected on the presentation +ith her peers in a voice that a student might assume to reflect

    on a difficult examination: G) remem!er us !eing extremel# apprehensive a!out it. ,e +anted to ma&e

    sure that +e +ere +ell prepared and +ell versed in all situations.G 1ac&ie further confirmed that part of

    her anxiet# +as that she +as spea&ing to people +ith much more experience than she% teachers +ho

    GQhad !een teaching this particular unit for a long period of time and had a lot of experience**their filing

    ca!inets filled +ith things that have +or&ed for them.G 1ac&ie6s description of G+anting to !e +ell

    versed in all situationsG for teachers in their audience +ho +ere more experienced% +ith Gfiling ca!inets

    filled +ith thingsG is a telling comparison. ,hile !oth point to the experienced individual% the# also

    locate evidence of such experience or expertise in textual artifacts. igurativel#% 1ac&ie and Diane

    present their note!oo& for assessment !# a reluctant group of full filing ca!inets.

    Teaching% ,riting% and Kno+ing 3imple Machines

    )n the follo+ing +e consider further ho+ 1ac&ie and Diane position themselves in social and textual

    relations !# turning our attention to the unit as a construction of science pedagog#. )n 1ac&ie and DianeBs

    construction and presentation of the curriculum% the# articulate their !eliefs a!out science% pedagog#%

    and one another% and indicate +a#s in +hich such !eliefs are coarticulated. The movement of their

    curriculum from hands*on experiences to authoritative texts and evaluation is a telling illustration of a

    contact @one +here competing ideologies of science learning traffic +ith the voices of 1ac&ie and Diane

    as the# responsivel# present to their audiences.

  • 8/11/2019 Leander Osborne

    16/40

    The overall direction of the unit is from textual representations of the +orld% +hich students respond

    to in +riting% to experience +ith the ph#sical +orld% recorded !# +riting% to another round of text*!ased

    +orld*representations and +riting. ,ithin each stage% the +riting is t#picall# chec&ed and evaluated.

    Part of the chapter on GrictionG in Diane and 1ac&ie6s unit illustrates this movement. The unit opens

    +ith a !orro+ed +or&!oo& page that introduces friction through several images% such as hands ru!!ing

    together% an automo!ile tire on the road% and an engine piston moving up and do+n. The +or&sheet as&s

    students to identif#% !# mar&ing +ith a chec&mar& or circle% situations +here friction is present to a

    greater or lesser degree. rom these textual representations and recordings the 3imple Machines unit

    moves into t+o activities. )n the first% the students experiment +ith the force needed to pull an o!0ect

    across different hori@ontal surfaces. A +or&sheet is provided along +ith the experiment% +ith designated

    categories of results and conclusions. The next activit# is a +or&sheet on reducing friction% similar to

    the first% in +hich students follo+ given principles on friction reduction% identif# images% and respond to

    h#pothetical situations.

    3ome of the activities in the unit are more open than others a tug*of*+ar follo+s the first activit#%

    for instance% and is represented as an experience in Gfeeling friction.G urther% in classroom practice%

    1ac&ie and Diane moved outside of the textual authorit# the# created in their unit their classroom

    environments +ere on some occasions less structured than the text6s representations. (n one occasion%

    for instance% 1ac&ie had students !ring into class assorted !ro&en household appliances and to#s to

    disassem!le% in order to discover ho+ simple machines +ere used +ithin them. 3tudents excitedl# too&

    apart cloc&s% a phonograph% a !lo+ dr#er and a video game% among other machines. >o+ever% during

    such relativel# open activit# 1ac&ie +as careful to cue the students to+ard the principles the# had !een

    learning in the unit. 3he +as also ver# a+are of ho+ her o+n classroom practice GtextG must follo+ her

    lesson plan !oo&% left open on the des& for the principal6s potential spontaneous inspections. 3he

  • 8/11/2019 Leander Osborne

    17/40

    commented on one occasion !eing concerned that if she extended an activit# !e#ond an allotted time%

    and did not mar& this change in her plan!oo&% that she could !e G+ritten upG for it.

    Moreover% 1ac&ie !elieved that culminating the children6s activit# +ith +riting +as necessar# in the

    current school culture. Suestioned a!out this practice% 1ac&ie constructed an imaginar# meeting +ith the

    parents of a student +ho +as Gnot meeting standards%G a child +ho might need to !e tested for learning

    disa!ilities:

    >o+ am )6m going to go% Q . . . and sa#% +ell% +hile 3u@ie +as doing this% ta&ing apart the fan%

    she didn6t &no+ ho+ to use the scre+driver properl#% she couldn6t identif# this part or that part% or

    +hen +e +ere doing pulle#s she didn6t &no+ the difference !et+een a fixed pulle# and a

    mova!le pulle# and this is +hat ) o!served. ) don6t thin& that +ould !e accepted.

    1ac&ie discussed ho+ the school culture% including administrators and other teachers% as +ell as the

    parents% expected a certain amount of paper*!ased +or& and even more so% paper*!ased testing. 3he also

    recogni@ed that these practices +ere not entirel# externall# enforced% relating that some of Gher o+n

    personal philosoph#G +ould need to change !efore she +ould !e comforta!le +ithout paper*!ased

    testing. 1ac&ie6s emphasis upon ans+er*!ased +riting practices and evaluation paralleled her anal#sis of

    children6s experience**these can !e reduced -and hence evaluated into a set of discrete s&ills% such as

    using the scre+driver and identif#ing parts.

    )n the unit% the continual examination of experience through +riting is evidenced in ho+ the students

    !egin +ith the text as an authorit# a!out the +orld% respond to their personal experience +ith +riting%

    and chec& this +riting against textual authorit#. Texts and +riting practices position students in relation

    to learning and &no+ing science. The science pedagog# in 1ac&ie and Diane6s unit% and in particular its

    relationship to +riting and texts% indexes similar positions of authorit# as those evident in their staff

    development% unit to peer relations. ,riting serves first of all as a means of fixing experience. ,hile

  • 8/11/2019 Leander Osborne

    18/40

    experience +ith the +orld ma# !e contingent% unpredicta!le% or even misdirected% texts are sta!le and

    authoritative frames through +hich to interpret experience. ,riting is a means to construct and separate

    authorit# from a personal voice. 3cientific success is constructed as a process of textual right ans+ers

    and correct recordings% !est summari@ed through one of the summative assessments at the !ac& of the

    unit: a note!oo& evaluation. H# means of an evaluation sheet% the student6s set of experiences +ith

    simple machines are assessed on the !asis of +hether the +or&sheets have !een completel# and

    Gproperl#G filled out% if note*ta&ing and dra+ing have !een +ell*executed% and if class time has !een

    productive. The note!oo& stands in for the student and her scientific experiences +ith the +orld. As a

    form that records productive +or& and appropriate conclusions% the note!oo& structures% focuses% and

    evaluates experience as it should !e. The note!oo&s can !e evaluated through a general ru!ric or frame%

    an expanded ans+er*&e#. As such% the note!oo& does not support the expression and development of an

    individual% personal voice in science% !ut of the individual student voice in performing and recording

    right !ehaviors. This purpose resonates +ith 1ac&ie and Diane6s o+n relationship to their unit note!oo&%

    discussed previousl#.

    )n sum% Diane and 1ac&ie text*!ased practices in the classroom in science pedagog# appear to !e

    rearticulated in relations to science% their peers% and their unit as a text in staff development. Across these

    contexts% +riting is a means through +hich to depersonali@e% fix% and evaluate experience. As a result of

    this process% +riting in !oth contexts separates the personal% experiential voice from that of proper and

    correct scientific processes and results. >o+ever% from our perspective it +ould seem simplistic and

    misleading to posit that 1ac&ie and Diane merel# overla# a classroom pedagogical practice unto their

    staff development relations% and particularl# in their unsta!le positions as unit authors. Rather% as

    pedagogical and staff development positions are articulated and refracted against one another% the#

    !ecome increasingl# complex.

  • 8/11/2019 Leander Osborne

    19/40

    activities and positions% at particular moments% 1ac&ie and Diane separate themselves from textual

    authorit# and even disavo+ their o+n authorship.

    Coarticulations of 3elf% 3cience% Development Partner% and Peer Audience: Pam and Hett#

    )n the introduction to their co*authored &indergarten unit on +ater% Hett# and Pam +rite: G,e +ant to

    encourage our students to loo& at the +orld around them and discover ideas right or +rong.G This

    statement can !e read in at least t+o +a#s. (n the one hand% their goal ma# !e to permit students to

    o!serve% experience% and discover ideas% bothright and+rong. (n the other hand% the statement can !e

    interpreted that students are to o!serve% and then validate% +hether the# are right or+rong. The first

    meaning implies an openness to scientific experience that is explorator# in nature% +hile the second

    meaning suggests a push for correct responses and evaluation evidenced in the +or& of 1ac&ie and

    Diane. )n the case of Pam and Hett#% !oth contrasting readings of the text are supported throughout the

    unit !oth agendas of student +or& in science figure prominentl# and contrast in surprising +a#s. The

    voices of openness and closure heard +ithin Pam and Hett#6s statement are not simpl# spea&ing a!out

    their relationship to science% ho+ever% !ut also a!out their relationships to one another as +ell as to their

    larger peer audience.

    )n the follo+ing% +e +ill focus initiall# upon Hett#% and interpret ho+ her openness and closure to

    the science% as a h#!rid discourse% coarticulates +ith the discourse she uses to communicate +ith her

    peer audience. $ext% +e move to another Gla#erG or perspective on complex positioning% illustrating

    ho+ Pam responds not onl# to the science and to her peers% !ut also to her relationship to Hett# as a staff

    development partner. inall#% +e suggest ho+ Pam and Hett#6s cross*interpretations of science

    pedagog# and peer relations create multiple tensions of openness and closure.

  • 8/11/2019 Leander Osborne

    20/40

    Hett#6s openness and closure to science and to her peers

    Hett#6s expressions of openness and closure to science can !e heard +ithin the overall structure of the

    unit. The +ater unit is divided into chapters committed to specific topics for discover#% such as

    GLi/uids%G and G3in& and loat%G and Gree

  • 8/11/2019 Leander Osborne

    21/40

    +ater% G!ut m# &ids understood it.G This practice of complex pro!lem*solving and search for correct

    scientific ans+ers% alongside tal& of open pla#% exploration and freedom% characteri@es Hett#6s h#!rid

    voice in regards to the science. 3ignificantl#% this dual approach has !een shaped out of Hett#6s personal

    histor# +ith activit#*!ased science% including a science camp -an earlier cousin of the current staff

    development program +ith an intentional focus upon open student discover#. >o+ever% it is important

    to remar& that +hile these discourses ma# seem to sharpl# contrast or em!ed opposing agendas% for

    Hett# the# appear to !e highl# coordinated and co*productive: GopenG discover# moves to+ard

    occasions of high conceptual complexit#Olearning% +hich in turn prompts more discover#.

    A similar h#!rid voice can !e heard in Hett#6s relationship to her peer audience. )n her presentation

    to them% Hett# stresses open experiential Gpla#G +ith the +ater and materials: GThese are some of the

    nift# to#s #ou can use +ith free explorationG Gou can ma&e the !u!!le !lo+ers reall# fanc#7G Go

    !ac& and 0ust have fun +ith it #ou gu#s7G Hett#6s enthusiasm is catching% expressed as a 0o#ful

    excitement of sharing an a!undance of materials to explore. At the same time% Hett# remains at the

    center of the presentation% and fre/uentl# gives ans+ers to the pro!lems posed !# the explorations and

    thus !rings conceptual closure: GAnd the thing #ou discover is that no matter +hat o!0ect #ou ma&e the

    !u!!le +ith% it +ill al+a#s come out round.G This closure is directed alternativel# to+ard scientific and

    pedagogical &no+ledge. Hett#6s presentational voice is a !oo&mar&ed page of teaching ho+*to6s -e.g.%

    Gou must have ne+spapers in #our classroom to clean upG. Hett# even fre/uentl# suggests to the

    teachers ho+ to sa# something% mirroring her practice of offering claims a!out the natural +orld: Gou

    0ust tell #our partner% 6,ell% )6m going to start the free exploration no+.6G Hett#6s follo+ing reflections on

    her classroom pedagog# are also highl# relevant to her peer presentation st#le:

  • 8/11/2019 Leander Osborne

    22/40

    ) feel !etter if ) see that the#6re actuall# understanding it% +here if the#6re not understanding it%

    then ) +orr# a!out it cause ) don6t &no+ +hat good it does% !ut if ) see that the# understand +hat

    +e6re doing% ) feel% ) feel li&e% #ou &no+% ever#!od#6s +ith me on it.

    Hett# imagines her +or& as an effort to guarantee that the teachers are understanding the unit% +hile

    enthused !# it% 0ust as she is to assure that her students are understanding and are full# engaged in the

    science. This perspective and set of goals corresponds to Hett#6s self*construction as Gthe science

    personG at her grade level. Hett#6s relation to her peers% in summar#% is coarticulated +ith the -h#!rid

    discourses of her relation to science and to her students% +ith pla#ful experience as an open vista on the

    one hand% and the movement to+ard pre*esta!lished% authoritative ans+ers to complex pro!lems on the

    other.

    Pam: Distinguishing her oice from Hett#6s

    Pam spea&s a!out openness in similar +a#s to Hett#% in terms of !roadl# exposing the children to

    materials and experiences. 3he places the greater availa!ilit# of materials as a central issue in shifting

    all &indergarten science instruction to a hands*on !asis% and #et is optimistic a!out such change%

    !elieving that the entire staff is alread# oriented in such a direction. >o+ever% Pam +or&s !oth +ithin

    the peer presentation of the unit% and in discussing it informall#% to distance her o+n voice and

    approaches from Hett#6s. A !rief summar# of !ac&ground information is critical here for !roader

    understanding. ,hile Hett# is nearing the end of her teaching career% +ith thirt#*seven #ears of

    experience -most in the current school% Pam has onl# !een teaching for eight #ears -G)6ve !een teaching

    for eight #ears% and Hett#% eight#*nine.G More significantl#% +hile Pam and Hett# share a common +all

    !et+een their classrooms% Pam +as once Hett#6s student teacher. Pam6s historical relationship to Hett#%

  • 8/11/2019 Leander Osborne

    23/40

    and her current explicit and implicit positioning +ith respect to her% !oth illustrate ho+ creating a voice

    and identit# that is distinct and separate from Hett#6s is highl# important to her.

    The relationship !et+een voice% positioning and identit# as pla#ed out in !oth +hat these

    teachers do and ho+ the# relate to each other suggests it +ould !e useful to appl# a practice theor# of

    identit# in coming to understand their actions and ho+ the# represent themselves. Conceiving of

    positioning as part of a practice theor# of identit# helps us to ma&e modest claims in t+o +a#s. irst% +e

    recogni@e that teachers% li&e other actors% are not constituting their su!0ectivities +ith entirel# their o+n

    resources% !ut are rather dra+ing% relationall#% upon cultural t#pes% discourses% and artifacts that circulate

    across time and space. 3econdl#% ho+ever% the ethnographic perspective of practice theor# also affords

    us a vantage point on ho+ teachers are activel# involved in their o+n positioning% and ta&e up agenc#%

    ho+ever modestl#% in shaping their senses of self.

    During the course of a presentation to their peers% Pam notes at different occasions that the teachers

    do not have to strictl# follo+ the unit% !ut can Gdo it an# +a#.G 3he emphasi@es the Gree

  • 8/11/2019 Leander Osborne

    24/40

    Hett#6s% as a productive difficult# in +riting the unit% as potentiall# !ringing a t#pe of !alance of

    perspectives to their +or&:

    )n the +riting% ) thin& +e complemented each other**she +ould get off on +ater displacement%

    and all these things that ) don6t thin& a &indergartner can% ma#!e% handle terms% and stuff. . .

    ,hen +e +ere +riting the unit% )6d sa#% )6d sa#% ma#!e% it6s fine to put that in there as an

    extension% !ut not as something that all the &ids are going to handle. 3he encouraged me to do a

    little !it more of that% and ) encouraged her% ma#!e% to not to do /uite as much% 0ust to &ind of

    !alance it out.

    Pam6s intervie+ statement can !e read as an account of team +or& and complementarit#. At the same

    time% it is also a stor# of ho+ Pam6s individual voiceOidentit# on the team is necessar#% a stor# more full#

    developed in +a#s discussed !elo+.

    )n addition to the issue of over*complexit#% an issue of curricular content% Pam also interprets Hett#6s

    general approach to her peers as overl# authoritative% and thus as a form of closure:

    3he QHett# is ver# much centered on +hat she6s doing. 3he6s got ver# specific ideas% is ver#

    straight*for+ard a!out +hat needs to !e done and ho+ it needs to !e done% +here )6m more of% )

    guess% ma#!e a !etter listener% open to ne+ ideas. ) don6t thin& she and ) have all the ans+ers%

    that6s +h# ) +ant to get more ideas and !etter ideas% if something +or&s for one teacher% it6s nice%

    ) +anna &no+ a!out it% so ) can !e !etter% and ) thin& ma#!e she6s not /uite as open as ) am.

    $ote the important coarticulation in Pam6s criti/ue of !eing Gver# centeredG and having Gver# specific

    ideas.G Pam appears to interpret Hett#6s dogmatic means of communicating as coordinated +ith

    specificall# defined% conceptuall# complex curricula. ,hile Pam reflected on the peer presentation as

    !eing too overl#*directive% and not permitting the teachers enough time to engage +ith the materials%

  • 8/11/2019 Leander Osborne

    25/40

    Hett# felt the presentation +as Ga!out +hat Qshe +anted to get doneG . . . G,hat the teachers need to do

    is sit do+n and decide +hat the# feel comforta!le doing.G

    )n contrast to Hett#% Pam imagines her identit# as a listener as !eing partiall# characteri@ed !#

    admitting a lac& of &no+ledge% an identit# that she constructs as mediating !et+een the unit and the

    ongoing facilitation of her peers:

    ) thin& people 0ust loo& on her to the point +here% that6s Hett#% and that6s the +a# she is% and

    ever#one &no+s ho+ much or ho+ little to ta&e of +hat she sa#s. ou &no+% 0ust her difference

    in presenting**) mean% #ou can tell% she6s reall# dominating% !ut she**she6s a great teacher. )t6s

    0ust% to !e honest% ) thin& if the# have /uestions% ) thin& the#6ll !e more apt to come to me +ith

    things% !ecause ) thin& ma#!e )6m a little !etter listener% or more open to% 6,ell% ) don6t &no+ for

    sure% +h# don6t +e tr# this6 and if the# +ant to change something% ) thin&% )6m a lot more open

    to% 6(.&.% let6s change something% that idea didn6t +or&% it failed%6 +here she ma#!e doesn6t

    +anna**ever +anna admit something li&e that.

    $ote in this description that Pam is not standing outside the current situation% !ut is imagining future

    encounters and constructing t+o related roles and voices. 3he imagines first of all the generali@ed

    6other%6 a teacher +ho &no+s Gthe +a# Hett# isG and Gho+ much or ho+ little to ta&e.G 3econdl#% she

    imagines her o+n role as a listener and !egins to give voice to possi!le responses: G,ell% ) don6t &no+

    for sure% +h# don6t +e tr# thisG Pam positions herself +ithin the staff development relation not onl#

    through her interpretation of Hett#% !ut also through constructing peer readings of Hett#.

    >o+ever% as +ith Hett#% Pam6s voice is complex and cannot !e read simpl# as a criti/ue of Hett#6s

    relational control and conceptual closure. 3he also% !# contrast% criti/ues Hett#6s experiential openness%

    especiall# as this applies to the mess#% disorderl# use of materials. At one point in the presentation%

    Hett# sets out to demonstrate li/uid mixtures in her classic pla#ful*#et*read#*made st#le: Gou can

  • 8/11/2019 Leander Osborne

    26/40

    ma&e it a deal and sa#% 6) +ant to see +hat +ater does% and no+ ) +ant to tr# a little Karo s#rup.6G Pam6s

    response is G,ell% let6s 0ust do something that6s not too terri!le to clean up.G Later% Hett# hesitates% !ut

    then is read# to ma&e some !u!!les for the teachers% and Pam responds% G(h% +e6ve all made !u!!les.G

    3till further along% Hett# discusses ma&ing huge child*enveloping !u!!les in the classroom% and Pam

    comments G$o+ #ou &no+ +h# Hett#6s room is the +orst one to clean up.G )f Pam +anted to respond to

    Hett# alone% it +ould !e more li&el# that such comments could !e given as private asides% or in a /uiet%

    non*presentational manner. >ere% ho+ever% it is evident that Pam is responding to her audience of peers

    as much as to Hett#. ,ith her G,e6ve all made . . . G and G$o+ #ou all &no+ . . . G% Pam forms

    alignments +ith her peers that set her apart from Hett#6s +a# of -messier +or&ing +hile affirming the

    value of more controlled% orderl# participation in the teaching and learning of the unit. Pam6s closure

    and containment of material*!ased experience not onl# relates to a personal teaching st#le% !ut is a

    strategic position to &eeping her peers open to using the unit. 3he expresses the !elief that her peer

    teachers +ill !e more open to change that involves less mess and less conceptual difficult# in !rief% that

    her o+n voice is an important mediator in the process of change.

    Pedagog#% peers% and partners: Cross*interpretations of one another6s6 voices

    More than 0ust providing a reading of the unit% this account suggests the reading of the unit that Hett#

    and Pam are engaged in as +riters and presenters% +hich involves anticipating and assuming the

    responses of their peer audience. >o+ever% in this case their positioning +ith respect to their peers is

    also articulated +ith their positioning +ith respect to one another. or example% as Pam shapes her voice

    and +or& for her audience% +ithin this articulation is a response to ho+ she imagines their common

    audience responding to Hett#. 3uch GtriangularG interpretive positions are operative in !oth Hett# and

  • 8/11/2019 Leander Osborne

    27/40

    Pam6s voices. urther% em!edded +ithin these relations are highl# suggestive cross*interpretations%

    sharpl# contrasting understandings of one another6s positions and audience relations.

    This reading can perhaps !est !e illustrated !# considering the +riters6 responses to one another6s

    constructions of openness. ,hile Hett# spea&s of openness as !oth pla#ful classroom experience and as

    an enthusiasm to engage in complex material% Pam criti/ues this voice as potentiall# closing off the

    interest and motivation of their peer audience. ,hile Hett# imagines that hands*on science is a

    !ree@e+a# to preesta!lished responses to difficult /uestions% +hich she has purchase on as a Gscience

    person%G Pam positions against this authoritative discourse% imagining it to close off productive dialogue

    +ith her peers.

    Conversel#% Hett# interprets Pam6s privileging of less*guided student experience as not guaranteeing

    the learning of either students or teaching peers. )t is a t#pe of openness +ithout purpose% a long

    /uestion +ithout response. )n an intervie+ Hett# commented that Pam Gcomes to ever#!od# for ideas.

    3he6s ver# good**she doesn6t do that too often.G The ethic implied in this statement% and in Hett#6s other

    discourse% is that +hile it is good to !e open to ideas% !eing too open is leaving too much up for gra!s

    +ithin the teachingOfacilitating relation and demonstrates a lac& of authorit#. As a further complexit# of

    their voices% Hett# appears to interpret Pam6s more controlled and tid# sense of experience as less

    motivating to the peer audience% t#pe of closure that constrains her efforts to spontaneousl# construct

    Ghands*on demonstrations%G a presentational genre itself that nicel# captures Hett#6s o+n h#!rid

    discourse.

    )n sum% +hile !oth teachers share goals of opening up the science and opening up staff development%

    the# are li&el# to read one another6s GopennessG as closing off peer relations% and potentiall# th+arting

    staff development. Thus% even if !oth Pam and Hett# +ere to share identical understandings and values

    of openness to science% this stor# illustrates that their intersecting and conflicting positionings of

  • 8/11/2019 Leander Osborne

    28/40

    themselves% their peers% and one another are central to understanding their staff*development discourses

    and activit#.

    Teaching Practices% Teacher*acilitator 3u!0ectivities% and 3cience Content

    )n this form of staff development% curriculum is not produced and then sent off to an audience% +hat has

    !een called a Gconduit theor#G of communication -criti/ued !# Redd#% 5JNJ. $or is curriculum simpl#

    developed in response to Gan audienceG as an a!straction. Rather% curriculum development% li&e an#

    communicative act% is responsive at ever# turn. urther% curriculum is co*constructed +ith teaching and

    facilitator su!0ectivities% teaching practices% pro0ect goals% historical a+arenesses and future anticipations

    of peer audiences% and cross*interpretations of development team mem!ers.

    Hoth sets of descriptions have suggested the +a#s in +hich teaching practices and curriculum are

    coarticulated +ith the teachers developing positions and su!0ectivities.. ,ith 1ac&ie and Diane% their

    pedagogic practices of +riting and assessment are reflected into the meanings of their unit as a pro0ect%

    their positions as presenters% and their struggle to !oth construct personal authorit# and disavo+ such

    authorit# !# means of a text. )n the case of Pam and Hett#% specific issues germane to activit#*!ased

    science teaching +ere illustrated% including Hett#6s move to+ard conceptual complexit# and Pam6s

    desires to !ac& off from conceptual goals +hile prompting Gorderl#G experience. ,e have argued that

    these general and specific teaching practices are highl# dialogic to the teams6 voices and practices as

    staff developers.

    At the same time% it is too simplistic to imagine that one carries the same su!0ectivit# and set of

    practices from one location to another**that these positions mirror one another. Rather% it is li&el# that a

    teacher6s practices and voice is reconfigured in important% ongoing +a#s as she constructs her identit#

    and +or& as a staff developer% an argument supported !# #gotss notion of the transformation -and

  • 8/11/2019 Leander Osborne

    29/40

  • 8/11/2019 Leander Osborne

    30/40

    and practices as a h#!rid of old and ne+**as Gpartial change.G >o+ever% for Hett#% her +or& does not

    appear to !e experienced as a tension or mixture% !ut as a coherent and relativel# sta!le +hole. ,hile

    h#!ridit# might tend to !e associated +ith insta!ilit# or partial change from a researcher6s perspective%

    from the practice of a practitioner% h#!rid practices and voices ma# !e /uite sta!le. )n the context of

    these sta!ilities% practitioners might vie+ a change process to have !een completed% +hile outside

    facilitators ma# interpret such practices and su!0ectivities as unsta!le% mixed% or incoherent.

    ,hile our discussion has focused upon responsive relationships among persons% em!edded +ithin

    these relationships is the su!0ect matter of science% and accompan#ing ideologies a!out +hat science is

    and ho+ it is !est learned. The stories suggest +a#s in +hich the meaning of science learning and

    &no+ing% and its potential reform% is highl# articulated +ith !road*!ased historical teaching practices%

    such as +riting and evaluation in 1ac&ie and Diane6s case% as +ell as +ith interpretations of former

    training% such as Hett#6s perspectives on the goals of openness% at least partiall# shaped through her

    experiences in a science camp. urther% the meaning of science learning is responsive to teacher*

    facilitator constructions of their o+n positions -e.g.% Pam6s construction of authorit# in contrast to Hett#6s

    or 1ac&ie6s and +ith interpretations of team+or& and possi!le peer response. The science of the reform

    effort cannot !e removed% or even considered% apart from the human relationships and activit# of reform

    in +hich it is em!edded. rom a Ha&htinian standpoint% the stories illustrate ho+ contrasting% and even

    oppositional ideologies are indexed in the voices and discourses that the teacher facilitators ta&e up.

    ,hile this reform effort has a stated ideolog# concerning the nature and purpose of activit#*!ased

    science% stated in grant documents and articulated in group meetings% more pertinent for research is

    situating and understanding the development of multiple% contrasting ideologies +ithin this context.

    3hotter6s -5JJ; discussion of a 6lived ideolog#6 is provocative +ith respect to ho+ su!0ect matter

    curriculum development is conceived of as an ongoing response to interests% positions% and !rea&do+n:

  • 8/11/2019 Leander Osborne

    31/40

    Thus% as a resource to dra+ upon% a lived ideolog# exerts its influence at 0ust those dilemmatic

    moments of uncertaint# in ever#da# human affairs +hen routine forms of coordination !rea&

    do+n% and people must construct !et+een themselves a ne+ +a# of going on. )t +ill determine

    the positions the# put for+ard and the 0ustifications the# offer. Thus% +hile an intellectual

    ideolog# ma# provide the !asis for the resolution of a final dilemma% a lived ideolog# provides

    all the resources for the struggle producing it.

    -3hotter% 5JJ;% p. EJ

    The interpenetrations of science +ith the lived experiences of teaching and facilitating is a richer

    vantage point to conceive of content reform and the ideologies that develop through it% than are

    ideali@ed% Gintellectual ideologies%G such as programmatic statements of goals and purposes. )t is

    tempting in reform efforts to merge or confuse the t+o forms +ith one another% either in expectations for

    change or assessments of it. urther% in the >eidegerrian tradition 3hotter argues% along +ith

  • 8/11/2019 Leander Osborne

    32/40

    concern for ho+ the G+or&G might !e read !# the peers% !ut for ho+ the# +ill interpret and accept Gme

    and m# +or&%G or a voice and its message. This responsiveness is directed !oth !ac&+ard and for+ard

    in time% to historical understandings of the teachers6 identities and authorit# among their peers as +ell as

    anticipations of their acceptance !# them in future encounters. The stories have illustrated ho+ diverse

    facilitator su!0ectivities can !e as shaped !# responsiveness to peer relations. Hett#% for instance%

    constructs her position and authorit# as a Gscience personG for her grade level% +hile 1ac&ie and Diane

    minimi@e and disavo+ their personal voices as staff developers.

    Peer relationships and their histories should not onl# !e imagined as a participating GaudienceG for

    the reception of the materials% ho+ever. Rather% Pam and Hett#6s stor# illustrates the complex d#namic

    of peer relationships +ithin the staff development team itself. As Pam and Hett# colla!orate% it is

    commonsensical to imagine them ma&ing concessions and negotiating their +or& +ith respect to one

    another. >ere% ho+ever% +e have suggested +a#s in +hich the# construct and position their +or& and

    corresponding su!0ectivities +ith respect to one another as interpreted +ithin the relationship to their

    peers. The# interpret and criti/ue one another !# anticipating the interpretations and criti/ues of others.

    This cross*d#namic% or triangular reading of self*partner*audience is significant for a perspective on the

    processes of the team6s staff development efforts and e/uall# for understanding their personal

    constructions of voicesOidentities as staff developers. Pam% for instance% constructs an image of her

    su!0ectivit# as staff developer through a critical reading of Hett#6s su!0ectivit# +ithin the team

    relationship and practices.

    Conclusions

    ,hat Positions Do Teachers Assume as Teacher*acilitators

  • 8/11/2019 Leander Osborne

    33/40

    The narratives presented in this paper provide a portrait of the responsive nature of teachers engaged in

    curriculum and staff development. The stories demonstrate +a#s in +hich development of curriculum

    and development of a teacher*facilitator su!0ectivit# are in dialogue +ith one another. (ne t#pe of

    positioning evident in the descriptions are !oth the general and specific teaching practices and ideologies

    that shape +a#s in +hich these teachers construct their +or& and roles as facilitators and leaders. )n the

    first stor#% 1ac&ie and Diane6s classroom practices and !eliefs in +riting and assessment have important

    effects on the +a#s in +hich the# develop their curriculum% and perhaps even more so% on ho+ the#

    understand their roles in staff development. )n the second stor#% Hett# and Pam6s interpretations of the

    goals of activit#*!ased science contrast in significant +a#s. These conflicts of interpretation% +hich are

    onl# partiall# explicit +ithin their relationship% are complex it +ould !e a vast oversimplification to sa#

    that one teacher is more of an activit#*!ased science teacher than the other. Rather% the teachers6

    practices and discussions of practices index /uite different ideologies a!out the goals of activit#*!ased

    science. These ideologies shape the dialogue !et+een Pam and Hett#% their partiall# conflicting goals in

    constructing curriculum for an audience% and the h#!rid voices present +ithin their +ritten +or& and

    presentations.

    urther% +hile it is tempting to read the facilitator role as a t#pe of mirroring of the teacher6s role%

    +here much of ho+ the teacher teaches +ill !e reproduced regardless of the audience% the descriptions

    of 1ac&ie and Diane suggests that the dialogue !et+een these roles is much richer than simple reflection.

    Rather% in 1ac&ie and Diane6s stor# +e have to loo& !e#ond the teaching role itself to the entire teaching

    context. 1ac&ie and Diane !orro+ not onl# from their teaching practices -+riting and assessment in

    constructing themselves as facilitators% the# also are responsive to the roles of their o+n students% and

    appear to assume aspects of student su!0ectivities +ithin the peer facilitator*peer relation.

  • 8/11/2019 Leander Osborne

    34/40

    )n addition to their o+n teaching practices% ideologies% and contexts% the teachers are also responsive

    to man# different% more or less distant audiences +ithin their +or&. ,ithin !oth teams% the constant

    voices of grade*level peers come into pla#% raising a range of anxieties and /uestions for the teacher*

    facilitators: ,hat +ill the peers consider authoritative ,hat do the# alread# &no+ and do ,hat are

    their positions +ith respect to me -the teacher*facilitator as a person and +ithin m# role Hut other%

    more distant audiences enter into the dialogue as +ell**1ac&ie% for instance% imagines a potential future

    conversation +ith a parent of a student -G3u@#G +ho is having trou!le in her classroom. (f course% the

    teachers are also highl# responsive to distant audiences in the ver# nature of their development +or&%

    +hich entails !orro+ing and redeveloping G!est ideasG produced in distant locations !# un&no+n

    authors and pac&aged in guides and internet documents. (n a more micro and local level% perhaps the

    most intriguing responsivit# to audience illustrated here through Pam and Hett#6s stor# are self*

    development partner*peer cross*interpretations. )n !oth cases% +hat !ecomes clear is that !oth

    curriculum development% and the co*development of the self as facilitator% are GaddressedG in Ha&htin6s

    sense**that teachers are highl# responsive to these audiences through the entire course of development.

    Locating change: ,hat develops

    ,e have illustrated and argued thus far that understanding a teacher6s classroom practices% relationships%

    and !eliefs a!out science and institutions allo+s us a much !etter understanding of her +or& in

    curriculum and staff development as an act of responsive positioning. )n one sense% the teacher*

    facilitator su!0ectivities discussed in this paper are a uni/ue configuration +ithin a particular teacher*

    centered model of change% and it could !e tempting to read this anal#sis as a discussion of the pro!lems

    and potentials inherent in such a model. >o+ever% from another perspective% the present model simpl#

    heightens% and thus !rings to light% the teacher*facilitator aspects of all teacher roles% and hence the

  • 8/11/2019 Leander Osborne

    35/40

  • 8/11/2019 Leander Osborne

    36/40

    )f the design for a change in pedagog# gets modified as teachers implement it in their

    classrooms% has the reform occurred And% +hose perspective on the change counts more: the

    researcher6s or the teacher6s Thus far% the ans+er has !een clear: The researcher6s vie+ of

    change counts far more than the teacher6s vie+.G -pp. 9*N.

    (n the one hand% a relational perspective on change% +ith strong focus upon the multiple voices that

    the teacher addresses in her +or&% can !e a strong argument for the general conservative tendencies of

    education% a hermeneutic argument that traditions inha!it us% never permitting us to full# escape them

    -adamer% 5J?O5JJE >a!ermas% 5JJ5. Moreover% this sta!ilit# can !e located in the specific +a#s in

    +hich teachers reproduce the institutions the# participate in% such as 1ac&ie and Diane6s assessment and

    +riting practices% or in the dura!ilit# and authorit# of anticipated peer responses to possi!le change. (n

    the other hand% such a vie+ can support an argument for complex and long*term vie+s of change%

    perspectives that do not divorce the development of curricular materials and institutional contexts from

    the concurrent development of individual persons. urther% !# !etter recogni@ing teachers6 various

    voices +ithin a relational theor# of change +e ma# !e !etter a!le to understand the nature of the h#!rid

    positions from +hich teachers spea&% as& for +hom such positions are h#!rids% and conceive of ho+

    targeting disruptions to a entire institutional*material*personal s#stem might promote change. Despite

    the over+helming sta!ilit# of most institutions% institutional structures do evolve% as do the individuals

    that construct them.

    References

    American Association for the Advancement of 3cience -5JJ 3cience for all Americans: Pro0ect 9?5.

    ,ashington: AAA3.

  • 8/11/2019 Leander Osborne

    37/40

    American Association for the Advancement of 3cience -5JJ Henchmar&s for science literac#: Pro0ect

    9?5. ,ashington: AAA3.

    Apple% M. I 1ungc&% 3. -5JJ? Gou don6t have to !e a teacher to teach this unit:G Teaching%

    technolog#% and gender in the classroom. American

  • 8/11/2019 Leander Osborne

    38/40

    olland% D.% Lachicotte 1r.% ,.% 3&inner% D.% I Cain% C. -5JJ )dentit# and agenc# in cultural +orlds.

    Cam!ridge% MA: >arvard "niversit# Press.

    >olland% D. I Leander% K.M. -

  • 8/11/2019 Leander Osborne

    39/40

    Ha&htin. ol/uist% Trans. M. >ol/uist I C.

  • 8/11/2019 Leander Osborne

    40/40