the emergence of community in a preservice teacher education program

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (2004) 621–635

*Correspondin

9850-9890.

E-mail addre

(J. Sumsion), cat

0742-051X/$ - see

doi:10.1016/j.tat

The emergence of community in a preservice teacher educationprogram

Jennifer Sumsion*, Catherine Patterson

Institute of Early Childhood, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW 2109 Australia

Abstract

This paper traces the unexpected emergence of community in a recently reconceptualized Teachers as Researchers

unit in a preservice teacher education program. Drawing on data collected from 145 of the 292 students who

completed the unit, we chronicle and theorize about key events, tensions, and dynamics in the evolution of the

community, and endeavor to address the question of why the sense of community emerged, given seemingly less

than conducive circumstances. Our interpretations are informed by Foucault’s (Discipline and punish: The Birth

of the Prison, Vintage Books, New York, 1977; In: C. Gordon (Ed.), 1980, Power/knowledge: Selected interviews

and other writings by Michel Foucault, 1972–1977, Pantheon, New York, pp. 109–133) conceptualization of

power, Mann’s (Stud. Higher Educ. 26(1) (2001)) perspectives on alienation and engagement amongst university

students and Wenger’s (Communities of practice, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1998) construct of

communities of practice.

r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Between the ideaAnd the realityBetween the motion and the actFalls the Shadow y

Between the conceptionAnd the creationBetween the emotionAnd the responseFalls the Shadow y

(T.S. Eliot, The Hollow Men (1961)).

g author. Tel.: +61-2-9850-9864; fax: +61-2-

sses: [email protected]

[email protected] (C. Patterson).

front matter r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserv

e.2004.06.006

In life, many of the most important things arenot directly under our control, or, if under ourcontrol, are so only in a broad general planningsense. Teacher education is something like that.The most important aspects of teacher educa-tionyare often ephemeral, passionate,shadowy, poignant and significant (Connelly& Clandinin, 2001, p. 11).

We draw on T.S. Eliot’s image of the Shadow,and Connelly and Clandinin’s (2001) acknowl-edgment that teacher education can be an inde-terminate, intensely emotional endeavor to set thescene for our exploration of the shadows, ordiscontinuities, between our intentions and ourstudents’ responses to a recently reconceptualized,semester-long Teachers as Researchers unit in our

ed.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

J. Sumsion, C. Patterson / Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (2004) 621–635622

preservice program. Philosophically, this paperreflects our commitment to adopting an inquirystance in our work as teacher educators and toinvestigating the connections and disjuncturesamong our assumptions, values and practicesand our students’ learning (Cochran-Smith,2001). As Cochran-Smith explains, working froman inquiry stance involves ‘‘learning to raise newquestions and, at the same time, unlearning long-held ideas, assumptions, and beliefs that are oftenquite difficult to uproot’’ (p. 3, emphasis inoriginal).Our inquiry focuses on the unexpected sense

of community that appeared to develop amongstthe large group of preservice teachers (initially378) enrolled in the Teachers as Researchers

(TAR) unit during its first implementation inits reconceptualized form. Adopting a casestudy approach, we endeavor to address thequestion of why this community emerged, givenseemingly less than conducive circumstances andwe chronicle and theorize about key events,tensions, and dynamics in its evolution. In doingso, we draw on data collected as part of a largerproject undertaken by the TAR teaching team thataimed to investigate students’ views about theirlearning and themselves as learners and noviceresearchers.We begin by briefly referring to accounts

of deliberate efforts to foster community inpreservice teacher education programs. We thenoutline the context of the unit, the methods weused to collect and analyze our data, and thetheoretical perspectives that informed our inter-pretations. Next, we describe the five ‘moments’that to us illuminate important phases in theemergence of community. We conclude withcritical reflections and suggestions for futureresearch.

2. Fostering community in preservice teacher

education

As Mitchell and Wakefield (2001) and otherspoint out, ‘‘community’’ is a concept with con-siderable currency within the teacher educationliterature. Advocates argue that learning is funda-

mentally social, ‘‘a participatory process thatinvolves doing, becoming and belonging’’ (Barab,MaKinster, Moore, Cunningham, & The ILFDesign Team, 2001). To become effective teachers,therefore, preservice teachers need to experienceand participate in learning as a social undertaking.According to many commentators (see Beck &Kosnik, 2001, for a useful synthesis), promotingcommunity within preservice programs can fosterappreciation of difference, respect for others,insights into interdependency and collaboration,and willingness to try out new roles, thuscontributing to the creation of productive learningenvironments. Despite differences in terminologyand pedagogical perspectives evident in the var-ious ideals and conceptions of community inpreservice teacher education, most emphasizecollaboration and constructive engagement;shared goals; interdependence and exchanges thatfoster individual and collective understanding;mutual respect and responsiveness; appreciationof differences within the group; and concern forthe wellbeing of the group and the individualswithin it (Beck & Kosnik, 2001).Typically, efforts to foster communities within

preservice teacher education programs have in-cluded some combination of:

* introducing online learning initiatives involvingpreservice teachers and teacher educators(Bloomfield, 2000; Laferri"ere, 2001), preserviceand experienced teachers (Barab et al., 2001;Edens & Gallini, 2000), and preservice teachers,cooperating teachers, teacher educators, andresearchers (Mitchell & Wakefield, 2001);

* engaging preservice teachers in action researchprojects (Kosnik & Beck, 2001);

* grouping preservice teachers in cohorts (Beck &Kosnik, 2001; Darling, 2001); and

* encouraging preservice teachers to engagecollaboratively in critical reflection (Beattie,1997; Darling, 2001).

The TAR unit incorporated elements of theseapproaches, including substantial online commu-nication and a group research project, but therewas no specific intent to foster community.The above accounts of efforts to promote

community in preservice programs, even when

ARTICLE IN PRESS

J. Sumsion, C. Patterson / Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (2004) 621–635 623

ultimately successful, generally report a range ofdifficulties despite the relatively small size of mostof the programs involved. Constraints includediffering expectations and values; unsustainabledemands on teacher educators’ time; lack ofcommitment to a common purpose and/or tocritical inquiry; resistance to information andcommunication technologies; and difficulties asso-ciated with access to and maintenance of electroniccommunication facilities (Bloomfield, 2000; Dar-ling, 2001; Mitchell & Wakefield, 2001). Thesedifficulties seem likely to be magnified in initiativesinvolving larger numbers of preservice teachers,such as the TAR unit.In light of the difficulties encountered in many

deliberate efforts to foster community in preserviceprograms, the sense of community that seemed toemerge took us by surprise. We were especiallysurprised given the many tensions associated withthe implementation of the unit and growingconcern about student disengagement in theiruniversity studies (McInnis, 2001).

3. Context and background

The compulsory, 11-week TAR unit had re-cently been reconceptualized and relocated to thesecond semester of a 4-year preservice programleading to a Bachelor of Education (Early Child-hood). Previously, it had been offered in the thirdyear of the program and had focused on develop-ing skills in reading research literature.1 Followingits re-design, the unit incorporated a substantialemphasis on participatory learning by introducingpreservice teachers to introductory research skills,assisting them to develop their information tech-nology skills, and requiring them to undertake asmall group research project. They were expectedto investigate some aspect of student learning orstudents’ views about themselves as learners ornovice researchers, within the context of the TAR

unit.

1The rationale for moving the TAR unit was to introduce

research skills to students at an early stage of the program to

provide a strong foundation for their study.

The relocation of the re-designed unit from thethird year to the first year of the program resultedin a large ‘‘catch-up’’ enrollment of 378 studentsfrom all years of the preservice program. Conse-quently, in the first year of implementation in itsreconceptualized form, the unit required anexpanded teaching team of nine academics (twoof whom had taught the unit previously) andlibrary staff who conducted the information andcommunication technology (ICT) skills develop-ment workshops.Approximately two-thirds of the students were

enrolled as internal students and the remainder asexternal (distance education) students. Each week,internal students attended two 1 h lectures and a1 h tutorial or ICT workshop. External studentswere provided with audio-tapes of the lectures andwere required to attend two compulsory on-campus days. All students were expected to makeregular use of the unit web site and bulletin boardas a source of learning materials, and a forum forcommunication, problem solving, and the sharingof research experiences and presentation of re-search findings. Students were also required tosubmit three pieces of assessment: (i) a literaturereview relevant to their chosen research topic,undertaken independently; (ii) a group report ontheir research project; and (iii) an individualwritten reflection on their contribution to theproject and learning that had taken place throughtheir involvement in the project, accompanied bycopies of six of their bulletin board postings. Inaddition, students were required to sit a finalexamination.The context in which the re-designed unit was

implemented was inherently complex as the enrol-ment was more than double that of other coreunits and the large and potentially unwieldyteaching team had diverse disciplinary, methodo-logical and pedagogical perspectives and widelyvarying teaching experience, status, and conditionsof employment. Given this complexity, we recog-nized the need to document carefully our decision-making and our students’ responses to the unit.Consequently, we audio-taped and transcribed ourplanning meetings. We also collected extensivedata from the first cohort of students to undertakethe unit to assist in evaluating the unit and to

ARTICLE IN PRESS


enable team members with diverse researchinterests to pursue a range of projects associatedwith student learning in the unit. Collectively,these projects contributed to the larger projectreferred to in the introduction. The large poolof data comprised: (i) a pretest of students’understanding of basic research terms andconcepts undertaken in the first lecture;(ii) students’ postings on the unit bulletinboard; (iii) copies of all three assignmentssubmitted for the unit; (iv) the final examinationscript, which included a posttest of the researchterms and concepts tested in the first lecture;(v) an anonymous online survey evaluation of theunit; and (vi) student evaluation of teaching(SETS) questionnaires administered centrally bythe university and completed anonymously bystudents.

2As a team, we had agreed that individual or groups of team

members should feel free to generate supplementary data in line

with their respective research interests. As far as we are aware,

we were the only ones who chose to keep an interactive journal.

Because of the sometimes difficult team dynamics we did not

invite other team members to join us in our journal writing.

4. Data collection and analysis

Our decision to investigate the unexpectedemergence of community amongst many studentsin the TAR unit was taken retrospectively for itwas not until we had read students’ reflections ontheir involvement in the research project submittedat the end of the semester, their exam scripts, andthe SETS evaluations that we fully appreciated itsextent. To assist us in understanding why thissense of community developed we drew on thefollowing data from the larger pool of dataoutlined above:

1. students’ individual reflections about the smallgroup research project (N ¼ 145);

2. students’ selection of six of their bulletin boardentries (N ¼ 145);

3. students’ responses to an exam question thatasked them to critically review what they hadlearned about (a) themselves as researchers and(b) the research process (N ¼ 145);

4. the online student evaluation of the unit(N ¼ 237); and

5. students’ responses to SETS questionnaires(N ¼ 193).

6. Additional data included transcripts ofthe team’s planning meetings, as well as

an informal, interactive journal that two of us(the authors) decided to keep during theplanning phase as a means of dealingwith tensions that emerged amongst the teammembers.2

Items 1–3 were taken from a random sample of145 (49.65%) of the 292 students who completedthe unit. Of these, 98 were internal students and 47were enrolled externally, reflecting the overallenrolment pattern within the unit. All submittedonline student evaluations of the unit (N ¼ 237;81.16% overall response rate) and all completedSETS (Total N ¼ 193; 88.88% response rate frominternal students; 55.0% from externals) were alsoincluded in our analysis.We approached the data with caution for

we were conscious that our positioning andstatus as teacher educators and our vested interestsin TAR had ramifications for what was ‘‘saidor not said, ywritten or not written andyseenor not seen’’ (Mitchell & Wakefield, 2001, p. 55).We were especially aware of the potentiallimitations of including data that were assessedas part of the unit requirements (items 1–3).For this reason, we began our preliminary analysiswith the anonymous data (items 4–5).This analysis supported our perception thatmany students had indeed experienced a senseof community during their participation in theunit.Our initial reading of the remaining data

collected from students, the transcripts of ourplanning meetings, and our interactive journal wasguided by the following question: ‘‘What contrib-uted to generating the sense of community thatseemed to emerge amongst many TAR students?’’We analyzed the data inductively by first identify-ing segments of data that seemed to shed light onthe phenomenon, and then categorizing thosesegments according to emerging themes. Thisprocess continued until no further categories

ARTICLE IN PRESS


emerged. After synthesizing and refining thesecategories, which resembled those developed byWestheimer (1998), we were left with the followingkey themes:

* voicing anxieties and concerns,* making connections with others,* participating in a shared endeavor,* supporting each other,* developing new skills/knowledge/insights/atti-

tudes/identities through participation in theshared endeavor.

5. Theoretical perspectives

We brought to our early readings of the data anunderstanding of community generally consistentwith Westheimer’s (1998) synthesis of the featuresof community identified by many social theorists.These features (interaction and participation,interdependence, shared interests and beliefs,concern for individual and minority views, andmeaningful relationships), in turn, were similarto those underpinning the conceptions of com-munity in many previous studies of preserviceteacher education programs and identifiedearlier in this paper. Like Westheimer (1998)and Grossman, Wineburg, and Woolworth(2001), we recognized that any list of featureswill necessarily be imprecise and incomplete,given the complexities and diversity of com-munities. Moreover, we agreed with Westheimer(1998) and Grossman et al. (2001) about theneed to problematize the many taken-for-grantedassumptions about community. To informour subsequent readings of the data, therefore,we drew on Foucault’s (1977, 1980) theorizingabout power, Mann’s (2001) perspectivesabout alienation and engagement, and Wenger’s(1998) conceptualization of communities ofpractice.

6. Findings from the preliminary analysis

Our impressions that a sense of communityemerged amongst many students in the unit were

supported, in a rudimentary way, by data from theonline survey evaluation of the unit and SETS,although none of the questions specifically referredto community. When asked in the online evalua-tion to rate what had had been important fortheir learning, from a bank of 11 items, 75.9%of students indicated online communicationwith fellow students, while 73.4% referred toopportunities for collaborative work. Theseitems ranked respectively 4th and 5th slightlybehind three items related to the online ac-cessibility of course materials but substantiallyabove all other items. Similarly, with respectto SETS, of the 20 statements to which studentswere asked to respond, those related to valueof online discussion facilities (68.13% of internalstudents; 84.09% of externals) and groupwork (73.75% of internals; 59.09% of externals)got the overall ranks of 2nd and 3rd, respectively.The reflective writing, bulletin board entries andexam scripts reflected similar trends to theanonymous survey and SETS responses, suggest-ing that the former were, for the most part,trustworthy data.While these figures help to support our claims

that community emerged, they give little sense of‘‘the markers of community formation’’ (Gross-man et al., 2001, p. 988). To represent ourunderstanding of how community emerged, wehave identified five ‘moments’ that seem to usparticularly significant. We distinguish these mo-ments by the discourses, positionings, and tensionsthat seemed to reflect the tenor of that particularphase in the evolution of community. Althoughour representation might suggest that these mo-ments were discrete, in reality they were over-lapping, rather than tightly bounded. In whatfollows we draw on data that seemed to us to bestilluminate the discourses, positionings, and ten-sions that characterized each phase. The eventsand episodes we portray are open to multipleinterpretations, and we acknowledge that ourinterpretations might be contested by some mem-bers of the teaching team. To establish the contextin which the unit unfolded, we begin with aprologue that conveys a sense of the tensions andrelative lack of community amongst the teachingteam.

ARTICLE IN PRESS


7. Prologue: negotiating difference

ythe reality is that this is not a team workingtogether in a collaborative way

Laferri"ere (2001) writes that ‘‘creating commu-nity in teacher education is an undertaking thatrequires tolerance, openness, respect for differ-ences, and a capacity to accommodate difference’’(p. 19). During the lengthy planning phase,transcripts of the teaching team meetings andentries in our interactive journal suggested littlehope of achieving a community amongst the TAR

teaching team. Our differences seemed irreconcil-able, the tensions palpable, as the followingjournal extract dated 6 weeks prior to thecommencement of the unit suggests:

I’m too annoyed to write much about today’smeeting and too frustrated, depleted, disorien-tedy .What is really disappointing is that I hadthought for quite a while that we were reallymaking progress. There seemed a shared senseof vision and excitement; an energy that madeso much possibley.How could I have been sona.ıve?

As a team, we brought multiple perspectives,discursive positionings and practices to the plan-ning processes. On an intellectual level, wewelcomed this multiplicity; on a practical level itgenerated many tensions that proved frustratingand extremely time consuming to negotiate.Creating a discursive space in which to produc-tively negotiate these differences and their implica-tions for our teaching was difficult because ourdiscourses underpinned our enactment of oursubjectivities and practices as teacher educators.Following many compromises, we eventually

managed to identify discourses that we agreed,collectively, to adopt. We would position ourselvesas teacher researchers with a commitment toconstructivist principles of teaching and learning.In particular, we would model an inquiry orienta-tion and research processes by investigating ourstudents’ learning, at the same time that they wereinvestigating their own learning. We would cele-brate the diverse perspectives within the teachingteam, while privileging none. Finally, we plannedto position our students as active, inquiring

learners who would become confident, competentand willing users of ICT.

8. The 1st moment: positioning ourselves as

teacher–researchers

It seemed like the lecturers knew exactly whatwas happening and they wanted to keep it asecrety

Confident that under the gaze of our studentswe could put aside our differences, and thetensions that had permeated the planning phase,we introduced the unit with what we anticipatedwould be a seamless performance of collegiality,collaboration, and respect for difference. Position-ing ourselves explicitly as teacher-researchers, webegan our investigation of students’ learning.Through this investigation and our practices moregenerally as fellow researchers, we planned tointroduce students to a variety of research designs,approaches and issues that they might considerwhen designing their own research projects. Keento depart from traditional lecture presentations,we experimented with alternative possibilities. Onseveral occasions, up to five of us took part inpanel discussion type lectures. Essentially, weengaged ‘‘in dialogue with each other in front ofthe students about the different approaches weprefer to use [in our research] to show studentsdifferent ways of looking at research’’ (teammeeting transcript). We enjoyed the intellectualstimulation of these joint panel presentations andcongratulated ourselves on transcending the tradi-tional lecture format. Our performative enactmentof our expertise as teacher educators-researcherswas rudely disrupted, however, by our students’responses.As their bulletin board postings made clear,

many students interpreted our enactments differ-ently from how we had envisioned. Instead of theexcitement and enthusiasm we had (na.ıvely?)expected, many students felt intimidated andalienated. Despite our good intentions of welcom-ing our students into ‘‘the language, culture andpractices’’ of research (Mann, 2001, p. 10), we hadoverlooked the distribution of what Foucault(1980) refers to as knowledge-power. As teacher

ARTICLE IN PRESS


educator-researchers, we positioned ourselves andwere positioned by our students as experts with‘‘greater facility with, knowledge and understand-ing’’ (Mann, 2001, p. 10) of research discourses. Incontrast, our students’ discursive positioning asless knowledgeable and less able outsiders pro-voked for many, a sense of estrangement from‘‘the subject and process’’ of the unit (Mann, 2001,p. 8) and hence considerable resentment andanger. The following excerpts highlight the stu-dents’ strong emotional responses and the depth oftheir alienation:

After sitting though hours of confusing andmindboggling lectures, I’m feeling that I willnever understand TAR. Its purpose remains amystery [week 2].

It is SO confusing. One lecturer jumps up, andthen another. All the while, the students aresitting there with blank faces thinking, ‘Whathave I gotten myself into???’ [week 2].

In my three years of studying, I have never feltso overwhelmed and negativey [week 3].

As Foucault (1977) wrote, power inevitablygives rise to resistance. Many students enactedtheir resistance to our unintended positioning ofthem as outsiders by staging a mass exodus fromTAR. During the first month, approximately 23%of the students originally enrolled in the unitwithdrew, a rate considerably more than doublethat of other units in the program.

9. The 2nd moment: resisting alternative discourses

I feel the way this unit was conducted was veryunfair for many students.

Many of the remaining students (56.12% ofinternal students; 51.06% of externals) continuedto feel frustrated and alienated. Their initialresentment about seemingly being positioned asoutsiders was fuelled by at least three furtherirritants. First, they resented our positioning ofthem as active, confident learners who wouldwelcome the opportunity to engage in participa-tory learning. Our expectations that they relin-quish traditional discourses of passive learning

seemed to them unfair. The reduced availability offace-to-face tutorial support (on most alternateweeks, workshops were conducted by library staffin ICT training rooms in lieu of tutorials) wasanother irritant, as the following comment indi-cates:

The limited amount of time that has been setaside for tutorials has been disappointing and ismaking it even harder [week 3].

It was clear that students did not regard web sitecommunication facilities as an adequate substitutefor regular face-to-face contact.Many students were also frustrated by our

attempts to transcend some traditional structures,hierarchies and orthodoxies. They resisted, forexample, our efforts to encourage students fromdifferent stages of the BEd program to workcollaboratively. Others resented our attempts toprovide a seamless unit that minimized differencesbetween internal and external enrollment. Somewere angered by our decision to allow theresubmission of assignments as this did not con-form to common practice in other units. Thefollowing excerpts reflect this groundswell ofresentment:

I feel the unit is very unfair to 1st year studentsin that there is no way we can get nearly asmany marks as them [students at higher stagesof the program] [week 3].

I felt very disadvantaged as I completed theassignment correctly and received the samemark as people who did not complete itcorrectly and were able to redo it [week 4].

Internal students have the advantage overexternal students in this assignment. yWe areable to use the bulletin board and private mailbut I feel that this is not enough. This is wherethe internal students get their advantage. Theysee each other at university and are able to talkto one another and compare research and shareinformation. This is harder for us externalstudents to do [and] thereforeya little unfair[week 5].

It seemed to us that many students did not wanttraditional structures, hierarchies and orthodoxies

ARTICLE IN PRESS


disrupted. We assumed that they preferred tocomply with traditional discourses and practicesthat supported their subjectivities as passivelearners with little agency, perhaps because theseoffered a semblance of stability and order. A morecharitable alternative reading might interpret theirresistance as a reasonable response to overwhelm-ing and not particularly well-supported change.And indeed, as the unit unfolded, we became morewilling to acknowledge the possibility that ourpedagogical decision-making may have beenflawed and unduly optimistic.For the time being, however, the chasm between

our expectations and those of our remainingstudents continued to deepen. They had nowcommitted themselves to completing the unit, forthe date for withdrawal without penalty hadpassed. Perhaps because of this realization, thestudents’ collective commitment to traditionaldiscourses, the dissonance between their expecta-tions and their experience of the unit, and theirfeelings of alienation combined to generate, formany, the stirring of a noticeable sense ofcommunity founded on their mutual engagementin the joint enterprise of surviving the unit(Wenger, 1998).

10. The 3rd moment: embracing the bulletin board

I’m feeling scared and overwhelmed by thisunit. Everything is so new and different and ITskills are not something I feel confidentinylooking on the bright side, thoughy I findbeing able to read other students’ ideas andconcerns extremely helpful. It’s reassuring toknow that I’m not alone in my fears [week 4].

A substantial minority of students (35.05% ofinternals; 38.29% of externals) had little priorexperience with computer-based information tech-nology. For these students, our expectationsseemed especially threatening. Comments like thefollowing from end of semester reflections werecommonplace:

At the start of the semester, I could barelyswitch on a computer. I didn’t think that I wasgoing to be able to see it through.

I felt really pressured to become familiar withan element of life that I have deliberatelyavoided.

As students became familiar with the web siteand confident about using its communicationfacilities, they found that the camaraderie of thebulletin board helped to counter some of theirfeelings of anxiety and alienation.Almost two thirds of students (64.28% of

internals; 63.82% of externals) used the bulletinboard primarily to dispense and receive emotionaland practical support. Sharing anxieties andfrustrations seemed to reduce these to moremanageable levels. Responding to concerns, pool-ing their developing knowledge and assisting eachother to make meaningful connections between theideas they were encountering in the unit contrib-uted to the growing mutual engagement thatWenger (1998) contends is fundamental to thecreation of community. The following excerptsillustrate the supportive role played by the bulletinboard exchanges:

The bulletin board is fantastic, kind of like alife-line to understanding others [week 5].

I sympathize with everything you have said.I also have stressed very much over thisunitybut I believe we are not alone. Thereare so many other students out there havingdifficulty with this unit. I find it comforting toread through the bulletin board and talk aboutit. I think that helps [week 7].

It was noticeable that students used the bulletinboard in ways that suited their own purposes. Forthe most part, they resisted the expectations of theteaching team that they regularly contributepostings comprising reflective responses to theissues raised in the unit outline. Indeed, in tokenacts of strategic compliance, almost one quarter ofall students waited until the final days of the unitto post the minimum required number of ‘reflec-tive responses’ on the bulletin board.It would be wrong to infer from such acts of

resistance, however, that the bulletin boardexchanges did not prompt reflection. Rather, thestudents themselves determined the focus of theirreflection, with most students focusing on the

ARTICLE IN PRESS


processes of their learning, and the centrality ofrelationships to that learning. Some studentstracked their development during the semester.One student commented:

I agree with you, Lisa, that so much can changein such a short time. I was reading some of thecomments I had made on the bulletin boardduring the beginning of the semester. I laughedto myself because each comment I made wasabout how I didn’t understand what was goingon. Over the last month, everything has falleninto place for me [week 8].

Others highlighted their exposure, through thebulletin board, to the diversity of perspectives heldby their peers, as the following comments indicate:

I am really enjoying the contact that we havethrough this bulletin board; it is giving meexposure to a lot of thoughts and ideas that Iwould not normally have [week 7].

You meet VERY different people with differentbackgrounds and VERY different opinions[week 6].

Students recognized that this exposure wasinvaluable in prompting them to rethink pre-viously held views. The student who previouslyhad described her resentment of the perceivedadvantages of internal students, for example, laterposted the following entry on the bulletin board:

I’ve been doing a lot of thinking about thedifference between internals and externals.Quite a few external students have many othercommitments, including me with 3 children anda job and then the study. What I failed to realizewas that internal students can just as easily havethese commitments. It would be interesting toknow what difference these commitments make,as opposed to being internal versus external[week 9].

Evident in this excerpt is a growing awarenessand appreciation of the social complexity anddiversity characterizing most communities (Wen-ger, 1998).Students also used the bulletin board as a site

from which to challenge perceived threats to

themselves as individuals, and to the communitythat, collectively, they were creating. One studentused the bulletin board to challenge what sheperceived to be a personal attack by a teachingteam member, in response to that student’s postinga criticism of an aspect of the unit organization onthe bulletin board. The following posting (by thestudent) brought to an end an angry exchange withthe staff member involved:

Not once did I disregard or de-value the effortsmade by the staff in this unit. I imagine that youare all very committed and excited about boththe unit and your own TAR projecty. Butallow me to voice my opinion. Even if you thinkit’s trivial, it was obviously an issue for me. Iapologize for offending you [but I hope you willhave more regard for my opinion in future evenif it isn’t the same as yours] [week 6].

Without access to the bulletin board this studentmay not have felt able to respond so forthrightlyto the perceived attack on her freedom to expressher opinion. As such, this excerpt seems to suggestthat bulletin board may have facilitated the flowof power from teacher educators to students(Foucault, 1977).More commonly, students used the bulletin

board to admonish their peers for behavior thatthreatened to undermine the emerging sense ofcommunity. The following excerpt, referring to theproblem of participant overload in the students’research projects, was typical of a posting madewith this purpose.

My research colleagues and I have beenanswering as many questionnaires as we canin the hope that others will do the same, andreturn the favorybut I have been reallydisappointed to the lack of responses to ourquestionnaires [as have a lot of others]. I knowthat we are all in the same boatylots to do, solittle time/energy/brainpowerybut as partnersin this thing we call research, I hope that we canall pull together and help each other out withresponses. It would make everyone’s lives a loteasier [week 7].

In summary, the bulletin board was usedvariously as a site of community building via

ARTICLE IN PRESS


mutual engagement, resistance to imposed agen-das, and negotiation of a joint enterprise foundedon mutual accountability (Wenger, 1998). Theembracing of the bulletin board by many of thestudents within the unit, therefore, was animportant phase in the emergence of community.It reflected a shift in the discourses taken up bystudents, as well as an example of how the flow ofpower generates productive possibilities (Foucault,1977). From Mann’s (2001) perspective, thismoment in the development of community wasmarked, for many students, by a shift fromalienation to engagement.

11. The 4th moment: grappling with the group

research project

We just gave it our best shot and accepted thatwe were all coming from different frames ofmind, skills, ideas and understandings. We usedour differences to our advantage. It made theteam experience creative and stimulating.

While the bulletin board was instrumental inbringing the students together, the group researchproject that students were required to undertake intriadic teams severely tested the strength of theemerging community. For the majority of students(87.6% of internals; 89.36% of externals) theprospect of the group research project was over-whelming. The limited time available for under-taking the projects that coincided with the lengthyuniversity break, the consequent geographicaldispersion of the students, and their need to relymainly on electronic and telephone communica-tion exacerbated the stress experienced by manystudents. The logistical difficulties were com-pounded by personal and interpersonal challenges.Many students had dreaded the group project,

mostly because of a personal preference forindependent work, or less than positive previousexperiences of group work. The sentiments ex-pressed in the following excerpt were typical:

At the outset of this collaborative work teambonanza I was very opposed to it. I like to workindependently and be responsible for my ownlearning. I was concerned that the group I

would work with mightn’t be as motivated ordedicated as I am [week 10].

The discourses of individualism, independence,and personal as opposed to collective responsi-bility underpinning these comments were unmis-takable. The students’ awareness of the magnitudeof the challenges ahead of them, however,tempered their resistance to working collabora-tively. As one student commented:

I must say that I am one of those people whoreally do prefer to work by themselves, but forthis assignment, I am really happy that it was asa group. I don’t think I could have done itwithout the help and encouragement from peers[week 10].

For the group work to succeed, students neededto develop and refine many personal and inter-personal skills. The following comments about thechallenges of group work provide some sense ofthe growth involved:

I found that collaboration is a lot harder than itsounds. It requires constant communication,shared decision-making, and resolving conflictsconstructively [week 9].

I’ve learnt that I cannot control all sections of acollaborative project and that I have to havefaith in others’ ability. I’ve also needed toquickly realize and accept as a huge bonus tomy own learning the fact that people perceiveinformation very differently to one another[week 10].

Many students found that their diverse skillsenabled them to make complementary contribu-tions (Wenger, 1998) to their group project. Onestudent described how, in her group:

We each had a talent the others were not sogood at; one of us was good at writing, one atcomputer skills, and the other was good atexplaining, and interpreting data. Even thoughwe all contributed to each of these tasks, if therewere any difficulties the more talented tookcharge [week 10].

Students were surprised by the sense of personaland collective agency that resulted from their

ARTICLE IN PRESS


collaboration. They attributed this development,in part, to the synergy arising from opportunitiesto engage in the social construction of knowledgethat lead in turn to a clearer understanding of theresearch related concepts and processes with whichthey were grappling. As one student noted:

Working in a group has been so beneficial,especially since I was really confusedyit’sremarkable how much clearer things can bewhen three people sit down and talk aboutstuffyI really believe that the team workinvolved made all the difference [week 10].

Students’ sense of ownership of their researchgenerated by their involvement in the collaborativeprojects also contributed to their enhanced feelingsof agency, as the following comment indicates:

At first, I wasn’t really looking forward to theproject, but I found that conducting our ownresearch and finding results and conclusions toa question was exciting. It was us in charge andthis was our project [week 11].

This sense of ownership and agency evident inthese excerpts enabled most students (75.51% ofinternals; 70.95% of externals) to transcend thediscourses of alienation and vulnerability that hadbeen so apparent earlier in the unit. Accompany-ing this shift was a sense of connection to a largerundertaking that extended beyond the smallgroups of students within each team and, indeed,beyond the unit itself, as the following excerptsillustrate:

It was amazing to see my group and othergroups get so involvedyit was a chance forus students to become part of a larger thing[week 10].

The research project has made me much moreaware that the research is not the sole domainof academics and scholars. It has demonstratedthat I am able to be ‘the researcher’, just as I amable to be ‘the early childhood educator’, and‘the student’. The project has made it clear thatthese different areas are all interconnected andpossible [week 9].

These developments heralded the fifth and finalmoment in the evolution of the communityamongst the TAR students.

12. The 5th moment: celebrating community

Something that seemed so hard at first has beenachieved by us all.

It’s great to see so many of us helping eachother. It really restores my faith in this sharingthing. Thanks everybody.

By the time they completed their researchprojects, most students (85.01% of internals;90.91% of externals) considered they had muchto celebrate. Some focused specifically on theirlearning about research concepts and processes.But for the most part, students embedded specificcomments about this aspect of their learningwithin a broader focus. What stood out to manystudents as their most celebrated achievements wastheir learning about self and self-in-relation toothers, their enhanced sense of agency and will-ingness to take on challenges, and their growingappreciation of complexities and ambiguities. Asone student commented, ‘‘Embarking on thisprocess catapulted me into a new dimension oflearning’’. The following excerpts provide somesense of the students’ perceptions of their achieve-ments:

So we made a few mistakes along the way, butisn’t that what research is all about? Planning,investigating and discovering the unknown. I’msort of glad the process of the research didn’trun in one smooth line. Where would theexcitement have been if that had occurred?[week 11]

I’ve walked away with a clearer picture ofmyself and how I learn besty[and] I got to takepart in a research project that really interestedme with two wonderful women I now considerfriends—and I’ve realized that I sort of likeliving and learning outside my comfort zone—at the very least, it makes everything a lot moreexciting!!! [week 11]

ARTICLE IN PRESS


Most students (73.46% of internals; 68.08% ofexternals) attributed their achievements, at least inpart, to the emergence of community amongst theTAR cohort. As a community, they perceived thatthey had created new ‘‘fields of possibility’’ (Usher,Bryant, & Johnson, 1997, p. 76). For thesestudents, the online discussion facilities and theresearch group project offered a way of over-coming feelings of isolation, particularly forexternal students, and connecting them with anactive network of peers who were grappling withsimilar challenges. As one student commented:

In 1st and 2nd year I knew faces and had smalltalk with peers but now I’ve started to buildfriendships that I hope to take with me throughlifeyknowing that you have friends to talk toand that you can help each other with assign-ments and other non-university problemsmakes me realize that cooperative learning isthe way to go [week 10].

Participating in the shared endeavor of theresearch project and supporting each otherthrough the difficulties they encountered seemedto create conditions in which students were able todevelop new skills and understandings that led toshifts in their perspectives of their individual andcollective capabilities. The following extractsillustrate the transformation of perspectives thatunderpinned these students’ sense of community.

[With] collaborative teamworkyyou find eachother pulling and pushing each other to newlevels of awareness [week 10].

Collaborative research has really opened myeyes to the possibilities achievable when peoplecome from different perspectives to combineknowledge, insights and experience [week 10].

These extracts hint at the synergy that ‘‘createda sense of we from a collection of I’s’’ (Sergio-vanni, 1994, p. 217, emphasis in original).

13. Discussion

As Martusewicz (2001) points out, ‘‘thereis a tension between what we plan and what

actually happens that is worth looking atcarefully’’ (p. 4). In this paper, we havelooked carefully at some of the tensions,or shadows, that characterized the first im-plementation of the reconceptualized TAR

unit in the hope of gaining insight into theunanticipated emergence of community amongstapproximately 70% of the students enrolled inthe unit.In endeavoring to theorize about why this

community emerged, we have been conscious that‘community’ can be an over-used, essentiallymeaningless term. As Grossman et al. (2001)caution, ‘‘groups of people become communities,or so it would seem, by the flourish of aresearcher’s pen’’ (p. 943). We were mindful, too,of the response of an anonymous reviewer of anearlier version of this paper who questionedwhether the solidarity generated by a negativeresponse can be equated with community. It isalso possible that our account reflects a tendencyfor students to feel disgruntled initially aboutnon-traditional forms of assessment but morepositive once the assessment task has beencompleted. In reflecting upon whether indeed asense of community did emerge, we have foundit helpful to respond to Grossman et al.’s(2001) challenge to identify criteria to distinguishbetween a community and a group of preserviceteachers that happen to be enrolled in the oneunit. In brief, we offer as ‘evidence’ thatmany TAR students constituted a communityrather than a group, their collective narrativeof overcoming what initially seemed to bealmost insurmountable challenges through parti-cipation in a shared endeavor. By supportingand learning with and from each other, TAR

students developed new skills, knowledge andinsights that, for many, had a transformativeimpact on their subjectivities as learners. We donot intend to suggest, however, that the experi-ences of the TAR students will necessarily fostercommunity nor are we advocating adversity orapproaches that prompt wide-scale student dis-satisfaction, frustration and anger. On the con-trary, we wholeheartedly agree with those whoargue for far more positive community buildingefforts.

ARTICLE IN PRESS


Comparing the TAR community with preservicecommunities that have resulted from deliberateand extensive community building efforts isdifficult, especially when relatively few reportsindicate what proportion of students self-identifyas feeling part of a community. Notable exceptionsinclude Beck and Kosnik (2001) who found thatapproximately 83% of their students consideredthemselves part of their preservice program com-munity, as opposed to 70% of TAR students.Comparing communities in any meaningful way,however, will require more refined tools such ascontinua that incorporate multiple dimensions(Westheimer, 1998).Darling (2001), for example, proposes a

compassion-challenge continuum. Towards thecompassion end, she suggests, ‘‘the purpose ofthe community is defined by its role as a supportgroup, not by the learning that is taking place’’(p. 12). Towards the challenge end, shelocates communities of inquiry based on sustainedcritical engagement with, and examination of,frequently taken-for granted ideas, structuresand practices. These processes will inevitably bechallenging and, quite possibly, uncomfortable.The preservice teacher community describedby Beck and Kosnik (2001) appears to exemplifya supportive, compassionate community, whilethe type of community envisioned, but notyet achieved, by Darling (2001) exemplifies acommunity characterized by critical inquiry. TheTAR community seems to have had a greateremphasis on learning than the former, but lessemphasis on challenge than the latter. Whencomparing communities, therefore, what onevalues in a community may matter more thanthe manner in which respective communities havebeen established.We hope that this ‘unsanitized’ account of the

emergence of community will make a usefulcontribution to the teacher education literature inseveral ways. First, unlike most existing studies itprovides insight into the formation of a commu-nity, rather than examining an already existingcommunity. As Grossman et al. (2001) andWestheimer (1998) argue, more accounts ofcommunity formation are needed to extendour understandings of the generative pro-

cesses, struggles, and tensions that may beinvolved.Second, by considering issues such as power and

resistance, discourses and subjectivities, alienationand engagement, this account introduces a criticalperspective that is missing from many previousstudies. Like Grossman et al. (2001) and Westhei-mer (1998) we contend that critical perspectivescan offer one way of enriching current conceptua-lizations of community. Third, this account high-lights the potential agency of preservice teachers incommunity formation, in contrast to many reportsthat seem to position preservice teachers as some-what passive recipients of teacher educators’efforts to establish community on their students’behalf.Fourth, our account implicitly raises important

issues concerning inclusivity and sustainabilitythat warrant further investigation in relation topreservice teacher communities. Future studiescould usefully explore how students who donot perceive themselves as part of a com-munity experience their preservice teacher educa-tion program; whether there are any patternsin the circumstances or characteristics ofthese students or other students’ responses tothem; and whether students’ perceptions of thepresence or absence of community in theirpreservice program has any bearing on whetherthey later experience a sense of community in theirworkplace. It would also be useful to trace thetrajectories of communities that evolved in differ-ent contexts and circumstances and to identifyinfluences that appeared to contribute to or hindertheir sustainability.In conclusion, our exploration of the emergence

of community has reaffirmed the importanceof adopting an inquiry stance in our work asteacher educators. On a practical level, it hasenabled us to make recommendations tothe current TAR teaching team. The unit nowincludes more face-to-face tutorials with students;additional on-campus days for external studentsto facilitate group work; less use of panel-style lectures; the distribution of a glossary ofresearch related terms to all students in thefirst lecture; and a longer time frame, earlierfeedback and more scaffolding for students in

ARTICLE IN PRESS


their group research project assignment. Weunderstand from our colleagues that these changeshave been well-received by students and thatfeelings of angst and alienation amongst subse-quent cohorts of TAR students have been mini-mized without seeming to diminish thecollaborative ethos that emerged during the firstimplementation of the unit.On a philosophical level, our experience with

the TAR unit has highlighted for us the needto be alert to the ways in which we discursivelyposition ourselves and our students, and tothe possibility that our enactments of ourroles and practices as teacher educators maybe interpreted differently by our studentsthan we intend. As Mann (2001) urges, weneed to consider ‘‘our own positional powerand the complex relations of power that existwithin the educational and teaching/learningprocess’’ (p. 17). We may then be better ableto foster a more robust community foundedon inquiry into the learning–teaching endeavorand characterized by collaborative dialoguebetween teacher educators and studentsabout how issues that impact on this endeavorare played out.

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank the anonymous reviewers ofan earlier version of this article for their con-structive feedback. The ICT component of theTeachers as Learners unit reported in this paperwas supported by a 2000 Macquarie UniversityTargeted Flagship Grant.

References

Barab, S.A., MaKinster, J.G., Moore, J.A., Cunningham, D.,

& The ILF DesignTeam. (2001). Designing and building an

online community: The struggle to support sociability in the

inquiry learning forum. Paper presented at the annual

meeting of the American Educational Research Association,

Seattle, April.

Beattie, M. (1997). Fostering reflective practice in teacher

education: Inquiry as a framework for the construction of a

professional knowledge in teaching. Asia-Pacific Journal of

Teacher Education, 25(2), 111–128.

Beck, C., & Kosnik, C. (2001). From cohort to community in a

preservice teacher education program. Teaching and Teacher

Education, 17, 925–948.

Bloomfield, D. (2000). Voices on the web: Student teachers

negotiating identity. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Educa-

tion, 28(3), 199–211.

Cochran-Smith, M. (2001). Learning and unlearning: Educat-

ing teacher educators from an inquiry stance. Paper

presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational

Research Association, Seattle, April.

Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (2001). Exploring

the landscape of Canadian teacher education. Asia-

Pacific Journal of Teacher Education and Development,

4(1), 1–12.

Darling, L. F. (2001). When conceptions collide: Constructing

a community of inquiry for teacher education in

British Columbia. Journal of Education for Teaching,

27(1), 7–21.

Edens, K. M., & Gallini, J. K. (2000). Developing a discourse

community of preservice teachers in a technology-mediated

context. The Teacher Educator, 35(4), 64–82.

Eliot, T. S. (1961). Selected poems. London: Faber and Faber.

Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: the birth of the

prison. New York: Vintage Books.

Foucault, M. (1980). Prison talk. In: C. Gordon (Ed. and

Trans.). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other

writings by Michel Foucault, 1972–1977 (pp. 109–133). New

York: Pantheon.

Grossman, P., Wineburg, S., & Woolworth, S. (2001). Toward

a theory of teacher community. Teachers College Record,

103(6), 942–1012.

Kosnik, C., & Beck, C. (2001). Current trends in teacher

education in Ontario. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher

Education and Development, 4(1), 55–76.

Laferri"ere, T. (2001). Improving teacher education in Quebec:

A state-of-the-art account. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher

Education and Development, 4(1), 13–35.

Mann, S. J. (2001). Alternative perspectives on the student

experience: Alienation and engagement. Studies in Higher

Education, 26(1), 7–19.

Martusewicz, R. A. (2001). Seeking passage: post-structuralism,

pedagogy, ethics. New York: Teachers College Press.

McInnis, C. (2001). First year university—The juggling

act. Paper presented at the Transition and First

Year Experience Conference, Macquarie University,

November.

Mitchell, J., & Wakefield, J. (2001). Going public: Pre-service

teachers and teacher educators put their thoughts on the

line. Information Technology, Education and Society, 2(1),

51–71.

Sergiovanni, T. (1994). Organizations or communities? Chan-

ging the metaphor changes the theory. Educational Admin-

istration Quarterly, 30, 214–226.

ARTICLE IN PRESS


Usher, R., Bryant, I., & Johnson, R. (1997). Adult education and

the post modern challenge: learning beyond the limits.

London: Routledge.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Westheimer, J. (1998). Community, autonomy and ideology in

teachers’ work. New York: Teachers College Press.

the emergence of community in a preservice teacher education program

Documents