6 leander osborne

8/20/2019 6 Leander Osborne

1/43

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

m*os!or'uiuc.edu


2/43

Complex Positioning 2


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.


3/43


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


4/43

hierarchies and seniorities. The roles for teachers% though% are filled +ith tensions !e#ond the

intellectual and purel# su!0ect dependent ones. >o+ teachers 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%


5/43

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 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


6/43

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 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


7/43

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:

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


8/43

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.

)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


9/43

practices +ithin elementar# classrooms. 3uch curriculum reform efforts reflect national and

local science education polic# statements% for example% Pro0ect 9?5 and oals 9??? -AAA3%

5JJ 5JJ. To sustain such change% support to local teachers +as provided !# the authors and

other support staff for the development of a cohesive elementar# science curriculum that

emphasi@ed experiential learning. This could !e !roadl# descri!ed as a 2Phase 94 professional

development in +hich:

8researchers stud# a single professional development program enacted !# more than one

facilitator at more than one site% exploring the relationships among facilitators% the

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

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


10/43

carve out space and time for their +or& to proceed. A final step in the program +as the in*

servicing of the non*participating classroom teachers in the


11/43

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.


12/43

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.


13/43

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

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


14/43

replacement for them !# at least one peer teacher. This authorit# of the text

functioned discursivel#% rhetoricall# and materiall# and some+hat independentl# of

its actual authors% as in the case of a commercial text!oo&% +here authors6 names are

often difficult to find or a!sent altogether.

Ha&htin6s -5J5% 5J theories of discourse and voice are especiall# pertinent to this

stud# as the# permit a +a# of theori@ing the position of the individual spea&er in relation to

!road institutional 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


15/43

!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 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


16/43

consider ho+ Diane and 1ac&ie and the curricula the# develop are positioned historicall# +ith

respect to familiar persons% and 0ust as importantl#% to the imagined future responses of these

institutions and persons to their goals and developing identities. 3econdl#% in spatial terms%

speech for Ha&htin is al+a#s Gaddressed%G +hether to someone else or to oneself% and addressees

can !e either real or imagined audiences in more or less distant locations:

This addressee can !e an immediate participant*interlocutor in an ever#da# dialogue% a

differentiated collective of specialists in some particular area of cultural communication%

a more or less differentiated pu!lic% ethnic group% contemporaries% li&e*minded people%

opponents and enemies% a su!ordinate% a superior% someone +ho is lo+er% higher% familiar%

foreign% and so forth. And it can also !e an indefinite% unconcreti@ed other. -p. JF

,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


17/43

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.

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


18/43

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 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:


19/43

>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 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&


20/43

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.


21/43

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% both right 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.

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


22/43

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


23/43

separation of oil and +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:


24/43

) 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#%


25/43

+hile Pam and Hett# share a common +all !et+een their classrooms% Pam +as once Hett#6s

student teacher. Pam6s historical relationship to Hett#% 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


26/43

to+ard more complex ideas could alienate some of the teachers% and so it +as important to de*

emphasi@e conceptual complexit#. This value appears to function as a pedagogic principle for

ho+ Pam approaches her o+n students as +ell as the teachers. At the same time% Pam expresses

this tension !et+een conceptual openness and complexit#Oclosure% !et+een her voice and 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.


27/43

$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% 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


28/43

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 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.


29/43

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 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


30/43

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 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


31/43

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 not simpl# the reproduction of social meanings !# individuals

through internali@ation -#gots% 5JN. The case of 1ac&ie and Diane is suggestive of such

reconfiguration. )n the teams6 understanding of their +or& and presentation% it is their +riting

and selves +hich are under examination !# their peers. The# are presenting a good note!oo&%

li&e their o+n students% to teachers !elieved to have more authorit#. ,ithin this set of

relationships% and at this 0uncture% 1ac&ie and Diane6s voices partiall# index those of their o+n

students. 1ac&ie and Diane6s stor# suggests that it is not simpl# a GroleG that is partiall#

reproduced and responded to in the su!0ectivit# of the peer staff developer -e.g.% a fourth grade

teacher responds to ever# audience li&e a group of fourth graders% !ut an entire learning context

and set of voices% including those +ith authorit# and those +ithout% the meanings of having

&no+ledge and the meanings of lac&ing it.

urther% in terms of the relations !et+een peer facilitation% teaching practices% and goals of

change% the stories prompt us to reconsider the meaning of h#!rids in discourse -Ha&htin 5J5

5J and in teaching practices -Cu!an% 5JJ; for different participants +ithin staff


32/43

development. >#!ridi@ation seems ever#+here evident and a productive +a# of descri!ing

change in persons and practices. Partial assumption of ne+ voices and practices% !lended and

mixed +ith more familiar forms is an elegant +a# of understanding the incremental nature of

change. At the same time% it is important to consider for +hom the descri!ed Gh#!ridG appears as

a h#!rid% for +hom contrasts and discontinuities are evident. The description of Hett# illustrates

this issue. Through the meanings Hett# has made of activit#*!ased science experiences% and her

o+n histor# of schooling and training +ith them% she has come to !elieve that such +or& can and

should move to+ard a high degree of conceptual complexit#% and that scientific informational

end*points are an important goal in the +or&. Hett# constructs the openness of activit# as

leading to+ard the development and closure of concepts. )n the development pro0ect% ho+ever%

conceptual closure +as de*emphasi@ed and even criti/ued. )t is tempting for us to read Hett#6s

!eliefs 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


33/43

+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:

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


34/43

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


35/43

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

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#


36/43

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.

)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**


37/43

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 inevita!le multiple relations in +hich all teachers are

engaged +ithin movements of change. )n this manner% +e might re+or& our central /uestion

from G>o+ do teachers position their +or& and su!0ectivities as teacher*facilitatorsG to G>o+ do


38/43

the complex positions of teacher*facilitators inform us a!out teacher su!0ectivit# and activit# in

an# reform effortG

All teachers select and develop their curricula for some audience% all teachers find themselves

+ithin complex relationships to other staff and students% and all teachers% even the most isolated%

respond to these real and imagined audiences +ithin the constructive act of classroom

teachingOcurriculum development. To teachers% this perspective is not particularl# surprising. To

researchers interested in promoting and researching school reform% ho+ever% the need to

understand Gcurriculum reformG -the change of an o!0ect% Gschool reformG -the change of a

s#stem% and Gpedagogical reformG -the change of an activit# !# carefull# considering the

ongoing development of the individual teacher% and her positioning and multiple relations +ith

respect to several contexts% is a highl# complex !ut needed tas&. >istoricall#% it has often !een

the tendenc# to vie+ a teacher6s GmodificationG or accommodation of externall#*driven change as

the corruption of a reform effort% as GpartialG change. 3uch vie+s not onl# reveal inade/uate

theories of change% the# construct the teacher as a thoughtless and relationless appropriator of

materials. 3he !ecomes a technician rather than the teacher*facilitator she al+a#s has !een

-Apple I 1ungc&% 5JJ? Cohen I Hall% 5JJ.

,hether +e express surprise and disappointment at the shifts in reforms !rought on !#

teachers incompletel# carr#ing them out +ithin the limiting contexts of schooling% or +hether +e

assume that such shifts% alterations% and ruptures are themselves the significant stories of change%

reveals a good deal not onl# a!out +here +e locate change% !ut also a!out the roles +e assign to

teachers. Cu!an -5JJ; +rites:

)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


39/43

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.

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

Pro0ect 9?5. ,ashington: AAA3.


40/43

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


41/43

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. -


42/43

Trou!lema&ers.

>ol/uist% M. I


43/43

oloshinov% . $. -5J9JO5JN; Marxism and the philosoph# of language. Trans. L. Mate0&a and

). R. Tituni&. $e+ or&: 3eminar Press.

#gots% L. 3. -5JN Mind and 3ociet#. Cam!ridge% MA: >arvard "niversit# Press.

,ertsch% 1. -

6 leander osborne

Documents