UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Joint work between ESL and subject-area teachers: a case study at the Secondary level Helmer, Sylvia 1994

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1995-059758.pdf [ 3.99MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0054848.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0054848-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0054848-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0054848-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0054848-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0054848-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0054848-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0054848-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0054848.ris

Full Text

JOINT WORK BETWEEN ESL AND SUBJECT-AREA TEACHERS:A CASE STUDY AT THE SECONDARY LEVELbySYLVIA CARMEN LIESELOTTE HELM ERB.Ed., University of British Columbia, 1 981M.A., University of British Columbia, 1986A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OFTHE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OFDOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHYinTHE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIESCENTRE FOR THE STUDY OF CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTIONWe accept this thesis as conformingto the required standardTHE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIAOctober; 1995© Sylvia Carmen Lieselotte Helmer, 1 995In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanceddegree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make itfreely available for reference arid study. I further agree that permission for extensivecopying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of mydepartment or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying orpublication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my writtenpermission.(Signature)__________________________Department of /The University of British ColumbiaVancouver, CanadaDate_____________DE-6 (2/88)ABSTRACTThis research documents how a group of secondary English as aSecond Language (ESL) teachers attempted to work collaborativelywith their subject-specialist peers for the benefit of ESL students.Using qualitative methods consistent with the case study strategy(Yin, 1 989), this study describes and analyzes how the ESL teacherscreated and managed their new roles as teacher-collaborators (TCs)and how their subject specialist (ST) colleagues responded.In the process, the data also highlight seldom considered aspectsof the medical model of consultation, upon which collaboration inschools is typically based. This research demonstrates that themedical model fails to capture important aspects of joint workwithin the educational context, including assumptions about whoinitiates and terminates contact, sets the agenda, and is responsiblefor implementing suggested or negotiated procedures.In addition, joint work in schools is shown to be furthercomplicated by the need to take into consideration the pre-existinghierarchy of authority structures in institutional settings, and howthese structures influence collaborative efforts. The TCs in thisstudy could not move directly to fulfill their joint work mandate buthad first to construct and establish the prerequisite componentsthat could subsequently lead to joint work with their ST colleagues.This study has implications for both practitioners andresearchers. Classroom teachers moving into joint work need to begiven time and techniques to help them to develop an approach tosuch work which will allow them to continue to meet their— II —professional responsibilities as they see them, while creating acommon platform for working with their colleagues. This processshould include careful examination of the underlying assumptionsthat are part of any joint work effort, as well as the negotiation ofhow these assumptions will be reconciled with the complex demandsof the daily teaching agenda.Research needs to move beyond static models of joint work anddevelop dynamic models. These models will need to capture theprocesses by which the prerequisites for joint work are constructedthrough the use of institutional discourse within the context of theschool.— III —TABLE OF CONTENTSAbstract iiTable of Contents ivList of Tables viiList of Figures viiiAcknowledgmentDedication xCHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1Rationale 2Statement of the Problem and Exploratory Questions 5Background to the Problem 5Exploratory Questions 7Research Design and Methods 8Selection of Research Site 9Data Collection 9Delimitations of the Design 10Significance of the Study 11Definition of Terms 14Overview of the Dissertation 15CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 17Change/School Improvement Efforts 18Joint Work 22Joint Work- Benefits 22Joint Work- Definitions 25Joint Work- Prescriptions 28Joint Work - Models 32Joint Work - Dilemmas 40Joint Work- Assumptions and Questions 47- iv -CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY 55Restatement of the Question 56Methodology 57Quantitative/Qualitative 57Case Study Research - Rationale 59Conduct of the Research 61Preparation of the Researcher 61Research Methods 62Interviewing 63The Interviewing Process 64Participant Observation and Documentary Analysis 65Site Selection and Entry 66Collation and Analysis of Data 67Validity 71External Validity 72Reflexivity 72Reciprocity 73Ethical Considerations 74CHAPTER FOUR:RESPONDENTS, SETTINGS AND PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS 76Setting the Context 76Preliminary Work 78The Context of the Present Study 83The Subjects and their Contexts 85The Teacher Collaborators (TCs) 85The Subject Teachers (STs) 86The School Settings 86Preliminary Data Collation and Analysis 87Round I - Individual Interviews with TCs 89Round II - School Team Interviews 90Round NI - Individual Interviews with TCs 92Round IV - Individual Subject Teachers (STs) 94Round V - Interviews with Administrators 97-v -CHAPTER FIVE: FINDINGS 98Role 1011) Personal View of Role 1012) Managing Role Perception 1053) Subject Teachers’ (STs) View of Role 1074) School Image 1095) Role Development - Advice and Reflections 112Set-up 115Contact and Collaboration 11 91) Contact 1202) Collaboration 122a) Collaboration is . . 123b) Flexible Hats 126i) Playing Student 1 27ii) Expert/Consultant 128iii) Guest Teacher 129iv) Turn-taking 131v) On the Firing Line 132vi) Mentor/Model 133IV Problems! Concerns 1341) Time 1352) Teacher as Professional 1 36CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS 141Findings and Discussion 142Limitations of the Findings 1 53The Medical Model of Collaboration 154Discourse in Institutional Consultation Encounters (DICE) 1 57Questions and Implications for Further Research 1 621) Questions Related to the Medical Model and DICE 1622) Additional Areas for Further Exploration 166Conclusions 169Bibliography 172Appendix 1: Code Category Descriptions 183Appendix 2: Question Areas for Interview Rounds 186- vi -List of TablesTable 1: Frequency of Mention - Teacher Collaborators (TCs) 89Table 2: Frequency of Mention - School Teams of TCs 91Table 3: Frequency of Mention- Teacher Collaborators (TCs) 93Table 4: Frequency of Mention - Subject Teachers (STs) 96- vii -List of FiguresFigure 1:Roles/Responsibilities for the Medical Model of Joint Work 40Figure 2: School Profiles 139- viii -ACKNOWLEDGMENTA dissertation is the culmination of many years of work, much of itdone in isolation. Nonetheless, it is a project that could not havebeen completed without the support of faculty, friends, and family.This research has been completed, in part, thanks to the SocialSciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRCC) Grant#410911063 to Dr. M. Early and Dr. B.A. Mohan. Further, I wish tothank the many faculty members who taught, encouraged andsupported me along the way. Most particularly , I would like toacknowledge the commitment and dedication, professionalism andmentorship of my advisor, Dr. B. A. Mohan, and thank him for hisunflagging faith in my ability to complete what often seemed anoverwhelming and thankless task.I also wish to thank friends and family for their patient support andongoing goodwill. Especially, I wish to thank my immediate familyfor listening to my triumphs and tribulations with good grace andfor their unqualified support through a process that must haveseemed endless. Special thanks also go to my friend and colleague,Catherine Eddy, for her helpful comments and suggestions on anearlier draft of this document.Finally, I wish to thank the teachers who participated in this study.On top of the complexities of their professional roles andresponsibilities they found the time and patience to answer my manyquestions and share their insights and reflections. Without theircooperation and goodwill this study would not have been possible.- ix -DEDICATIONThis research is dedicated to teachers everywhere. May their voices,raised in the quest for the best possible education for all students,continue to be heard.-x -1CHAPTER ONEINTRODUCTIONAttractive concepts like collegiality and collaborationare often imbued with a global sense of virtue.Vagueness can be helpful at the beginning, as peopleattempt to sort out the various possibilities. But it canalso presage later disillusionment and disappointment ifthe different hopes and meanings invested in it do notpan out, and the meaning and benefits become lessclear. It is vital then that we understand the meaning ofcollaboration. (Fullan & Hargreaves, 1 991:46)Research into the parameters of school change focusses, to alarge extent, on defining more clearly the elements of effectiveschool improvement (for a review of this research see, for example,Fullan, 1991). Such research has repeatedly concluded that buildingcollegiality among teachers is critical to effective and lastingchange (Lieberman et al, 1 988; Lieberman, 1 992,1 986; Little,1 990b, 1984; Sizer, 1984). However, teaching practices andapproaches to teacher training have generally served to isolateteachers, not foster joint work ( Cohen, 1987; Feiman-Nemser &Floden, 1986; Lortie, 1975). In addition, there are multiple, andsometimes conflicting, definitions and prescriptions as to whatcollegiality and/or joint work should look like in day-to-daypractice ( Austin et at, 1 992; Bird & Little, 1984; deBoer, 1986;Gray, 1989; Lieberman, 1986; Rosenholtz, 1987).Given that traditionally isolating practices are the norm, andthat there is a distinct lack of clarity and direction as to how to do2joint work and what it should look like on a day-to-day basis, how,then, do teachers work together and create a collegial environment?In particular, how do secondary English as a Second Language (ESL)teachers and their subject-area teaching colleagues work togetherfor the educational benefit of ESL learners. That question forms thefocus of this study.RATIONALETeachers and schools are struggling to cope with the ever-increasing diversity of learners that attend schools in NorthAmerica (see for example the extensive review of work in highschools in Louis & Miles, 1 990 ). In particular, serious questionshave been raised about both the kind and the length of supportprovided for English as a Second Language (ESL) learners in ourschools. Research implies that teaching ESL in isolation isinefficient from both the perspective of the teacher and the learner(Bourne, 1989; Celce-Murcia, 1991; Collier, 1989; Crandall, 1987).In addition, it is clear that several years beyond specificinstruction in basic “survival” English ( how to take the bus,shopping, banking, etc.) are required for ESL learners to reach fullacademic proficiency on a par with their English-speaking peers(Collier, 1987; Cummins, 1984). Therefore, since ESL learnerscannot acquire such academic proficiency in a vacuum, rather thanESL teachers becoming pseudo-experts in the disciplines (Spack,1988), joint work has been advocated.3This study documents the process by which ESL teachers andsubject-area specialists come to terms with some measure of jointwork in the interests of assisting ESL learners to acquire cognitiveand academic proficiency in English. It is hoped that this study willcontribute to the knowledge base about how joint work can occurand how it unfolds on a day-to-day basis within the constraints oflarge urban secondary schools.This study also helps to illuminate and further currentunderstandings about what collaborative work looks like, howteachers attempt to build bridges across the gulf of subjectspecialties and how ESL specialists, working as teacher-collaborators with subject teachers, attempt to re-create and redefine their roles within their schools.In order to achieve all these ends, I have described and analyzedhow a group of ESL teachers, who were given the new role ofteacher-collaborators (TCs), have worked with their subjectteacher colleagues (STs) to create challenging yet supportivelearning environments for ESL learners.As a case study of teacher collaboration, which will be calledjoint work in this study, this dissertation explores the experiencesof the TCs as well as the meaning they, and those with whom theywork, attach to those experiences. In other words, teachers’conceptualizations of what it means to do joint work and how toarrive at a joint work juncture with subject-area teachers isexamined. In addition, this inquiry seeks to document the efforts ofTCs to redefine their place and role within the school.4Based on the data from this study, I argue that to do joint workeffectively requires consideration of a number of interrelatedelements. On the practical side, clarification of what joint worklooks like on a day-to-day basis is needed. In addition, adequateamounts of time to both do the work and to build a measure of trustbetween those collaborating, impact on joint work efforts. Jointwork also demands high levels of flexibility and personal ego-strength based on both experience and appropriate interpersonalskills training.Pivotal to any practical considerations, however, is the fact thatthe process of joint work necessitates a re-definition of the rolesof those collaborating. In particular, when considered in light of thepre-existing hierarchical structures that are embedded in discoursein institutional consultative encounters (DICE), this becomesproblematic.Further, the model of joint work prevalent in today’s schools,which is based on the medical model of consultation, also impactson the joint work efforts in this study. The findings of thisresearch will serve to illuminate the interplay of these variouselements, link them to the research in the field and outline avenuesof further considerations and potential future research.5STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM AND EXPLORATORY QUESTIONSBackground to the ProblemResearch indicates that both teachers and students benefit from“strong collegial relationships” among and between teachers (Little,1 990b) (see also Glickman 1984/5; Lieberman, 1986, 1 992; Little,1982; Rosenholtz, 1989; Scott & Smith, 1987). Little (1 990b)enumerates the benefits of such relationships for students in termsof improved achievement; for experienced teachers who stand tomake significant gains in instructional range, depth and flexibility;for novice teachers who will be better able to risk asking for helpfrom their experienced colleagues and learn from them in theprocess, and, finally, in terms of the benefits for the school as awhole, creating an organizational frame that will facilitate theimplementation of change efforts.Despite this litany of benefits, however, teachers have generallytaken little advantage of opportunities provided (such as commonpreparation periods, resource materials, more flexible timetabling)that would lead to joint work (Johnston et al, 1988; Hargreaves,1 989). One significant reason for this reluctance is that joint workrequires different and quite sophisticated skills and strategiesboth in terms of learning to plan and work together and in terms ofinterpersonal communication (for example, Alexander & George,1981; deBoer, 1986).Aside from the prerequisite skills to conduct oneself in aparticular way, it must also be kept in mind that for teachers towork collaboratively, the assumption has to be made that teachers6are willing to work with and learn from their colleagues. Thisbecomes a problematic assumption when coupled with the fact that,particularly in the secondary schools, collaborating teachers havetrained in and been hired specifically for very different and distinctexpertises. The issue is further complicated by the institutionalconstraints of DICE. In this study I attempt to shed some light onthese issues by documenting how teachers trained to operate inisolation and for very specific subject areas come to work together.This study examines these issues by posing the followingquestion: How do teachers from different subject-area backgroundswork collaboratively for the benefit of ESL learners? This documentdescribes and analyzes the joint work of teachers. Underlying thisquestion is a quest for understanding of the issues surrounding thedistinct lack of joint work even when opportunities have beenprovided (see above) as well as an attempt to document the realityof how teachers themselves view joint work and how they definetheir own roles within that process.7Exploratory QuestionsThe driving question, How do teachers from different subject-area backgrounds work collaboratively for the benefit of ESLlearners?, suggests a number of closely connected additionalquestions:1. What strategies and techniques do teachers use to “workcollaboratively”?2. Is there a common language that the collaborating teacherscan use to help them bridge the gap between their very differentexpertises?3. What role(s) do the collaborating teachers assume tofacilitate their joint efforts?4. How do the designated teacher-collaborators (ESL teachers)re-define and re-create their roles within the school and within thecontext of joint work?5. What other factors at the school level influence opportunitiesfor and the desirability of joint work?Each of these questions is examined through analysis of datacollected in the field over the course of two school years.8RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSThis investigation was conducted using an in-depth case studydesign (Yin, 1984; 1 989). Data collection was done throughinterviews at intervals throughout a two year period, documentanalysis and participant observation. The study focuses on tenteacher collaborators (TCs) in four urban high schools insouthwestern British Columbia.Yin (1 984) articulates a case study research design as being anempirical enquiry that:• investigates a contemporary phenomenonwithin its real-life context; when• the boundaries between phenomenon andcontext are not clearly evident; and in which• multiple sources of evidence are used.(p.23)He further points out that this design lends itself particularlywell when asking how or why questions and when the investigatorhas little, if any, control over events. The day-to-day reality of theteacher-collaborators attempting to work with their subject-areacolleagues is the focus of interest in this study. The case studyresearch design assumes that by sharing the self-reflexivebehaviour and individual reflections of the teacher-collaboratorsand those with whom they have interacted within the school, an indepth account of the process, the how of learning to workcollaboratively, will result.9Selection of Research SiteThe teachers in this study work at four secondary schools whichare part of a larger Pilot Project, involving both elementary andsecondary schools. As Louis & Miles (1990) and others have pointedout: “Most of the studies of planned educational change haveemphasized the elementary school. There is clear consensus in theliterature that approaches that work in elementary schools may failwhen transferred to the more complicated and turbulentenvironment of high schools.” (p.4) For this reason this researchconcentrates on the secondary schools alone.The objective of the Pilot Project in these schools was tointegrate language and content teaching with a view to betterserving the growing numbers of ESL learners in the school district.To facilitate this process a team of teachers, experienced in ESLpedagogy and practice, was created at each school. The four highschools applied to be part of the Pilot Project and specificdepartments agreed to try the approach, elements of which theywould be taught via inservice sessions and through the chosenteacher collaborators. I met the ten teacher-collaborators (TCs)during inservice training sessions and they agreed to allow me tointerview them over time as they learned and operated in their newroles.Data CollectionThe TCs allowed me to interview them, both formally andinformally, individually and as school-based teams (of TCs) andsupplied me with a list of subject-area teachers who were10potential “collaborators” for the duration of the Pilot Project. Iinterviewed a number of subject-area teachers as well as some ofthe administrators at the schools.In addition, I examined copies of documents produced for theinservice programs as well as memos, newsletters, referral formsand other handouts produced by the TCs to advertise their roles andmodes of possible assistance to staff members. Finally, I attendedregular TC meetings of all four schools, obtained copies ofmaterials produced collaboratively, and took many notes atinservice sessions and other, less formal, gatherings.Delimitations of the DesignSince my focus was on how the teacher collaborators (TCs)created opportunities to work with their subject-area colleagues, Iestablished a number of delimitations for this study. Focusing on sosmall a group, ten key informants, allows for an in-depth casestudy but does not allow more than very cautious generalization toa population (Yin, 1 989). To facilitate this, I have attempted tocreate a detailed portrait of both the respondents and the approachtaken. This should allow the reader to determine the applicabilityof the findings to their own contexts (Lincoln & Guba, 1 985). Itshould be noted that this case study is limited to collaboration forthe benefit of ESL learners. It does not compare or contrast thistype of collaboration with collaboration for other purposes.The scope of this study creates a second delimitation. Infocusing primarily on the perspective of the TCs, documentation of11a host of other possible issues that may arise in joint work effortsfrom the perspective of others within the school context has beengiven little or no attention. Further while the effects of joint workon the students or the school as a whole are mentioned incidentallyby the TCs, my focus remains limited to the joint work dynamicsthemselves.Finally the methodology chosen, inductive, qualitative, casestudy research, creates its own delimitations. Specifically, I didnot intervene, advise or suggest options, even when so requested, asto how to proceed with joint work efforts. Rather, I attempted tostudy what occurred and how the TCs themselves interpreted eventsand then acted upon them. Nonetheless, it is recognized that mymere presence may have influenced their efforts and interactionswith colleagues. In addition, extensive personal contact over a two-year period - with all the attendant patience, empathy andsensitivity to issues that involves - is another delimitation of thistype of research.SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDYDespite a current emphasis in the literature on the values ofcollaborative work (see above and Chapter 2) for purposes rangingfrom collaborative consultation (deBoer, 1 986) for the integrationof special needs learners in the mainstream, throughinterdisciplinary teaming (Erb, 1989; Idol et al, 1 986; George et aI,1 992) to curricular integration ( Fogarty, 1 991; Jacobs, 1 989), a12large gap exists in the research regarding how this process workson a day-to-day basis for the individuals who participate in it.There is, moreover, little research that specifically considers ESLspecialists working with their subject-area colleagues. (There arethree recent MA. Theses done in the same school district that haveadded to this sparse body of knowledge: Dempsey, 1995; Hurren,1 994; Minnes, 1991, although only the last of these deals with theissue at the secondary level.)While there are guidelines, lists of definite do nots and evenrecipe-like prescriptions for facilitating a collaborative and/orconsultative process (see for example deBoer, 1986; Friend & Cook,1 992a), there is a dearth of documented evidence as to whatactually happens when teachers from disparate disciplines attemptto work together for whatever purposes.The results of collaboration in terms of student achievement aswell as benefits to the teacher are well documented (see above andChapter 2), but how individual teachers struggle toward thatachievement is not. Since, as Little (1 990b) points out, suchongoing collegiat relations, however they may be achieved, are“rare, fragile and hard to maintain”, it is vital to document theprocess of creating such an environment, becoming teachercollaborators, in order to inform future efforts in this direction.It is of interest, and relevant to this discussion, that most ofthe teachers in the present study were previously part of anotherdistrict wide project, The Funds For Excellence Project. Thisproject had the same philosophical underpinnings as the PilotProject in its attempts to provide classroom teachers with13strategies to better meet the needs of ESL learners in their classes.On a questionnaire about their tasks and roles, these 80 or soteachers were virtually unanimous in their voicing of one concernwhich is summarized in this teacher’s comment: “How are wesupposed to work collaboratively with other teachers? There’s notime buift in and besides, we don’t even talk the same language.”Teachers do not feel they know how to work and plan together.Lacking a strong research base, theorists have relied on recipes andlists of tasks to complete, but are unable to help teachers deal withthe complexity of their day-to-day reality. Pressured to workcollaboratively, teachers need to clarify their own understandingsabout any form of joint work, a clarification that goes far beyond alist of tasks to do and who will do them, and when to schedule thenext collaborative session.The knowledge gains from this case study offer a starting pointand from this a theoretical base, which can inform future researchand future practice, may be built. This dissertation argues for areconceptualization of what it means to work collaboratively. Asimple list of tasks does not begin to address the complexity of theday-to-day reality of joint work. What is needed instead is aframework that allows for an ongoing process, a dialogue betweenand among subject specialists, rather than a demand for productsand procedures. Such a process encourages joint work connectionsamong teachers. It also offers ongoing professional development forteachers by providing opportunities to learn from those who bestunderstand their contextual reality - their own colleagues.14At another level, documentation of attempts to do joint work,offers a window on the complexities of this process as well as theimportance of the roles individuals play in doing joint work andtheir assumptions about how this work will proceed. Theinstitutional constraints of DICE (see above and Chapter 2) alsorequire examination if joint work is to become the norm in schools.Since the research agrees that joint work is a key element inrestructuring and change efforts in schools (Little, 1 990b), and alsoagrees how fragile such efforts can be and are, the knowledge gainsof this case study - documenting specific instances of joint work -will provide valuable data to help educators gain insights into howteachers, accustomed to working within the relative isolation andautonomy of the classroom, learn to function in a joint workendeavour.DEFINITION OF TERMSPart of this dissertation considers the varying definitions ofwords and phrases that describe teachers working together in somefashion. Throughout this document I use the term joint work torefer to any form of joint effort on the part of teachers to takeeach other, their students and the curricula into account in theirplanning and teaching. This is done in order to avoid confusionamong the various terms used in the literature. The reader isdirected to the detailed outline of these various terms in Chapter 2.15OVERVIEW OF THE DISSERTATIONChapter Two of this dissertation examines the literature relatedto this study. First this chapter will set the context for this studyby briefly reviewing the history of change efforts in schools andthe current emphases of ongoing change efforts which directlyimpact on the project under study. Next are outlined not only thecurrent plethora of definitions of what joint work entails, but alsothe research done to date citing the benefits and value of suchwork. An attempt is made to both narrow and broaden the definitionof joint work in order to set the context for the variety ofapproaches used by actual teacher-collaborators in the day-to-dayreality of school life. The dominance of one model for doing jointwork in schools is discussed next, together with the assumptionsembedded in that model. The chapter concludes with a discussion ofthe institutional dynamics of discourse, and speculates on howthese could impact on the joint work efforts of teachers.Chapter Three outlines the research design and methodology forthis study. This case study design is based on Yin (1 984;1 989) andinvolves what Erickson (1 986) characterizes as fieldwork orinterpretive research. In this chapter are included a complete listof data sources, methods of data collection, and a detailedexplanation of how the data were analyzed.Chapter Four describes, in some detail, the subjects of thisstudy both as individuals and within their school contexts. Anoverview of data collected and preliminary coding is also presented.16Chapter Five focusses on the findings of this study by presentinga richly detailed picture of how the teacher collaborators (TCs)themselves see their roles develop and evolve, attempt to forestallpossible complications or roadblocks, create a school image fortheir work and define their joint work efforts. Two issues found tobe particularly problematic for joint work efforts, time and teacherprofessionalism, are also presented.Chapter Six summarizes the findings in relation to the originalresearch questions and discusses possible implications for bothresearch and practice.Appendix 1 presents the twenty-four code categories and howthey are defined for the purposes of the data analyses.Appendix 2 provides the key question areas for the five rounds ofsemi-structured interviews conducted.A comprehensive bibliography completes this work.17CHAPTER TWOREVIEW OF THE LITERATUREMuch of the press toward collaboration has occurred inthe context of reform movements or on behalf ofspecific organizational innovations. What is missing iswhat various parties bring to the exchange...(Little 1990a: 524)The body of literature underlying this study brings into focus anumber of areas in educational theory and practice. Change effortsboth locally and abroad have seen attempts to implement initiativesin curriculum and instruction. Some of these initiatives have hadand are having a direct impact on and relationship to the currentemphasis on joint work.Joint work, what the literature variously calls collaboration,collegiality, collaborative consultation or collaborative problemsolving, needs to be defined and its parameters outlined to set thecontext for the current research project. The impact joint work hason the roles of teachers and what dilemmas that poses, must alsobe considered. Finally, these new roles must be considered in lightof what the research tells us about how the power and authoritystructures inherent in institutional contexts are likely to impact onjoint work efforts.18CHANGE / SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT EFFORTSDespite innumerable attempts to improve schools, curriculum,teaching and learning “educational improvements ... are hard to find.Much money, much time and much professional effort has left a verypaltry legacy.” (Rutherford, 1986). In this climate, the search formodels of and approaches to successful educational changecontinues (Collins, 1 992; Hargreaves, 1 994; Holt, 1 993).Historically, the particular innovation varies but the focus remainson the teacher to implement change efforts.In the search for enhanced learning for students, the 1 960s sawan explosion of new materials inundating the schools, especially inmathematics and science. It was assumed that simply theirintroduction and availability would lead to full implementation andchange for the better in students’ performance in those areas. Thisproved not to be the case.By the 1 970s the promoters of change in schools had realizedthat an infusion of materials, of whatever quality, did not equatewith the hoped-for outcomes of enhanced learning and improvedteaching. Two major studies in the United States during that decadedemonstrated the need for considering more than just theexcellence of materials.While the DESSI studies (Huberman & Miles, 1982) did work withexemplary materials, they found that what was required in additionto these were benevolent strong-arm tactics from theadministrators in place and considerable ongoing technical supportfor the teachers in the process of implementation.19The RAND Change Agent Study (McLaughlin & Marsh, 1978), on theother hand, pointed out that for change to be successfullyimplemented, the innovation must be adapted to the local setting(the school or district) where it is to be used, and the local settingmust, in turn, adapt to the innovation. Their findings conclude thatthe actual materials were incidental to the change effort as they,too, would have to be adapted to suit local needs.Two things are implicit in both sets of studies above: therecurrence of a “top down”, outside expert approach to effectingchange in schools and the perceived need to find ways to circumventwhat has been called the “pocket veto” of teachers, whether byhovering and arm-twisting or by planning carefully for their“adaptation”.In the 1 980s, however, the pivotal role of the teacher in anyschool change efforts was starting to be acknowledged. This has ledto more extensive staff development programs, school-based staffdevelopment efforts and various “effective schools” movements (for example see Cohen, 1987; Little, 1984; Murphy et al, 1985;Tumposky, 1987).Despite these many and varied efforts, Fullan (1 991) still pointsout that “educational change depends on what teachers do and think- it’s as simple and as complex as that.” (p.117).To this end, many have sought to itemize what teachers do andwhat the factors that contribute to teacher acceptance or rejectionof change efforts are (Cohen, 1990; Doyle & Ponder, 1977;Hargreaves, 1984; Norris & Reigeluth, 1991; Webb & Ashton, 1987),20presumably in the hope that once itemized they could be dealt with,thus dissolving these barriers to change.Teacher perspective on change specifically was considered byHall & Hord (1987) as part of the Concerns-Based Adoption Model(CBAM). This model examines the stages teachers pass throughbefore implementation and change is complete. One component ofthe model sets out seven distinct Stages of Concern (SoC) about aninnovation from awareness through basic management of use toinvolvement with the impact of the innovation. The other componentof the model looks at Levels of Use (LoU) of an innovation, fromawkward and incomplete use to sophisticated refinements on thechange effort.The rationale behind the model is that until we know at whatstage a given teacher is operating, we cannot help her nor can webegin to address why that teacher is not moving toward the“desired” stage of implementation. However, if the SoC and LoU areknown, appropriate intervention plans can be tailor-made toaddress the needs of teachers at various stages on thesemetaphorical ladders toward change.In terms of teaching practices, the Madeline Hunter model,Instructional Theory Into Practice (ITIP), is only one example offormulaic programs that became widely popularized both in Canadaand the United States as the answer concerning what teachers doand how they can do it better.Worthy of note is that these kinds of innovations (presumably toimprove schools, teaching and learning) take a behaviouristicapproach, reminiscent of the traditional deficit view taken of21teachers. In fact, that teachers are lacking in something, whethermaterials, knowledge, skills, the right attitude or whatever, isstill very much the focus of the change literature today. This isdespite much recent work to look at what teachers already have andalready know (see for example Clandinin, 1986; d’Andrea, 1986;Elbaz, 1983).What is ironic in the discussion of the above efforts to changeteachers is the fact that although we have long ago acknowledgedthe inadequacy of the tabula rasa model of student learning, it stilltends to be applied to teachers, at least where change efforts areconcerned.What is clear from this brief review of change efforts to date isthat teachers’ knowledge, skills and roles have long beenundervalued and this has been to the detriment of educationalchange efforts. A teacher interviewed by Fullan & Hargreaves(1991) perhaps sums it up best:My wife and I were talking about the fact that we havecollectively 45 years of teaching and experience andnobody - this time excepted - has ever asked us ouropinions about anything, where it could actually be putinto action. And yet I’ve got to have more experiencethan a lot of the people who are telling what I should bedoing ... . I think I could help and I could bring a lot to itand nobody ever asks.... They just go ahead and proclaimand we have to follow. (p.1)22JOINT WORKThe next section of this review will focus on the currentemphasis on teacher collaboration, or what will here be called jointwork. Such collaborative efforts appear to be the fulcrum on whichcurrent change efforts rise and succeed or fall and fail: “In mosteffective schools -- schools where the learning of both teacher andstudents is greater -- teachers collaborate” ( Rosenholtz & Kyle1 984:14). First, the benefits of joint work, touted throughout therecent change literature, will be outlined. Next, the myriadreferences in this literature to variations on joint work will beclarified and defined. Then, the prescriptions for doing joint workwill be outlined, followed by a discussion of current models fordoing joint work in educational settings. The chapter concludeswith some dilemmas that joint work efforts pose for teachers andexamines a number of assumptions and questions that need to beconsidered in relation to joint work efforts per Se, and in thecontext of an institutional setting, in particular.Joint Work - BenefitsAs the benefits of joint work efforts are outlined, it should bekept in mind that this shift to collaborative work between andamong teachers is contrary to the long-standing isolation andautonomy of teachers within their classrooms ( Ashton & Webb,1986; Goodlad, 1984; Lortie, 1975). (more on this dilemma later)23Nonetheless, what has become clear is the pivotal role ofindividuals in making change efforts work. Meaningful and lastingchange in schools appears to require not only the support fromoutside, but also from inside the school, and a large measure ofthat support comes from the collaborative efforts of teachers(Little, 1990b). Or, as Fullan & Hargreaves (1991) so succinctly putit: “Educational change that doesn’t involve and is not supported bythe teacher usually ends up as change for the worse, or as no realchange at all.” (p.14)Little’s (1 990b) review of studies of school improvement,teacher preparation and change implementation to date, confirmsthat strong collegial relationships among teachers and betweenteachers and administrators can ultimately make the criticaldifference between success and failure in terms of change andimprovement efforts.Little goes on to enumerate the benefits of such relationships:Schools stand to benefit in three ways from promotingcloser collegial ties among teachers. Schools benefitfirst by simply orchestrating the daily work of teachingacross classrooms. Teachers, students, and parents allgain confidence in their knowledge of what is taughtthroughout the program and why. Teachers are betterprepared to support one another’s strengths and toaccommodate weaknesses.Second, schools that promote teacher-to-teacherwork tend to be organized to examine and test newideas, methods and materials. They are adaptable andself-reliant in the face of new demands; they have thenecessary organization to attempt school or classroominnovations that would exhaust the energy, skill, orresources of an individual teacher.Finally, schools that foster collegiality are plausiblyorganized to ease the strain of staff turnover, both by24providing systematic assistance to beginning teachersand by explicitly socializing all newcomers to staffvalues, traditions and resources. (p. 1 76)Others speak to similar findings in their own research.Rosenholtz (1989), for example, in her exploration of theworkplaces of teachers classified schools in her study as eithercollaborative or isolated. She notes that schools wherecollaborative work is the norm, generate “new ideas, fresh ways oflooking at things, and a stock of collective knowledge that is morefruitful than any one person’s working alone.” (p.41)Louis (1 992) reports on her examination of the “quality of worklife” (QWL) in eight high schools. Based on a review of theorganizational literature, she created a framework which includedseven issues pertinent to teachers that are consistently expressedin the research on educational reform:1. Respect from relevant adults;2. Participation in decision making;3. Frequent and stimulating professional interaction;4. Frequent accurate feedback leading to a higher sense ofefficacy.5. Use of skills and knowledge.6. Resources to carry out the job.7. Goal congruence. (pp. 140-142)Although the schools studied represented a wide range ofcommunity contexts, socioeconomic and racial mixes, andrestructuring efforts or lack thereof, all seven issues wereconsidered very important by teachers. Those issues relevant tocollaborative work and feedback ranked highest. Subjects pointed25out that collaboration was neither easy nor simple to achieve butwas invariably perceived as “enriching for both the teachersinvolved and for the student recipients of teacher effort” (p.149).Fullan (1991) reports on a study conducted by King et al (1 988).Five thousand high school teachers in Ontario reported on the mostsatisfying as well as the most stressful aspects of being a teacher.Highly ranked as satisfying was “interaction with/support fromcolleagues” and equally highly rated was the stress of poorcollegial relationships. Fullan & Hargreaves (1 991) report similarfindings in their own research.What this brief review of the many cited benefits of joint workhighlights, in addition to the fact that there are many benefits, isthat there exists a number of terms that appear to be linked withjoint work. For example, what precisely might be meant by teacherswhen responding to the category “interaction with/support fromcolleagues” (above) ? It is the plethora of similar and sometimesconfusing definitions of joint work that is addressed next.Joint Work - DefinitionsCollaboration in education can be defined simply as joint work.Little (1 990a) uses the term to distinguish among types ofcollegiality or collaboration:I reserve the term joint work for encounters amongteachers that rest on shared responsibility for the workof teaching (interdependence), collective conceptions ofautonomy, support for teachers’ initiative andleadership with regard to professional practice, andgroup affiliations grounded in professional work.(p. 519)26Many other terms have a similar intent but the terminologyvaries. It is also often referred to with the equally vague label ofcollegiality, which Barth (1 990) states “is difficult to spell, hardto pronounce, harder to define.” (p.30). The links among these termsare outlined below and related back to the literature on schoolchange efforts since it is these efforts that support the emphasison collaborative work and these efforts that cite joint work as sucha boon.Lieberman (1 986) states that collaborative efforts may be“small or large, heavily funded or not funded at all; organizedwithin schools by a group of teachers or a principal or encouragedby someone from the district; or they may be organized by abusiness, foundation, university or professional association incollaboration with schools.” (p.6)Bird & Little (1 984) see collaboration in team teaching as takingthree possible forms: coordination, where “teachers separatelyorient their behaviour to some common framework or third party”;accommodation, where teachers “unilaterally . . . adjust theirbehaviour to take each other into account”; cooperation, involving“mutual face to face interaction among teachers which has theovert aim of achieving a joint product” (pp. 1 0-1 1). These threeforms of collaboration are quite different. It is the virtues of thelast version, however, that reflect what the literature has beendiscussing, although according to Bird & Little, all three variationsare considered forms of collaboration.Rosenholtz (1987) defines collaboration as “the extent to whichteachers engage in help-related exchange”. This definition is no27more precise than ones cited previously and does little to delimitthe parameters of what collaboration entails. Other definitions alsoencompass a large variety of activities including joint action toplan and produce materials or effect specific school-based change,team teaching efforts (sometimes called team coaching), teacherscoaching each other (peer coaching), and teachers cooperating withresearchers or other institutions.Friend & Cook (1 992a) further complicate the matter ofdefinitions. They maintain that “what the term collaborationconveys is how the activity is occurring, that is, the nature of theinterpersonal relationship occurring during the collaboration.” (p5)Further, they argue that collaboration cannot exist in isolation,but rather is a style of interaction: “... in the same way thatwriters use various styles to convey information to readers, so,too, do individuals use interpersonal styles or approaches to theirinteractions with one another.” (p.5)For this reason, Friend & Cook warn, collaborative efforts shouldbe initiated only with some very specific and concreteunderstandings of their complexities and inherent difficulties. Thisadded dimension to the topic of joint work only reinforces the needto answer the key question of this research study, namely howteachers work collaboratively on a day-to-day basis.Joint work, in its broadest definition, is the term of choice inthis study in order to avoid confusion over the wide spectrum ofterms often used interchangeably: collaboration, collegiality,collaborative consultation, collaborative problem solving, to namebut a few. As stated in Chapter 1, throughout this document I use28the term joint work to refer to any form of joint effort on the partof teachers to take each other, their students and the curricula intoaccount in their planning and teaching. Without compromising theintent of Little’s (1 990a) definition, cited above, this versionallows room for inclusion of instances of joint work that might notmeet all criteria of that definition.Often considered together with the many definitions of jointwork is a set of recipe-like procedures outlining how this or thatversion of joint work ought to proceed. An outline of some suchprescriptions will be presented in the next section of this review.Joint Work - PrescriptionsThe research literature abounds with variations on definitionsand also speaks volumes on recipe-like prescriptions for how to goabout doing joint work and what its characteristic features include.It is important to enumerate some of these prescriptions for doingjoint work to further clarify the need to learn more about how jointwork actually proceeds on a day-to-day basis.DeBevoise (1986) notes that collaborative efforts must startwith administrative support and should have realistic expectations.Little information is offered as to what constitutes support and,more importantly, what the actual process would look like.DeBoer (1 986), in her discussion of collaborative consultation,presents four principles for success: separate the people from theproblem; focus on mutual interests; collaboratively generateseveral options; base final decisions on objective criteria.According to deBoer, to “listen for the message and not simply the29words” is the hallmark of successful collaborative problem solving(deBoer uses this term interchangeably with collaborativeconsultation).While she speaks of working together to generate options andchoose criteria, the message that someone, the expert, is in charge,is quite clear. De Boer outlines the next steps in the processsomewhat as follows. The consultee will choose a preferred optionfrom the list and attempt to implement it. The consultant will notethis and check back in a few weeks to see what progress is beingmade. Finally, putting it all in writing is considered essential to acommitment to actually follow through.Gray (1 989), using negotiated order theory, sees collaboration asa process of negotiation among those who have a stake in theoutcomes. He points out that the process is temporary and emergentin nature, differing in form and content from one group to the nextdepending on its purpose. There are five critical features of thistype of collaboration: interdependence, solutions that considerdifferences among the stakeholders, joint ownership of decisions,joint responsibility for future directions, and recognition thatcollaboration is an emergent process.Austin & Baldwin (1992), in discussing how to workcollaboratively, suggest the way to combat minor conflicts andcontroversies that are sure to come up, is to choose colleagues!team members carefully, divide the work to be done fairly,establish work guidelines and, when completed, formally terminatethe collaboration. in addition, they see collaboration as being either30complementary (working closely on all aspects) or supplementary (asimple division of labour).Like de Boer (above), Friend & Cook (1 992b) discuss thecollaborative efforts between specialist teachers and classroomteachers- a situation very similar to the respondents in thisresearch. They offer a list of tips to facilitate joint work, includingcareful planning and attention to details, a go-slow attitude, opendiscussion about personal teaching and learning philosophy and awillingness to talk through any disagreements. In addition, theysuggest the classroom teacher make a special point of welcomingthe specialist teacher into the classroom environment and cautionthe specialist teacher not to fall into the “paraprofessional trap”.What all these recipes, suggestions and warnings lack is apicture of what actually goes on day-to-day as teachers try to worktogether. Documented evidence of how joint work develops overtime is needed to create the contextual reality of the plethora ofdefinitions and outcomes available -whether to validate, enrich andaugment, or contradict currently held beliefs and viewpoints.A final point related to prescriptions concerns the unanimouscall for careful training. Despite speaking of working as equals,virtually all the literature cited constantly refers to someonebeing the consultant rather than the consultee and receivingspecial training and inservice to facilitate this role. Severalstudies have described in detail the competencies the holder ofsuch a role should have.West & Cannon (1988), for example, list 47 competencies ineight categories, that both the consultant and the consultee should31have. A 1 00-member expert panel from across the United Statesidentified these competencies, which they consider essential foreffective joint work. The competencies receiving the highest ratinginclude skills in interpersonal communication and problem solving.Rated equally high was the category of “personal characteristics”which includes a long list of not so much skills as attitudes andapproaches to working with others.Again we have recipes but no more than hints of how joint workis conducted on a day-to-day basis. It is rather like having a recipefor baking bread which fails to inform the reader how to combinethe ingredients and how to handle the yeast so that it will not beexhausted before the bread is in the oven. Bread baked withexhausted yeast is better used as a hammer than to fill yourstomach. Technically all the correct ingredients in the correctamounts are in the recipe but if prerequisite knowledge andunderstandings are assumed but not a fact, the result can be lessthan desirable.In terms of the value of and need for joint work in schools, thisis a crucial point: if the model of joint efforts that is assumed bythese prescriptions does not appropriately characterize theprocess, it follows that the prescriptions for joint work, no matterhow detailed and clear they may appear, will also need to bereconsidered and revised32Joint Work - ModelsConceptions of joint work usually assume some model ofconsultation. These models are borrowed and adapted from a numberof areas including medicine, mental health, human relations andsports. Since the plethora of definitions and prescriptions are, atleast in part, due to the varied models, it is useful to examine keymodels on which joint work efforts in education are based.Of ten models described in some detail by West & Idol (1987),four will be presented below. They are particularly relevantbecause of their common use in educational contexts. It should benoted that while these models are in current use for a variety ofpurposes, they are all based on an expert/novice dyad.The model of clinical or medical consultation (West & Idol,1 987), while having no specified theory for the consultativerelationship, is familiar to all. It assumes a relationship like thatof the doctor/patient dyad in psychiatry and typically leaves thepower and responsibility for change in the hands of the “doctor” whowill “examine” the “patient” and “prescribe” treatment based onher/his diagnosis.In an educational context this approach to collaboration involvesthe expert, often in consultation with agents external to the school,in deciding what to prescribe, and it is the teachers who receivethis prescription for improvement/change. Sarason (1982), andothers, have pointed out, that this common model for effectingchange has met with limited success and as Babcock &Pryzwansky’s (1 983) research confirms, this model of collaborative33activity is not well received by teachers because it virtuallyignores their personal practical knowledge (Elbaz, 1 983).Nevertheless, this model is pervasive in its use and, moreimportantly, its goals, stages and levels of responsibility underliethe other models (discussed below) that are common to educationalcontexts.Underpinning much of the work with school-based staffimprovement projects, is the human relations model based onorganizational theory (Argyris, 1 964). Here the focus is onincorporating into the change process all the individuals within theorganization (the school, for our purposes). In this view, plannedchange will be brought about only by taking into account theattitudes and values of the individuals within the larger frameworkof the planned change.In this way, it is argued, the participants develop a sense ofownership that is presumed to maintain a level of commitmentconcomitant with success. As in the medical model, the impetus forchange efforts comes from outside the school. In many cases,someone external to the change site coordinates interventions andprovides training for those being asked to change. The similarity tothe expert/novice (doctor/patient) dyad of the medical model isalso clear.While the extensive writings about school based staffdevelopment speak of much success using a model of this nature,there is too often a lack of durability of the planned change. Little(1 984), for instance, describes the relative persistence of changein two professional development programs. It was the program that34required teachers (and the principal) to become involved in allphases of the program from training through to implementation, andgave time for ongoing collaborative effort and reflection, thatproduced lasting rather than temporary and superficial change.The lack of lasting change was attributed chiefly to the lack ofcollegiality and relative brevity of technical and moral support -using the medical doctor/patient metaphor, when the symptoms of“illness” disappear, the “patient” starts to forget that she hadpromised to stick to a new “regimen” that would see ongoing changeand improvement.Closely related and sometimes part of school-basedimprovement programs is peer coaching, which is modelled aftersports coaching (Showers, 1 985). Here again the medical model’sexpert/novice dyad is at the core of this coaching model. Theexpertise of an experienced and knowledgeable practitioner isprovided for the novice or new-to-a-technique-or-strategy teacherin an intense one-to-one process where the expert models thedesired technique/strategy and the novice practices it under thewatchful eye of the coach. In this way the novice has theopportunity to practice and receive feedback in a continuous,supportive loop that will eventually lead to the acquisition andincorporation of the new strategy/technique.Coaching has gained considerable popularity and one form oranother is widely used today both in teacher training and schoolbased improvement efforts (see for example Bird & Little, 1983;Garmston, 1987; Showers, 1985; Wildman & Niles, 1987). Garmston35(1 987) describes three models of coaching: technical, collegial andchallenge. He suggests that which one is preferred depends on thecontext and the personnel who will be using it.Technical coaching is based on Showers’ model described aboveand aims to help teachers translate training received intoclassroom practice. One obvious application of this approach is forcoaching student teachers.For experienced peers, however, it is somewhat problematic.Though it encourages concentration on behaviour, not personality,technical coaching does require some form of evaluation and thuscan have an inhibitory effect on the mutually satisfying workingrelationship considered the hallmark of collegiality in improvementefforts (Lieberman, 1 986).Collegial coaching attempts to help teachers refine theirexisting teaching skills. In this approach the observed teacherchooses what she wishes to have observed so that she can learnmore about it. For example, she might ask her coach to note howmany literal versus inferential questions she asks her studentsduring one or a series of lessons. After observation, the coach helpsthe teacher observed to analyze the data acquired and encouragesher to apply their mutual findings to her future teaching.Again, this mutual talk is meant to deepen collegialrelationships but can be problematic. What if, for instance, theobserved teacher does not act on the analysis or what if no requestsfor reciprocal observation are made, or no requests for observationat all? It is difficult to imagine an administrator with schoolimprovement in mind, and having spent valuable resources to train36individuals for collegial coaching, who will just let such asituation be. Conversely, a teacher wishing to work on collegialcoaching efforts would find a work environment that does notreadily foster such interaction both frustrating and disillusioning.Finally, challenge coaching is described as a way to help teamsof teachers resolve what is considered a “persistent” problem,whether in program design or delivery. Garmston (1987) points outthat, to work at all, this approach requires well established normsof collegiality, trust and problem-solving behaviour in place. Basedon how important to change efforts collegiality appears to be, it isprobably safe to assume that most schools looking for ways toimprove are not likely to have such norms already established.While all three models stress peer coaching, rather thanexposure to externally designed processes and strategies, thetraining for the coach is generally taken on by an outside expert.This can be seen to imply that teachers do not know, on their own,how to coach each other, or, by implication, collaborate effectivelytoward the improvement of teaching and learning.The question has also been raised as to whether peer coaching isan example of “empowering teachers toward greater professionalindependence [or] incorporating them and their loyalties withinpurposes and structures bureaucratically determined elsewhere.”(Hargreaves & Dawe, 1989:4).The model that seems ideally suited to the call for collaborationbetween presumed equals, establishing a relationship of parity,equality and shared responsibility, is the collaborative consultation37model (Idol et al, 1 986). Here two or more teachers, each withdifferent areas of expertise, would join in generating “creativesolutions to mutually defined problems. The outcome is enhanced,altered and produces solutions that are different from those thatthe individual team member would produce independently.” (West &Idol, 1987:390). More recently collaborative problem solving hasbecome synonymous with collaborative consultation (West &Cannon, 1 988). Efforts using this model are not new but as yetlittle is known about what such collaboration looks like, how it iscreated and maintained, and how the process unfolds over time(Lieberman,1 986).While the definition seems to make an equal relationshipparamount, nonetheless the word consultation carries connotationsof the expert/novice dyad of the medical model. While teachers maybe collaborative in consultation, they return to the classroom towork as individuals. Therefore the model would proceed somewhatas follows: Teacher A consults with Teacher B, who has specialexpertise that may help with problem Y. They brainstorm possibleactions or solutions, one is chosen as most likely to succeed andteacher A then implements the chosen approach. The label may bedifferent but collaborative consultation/problem solving is, ineffect, yet another cosmetically altered version of the medicalmodel.The foregoing discussion has commented briefly on how each offour models of joint work, used in educational contexts, might beperceived. There is a notable trend in the gradual movement from38the clinical/medical to the collaborative model in that the focusnow seems to be more on working with teachers instead of workingon them. Nonetheless all four models are clearly rooted in themedical model, complete with its inherent assumptions based on anexpert/novice relationship.In terms of a school setting all four models described have bothadvantages and disadvantages, depending on the change to befostered and the circumstances and personnel of the setting.However none of them, or any other models available to date,address the original question posed here, namely how the process ofjoint work unfolds. While the literature has clearly defined andreached considerable consensus as to the critical elementsfostering school improvement/change (including teacher jointwork), there is little mention made of the ways in which teachersrelate to and interact with their peers (Hargreaves, 1 984).Zahorik (1 987) further points out that where a measure of jointwork in the form of information exchange and mutual support doesexist, it is generally confined to grade-level or subject-specialtycounterparts and remains invariably at a shallow, non-threateninglevel. He concludes by urging change implementors to encourageteachers to be less private and more collegial but offers little inhow this might be achieved.In other words, how do teachers who have traditionally seldomdiscussed teaching strategies and processes with their peers(Lortie, 1 975), are fearful of criticism (Sarason, 1 982), andextremely sensitive to observation while actually teaching(Hargreaves, 1984), suddenly become effective collaborators?39In addition, as noted above, despite currently favoured labels,the form of joint work seen in the day-to-day life of schools isessentially some form of the medical model, an expert/novice dyad.Whether the purpose is to learn strategies for including a specialneeds learner in the life of the classroom, move toward resource-based learning with the aid of the teacher-librarian, or assist ESLlearners in subject-area classes, someone is the “expert” on thetopic at hand, and someone else is the “novice”. Given the litany ofproblems with past change/improvement efforts, and the need forjoint work embedded in them, the question could be raised as towhether the common use of this model of joint work is the mostappropriate tool for these purposes.As a final note on this topic, the table below offers a summaryof what the roles and responsibilities embedded in the medicalmodel would appear to be for teachers attempting day-to-day jointwork, as in the present study. The reader is reminded that in thisstudy, what are called teacher collaborators (TCs), with ESLteaching and learning expertise, are endeavouring to work togetherwith subject teachers (STs), various subject-area specialists.Given this scenario, the “assumed” roles and responsibilities arebriefly outlined as are the goals and contact procedures.40Figure 1:ROLES/RESPONSIBILfl1ES FOR THE MEDICAL MODEL OF JOINT WORKROLE CONTACT GOAL OF RESPONSIASSUMED PROCEDURE JOINT WORK BILITIESTEACHER available advise; ensure STCOLLABORA expert! for consult; has a plan toTOR (TC) consultant consultation diagnose; implementprescribeSUBJECT appointment describe carry outTEACHER novice! or request “problem”; agreed to(ST) consultee for request plan /assistance assistance solutionsJoint Work - DilemmasAs the previous discussions have indicated, joint work is offeredas a multi-faceted panacea in the name of change/improvementefforts. However, from the teacher’s viewpoint the push towardjoint work efforts poses a number of dilemmas, conflicting desiresand tendencies. Several of these dilemmas are worthy of discussionto help set the stage for the likelihood of corresponding dilemmasfaced by the subjects in this study.Teacher isolation, autonomy and individualism repeatedlysurface in the literature in relation to change efforts. All three canact to inhibit such efforts or become stepping stones towardchange; each involves both acquiring and giving up; all three areinterrelated yet separate.41Since Lortie’s (1 975) seminal work documenting the isolation ofteachers, efforts to “crack the walls of privatism” (Showers, 1 985)and move to a more collaborative mode abound. In the work of Bird& Little (1 986), the persistent dilemma of such joint work amongteachers is pointed out.Although isolation provides room for individualcreativity and relieves teachers of some of thedifficulties associated with shared work, it alsodeprives teachers of the stimulation of working withpeers and the close support they need to improvethroughout their careers. (p.495)Little (1 990a) points out that collaboration or collegiality doesnot automatically lead to change in schools. Rather, it often leadsto change efforts that seem “contrived, inauthentic, grafted on,perched precariously (and often temporarily) on the margins of realwork.” (p.510) She also concludes that many forms of collegialitypromote privacy and isolation rather than breaking it down.It does not seem untoward then, that secondary school teacherswho are already overwhelmed in a role characterized by a “rapidwork pace, . . . impersonal student-teacher relations and much timespent doing ‘necessary’ clerking and managing tasks” (Bullough et al,1984:346) may prefer to simply shut the door to the classroom andcarry on in relative isolation.Teacher autonomy is defined by Little (1992) as “freedom fromscrutiny, the right to make professional judgments that fit personalpreference, and the implicit obligation to solve one’s ownproblems.” (p.173) Autonomy, then, involves the power of individuallatitude and personal preference. Professional autonomy brings the42personal into the public sphere. The dilemma this entails is outlinedby Little (1 990a). “Teachers open their intentions and practices topublic examination, but in turn are credited for their knowledge,skill, and judgment” (p.521)For a teacher such close scrutiny of one’s practice will noteasily be tolerated, and certainly not if the teacher in question hasany doubt of her/his own or a colleague’s competence andcommitment - an assumption that cannot be made automatically.Collaboration, then, hinges on that balance.Subsumed under the rubric of autonomy is the issue of ownershipand control. This includes more than simply being a caring,nurturing and supportive teacher. It suggests that teachers takeprime responsibility, almost to the point of feeling they “own” theirclasses and do not wish to relinquish that control and care for theircharges- a necessary prerequisite to any form of collaborativework. If the sense of responsibility for the educational welfare ofone’s charges- I have to be there to see it is done right for mystudents. - cannot be mitigated by a sense that joint efforts willgreatly benefit those same students, such collaboration will notoccur.Also forming part of the sense of autonomy is a personal senseof efficacy - the conviction that one’s individual efforts can make adifference (Ashton & Webb, 1986; Bandura, 1977; Poole & Okeafor,1 989). There are two parts to efficacy. First is the individualteacher’s sense that s/he can make a difference with the studentsin her/his class(es). Having the autonomy to act and conduct43learning as seems appropriate, described above, is an obviousprerequisite.Second is what Bandura (1 977) describes as self-efficacy orpersonal efficacy. Implied here is a teacher’s sense of competenceand ability to cope in a variety of situations. It should be noted thatthis sense varies from one context to the next - a teacher may feelquite competent to cope with quadratic equations but utterlyincompetent when it comes to interpreting literature. Puttingteachers from disparate disciplines together for joint work, then,has the potential to disrupt or seriously undermine this sense ofefficacy. The question then becomes whether teachers are willingto put themselves in this position in order to gain some of the manybenefits of joint work.Hargreaves (1 993) draws on the data from a qualitativeinterview-based study to argue for the positive side of what hecalls individualism. He argues that “collaboration and collegialityhave become powerful images of preferred aspiration; isolation andindividualism equally powerful images of professional aversion.”(p.229).This study (reported in full in Hargreaves and Wignall, 1989)brought to light three main reasons for individualism. WhatHargreaves calls constrained individualism is simply theadministrative and situational constraints that are part ofteachers’ daily work, constraints over which they have little, ifany, control. Examples include the physical space restrictions - theegg-crate classrooms and even portables, no common place to meet44and work, no teachers-on-call to free up teachers to plan withcolleagues, etc.Strategic individualism, Hargreaves argues, is a teacher-createdcoping mechanism that helps them deal with the day-to-day detailsof an increasingly complex work environment. The myriad details ofday-to-day work with an increasingly complex clientele, themounting pressures of accountability, the ever-growing list ofcontent to cover within a shrinking time frame create the impetusfor teachers to remain “highly classroom-centred in their pursuit ofthe impossibly high standards and endless work schedules they setfor themselves and that others set for them.” (p.236-7).Elective individualism refers to ways of working that are basedon personal as well as pedagogical grounds - the choice to workalone all or some of the time, even if opportunities to collaborateare available. This determinant of individualism is further brokendown into at least three aspects- personal care, individuality andsolitude.Personal care reflects a concern with ownership and controlover what happens in the classroom on a day-to-day basis- asimilar concern to that expressed earlier as autonomy, ownershipand control. Individuality is “the power to make independentjudgments; to exercise personal discretion, initiative andcreativity through their work.” (p.241)Finally, solitude is a simple reflection of the chaotic nature oftoday’s schools. Having some time alone with oneself, rather thanan avoidance of colleagues, can equally be seen as a chance toreflect, be alone with one’s thoughts. Hargreaves points out that45this is an individual preference for some, not all, teachers. Hefurther reminds us that so-called teacher isolation can be seen aseither “a prison or a refuge”, solitude should be seen as a necessaryretreat - time to re-think, re-focus and reflect.The dilemma which, in many instances, cuts across thedimensions of all those previously mentioned is the dilemma oftime. It is a truism that joint activities require more time thansimply completing the task alone. The dilemma time poses forteachers has been captured by Flinders (1 988) this way:More so than other occupations, teaching is an open-ended activity. If time and energy allowed, lesson planscould always be revised and improved, readings couldalways be reviewed again, and more text material couldalways be covered before the end of the term, studentscould always be given more individual attention, andhomework could always be graded with greater care.(p.23)In this context, yet another demand on limited time - to worktogether with colleagues - may not be seen favourably. Fullan &Hargreaves (1 991) also report this dilemma in their discussion of astudy seeking to document how teachers have used additionalpreparation time allotments. Many chose to use the time in waysother than joint work with colleagues.Related to the issue of time is what Doyle & Ponder (1977)describe as the practicality ethic in teaching. The term is “anexpression of teacher perceptions of the potential consequences ofattempting to implement a change proposal in the classroom.” (p.6)In other words, if teachers cannot see the benefits - to themselvesand, most of all, to their students - as opposed to the cost in time46and effort, the change effort, in this case joint work, will not beattempted.Finally, it is important to consider the established parametersof the teacher’s role. Bullough et al (1984) describe a teacher’srole in this way:The role of a teacher is a culturally and historicallydetermined artifact decisively shaped by thoseembedded ideals of public service first distilled for usin Plato’s Republic, and by the technological ideologythat is endemic in Western civilization today. . .theconstraints of role operate essentially unconsciously,as presuppositions that define the natural and theright...” p339Teachers are enculturated into the role of teacher from the firstday of teacher training, and, in addition, assume an occupationalidentity that reflects personal choice.This is asserted in statements such as, “I’m a science teacher”as opposed to “I am a teacher”. Where the dilemma arises is in thequestion of how this sense of who I am and what I do is to bechanged or modified if collaboration involves working with acolleague from another discipline. As Langer & Applebee (1987)point out, there is a distinct reluctance among subject-areateachers to involve themselves in activities and approaches thatcould be perceived to be furthering the work of another discipline-for example that of the English teacher.47Joint Work - Assumptions and QuestionsThe final section of this chapter attempts to create a moreholistic view of all the elements discussed above. What we havelearned in this discussion about school change and improvementefforts is that joint work plays a key role in such efforts. In termsof joint work, we know much of definitions and prescriptions butlittle of how it is enacted on a day-to-day basis.Further, while several models of joint work are common to theeducational context, the assumptions common to them are rooted inthe medical model, the doctor/patient or expert/novicerelationship. In addition, it is clear that there are a number ofdilemmas for teachers to come to terms with before they canconsider involving themselves in joint work efforts.The components and circumstances of joint work are all enactedwithin the context of secondary schools, institutions that haveendured relatively unchanged; “hardy institutions, quite immune tothe instructional reforms that have sporadically ricochetedharmlessly off their walls.” (Cuban, 1982:118). It is also aninstitution that has a lengthy history of “ how things are donearound here”.While it is not the intention, and beyond the scope of this study,to do discourse analysis, the field offers some important insightsinto the complexity within which the respondents are working.Research in the field of discourse analysis has examined theconversations of interactions (such as joint work) in institutionalsituations such as education (Bonvillain, 1 993; Fisher & Todd,1986).48What this research has noted is that interaction in the areas oflaw, medicine and education is unique in that there existprearranged, pre-determined authority and power structures forhow such interaction will be conducted. This includes such issuesas turn taking, who sets the topics and constrains their discussion,who assigns the rights to speak and who has the authority toadvise, prescribe and recommend. Illuminating the interconnectionsbetween the language used in such a “consultation” process and thepre-established hierarchy of roles offers a lens through which toview the present research.An additional part of this type of interaction is what JurgenHabermas (1970), describes as “technocratic consciousness”. Hepoints to how this affects our way of thinking about interactions.Both the control over the conversation and the technical jargon thatmay or may not be understood is an expected part of the interaction.How we talk to and are spoken to by a doctor, then, becomes normal,natural and, therefore, legitimate.Continuing with the doctor/patient example, what has beendiscovered is that in this relationship, while the contact may havebeen initiated by the patient, nonetheless it is the doctor who is, atall times, in control of the conversational agenda. The doctorlistens to the initial complaint, asks pertinent questions, redirects any ventures off topic, makes a preliminary diagnosis,prescribes, and expects compliance.Equally, the patient colludes in this scenario by accepting theauthority of the doctor, being conscious of not wasting the busydoctor’s time and trusting that any remedy prescribed is in her/his49own best interests. The impersonal, technocratic language used toanalyze and prescribe effectively and efficiently only adds to thestatus that has been accorded the doctor. Both parties arereasonably satisfied with the relationship. In fact, if the doctorwere too informal and spoke too much in lay person’s language, theautomatic status and authority given might well be undermined.The structure of how this interaction is played out is an exampleof discourse in institutional consultation encounters (DICE) and sois relevant here as it provides the lens for examining howconsultation encounters eventuate in this study. The doctor/patientexample was deliberately chosen to focus the lens because itparallels, in many ways, the medical model of joint work used ineducational institutions.As discussed above, the medical model, and its various cognatesin educational circles, have been the dominant model used for jointwork purposes in schools. Although educational institutions are nowmoving toward models that intend equal relationships as opposedto the expert/novice, such models, for the most part, simply maskthe underlying issues of power and authority structures thatdictate how interaction will be conducted during joint work. Inaddition, the long history of and familiarity with the medical modelwill certainly influence the joint work efforts in an institutionalsetting such as schools.To illustrate the issues, the example of the doctor/patientrelationship will be continued. Everyone is familiar with thedoctor/patient process: When a patient is sick, an appointment ismade with the doctor, a treatment is recommended, which may or50may not involve a prescription. The patient follows the treatmentregimen and soon feels better. The process is repeated as required.Similarly, one could assume that in schools, when a teacherfeels in need of assistance, s/he applies for such assistance.However, applying this process to the school situation is not asstraightforward as some might be inclined to conclude.Conceptually, we understand that the day-to-day operation ofschools cannot be considered equivalent to the doctor/patientsituation. Empirically, there is much evidence that the educationalequivalent of the medical model is neither working as effectivelyas one might wish, nor is it well received (see above). There are anumber of reasons for this.First, in the medical model there is absolutely no doubt as towho is the expert and the authority in the doctor/patient situation.However, the hierarchy of authority in schools traditionally lieswith the administrators, not with teachers. Teachers areconsidered, and consider themselves, equal as colleagues, withperhaps some minor deferment to department heads in secondaryschools. (Department heads have some status as leaders within thedepartment, but the ultimate authority still lies with theadministration.)In this light, the disaffection with the expert/novice model maybe better understood - how can a colleague suddenly claim expertstatus, imbued with the power to prescribe and recommend? In thesituation described in this research, if anything, the subjectteachers ought to be considered the experts, not the ESLspecialists.51Since ESL has neither a specific curriculum nor an acknowledgedbody of knowledge to be transmitted to students, it is not easilyable to claim equal status with traditional subject-areadepartments, let alone the status of a body of knowledge thatshould be seriously considered by subject-area specialists. In theend, it is the subject-area teacher who is accountable for what islearned and bears the ultimate responsibility for the learners on aday-to-day basis.Second, if we assume for the moment that the ESL teachers arethe experts (at least in linguistic matters), what allows us to thenpresume that the subject-area teachers will consent to play therole of novice, solicit and, indeed, take advice? Other, perhaps morerealistic, possibilities include never asking for assistance orasking for assistance but, for a variety of reasons, not using whatwas suggested or prescribed. In other words, in the eyes of thesubject specialist, how credible is an ESL expert who has little orno experience in the subject areas under discussion in suchconsultations?Further, assuming this lack of credibility, how can the ESLteachers create credibility for themselves? Additionally, thisscenario assumes that the subject-area teacher feels s/he, in fact,has a problem to begin with and that the ESL specialist can be ofhelp in its solution. Is it, perhaps, more likely that the subject-areateacher will assume the problem belongs to the ESL specialist,whose mandate, after all, is to assist ESL learners in theachievement of success in English?52Third, this enterprise is fighting a long-standing tradition.Teaching evokes a vision of one teacher and a group of students. Infact, such relative autonomy is part of what is prized in theprofession (see above discussion on autonomy). Of even more importis the fact that, historically, the only time another educator wasfound in the classroom with the teacher was during evaluationprocesses. Whether there is intent to pass judgment on colleagues’classroom activities or not, the subconscious concern that this willbe precisely what occurs cannot help but be there - another reasonfor the subject-area teachers to simply not participate in the firstplace.A final note of interest is the rapid growth of joint work in thecorporate sector (see, for example Turner, 1993), another form ofeffecting change within an institutional context. Here the processis called a ‘project” and the position of the TCs in this study wouldbe that of Project Manager. It is the Project Manager who has theresponsibility of putting the “project plan” into action on a day-today basis. It is noteworthy that project managers have very limitedpower or sometimes no real power, similar to the situation of theTCs in this study.The power resides with the “project executive” (in education thiswould be the school administrator or the administrator of a givenproject, if different). This person bears the ultimate responsibilityfor the completion of the projects within the constraints andparameters set out by the “project plan”. This plan consists of adetailed outline of what is to be done by whom, under what time andcost constraints, and to what standard of quality. Where products53are part of the project, specifications on the number and quality ofthese products, within a given time frame, is also included.Project management in the corporate sector, however, does notusually concern itself with the assumptions and issues outlinedabove because ultimately, employees in the business world expectto be told what to do. Further, they understand that compliance witha project, whether they personally agree with its precepts or not,is a given, a condition of employment. Anyone who seriouslyinterferes with or impedes production and profit cannot expect tocontinue to be an employee of that organization.Such is not the case in education as the litany of failed changeefforts proves. Further, teachers are not held accountable for eitherthe marks their students get or for the hours they put into anyattempts to improve their teaching and learning. While teacherswho spend serious amounts of extra time and effort to improvetheir teaching and their students’ learning conditions are applaudedand encouraged, they are also not in danger of losing their jobs ifthey choose not to participate in a given project within the school.It is this unique context of the school, then, that raises thequestions of assumptions and possible power and authorityconflicts during a change effort in which individuals may becharged with attempting to affect change but are not given theauthority to mandate such change. It is in this context that therespondents in this study relate and reflect on their attempts to dojoint work.54This chapter has attempted to outline the complexity of thecontext in which this study takes place. The history ofchange/improvement efforts was briefly described as was itsimpact on current attempts. A clear message from the researchindicates that some form of joint work is considered a crucialelement in such change in schools. To this end, the benefits, as wellas the drawbacks of joint work were outlined, together withcurrent definitions of and prescriptions for such efforts. Theperspective of teachers urged toward joint ventures was alsoconsidered. The roles and the dilemmas joint work present werearticulated. The discussion concluded with an examination of theunderlying assumptions that impact on joint work efforts ofteachers within their school contexts.Teachers are being asked to do the best possible job under lessthan ideal circumstances. As Winitzky et al (1 991) put it: “Allelements of our society demand that teachers respond to thecomplexity of the learner with a new and more sophisticatedpedagogy.” (p.6). The TCs in this study are being asked to implementa change effort within the complex context of the urban high school.Their ST colleagues are being asked to reframe how they “deliver”their curricula. Both groups want to see students succeed.How a small group of teachers respond to the complexities oftheir own teaching situation and attempt to meet these demands ona day-to-day basis, is the subject of this research. Beforeexamining the data, implications and conclusions, we turn to themethodology for this study. The how of conducting this case studyresearch is the subject of the next chapter.55CHAPTER THREERESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGYAs a research endeavour, the case study contributesuniquely to our knowledge of individual, organizational,social, and political phenomena. (Yin, 1984:14)As indicated in Chapter Two, the purpose of this research is togain understandings of the “lived experiences” (van Manen, 1990) ofteachers by studying how they respond to the complexities of theirday-to-day teaching situation within the parameters of new andcomplex roles. Their mandate is to do joint work with theircolleagues. This relatively new innovation in schools involvesEnglish as a Second Language (ESL) specialists workingcollaboratively with their subject-area specialist colleagues inorder to facilitate the academic success of ESL learners. Thepresent study explores issues surrounding such a mandate andattempts to document the process of collaboration over a two-yearperiod.To examine the process and dynamics created by this mandate, aqualitative approach was chosen. According to Rist (1 982:441),using qualitative methods is appropriate when a problem seeks “aholistic understanding of the event/situation/phenomenon”, when“the task is to study the specific and build towards the general”,and when the research is to be conducted in a natural setting, asopposed to one that is in any way contrived or artificial.56The purpose of this chapter is to outline, in some detail, theapproach and theoretical assumptions used to conduct this study.However, it may be useful to first restate the research question.Then I will clarify issues of theory and method, including a) theselection of methodology, b) the researcher’s role in the gatheringof data, and c) the selection process for both site and subjects.Next, sources of data will be presented together with how stages ofanalysis proceeded. A detailed discussion of the collation andanalysis of data is presented in Chapter Four, while the findings,implications and conclusions are the subjects of Chapter Five andSix.RESTATEMENT OF THE QUESTIONIn order to focus on teacher collaboration, the process of jointwork between and among teaching colleagues, this study undertakesto explore the question: How do teachers from different subject-area backgrounds work collaboratively? Specifically, how dosecondary ESL teachers work together with their subject-areacolleagues? In order to answer this and related questions (seeChapter 1), a qualitative approach using interviews, documentanalysis and participant observation has been chosen. The followingdiscussion relates to that methodological choice and the reasonsfor it.57METHODOLOGYMethodology is the set of theoretical assumptions which areused in structuring research and generating appropriate methods.This study has been conceptualized and designed based on theassumption that individuals can reflect on their own actions andinteractions with “consciousness” (Csikszentmihayli, 1 993). Suchconsciousness allows for conscious choices and adjustments on anongoing basis. Since the teachers in this study are embarking uponan unknown role, such self-reflective behaviour, recorded andreported, will be able to highlight the process of learning to dojoint work, the focus of this research.Quantitative/QualitativeThe traditional distinction between quantitative and qualitativeresearch is based on a long-standing confrontation between twoschools of social research (Maxwell et al, 1986). Those embracingquantitative research are concerned with “hard science”.Empiricists advocate careful and systematic measurement,experimental and quasi-experimental methods and analysis rootedin statistics. Characteristic of quantitative research is adeliberate narrowing of reality, by isolating and controllingvariables, in order to capture particular aspects of the issue chosenfor investigation. Such selection is based on the assumption thatthe aspects of social phenomena so chosen are concrete and58measurable. As Peshkin (1988) puts it: “Thus are the gray and theragged, the murky and the amorphous precluded.” (p.417).While both quantitative and qualitative research can be eitherdeductive or inductive, quantitative research is usually deductive,statistical and taking place in a controlled setting. Qualitativeresearch, on the other hand is usually inductive and the focus is ondiscovering the perceptions of the participants.As a somewhat black and white example, then, in contrast toarriving with theory in hand (or, at the least, hypotheses) andmeasuring instruments prepared, the qualitative approach attemptsto study phenomena in all their complexity with the primaryinstrument used being the researcher herself (Woods, 1986). Theemphasis is on inductive analysis, detailed description of eventsand situations and a focus on the perceptions of the phenomenonfrom the perspectives of the participants themselves. Typicalmethods include close observation, interviewing and documentanalysis.In summary, while quantitative research is theory-driven and theresearch setting is carefully controlled, qualitative research usestheoretical assumptions to discover “what is” in the natural,uncontrolled setting; the former wishes to objectively test a prioritheories and hypotheses, the latter to create meanings andunderstandings based on a guiding, but not fixed, methodologicalframework. While there is no doubt that each mode of inquiryaddresses questions of interest, they are different types ofquestions and different answers.59For this study, qualitative research was chosen, specifically thecase study. Before outlining the rationale for this approach it isimportant to be clear where case study fits into the numerous andloosely connected varieties of qualitative research.For qualitative research, generally, close-up, detailedobservation of real world events is the norm (van Maanen et al,1 982). Case studies, in some cases, can actually be based on onlyquantitative evidence and can, in fact, be done without any direct ordetailed observations taking place. An example would be a detailedexamination of archival records in order to gather information onthe incidence of a particular disease, for example, skin cancer.As Yin (1 984) puts it: “To this extent, the various strategies arenot mutually exclusive. But we can also identify some situations inwhich a specific strategy has a distinct advantage.” (p. 20)Defining case study research more precisely and outlining thereasons for choosing it for the present study is the next topic ofdiscussion.Case Study Research - RationaleAccording to Robert K. Yin (1 984), the critical features of casestudy research, ones that distinguish case studies from otherapproaches to qualitative research, are as follows:A case study is an empirical inquiry that:• investigates a contemporary phenomenon within itsreal-life context; when• the boundaries between phenomenon and context arenot clearly evident; and in which• multiple sources of evidence are used. (p.23)60Merriam (1 985) notes that case study research has historicallybeen used in such fields as anthropology, law, medicine, politicalscience, psychology, and social work. More recently its use ineducation has grown as the advantages of an approach that assistsin understanding the dynamics of certain aspects of practice, arerecognized and noted.Merriam further points out that “a case study differs from otherresearch methods primarily in the nature of the product. The casestudy results in an intensive, holistic description and analysis ofthe phenomenon or social unit being studied.” (p.206). In otherwords, rather than looking at a few variables across many cases, asin quantitative research, case study examines the interaction ofmany variables so as to provide as comprehensive an understandingof the phenomenon as possible.While case study research shares philosophical assumptionswith other qualitative research approaches, there are researchtopics for which case study is particularly suited and may, in fact,have a distinct advantage over other approaches. Yin (1 984:20),suggests that where a “‘how’ or ‘why’ question is being asked abouta contemporary set of events, over which the investigator has littleor no control”, case study research is particularly suitable. Sincesuch is the case in the present study, which is aimed at examininghow teachers learn to work collaboratively, a case study approachwas considered the most suitable.61CONDUCT OF THE RESEARCHPreparation of the ResearcherAccording to Yin (1 984) skills required of a researcher wishingto do case study research include the following:• A person should be able to ask good questions - and tointerpret the answers.• A person should be a good listener and not be trappedby his or her own ideologies and preconceptions.• A person should be adaptive and flexible , so thatnewly encountered situations can be seen asopportunities, not threats.• A person must have a firm grasp of the issues beingstudied, whether this is a theoretical or policyorientation, even if in an exploratory mode. .• A person should be unbiased by preconceived notions,including those derived from theory. . . sensitive andresponsive to contradictory evidence. (p.56-7)Some measure of self-analysis and appropriate remediation isproposed to prepare oneself for this role.In this regard, I tried to keep these criteria in mind as Iproceeded. To assist with remaining sensitive to the issues, I drewon my extensive background as a classroom teacher and lecturer. Itwas also assumed that my extensive research into the topic wouldconstitute additional appropriate background on the issues. Further,it was encouraging that a survey I had designed for a group ofteachers similarly trying to work collaboratively, had brought tolight their discomfort with this notion. Since there was minimalevidence in the literature of similar attempts to do joint work62across disciplines, discovering and documenting such a processseemed eminently suitable.Being a good listener and understanding the interpersonal issuesin collaboration is also considered important. In this regard, I hadtried to prepare myself by including as part of my course work, aspecific focus on interpersonal communication. As additionalpreparation, I attended a session series which would teach me thecollaborative skills and strategies (including active listening andoptimal questioning strategies) which were to be taught to the TCs.This training raised a number of possibilities as well as questionsin my own mind as I tried to imagine myself applying the “recipes”for joint work to real school situations in which I had taught.Research MethodsQualitative research methods include procedures related todiscovery, documentation, collation, analysis and presentation. Asstated earlier, of the techniques available, I chose to focus ondocument analysis, participant observation and in-depthinterviewing. This last allows the investigator to not onlydocument the natural occurrence of events, but also provides aplatform for illuminating the meanings attached to these events bythe informants.63InterviewingThere are two aspects of interviewing- whether interviews areof individuals or groups and whether the interview format isstructured or unstructured. In this research I have done bothindividual and group interviews. According to Fontana and Frey(1 994) interviews may be structured, unstructured or semi-structured. It should be noted that this division is somewhatartificial, but serves the purpose of conceptual clarity.Structured interviews, Fontana and Frey (1994) note are thosewhere:all respondents receive the same set of questions, askedin the same order or sequence, by an interviewer whohas been trained to treat every interview situation in alike manner. There is very little flexibility in the wayquestions are asked or answered. . . (p.363)The unstructured interview, on the other hand, seeks “to discoverthe informant’s experience of a particular topic or situation”(Lofland & Lofland, 1985:12). This intensive interview seeks toelicit details of the real-life experiences of the interviewees. Inthis type of interview, no prescribed, previously listed set orsequence of questions is used.However, in both unstructured and semi-structured interviews, aset of questions do exist, at least in the mind of the interviewer.These questions, or possible discussion points, while flexible interms of order and specificity, reflect the focus of the research inan attempt to elicit particular types of information (Denzin, 1 989).In this study semi-structured interviews were the form used andwere by far the largest source of data as this type of interview64allows for maximum flexibility to elicit information and follow-upon points raised. In general, possible discussion areas were noted inadvance of the interviews, and again after initial reviewing offield notes and interview tapes.The Interviewing ProcessIn depth interviews with the ten respondents were conductedfour times over a period of two years. The majority were tape-recorded, with the permission of the respondents. Interviews lastedapproximately one hour per session. Understanding the hesitancy tobe tape recorded, the pause button on the tape recorder was alwaysavailable to the interviewees if they chose to continue “off therecord” at any point. Subsequently, respondents were offered a copyof the tape and invited to read the transcripts for their owninformation and to clarify any comments they felt were notexpressed as clearly as they might have liked. As well as taping, Itook notes in the field diary as the interview proceeded. Theseserved chiefly as reminders to myself to refer back to a point madeearlier or to note something worthy of further discussion orfollow-up at a later date.Similarly, fifteen subject-area teachers (STs) were alsointerviewed, most at length and a few informally over lunch or overthe telephone. All these interviews took place in the second half ofthe second year of the Pilot Project. Specific coding of data wasonly done for twelve of these STs, where the interviews wereformal and substantial. In addition, five administrative officers at65the schools were also interviewed informaNy. Again, theirresponses were not formally coded for similar reasons.Participant Observation and Documentary AnalysisDocuments collected included those produced by the subjects,both curriculum oriented as well as the variety of memos and mini-newsletters that served to advertise both the TC roles in the schooland their availability for joint work. In addition, I collectedminutes of relevant school-based committee meetings. Alldocuments received were noted in my field diary and dated.The field diary also served for participant observation notes,which were taken at any and all work-related events involving theTCs (and their colleagues, as applicable), including informalmeetings among the TCs of all four schools. For example, when Ivisited the TC teams for the first time at the beginning of Year I, Inoted such things as the layout of the room, the types of materialsacquired, how seating was arranged and how the mechanics oftimetabling worked.All data collection was done with the full knowledge and consentof the participants. While meetings and inservice sessions varied inlocation, all interviews took place within the schools, often in acounselling room or other facility where the background noise levelwould be minimal. The exceptions were the TC Team interviewswhich took place in the space allocated to the TC team forpreparation work and planning.66SITE SELECTION AND ENTRYThe selection of respondents came about primarily through priorcontacts. A number of teachers had been involved in another districtproject and I had attended some of the meetings and workshopsessions given by members of the university community. As aninterested graduate student and long-time teacher, conversationsand friendships began.Chapter Four outlines the details of this prior project and how,in fact, it led to the contemplation of the present research questionas an avenue worthy of exploration. The fact that teachers fromvery different disciplines were being asked to work collaborativelyand had acknowledged that they did not feel they knew how to dothis, proved to be the prime motivation for the present study.The research literature is clear on the value of “workingcollaboratively” and equally clear on the fragility of suchrelationships (see Chapter Two for an extensive review of thesefindings). In addition, the literature speaks infrequently of cross-discipline collaboration and hardly at all of the specificcombination proposed in the Pilot Project discussed in this study -namely English as a Second Language (ESL) teachers workingtogether with their subject-area colleagues.Since the Pilot Project aimed to provide training, time and asetting wherein teachers could begin to work together, I asked myinitial contacts, those who would be assuming the new TeacherCollaborator (TC) positions, if they would allow me to interviewthem over time and “play fly on the wall” at meetings, attend67workshop sessions with them, and gather documents as appropriate.They were willing and also introduced me to their colleagues acrossand within the four schools.More formally, I made contact with the school administrators,over the telephone or in person at inservice sessions or in theirschools. I informed them of my interest and that I was part of alarger project, a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Grant,led by Drs. Mohan and Early. Permission to be in and about theschools was immediately forthcoming. Support, in terms of releasetime for the teachers who had volunteered to be part of myresearch, was also available. In all, ten TCs became part of myresearch initially and some of their subject-area colleagues wereinterviewed toward the end of the two-year project.COLLATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATAWhile there is some variation on this issue, most researchersagree that data analysis for qualitative research in general, andcase study research in particular, should be done while they arebeing collected (see for example Merriam, 1985). Glaser & Strauss(1 967) call this theoretical sampling and consider its chief purposeto be a guide to the investigator for further data collection. This isimportant since qualitative research, in general, neither operateswithout a particular theory to prove or disprove, nor imposes preestablished categories onto the data (Burgess, 1 984; Hammersley &Atkinson, 1983).68It should be noted, however, that this does not imply that theresearcher enters the field tabula rasa. Rather the literaturereview for the study contains sensitizing issues and questionsraised and only partially answered. Thus, data analysis is emergent,advocating for openness to possibilities and the reframing ofquestions as realities are discovered in the data.My general procedures for analyzing data followedrecommendations in the literature, particularly Yin (1 984). My firstcode categories were based on frequently occurring and relevantwords or phrases in the data. I used colored highlighter pens tomark longer passages in interview transcripts or wrote code namesin margins of documents. For example, I would read through eventsof a day - field notes and documents received- and make a codename note in the margins as something that seemed relevantoccurred. It should also be noted that code categories needed to bere-adjusted throughout the analysis as I employed the constantcomparison method described by Glaser & Strauss (1967).A common complaint about case studies is the sheer volume ofdata that are collected. Researchers are strongly advised to createand faithfully use a careful organizational system to help managethe volume of data. At the end of the first year of the Pilot Project,and this research study, I acquired a data organization softwarepackage, HyperRESEARCH, which allowed me to upload all interviewdata and then assign codes, do frequency counts and manipulate thedata in a number of ways. Field notes and relevant passages fromdocuments were also entered so that all the data could bemanipulated jointly.69For the remainder of the research and for the purposes of dataanalysis at all stages of the research, this tool proved invaluable.Not only was it much easier to manage huge amounts of data but itwas a simple matter of a few keystrokes to re-design categoriesand interaction sets and re-run the results for further analysis, orreturn to previous groupings and try them with new categoryclusters.As indicated earlier, case study research lends itself to the useof both qualitative and quantitative data. Therefore, given theopportunity to “play” with the data to try out different possibilitiesand see what they brought to light, I did code frequency counts forall interview rounds, then searched the documents and field notesfor confirming or contradictory evidence. The numerical counts,proved illuminating and provided a useful springboard forsubsequent searches for themes and possible “answers” to myoriginal questions. For the information of the reader, thistabulation has been included in Chapter Four.In addition, the data were manipulated in a variety ofpermutations to see if new categories would come to light. Forexample, all references to a particular code from one TC werecollated over the entire two year period to look for any changes orevolutions in the perspective initially expressed. Similarly thesame code was then collated for all members of the school teamand considered with respect to what the STs said about the sametopic at the same school. Finally, comparisons across schools weredone to look for yet other possibilities.70Ultimately, data analysis requires careful reading and rereading. Re-reading of all the data collected leads to an attempt toidentify core analytical categories through the coding process. Thecategories are intended to reflect both the sensitizing conceptsgleaned from the literature on the topic and the observations madeduring the data gathering stages.Throughout the analysis, aside from continued inquiry into “whatseems to be happening here and how do the informants explain andinterpret it?”, the medical model of consultation- its educationalversion is called collaborative consultation- was used as a foil.This was because discussion of and reaction to this model was aconstant undercurrent and foremost in the thoughts of the TCs asthey attempted to avoid setting themselves up as the resident“experts”, fearing this would undermine efforts at joint workbefore they even began.Further, as variations of joint work multiplied, Little’s (1 990a)four categories of joint work- storytelling and scanning, sharing,aid and assistance, and joint work- became formative categoriesfor the data. These were later expanded to include new categoriesand innovative alternatives to these four (see Chapter 5 for a fullerdiscussion of the major variations on joint work documented in thisresearch).71VALIDITYThe pivotal place of meaning in qualitative research sets theconditions of validity. Therefore the emphasis has to be ondesigning a study that will be comprehensive enough to provide thefindings with a range of support. In interpretive research thequestion is not whether or not another researcher would findsimilar “results”. Rather, the question is whether anotherresearcher would “discover” concepts/constructs that would eitherlogically or empirically invalidate those of the original study(Schatzman & Strauss, 1 973).Validity is also strengthened by triangulation of the data -studying the phenomenon over time, space and person. Triangulationis intended not only within cases, for example the series ofinterviews with a single individual, but also across cases, throughmultiple sources of evidence such as other interviewees, documentsproduced and notes from participant observation (Hammersley &Atkinson, 1 983). Such triangulation of data also allows theresearcher to use a variety of methods, numerous sources of data,even different investigators within any study. In this way problemsof bias are significantly reduced (Burgess, 1 984).Finally, without dismissing the importance of triangulation via avariety of strategies and data sources, perhaps an equallyimportant criteria should be plausibility rather than validity.Mishler (1 986) points out that the issue is not to point to oneabsolute “truth” but rather to the relative plausibility of the72interpretations presented when compared to other possibleexplanations.External ValidityYin (1 989) points out that the findings of a case study are notgeneralizable in the quantitative sense of a statistically definedpopulation. Rather, the findings are generalizable to theoreticalpropositions. Thus the generalizability of the results of a study -the external validity- rests to a large extent with the readers ofthe research. In addition, the readers must decide if the resultspresented, given details of the subjects and the methods used, areapplicable to their own situations. The reader has to assess to whatextent and what aspects of the research apply in her /his owncontext (Lincoln & Guba, 1990).ReflexivityAs mentioned above, what Csikszentmihayli (1 993) calls“consciousness” is of concern in any study where long term contacttakes place. To reduce the effects my own developing ideas wouldhave on the research situation, I monitored my reactions, looked forclues as to the individuals’ responses to me as a person, spokedeliberately of perceptions I had about their participation atcertain times, and asked for clarification of documents, as well ascomments and situations that arose.For example, the period leading up to a district wide job actionwas not a time period very conducive to relaxed and thoughtful73interaction. While, no one had suggested that we cancel a plannedsession, the nonverbal cues from the participants made it clear thatthere was an issue other than teacher collaboration to be dealtwith.Lincoln & Guba (1985) assert that the success of data gatheringin general, and interviewing in particular, is greatly influenced bythe trust and rapport established between researcher andrespondents. Suggested ways of building trust and rapport includeprolonged interactions on site, negotiation of consent withrespondents , a familiarity with the language and culture of thesetting and an honest and non-threatening presentation of oneself(Fontana & Frey, 1994).My lengthy teaching experience as both a subject specialist andan ESL teacher helped me to empathize with and understand theconcerns and viewpoints of the teachers. The drawback is thepossibility that my own prior experiences would colour myexpectations and flavour what I would “see”. However, while havingthe advantage of being able to empathize, my own experiences hadbeen in a sufficiently different setting and some years ago, that itwas relatively easy to “make the familiar strange”, which Erickson(1986) deems a critical element in conducting interpretiveresearch.ReciprocityReciprocity, simply put is “what is in this for me ?“ What willrespondents gain through their willingness to participate 7 Bolster74(1 983) points out that one form of reciprocity is the internalbenefits teachers get from simply participating.In addition, I considered it important to demonstrate some morepractical ways to reciprocate. Among my strategies were assistingwith the production of materials in areas where I had someexpertise to contribute, being a sounding board “off the record”when serious difficulties arose, and showing my personalappreciation for their time by providing some delectable edibles forthe intensive interview sessions.ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONSProfessional and ethical responsibilities to the individuals whoparticipated and the academic community at large, were respected.While many of the documents subsequently collected were producedon an ongoing basis and were, for all intents and purposes, part ofthe public domain, individual interviews required more seriousconsideration.To protect the identities of the respondents and their places ofwork was ensured by using codes (see Chapter 4) and/or by allowingthe respondents to “withdraw” information provided, on the spot byusing the “pause” button on the tape recorder, or at a later date,upon reading of the transcripts.In all cases agreement was established, including clarificationof roles and responsibilities on the part of both the respondents andthe researcher herself. The respondents knew they could decline to75participate at any point, or choose to withdraw from the researchcompletely. They were given a clear outline of how the informationgathered would be used and reported. Using codes for bothindividuals and their schools ensures confidentiality and anonymity.On occasion, and only for purposes of relevance and clarity, aspecific role such as “English teacher” is used in the presentationof findings.To sum up, this chapter has outlined in some detail, the researchperspective and approaches adopted for this study. In addition, adetailed explanation of the rationale for case study research and itsattendant strategies was outlined. The issues of validity andethical considerations in qualitative research were also addressed.The next chapter presents further details of the subjects andtheir contexts, information on data gathering, and a sampling ofanalysis strategies.76CHAPTER FOURRESPONDENTS, SETTINGS AND PRELIMINARY ANALYSISThis chapter introduces the respondents in this study, who theyare and in what contexts they work. After setting the context forthis research and outlining the preliminary work that led to thechosen focus, the 10 key respondents (known as teachercollaborators - TCs) and their subject teacher colleagues (STs) willbe described, as will the school settings in which they work. Anoverview of the preliminary results of the data collation andanalysis will conclude this chapter.The findings of this study both at the descriptive andinterpretive level form the focus of Chapter 5. Chapter 6 followswith a discussion of these findings, their implications and aconsideration of avenues for future research.SETTING THE CONTEXTThis research took place in a large urban school district inWestern Canada. This district is one of several that has experiencedrapid and continued growth in the numbers of English as a SecondLanguage (ESL) learners in the schools, such that students for whomEnglish is not the language of the home are rapidly becoming themajority.77In addition to the issues and concerns this raises for teacherstrying to provide the best possible education for their learners, twoother initiatives in this district and throughout the province are ofrelevance. For some years now the role of school teacher-librarians has been evolving to one of cooperative teaching andlearning rather than the role of library technician (Austrom et al,1986).In terms of learners with special needs (not second language-related), the provincial mandate for “inclusive” education has seenthe disappearance, with rare exception, of segregated classes evenfor severely disabled learners, and put an emphasis on collaborativeplanning and teaching to provide for these learners within thegrade-level setting.Both of these province-wide initiatives have served in somemeasure to open the door to a more collaborative approach toteaching. However, as outlined earlier and without maliceaforethought, it has created a perception that this collaboration isalmost by default an expert/novice relationship, where thespecialist “expert” tells! teaches the classroom teacher “novice”how to deal with information gathering in the former case or thedesignated special learner in the latter case.78PRELIMINARY WORKIt is in this context that the present study and its antecedentswent forward. Prior to the present study, the growing need forsupport for ESL learners and their grade-level teachers had been adistrict concern. As a result, a major project involving some 100classroom teachers from a variety of subject areas and grade levelswas implemented (for a description of this project see Early, Mohan& Hooper, 1989).As these teachers strove for new strategies and techniques thatwould help them combine language and content teaching in theirclassrooms, cooperation and joint effort were encouraged. As agraduate student interested in issues around language and contentlearning I became an observer and participant in several of theinservice sessions offered as part of this project.Eventually, a questionnaire/survey was designed that sought toclarify both accomplishments and concerns engendered by theproject. While the results of this survey provided much useful datafor the project coordinators, the comments and concerns around“collaboration” raised by the participants are of immediaterelevance here.What participants were reiterating again and again in theirresponses is twofold. At the secondary level, many respondentspointed Out that with a faculty of 80 or more, two or three facultylounges over a spread-out campus, and a staggering workload, thepresumed collaborating teachers seldom even saw each other in the79course of a week, let alone on a daily basis. How, then, were they to“work collaboratively” ?At both the secondary and the elementary level, a much morefundamental cluster of questions was raised: “How do you workcollaboratively? What does it look like on a day-to-day basis? Arewe talking about planning together or actually teaching together? Ifthe latter, who is ‘in charge’ and what gets taught - subject matteror linguistic conventions?”In conversations with the teachers, other important and relevantissues were raised concerning personal style in both teaching andinteracting with students, knowledge (or lack thereof) of thesubject matter, time to plan together, ego strength and thelingering perception of feeling “judged” when another teacher iswatching you “perform”. The pivotal question, “How do you workcollaboratively?”, led to further investigation and a formal pilotstudy.The purpose of the language and content project had been toprovide strategies and techniques for teachers through the use ofthe Knowledge Framework (Mohan, 1986). The ideas and strategiesembedded in this Framework have the potential to serve as abridge, a common language across subject areas. Therefore, itseemed appropriate to examine the use of this “common language”by teachers across disciplines to see if it could both serve thisfunction and, as an added bonus, provide a platform forcollaborative work.At this point, I was invited to attend a meeting of social studiesand ESL teachers at the secondary level, teachers who had been80participating in the inservice sessions. The purpose of the meetingwas to examine the social studies curriculum from grades 8-10 tosee if key topics that were historically sequential and spannedacross the three grade levels could be identified. It was the ESLteachers’ intention to then help create materials that would lowerthe linguistic barriers for ESL learners to access those topics,while allowing for a grasp of the larger issues and their sequencein history.Everyone would benefit as a result. Students would be able toenter senior social studies courses on a more equal footing withtheir English-speaking peers. Social studies teachers would benefitfrom an increase in enrollment in senior social studies courses andESL teachers would see that their former students were able toperform better at academic and cognitive levels as measured by theprovincial examinations that, at senior levels, awaited thestudents at course end.While the fundamental purpose of the meeting was to determinewhich topics could reasonably be “skipped” in order to help ESLlearners concentrate on getting the basic picture of the sequence ofhistorical events, it soon became clear that the two groups ofteachers, ESL and social studies, were not “speaking the samelanguage”.These teachers were coming from different specialty areas withdifferent agendas, even though they presumably had a commonagenda to be in attendance. What was striking was their verydifferent use of what one might assume were common terms. For81example, the word “text” (as in course textbook), did not imply thesame thing to both groups of teachers.ESL teachers saw text as a set of linguistic hurdles thatstudents needed to overcome in order to succeed, whereas socialstudies teachers saw text as a body of knowledge, indeed the courseitself. It goes without saying that to “skip” portions of the text, aswas proposed, did not sit well with the social studies teachers whosaw it as an integral part of the course itself and the body ofknowledge of the discipline.Eventually decisions were made and materials were created. Theturning point in creating a common understanding was whenparticipants began to use the common language and structures ofthe Knowledge Framework as a bridge between their differentviewpoints as teachers of social studies or language.This experience led me to consider further investigation of theobvious next step - a social studies teacher, expert in the contentand in-depth knowledge of specific topics, would have to workcollaboratively with an ESL teacher, expert in the linguisticaspects of language learning.Teachers volunteered their time to create materials coveringspecific topics and loosely divided themselves into dyads for thispurpose. One such pair agreed to let me interview them after thefact. In attempting to discuss their process of collaboration,particularly in terms of what common language they might haveused, I was disappointed.They did not Sit down face to face to plan together because theysaw that as far too time-consuming. Their concerns ranged from82simply having no in-school time to get together to learning how towork together without “stepping on each other’s toes”. As one ofthem put it: “Nobody has told us how to work collaboratively orteach collaboratively and- yes, we could learn but it would take somuch of our time - we thought this was an easier way to do it.”(conversation notes)The type of collaboration they referred to was what Fullan &Hargreaves (1991) describe as “comfortable” collaboration. Thesocial studies teacher set out a worksheet that outlined key topicsin a unit of study and gave it to the ESL teacher to “fix it up”. TheESL teacher in turn created more organizational structures for thetopics, breaking down difficult linguistic sections into moremanageable chunks.The “revised” materials then went back to the social studiesteacher to see that her intent and key focus for any given topic wasstill clear, made any necessary adjustments and then taught thecontent in the usual manner, but offered the newly created supportmaterials to the ESL students.Both teachers were quite satisfied with the results and felt thattheir collaboration had been fruitful in that it proved beneficial tothe students and had taught them a bit about “working with someoneelse’s agenda in mind”. In fact, they were prepared to take onanother project in a similar manner.A number of issues surface from this brief description. Workingcollaboratively does not necessarily include face to face work.Teachers are disinclined to work, plan and teach together if theycannot see any obvious benefits (Ashton & Webb, 1 986) and if they83are not provided with the extra time during their working day(Flinders, 1 988; Hargreaves & Wignall, 1 989) that they realize thisprocess would take. Finally, the hesitation to embark on an in-depthjoint effort reflects the project teachers’ original questionconcerning how this actually might work.It was clear that much more needed to be learned about howcollaborative work of any variety plays itself out on a day-to-daybasis- and how teachers could be trained to work in this way. Then,perhaps, a look at a common language might prove more fruitfulthan in this preliminary work. To illuminate the day-to-day processof working collaboratively is what the present study hasendeavoured to do.THE CONTEXT OF THE PRESENT STUDYIn September of 1 990 a Pilot Project was launched in the schooldistrict. (Although the project involved both elementary andsecondary schools, I will confine my remarks to the four secondaryschools involved, where the respondents of this study wereworking.) In this district, at the secondary level, ESL learners canmove from a sheltered, reception level program, through atransitional, subject-oriented program, to grade level classeswhere they are expected to perform on a par with their grade levelpeers.This Project sought to expand the continuum of services for ESLlearners by offering, in particular, more in-depth support for84learners once they were integrated into their age-appropriate gradelevels. It was the intention of the project that part of this supportwould be available by having ESL specialist teachers workcollaboratively with their classroom/subject teaching colleagues.To this end, what in this study are called the Teacher Collaborators(TCs), were given inservice training in approaches to collaborativework and urged, in addition, to create ways and means of workingtogether as seemed appropriate for their particular contexts.At the secondary level, four schools were involved, schoolsranging in ESL population from less than 25% of total studentsenrolled to upwards of 80%. This wide range was chosendeliberately in the hope that a variety of contexts and issues wouldemerge to further inform ongoing work in this area. Each school wasgiven a team of ESL specialists, who did not enrol students andtherefore was available full time to work collaboratively withteachers.As noted above, these specialists, here called the TeacherCollaborators (TCs), were concurrently participating in inservicesessions that provided information on the theory of and suggestedpractices for working collaboratively. To begin to lay somegroundwork toward a common approach to helping ESL learners inthe subject-areas, the entire staff, or those departments that hadchosen to participate in the project, received training in thetechniques and strategies of the Knowledge Framework Approach(Mohan, 1986).85THE SUBJECTS AND THEIR CONTEXTSThe Teacher Collaborators (TCs)Although each school was allotted a minimum of two TCs, oneschool chose to use the staffing allotment in different ways suchthat only one full time TC coordinated collaborative efforts at thatschool. The other three schools had three TCs each. This group often constitute the primary respondents of this study over the twoyear period.Eight TC5 were trained ESL specialists who had also taught othersecondary subject areas. All ten of them had previous teachingexperience (this was not their first assignment), were familiarwith the difficulties of teaching sophisticated subject matter to amixed group of students, including ESL learners, and seven out often had taught previously in the school where they were now TCs.The two non-ESL specialists had extensive teaching experiencewith ESL or EFL (English as a Foreign Language) learners, both inintegrated classrooms and in special transitional programs for ESLstudents about to enter grade level. It is also of interest that one ofthe TCs is an ESL speaker, a fact that proved helpful in the processof assessing the difficulties ESL learners were having with somesubject matter.86The Subject Teachers (STs)Fifteen subject-area teachers (STs) from a variety of content-based teaching areas were interviewed. All had extensive teachingexperience in their subject areas and all had been teaching at theirparticular schools for many years. Several were department headsand spoke at length of their concerns over the rapid change instudent clientele, combined with the ongoing demands of theirsubject areas and the expectations of performance on both schoollevel and provincial examinations.Administrators from all four schools were interviewedinformally. It was hoped that their whole-school perspective wouldadd yet another dimension to collaborative efforts within theschool. Their roles in the Pilot Project ranged from minimal(signing on the dotted line) to extensive (e.g. steering committeemember, active advocate for the TCs and the Project in general,one-on-one encouragement of involvement). One of theadministrators also taught part time in a subject area affected bythe Pilot.The School SettingsThree of the four schools in this study have a student populationof approximately 1000, the fourth is close to 1 500. All four schoolscontinue to experience rapid growth in their ESL population and allprovide a reception level, sheltered entry program for theselearners. In terms of location, three schools (including the largestin population) are located in the working-class areas of the city,87while the fourth is in a part of town that predominantly houseswell-to-do, upper income families.All four schools provide other services to address thespecialized needs of learners. The schools run programs thataddress the needs of First Nations learners, accelerated learners(both ESL and native-English- speakers), literacy students and thelearning disabled. In this light, another new program of services isnot particularly unusual to the day-to-day life in these schools.PRELIMINARY DATA COLLATION AND ANALYSISThe data from interviews, documents and participant observationwere searched for emergent themes and categories in two ways.First a “paper” search using common theme names and highlighterpens was used. When a software program called HyperResearchbecame available, all data were typed and loaded into this database.The program allows for recursive and comparative examination ofdata using chosen codes and categories.Because the interview transcripts formed by far the largestportion of the data that were collected, these data lent themselvesto incident “counting”. The sheer frequency of some categories thusbecame extremely obvious. This proved a valuable first step infurther refining and interpreting the findings of this research. The88tables created with this “countable” agenda in mind, are presentedin this chapter.Information from documents and participant observations wassubsequently used specifically to reinforce or disconfirm evidencepresented in the interviews, a form of triangulation. Final analysistook all three sources of data into consideration.Interviews proceeded in five rounds, two during the first year ofthe Pilot and three during the second. While coding informationobtained in an interview is a subjective process, nonetheless theconsistent recurrence of certain themes in conversation points outthe pre-eminence of these topics in the minds of the speakers andallows for careful inference to be made. The tables below outlinethe key themes that emerged from each round of interviews. Furtherexplanations of the meaning of these code categories can be foundin Appendix 1. For the additional information of the reader, thegeneral question areas explored during each round of interviews arelisted in Appendix 2.All respondents are coded for anonymity and confidentiality, anumber for the school and a small letter for individuals. Therefore,1 a represents a TC at School 1, 1 b another TC at School 1 and so on.(The reader is also reminded that one school, School 3, chose tohave only one TC ). The numbers in each category reflect clearincidents of discussion of the topic (see chapter 3 for furtherdetails about coding).89Round I - Individual Interviews with TCsThe first round of interviews included all ten TeacherCollaborators (TCs) and took place between October and Decemberof Year I of the Pilot Project. In this initial round of interviews themain purpose was to paint a picture of the school settings as therespondents saw them and to establish a baseline of relevant issuesthat seemed common to all TCs within and across the four schools.TABLE 1 - Topic Frequency of Mention: Teacher Collaborators (TCs)Interviewee la lb lc 2a 2b 2c 3a 4a 4b 4c TotalTOPICcollaborativeefforts 4 2 1 13 4 6 14 3 1 4 52first contacts 10 6 7 4 10 9 1 7 7 6 67ideal Pilot Projectoutcomes 2 1 2 3 3 1 12managing roleperception 9 3 1 12 5 11 4 9 3 2 59negative staffview ofcollaboration 2 6 2 10not enough time to 3 1 3 5 2 4 3 4 25peer help/clubs 1 1 2 1 2 6 1 3 2 19personal viewofrole 124 8 9 6 129 144 7 85positive staffreception 4 1 2 3 —1 2 1positive staffviewof 1 1collaborationprovide time to 3 — — 3 — 3 13 — 1 — 23purpose of Pilot 6 4 1 2 2 6 4 1 — 26setting up shop 14 7 2 5 5 8 3 6 12 5 67team cohesion 3 8 1 1 1 3 2 4 5 5 3390Six categories, by their frequency of occurrence, dominated theconversation with all respondents. Everyone commented in thecategories collaborative efforts, first contacts, managing roleperceptions, personal view of role, setting up shop and teamcohesion.What is also clear, even at this early stage, is that the fourschools are already showing signs of differing priorities andconcerns. For example, the issue of time as coded in provide time toand not enough time to is a major category of discussion for SchoolThree (see Chapter 5 for details on this) but mentioned far lessfrequently at the other schools.While positive staff reception (of the Pilot Project in general)is mentioned at all schools, negative staff view of collaborationreceives heavy mention at one school, brief mention at another andno mention at all at the other two schools. On the positive side,only one mention of positive staff view of collaboration wasrecorded for all four schools.Round II- School Team InterviewsInterviews with each group of TCs, as a school team, wereconducted during May and June, the end of Year I of the PilotProject. The “Team” at School Three consisted of the onedesignated TC and two colleagues who worked closely with her andwho were intimately aware of collaborative projects in progressand how the Pilot, in general, was being handled at the school.91TABLE 2 - Topic Frequency of Mention: School Teams of TCsSchool School School SchoolOne Two Three FourTOPIC Totalcollaborative efforts 4 4 1 2 1 1constraints 3 1 2 6ideal PP outcomes 2 1 3managing role 3 3 1 7perceptionnew job description 9 19 1 1 14 53next efforts 6 8 9 6 29not enough time 3 4 7personal view of role 5 9 4 18pos staff view collab 2 2provide time to 6 6school outcomes 13 13A major topic of discussion at this stage concerns new jobdescription. To gain further insights as to how the role of TC hadevolved over the period of one school year, everyone was asked towrite or discuss a job description for themselves. Everyone foundthis an intriguing exercise and was only too willing to discuss, atlength, what they had learned about themselves and their new rolesover the course of one year - and what advice they would offer forsomeone new to take such a position.Notable in their absence are categories that were of somesignificance in Round I, first contacts, setting up shop, teamcohesion, peer help/clubs, positive staff reception, and purpose ofPilot . While little mention of the first three is logical - thesetting up, team building and contact making is now well92established, the lack of mention in the remaining categories is lesseasy to explain.On the other hand, not surprisingly, collaborative effortscontinues to receive frequent mention as does managing roleperception . Differences based on school are also noticeable.Several categories receive mention by only some of the schools.Most dramatic is the continued (from Round I) discussion aroundprovide time to at one of the schools only.New categories had to be created both to allow for newinformation and to accommodate the increasing differences amongthe four schools. Next efforts , what the team was thinking of andplanning for in the second year of the Pilot, was much oneveryone’s mind. Constraints to implementing their plans and theaims of the Pilot also were of concern in this round of talks.However, school outcomes, a new category, was a major topic forone school and not mentioned at all by any of the others.ROUND Ill - Individual Interviews with TCsThe third round of interviews with the TCs was conductedbetween February and May of Year II of the Pilot Project. One newTC was now in place, having taken on the position at the beginningof the second year. For the purposes of this round of interviews theresponses of this new TC will be coded as with those who have beenin the position from the beginning. Another new TC, from School 2,is not recorded as she was unavailable for an interview during thistime period.93TABLE 3 - Topic Frequency of Mention: Teacher Collaborators (TCs)Interviewee 1 a 1 b 1 d* 2a 2c 3a 4a 4b 4cTotalTOPICcollaborative efforts 6 17 9 14 5 15 9 5 6 86first contacts 4 2 7 2 1 2 1 8ideal PP outcomes 4 5 1 1 4 1 3 5 24managing role percep. 3 10 2 8 4 4 3 1— 35new job description 7 11 4 3 — 4 3 3 28next efforts 4 1 3 1 6 1 5peer help/clubs 1 — — 1 1 — 1 1— 5personal changes 1 1 3 2 2 9personal view of role 11 11 8 12 1 1 13 10 4 12 92qproblems 1 8 7 8 14 3 5 16 5 67purpose of Pilot 6 5 1 3 4 3 8 30school outcomes 1 7 1 1 10setting up shop — 1 2 — —— 1 1 4solutions/supports— 3 8 8 6 6 8 9 8 56qstaff view ÷ or - - 1 -1 -2 -4+2 ÷1 ÷3 +1 ÷1 ÷3 +11student outcomes 2 1 2 3 4 3 1 16team cohesion 1 1 2 4qtime(needed or provided) 2 4 4 4 3 17*newTC-4.J see Appendix I for changes in code namesThree categories, collaborative efforts, managing roleperceptions and personal view of role continue to be a dominanttopic of discussion in the interviews, although several new topicshave now been raised. Three completely new codes have beencreated to accommodate the evolving discussions - personal94changes (specific change in approach or viewpoint) studentoutcomes and solutions/supportsIn addition, what was called constraints (issues that inhibiteddesired outcomes) in Round II has been collapsed into the new codeof problems ( difficulties for self and for learners). This lastproved to be a category of much discussion in both this round ofinterviews and the concurrent ones that involved the SubjectTeachers (STs) and administrators, respectively.Finally, the four categories dealing with staff view/reception ofthe Pilot Project, in general, and working collaboratively, inparticular, have been collapsed into staff view + or -. This wasdone to accommodate the number of incidents where it was unclearwhether the comment made reference to the general or the specificcase, but it was evident that the view was clearly biased towardeither the negative or the positive.Round IV - Individual Subject Teachers (STs)Somewhat concurrently with the second round of individualinterviews with the TCs, interviews with some of their subjectteacher colleagues (STs) were conducted. These interviews tookplace between February and June of Year II of the Pilot Project.Twelve teachers who taught a wide range of subject areas (English,social studies, French, physical education, special education )agreed to be interviewed. Two were interviewed together and aredesignated as only one (2eIf) due to difficulties in attributing acomment or viewpoint specifically to only one of them. Three95others were interviewed very briefly and not tape recorded. Thesehave not been coded in the table below.The interviews of the twelve are coded, although two interviewswere conducted over the telephone and face to face, without theconvenience of a tape recorder. Based on notes taken, categories areindicated with an asterisk (*) to signify that they were a frequenttopic of the conversation, even in the relatively shorter time frame.As with the TCs, the STs have been coded, for anonymity andconfidentiality, with the number of their school and a small letter(beginning with e). Therefore 3e would signify a subject-areateacher from School 3 as would 3f signify another subject teacherfrom the same school.96TABLE 4 - Frequency of Mention: Subject Teachers (STs)Interviewee le if lg lh 2e 2g 2h 3e 3f 4e 4fi.ç To.‘ I talTOPICcollaborative efforts 5 * 5 8 12 4 — 3 7 3 #first contacts 1 2 5 1 1 10ideal PP outcomes * 1 1 2 1 i #managing role percep 1 4 5next efforts 1 1 2personal changes 5 5 2 8 2 22personal view of role 5 * 4 * 3 7 1 1 #problems 8 * 9 * 19 11 1 8 4 13 18 #purpose of Pilot 3 3 * 3 1 3 2 2 10 #school outcomes 5 2 2 3 3 15setting up shop 1 2 3 6solutions/supports 8 * 4 * 4 2 12 6 12 9 #staff view + or - * 5 - 2 - 3 - #3* 5+2÷ 2+8-i-2+#student outcomes 2 2 2 3 2 1 1 22time(needed or provided) 5 6 2 2 2 4 3 24# total count not possible because of * (see above)A number of topics seem of primary importance to the STs. Ofparticular note are the topics problems and solutions STs spentconsiderable time giving examples of the problems they sawthemselves and their students having and often offered parallelsolutions they would like to see implemented.They also presented their views of the role of the TCs (personalview of role ), had much to say about collaborative efforts they hadbeen involved with or seen proceed in their departments(collaborative efforts), and provided insights as to the view of the97staff concerning both the Pilot, in general, and collaboration as anapproach, in particular (staff view + or-).Round V - Interviews with AdministratorsThe “whole-school” perspective was sought to add yet anotherdimension to the present study. Therefore, five administrators,including representatives from all four schools, were interviewedinformally during the last two months of Year II of the Pilot. Whiletheir responses were not recorded and are not tabulated, pertinentcomments are included in the discussion of these findings.This chapter has presented an overview of preliminary rounds ofdata analysis. This analysis was done by reading and re-reading thedata, creating appropriate coding categories, then coding interviewtranscripts, documents and participant observation notes usingthese categories. As is typical in qualitative data analysis, asthemes and categories emerged, adjustments and, sometimes,additions had to be made.Interview transcripts, forming by far the largest portion of thedata, were submitted, with the help of a computer softwarepackage, to a “counting” exercise. Because the frequency ofcategories proved an illuminating first step in further refinementand interpretation, these preliminary findings were presented. Thenext chapter, with the aid of many verbatim examples, examinesmore closely the findings of this study.98CHAPTER FIVEFINDINGSHigh schools as they are currently organized are hardyinstitutions, quite immune to the instructional reformsthat have sporadically ricocheted harmlessly off theirwalls. (Cuban, 1982:118)This research has sought to illuminate how a specific group ofsecondary teachers learn to work collaboratively on a day-to-daybasis and what impact the process has on their roles within theschool. While the literature abounds with recipes and prescriptionsmeant to streamline the collaborative process and serve as a recordof procedures and products, the impact on the individuals involved,the assumptions inherent in the roles they play, and how theynegotiate their way through a joint venture has not been welldocumented.To examine the joint work between teacher collaborators (TCs)and subject teachers (STs) was the purpose of this study. However,before such joint work can take place, it is logical to assume thatthere must be some agreement between the TCs and STs as to thewhen, where and how of such joint efforts.The construction of such agreement is neither automatic norsimply a given, yet such agreement is assumed by the dominantmodel of joint work used in schools, a model rooted in theexpert/novice dyad of the doctor/patient relationship. Further, thework of discourse analysts points out that discourse in99institutional consultation encounters (DICE) such as education,medicine and law, is constrained by the pre-determined hierarchyof power and authority structures. This hierarchical structure willalso impact on any form of joint work (see Chapter 2 for a fullerdiscussion of these issues).The question arises, then, as to whether the medical model isappropriate for the espoused purposes of establishing joint work inschools. Further, how the unwritten rules of behaviour andcommunication that are part of DICE influence this process, alsodeserve examination. In other words, how will the TCs proceed intheir attempts to not simply negotiate, but actually construct forthemselves, the structures and relationships needed to accrue theright to have their ideas and suggestions listened to and followed?In the Pilot Project in which the TCs participated, it was theirmandate to act as change agents in assisting STs to adapt theirteaching in ways that would benefit ESL learners’ access toacademic subject material. In addition, they were encouraged toexplore alternate models of joint work that could facilitate theirwork at the school level. How the TCs attempted to work day-today in a context where the educational equivalent of the medicalmodel of joint work was often the assumed default model, andwhere the constraints of DICE had not previously been considered,forms the focus of this chapter.Chapter Four provided an overview of the initial tallies ofcategories that were created during the four rounds of interviews,part of the data collected over two years. The list of categoriesshrinks and expands over time and as priorities alter in response to100changes in circumstance and perception. Four clusters of thesecategories dominated the data and were further scrutinized todetermine “what is really going on here” and what meaning can bereasonably drawn from these events. These four clusters arediscussed in this chapter.The role the TCs are given and/or aspire to is discussed first asit has significant impact on all that is to follow. How the TC teamsset themselves up within the school defines the parameters oftheir work and is outlined next. Third, the contacts made, bothformally and casually, are seen to lead logically to a variety ofways of working collaboratively. Finally, further perceived andreported problems with joint work are discussed. The chapterconcludes with a summary figure. Figure 2 summarizes the data byproviding outline profiles of the four schools, including the schoolimage that became associated with the TC5, as well as theessential concerns and approaches of both the TCs and STs.Throughout the presentation of this analysis, the medical(expert/novice) model will be referred to as a foil to facilitateunderstanding of the issues highlighted. The reader is also referredto Figure 1 (in Chapter 2) for an outline of the underlyingassumptions upon which this model is based. In addition, elementsof the hidden assumptions outlined in DICE (above and in Chapter 2 )will be seen to form a backdrop to the issues as discussed by theinformants themselves.101ROLE1) Personal View of RoleFirst and foremost, in discussions with the TCs, was talkcentering on the role itself. The ten Teacher Collaborators (TCs)accepted their new positions with a scant job description and nofunctioning models of the roles they were to assume. Theirassumptions and consequent actions reflect prior experiences,reflection and deliberate planning, and learning and adjustment overtime. Though the role the TCs are to play in working collaborativelyis an obvious concern for the TCs, noteworthy also are commentsabout what this role should be that came from the Subject Teachers(STs).Each TC has entered into, and is trying to make sense of, a newrole within the school, a role that, for all intents and purposes, hasno historical precedent. It is a role that has a mandate of jointwork, which also has few precedents and, in fact, has some local,not necessarily positive, history.Marris (1 975) hints at the difficulties:Occupational identity represents the accumulatedwisdom of how to handle the job, derived from their ownexperience and the experience of all who have had thesame job before or share it with them. Change threatensto invalidate that experience ... (p.1 6)Not only are the TC5 in the midst of change, but also they have nomodel or basis of experience on which they can base their new102“occupational identity”. The respondents themselves confirm theirfeelings of unease and concern over how they will function and howthey will be perceived by their colleagues. They have not been giventhe power to mandate collaboration and therefore they made findingways to “fit in” a high priority:So that’s been the difficult part . . fitting us into theirperception of the job description rather than fulfillingthe job description. I think that we’re doing it but weare doing it in many different ways. I think we haveprobably decided to mold ourselves to their need andyou’ll notice that just by the very different things thatwe’re all doing with different teachers. But by the sametoken we have defined certain parameters or limits tothat as well. (ib)Moreover, they were extremely concerned about what perceptionstheir colleagues might have with regard to the medical model, theexpert/novice dyad.I found some parts of it intimidating . . ..in particular,were we supposed to model for people and the part thatkind of assumed great expertise on my part. (1 a)I don’t want to come in here as the expert. It reallybothers me . . . I don’t like to see myself as the expert. Idon’t feel it. I got lots of good intentions but thatdoesn’t make me the expert. (2c)Credibility of the worth of the roles they had assumed,therefore, also ranked high among the TCs’ concerns. While theirwillingness to take on this new role, unproved and untested, speaksof their own sense of efficacy (Poole & Okeafor, 1 989; Ashton &103Webb, 1 986) and craftsmanship (Garmston & Wellman, 1 994 draft),they still raised many concerns about how others might view whatthey were, or were not, doing.I am very sensitive to the fact that I am seen working. Ijustify my existence in terms of being in several ofthese classrooms helping. If I’m not doing that then Idon’t think that I am working. Now I am working,absolutely, but I don’t think that they think I’m workingand I can’t get over that. I mean, I believe them, not me.(4a)If you have things organized, I think it appears that . . Ifpeople come in to talk to you and you don’t follow up,you’re not in a good organizational situation. You don’tknow where you’re going. It doesn’t look good. It’s justan aspect of credibility. (2c)However, despite the trepidations about how these new rolescould function and would be received, the TCs were unanimous inseeing it as an opportunity for growth, change and exciting newlearning. This is what Garrnston & Wellman (1 994 draft) callcraftsmanship: “They know they can continually perfect their workand are willing to pursue ongoing learning.” (p5)When I first saw the job description I found it veryintriguing and interesting even though I wasn’t exactlysure I understood it completely. But that didn’t botherme ‘cause the curiosity about doing something new anddifferent overrode the part of me that was nervousabout not understanding completely. (1 a)The thing that eventually determined me last year wasmy interest in being where the rubber hits the road,namely being in change . . in it right here. (4a)104I think one of the reasons I took the job was because Iwanted to know more on the district level. I knew lotsabout what’s going on in the school and in the classroomat that point. I’d taught the courses in a variety of waysand a number of times, changing that, this, andeverything each time as I learned new things. But Ididn’t know a lot of about what was going on at thedistrict level. (2c)Even at the earliest stages in the Pilot Project, and given therelative inexperience of the ten TCs in functioning in their newrole, many expressed specifics in terms of their own agenda - theirvision of the role’s purpose over and above the written jobdescription. What is of interest here is the often subtle, butsometimes blatant, contradiction to initial concerns not to be seenas the expert coming in to fix the teacher.By playing this role [pretending I’m a student],underplaying my role . . then once I’m in the classroom Ifind then I can give the teacher suggestions. Once I’m inthe classroom then I’m giving suggestions to theteachers, without them probably even knowing it. (4c)Our primary focus now is getting to work with teachersand having them say to other teachers, “Yes we’ve donesome work with .... and it was good. You know, you shouldgive it a try... (ib)My hidden agenda is the socializing aspect. I see myselfas working on a collegial basis and all of us workingtogether. (3a)1052) Managing Role PerceptionClosely related to a personal view of the role being assumed is amore conscious effort on the part of the TCs to manage how thisnew role is perceived in the school, particularly in relation to whatthey, and the Pilot Project, did not consider part of their mandate.They found themselves having to sometimes take a hard lineapproach to avoid having their time and efforts co-opted in otherdirections.At the beginning there were some certain difficulties;there were certain misconceptions about what we wereto do. Some people in the ESL department felt that wewere supposed to deal with their students - almost behelpers in their rooms. We had a request to take kidsout to do some Round Robin Reading and things like that.And we also had some difficulty about us being almostassigned certain people, we had to straighten out thosethings . . that we in fact made those decisions and thatwe had ways of going about doing things and that wewere separate from the ESL department. I wanted toavoid any idea that we were being shoved on to people,assigned to people or attached to people and snoopingaround people.(1 a)We don’t want to be the good suitable substitute whenthe teacher is burnt out kind of thing. We’re fairlyflexible or willing to do whatever itinvolved with the classes on the onehand, I’m beginning to become verywe do not become teachers’ aidessomething that we are not supposedBeyond the school-wide perception, careful handling of actualinteraction in the classroom with colleagues was seen as ofparamount importance - another aspect of managing role perceptiontakes to gethand. On the otherkind of militant thatwe do not becometo be. (2c)and attempting to avoid the expert label.106The rule I have for myself is I never take up a pen ‘causeI never want to feel that they feel I’m documenting whatthey are doing ‘cause I’m not the administrator and thepeople would think that I’m writing reports on them.Actually I tend to try and look at who they know are thereferred students. Quite often I’ll look over officially,especially when they ask questions and I think theysense what I’m doing. As a result of doing that, and bydoing that I think they feel that, yes, they really aremonitoring the students. They are not looking at how weare teaching in the class although obviously we can bedoing that, too. If I really think it’s not a lesson thattruly supports the language development of the kids, Icertainly don’t indicate that even though . . . It would besuicide to do anything like that.(2a)There’s a personality; there’s a certain personality thatyou must maintain. (2c)That (how I am perceived) has to be something . . goinginto classes . . to be really conscious of that ‘cause it’sreally easy I think for teachers to think that there’s onemore person in my room evaluating me as a teacher, soeverything- all my body English - and things that I sayare aimed towards putting that teacher easy, makingsure that they understand that I’m here to help Jane orGrace or whoever. (4b)The discussion so far makes it clear that while no specificmodels were available for the TCs to follow, they all had some verydefinite ideas about how they thought things should proceed, muchof it reflecting an intuitive knowledge of DICE. This self-reflectivebehaviour is defined by Csikszentmihayli (1 993) as “consciousness”,an awareness of thoughts, feelings, intentions, behaviours and theimpact they may have on others. It is because of this consciousnessthat the TC5 have worked in various ways to play down or107neutralize the often forgone conclusion that they will be taking therole of expert in any collaborative effort.3) Subject Teachers’ (STs) View of RoleFrom the beginning, there was some dissonance between whatthe TCs were trying to emphasize and what the general perceptionof the TCs role was among their colleagues. While the TCs receivedinservice emphasizing the need to work collaboratively andcollegially as opposed to the roles embedded in the expert/novicedyad, some of the STs demonstrated their continued assumptionthat the latter was de facto the way things would operate.have the resource teacher come into the classroomand understand what we are doing in our classrooms andhave that same resource person teach us about thelanguage acquisition for the students (4e)she showed me how I could re-use them to makebetter . to make them into key visuals, to tie them intosome kind of thinking process . . . (4e)I did feel uncomfortable because I knew he was muchbetter in grammar . . But it is something to realizethat your way of teaching something isn’t the best way.(2g)Despite expecting to be “told”, STs were very much aware of theshortcomings of the medical, expert/novice model as it hadtraditionally been used in past years to provide support services.Some expressed the hope that the TC team would not make the samemistake as “those people” (referring to special needs integration108personnel), shutting themselves off from the mainstream of schoollife and its students.While most of the STs who chose to participate assumed that noone would actually imply that their teaching was inappropriate orlacking in any way, they did recognize the subtle pressures toamend what they were currently doing. Reactions varied. Somewelcomed the suggestions and acted upon them.I’ve never made as many overheads or key visuals as Ihave made this year. I thought it was a joke at thebeginning but now that I have used it and seen betterresults from this ... (3e)Others were adamant in reminding the world at large that theywere not language teachers, nor had they any wish to be. They had,in fact, spent considerable time learning to teach subject matter,because that is what they were most interested in. This comesacross particularly pointedly when voiced by someone within theEnglish department, where many of the other subject teachersassumed that language learning would and should be taking place.Basically, my love is interpretive literary criticism andso, while academically or intellectually I certainly seethe need to be an introducer of basic language, it isfrustrating. It is not the thing that fascinates me in theway it would someone who has said, ‘Look what I wantto do is teach basic English to newcomers to thecountry.’ I think it frustrates many teachers. (4f)1094) School ImageOver the two-year period the TCs continued to develop andmanage their roles within the school. In the process, each schoolteam began to be perceived in association with a particular image,created through quite deliberate action, though not necessarily inconscious intent. Though still individuals, their efforts to work as aschool team helped to foster an image that would distinguish themand their work in the school. As can be expected, given the influenceof the culture of the school, and considering the dynamics of DICEeach team of TCs came to represent an image that fit both theircontext and their espoused working roles.School One TCs became the Producers. Over the two-year periodthey created and assisted in the creation of enormous quantities ofmaterials and resources which they consciously fed to theappropriate content teachers.We came at it from the materials angle. When we lookedat stuff we’d say - we need this, we need this, oh, wemust use this, kids should see this, they must do this....Then when we made contact ... I’d like to see thematerials you’ve used, that would give me a good idea ofwhat sort of things you’ve done with the kids. Then Iwould take the materials and then I would come backwith some new ones . . would come back with some workI had done as well to show them. . (1 b)In this regard they spent countless hours above and beyondschool time because they saw their priority as collaborativelyworking in class, which quickly began to tie up large chunks of thetimetable - leaving less time for materials preparation. Despite110working overtime to produce their best possible efforts - “if you’rea real bozo in the classroom, if you come up with inappropriatematerials, you won’t wash” (1 a) - they were also conscious of notmaking things too slick:We might be able to prepare some wonderful visuals forthe class but we can’t assume that other teachers areequally going to prepare that sort of visual becausethey’ve got their other class load as well. So we have tobe sensitive to that because if you show work you’vedone - expecting them to do similar- then you’ve got tobe aware that you’re going to get some responses frompeople who will say, “Well, of course you can do a reallygood job. You only have one class. What do you expect;you should be, you know” (1 b)The TC team at School Two, from the outset, was known forcareful organization. Not only did the Organizers here producespecific forms and procedures for referring students forassistance, they prided themselves on following up any suchreferrals within 24-48 hours. The specific format and quickresponse was considered an important aspect of the team’scredibility.Once we get in a referral on individual students - theywill tell us subject area, block, the teacher - then it’s amatter of going to find the teacher during the teacher’sspare and saying, “OK I have got your referral now.What’s the best approach for you with this student. Howshould we work with this. (2b)School Three worked hard to create an image of Professionals.Here the dominant theme focussed on the all-too-common reality oftime pressures. Therefore, went the argument, since we are all111professionals who don’t need to be told how to behave and to workwith students, providing a block of time to work on a project ofyour own choosing, is obviously the best thing to do.We’ve got really good teachers here. They’ve taught for along time and there’s expertise and you don’t need tosmack them over the head too many times . . . It’s not forus to go in and teach necessarily. Teachers aresensitive, they’re creative. Otherwise this wouldn’t bethe job they’d want. We don’t need to tell them . . . (3a)At School Four the TC Team chose the image they wanted tocreate from the outset. Taking off from the theme song and title ofthe movie, Ghost Busters, they became the Text-Busters, completewith chants and banners to announce the opening of their HomeworkRoom where text-busting strategies would be taught to all corners.In addition, as long-time colleagues at that school, they foundinvitations to come and see how the (ESL) students were copingeasily forthcoming. Once problems were identified, the studentswere given both in-class support and urged to continue theirstrategic learning in the Homework Room. Samples of text-bustingstrategies, often focussing specifically on the underlying languagepatterns, were given to the ESL students and sometimes taken up bythe subject-area teachers as a useful strategy for the entire class.We went to all classes. We started off with the topstudents, the ones who are totally integrated, then theones who are in transitional... So we went to thosestudents first and then we got them (teachers) toparticipate ... what problems are you having with thekids in class ... and we told them what our job was.... andwhat we thought we could do for them and where wewere located.... We went to the students and we got them112to write down their study skills... and what problemsthey had with homework and things like that. (4c)I’m telling the teacher- by the way the other kids wantthis (graphic! handout created for ESL students) - andthen she, like sees it and uses it for the whole class.(4c)5) Role Development - Advice and ReflectionsAt the end of the first year of the Pilot Project, all TCs wereinterviewed with a view to reflecting on both the accomplishmentsand the possible areas for changes and/or improvements for thesecond year. The TCs were asked to reflect on what they had doneover the year, how/if they might do it differently for the secondyear and what advice they would give to anyone about to step into asimilar role. During these discussions, they re-affirmed some oftheir initial perceptions, expressed surprise at some of theexpectations that had developed and had specific suggestions andplans for the second year.Common to all TCs was the conviction that being flexible andsupportive in whatever model of joint work seemed workable waskey. (Models used will be discussed later in this chapter.) “Theyhave to perceive you as being someone that they would becomfortable with as well as the type of person that’s willing to beopen.” (2a)Related to this comfort level is the issue of who is in chargewhen two teachers are in the classroom. Although the TCs assumedvarious roles in their joint work with teachers, they pointed out113that despite any temporary arrangements with the ST, it had toremain clear that the classroom teacher was in control; “Mr. andMrs. are still the boss.... you must play second fiddle with words.”They also recognized they had been ascribed the roles ofsalespeople - leaders and advocates, who could not afford theluxury of sitting and waiting for customers to beat down theirdoors if they hoped to maintain the credibility in the schools forwhich they had all worked so hard. This created some difficultiesfor TCs who were less experienced and found doing such things asassertively seeking joint work opportunities and doingdemonstration lessons for interested colleagues quite stressful.You may be told that this (not sitting back and waitingfor customers) is one thing that you should be doing andyou can’t seem to be able to do it. . . then it becomeskind of frustrating. (2b)I’ve done a lot more model teaching than I ever expectedto do - which is really quite scary. . . to walk into aclassroom where you don’t know the kids and you’reexpected to do. . . you’ve got to get their attention rightaway and . . . this person is watching you and assumingyou’re the expert. (2c)The TCs were also unanimous in declaring that the job was orwould be much easier if the TCs were “colleagues who had taken adifferent job in the school” rather than newcomers to the staff. Atthe one school where this was not the case much time was taken atthe beginning of the pilot to “be incredibly present” and availablemuch above and beyond the proverbial call of duty.Another concern for the TCs at all schools was the all toocommon perception that since they were no longer carrying a114regular teaching load, they no longer understood the unique joys andfrustrations of classroom teaching, years of experienceimmediately prior to this new position notwithstanding. Inresponse, all had already or intended to take on at least oneteaching block. Some felt quite strongly that was what should havebeen done from the outset. It was pointed out how much easier, forexample, demonstration lessons would be if you “at least knew thekids”.Tied to being a fellow teacher of classes was the notion thatsubject-area expertise was highly regarded by their ST colleagues -more so than ESL experience and expertise. Therefore, all the TCsrecommended that similar projects in the future see to it thatpeople in similar positions, at the very least “ must know what thecurriculum is made up of (preferably in several subject areas) and• understand [how] everything links in and see how concepts build onone another year after year”.A final point made by the TCs concerns the socio-politicalaspects of schools. They issued strong warnings to anyone whowould take on a similar position. Their recommendations includebeing social only at officially social times (don’t be caught in thecoffee room after coffee break is long over), giving 1 50% in termsof finding and creating resources, being seen to be involved inextra-curricular clubs and programs, not starting anything you thenfind yourself unable to follow through on ( a homework club thatfell flat because the TCs in charge were overbooked with othercommitments), and doing your utmost to stay neutral in the115political intrigues and partisanships that are part of everyinstitution of any size.With regard to this last point, attempting to not “belong” to anyspecific group, not some special part of the school, was advocated.Instead, being known as individuals with individual talents andstrengths was considered superior.This has been the typical problem of - I hate to say it -Special Ed. departments and ESL departments. You canask people in the school and they don’t even know theperson’s name and you can’t be that way. (2c)As already highlighted above, these insights and suggestions,while presented formally at the end of the first year of the PilotProgram, were in many ways already embedded in the thoughts,actions and approaches of the TCs. They helped to form part of thetotal action plan for setting up, making contact and moving intojoint ventures. It is to the setting up that we turn next.SET-UPAside from finding ways to fit into their new roles, the TCswere also embroiled in basic organization- setting up shop. Thiscode category, together with how they chose to set themselves upas a team - team cohesion - again demonstrates much thought andprior knowledge of both their colleagues and the school situation. Itis also at this juncture that the quite different approaches (above)116are taken, differences that have enormous implications for theeventual outcomes of the entire joint work agenda.1 knew we’d have to spend a lot of time establishingourselves and establishing credibility or trust orwhatever you want to call it. I did a lot of thinking atthe beginning as opposed to doing, was constantlythinking out loud and talking about how it was going tobe done. Things as simple as whether and what kind ofform we should use to keep track of the people we dealwith, how people should approach us, how we shoulddivide up departments if we are going to do it that way,for instance. So in a way we are still at that kind ofinformal stage and we have rejected the idea of having aform for people to fill out when they want to see us.(1 a)We decided to make it less formal. My thinking was thatpaper might get in the way. (4b)We thought to develop the student referral form andthat’s the key point. We have the system where a contentteacher gets the referral to the counsellor, who canhave any additional information about the student andthen it comes to us for “round tablin”. We generallyagree through the nature of round tabling, who should gowhere we are more qualified, so to speak. (2a)How the team of TCs was to work together was also not predetermined and needed to be dealt with. Again notice the differenttacks taken by the different schools.We always know what each other is doing. That’sdifferent for me but I like it. I think it’s really good. Wehave a lot of stopping and taking stock. I’m not used toworking as a member of a team either. . We feel thatsince we are breaking new ground all the time, wealways have to get feedback.(1 b)We all agreed that organization is really important andso we are talking about things like referral forms or117how we are going to keep track of kids. We have a listof things . . some readings we would do and stuff likethat, really general but certainly we were very focussedon the organizational aspect. (2c)We put together problems regular teachers perceive kidshaving in the classroom, and then we circulated that tothe ESL kids. We put our information Out to the ESLclasses and that was the team effort that . . three of usgoing into the class and saying, “We are the text-busters. This is where we can be found, and thehomework room is here. This is what we do, here’s theform to fill out on what problems you have in classes.”(4a)A final note on this topic is in order. The TCs quickly realizedthat their attempts to involve themselves fully, so they could feel,and be perceived as if, they were pulling their weight in the school,had an overwhelming side effect. Preparation for a regular teachingload was far different from the work they had now taken on, workthat encompassed many more subject areas and that almostdemanded the spectacular if their credibility and that of the entirePilot were to remain high.Another thing we started just two weeks ago wasscheduling our blocks for certain things because wealways scheduled them with teachers, but then there’sother times when you are in here and you don’t have aschedule, and we’re so schedule-oriented being teacherswe found we had actually to schedule time in the daywhere we do certain things that need to be doneotherwise we’d find they all piled up at the end of theweek (1 b)I must admit I worked my tail off to get that stuff donebecause I thought it’s got to be good. If I have mucked itup and had given her a lot of rubbish. . I had to takewhat she had given me, take it and put some visuals on118that and it wasn’t easy because I don’t have thebackground in the subject either and I wanted it to benot so different from what she has given me that shethought, “Who the hell does she think she is?” (1 b)Also of note is the fact that School Three did not appear to gothrough a formal set-up stage. While a team existed on paper, thesupport offered was created and enacted almost completely via aunique timetable grid that plotted self-selected teachers into two-month slots.During these time blocks, teachers were free to pursue their ownpet projects, while someone from the TC team took their classes inone teaching block. During the first year of the Pilot Project at thisschool, only informal contact was made in this loosely structuredsupport system. The TC leader sums it up as follows:The two-month cycle seems to be just perfect becauseit gives us time (with the slight overlap) at each end forpeople to come and go out. . . I have to make sure I seethem once at least and they see each other. . (3a)Interestingly enough, the teachers themselves, while theyenjoyed enormously having school time to work on a unit or someresearch they had been leaving undone due to time constraints,decided that they really needed something more formal to learn howto better serve the growing numbers of ESL students in theircontent classes.When, in the second year of the Pilot, the TC leader taught oneblock, teachers began not only asking informally what to do aboutspecific language or content-based issues but asked to watch this119“expert” in action dealing with the perceived issue or problem. Thus,despite efforts to remain “just one of the colleagues”, the TC leaderwas being put in the position of expert she had tried so hard toavoid.the next block when we talked about what he wasgoing to do, he wanted to use some of the strategies Ihad used . . . and he said, ‘Can I watch you?’. . . and thenhe wanted me to watch him try . . . he really wanted towork on process . . (3a)The stage is now set and considerable thought and planning hasgone into creating the roles and relationships that will determinehow joint work will proceed at each school. While initial formalintroductions have been made, individual contacts that will lead tocollaborative work, remain to be established. How the TCs madecontact and then proceeded to some collaborative enterprise is thetopic of the next section.CONTACT AND COLLABORATIONContacts with teachers toward the aim of some kind of jointwork and actual instances of such work were the prime directive ofthe TCs. With some sort of base of operation set up at each school,initial approaches were sometimes deliberately coordinated, othertimes simply coincidence.1201) ContactAll the TCs agreed that simply sitting back and waiting to beapproached, with or without a formal process in place, would not beenough to garner the involvement they all desired.The way I first did it was to be incredibly present andpositive and to join as many things as I could and tomake sure I sat with as many different people at coffeebreak as possible and I then talked to people about whatI wanted to do as much as I could. It’s usually throughcasual encounter and many of the exchanges, many ofthese things that’s how it’s been. I was waiting outsidethe racket ball court, for example, at 5 o’clock, waitingfor my partner when the English teacher ran through onthe way back from volleyball supervision, and we talkedfor 3 minutes and out of that we have this entire unit ofRomeo and Juliet visuals. (1 a)He’s in charge of the annual, and I have been reviewingthe grad write-up for a number of years and those sortof things . . [those prior contacts ] are what lead to,“Come on to the classroom. So and so is having a problemand what can I do.” (4b)I’m trying to get into science and before I get into thatI’m trying to develop some friendship with the scienceteacher. I volunteer my help once or twice a week withthe team he is coaching. (ic)The casual encounter also had the potential of creating thewrong impression. Very quickly many of the TCs found themselvesincredibly busy and locked into certain timetable constraints inorder to be available as these contacts developed into joint efforts.This sometimes proved to conflict with the schedules of otherinterested teachers.121The classroom teachers tended to see the “wide-open” scheduleof the TCs - as non-enrolling teachers - as equivalent to absolutelylimitless availability. At School Two it was reported that thesubject teachers initially made jokes about “these Pilot people whohad seven or eight spares”. The STs were, therefore, not pleasedwhen schedule constraints meant they did not have access to theTCs’ expertise when they wanted it:From speaking to him casually in the staff cafeteriaabout the project, I asked him if he was interested indoing some of this or had an interest in having me in theclassroom. First he was a little bit - I’m not sure andI’m really busy myself, always on the go - but he saidmaybe see him later and he did mention that possibly Ican go in and work with some Physics 11 students. I wasinvolved in computer studies and wasn’t able to get tohim. I tried to keep the contact and mention that “you’reon my list and I’m going to get to you I just haven’t gotthere yet.” He said, “Well by the time you get theremaybe I’ll have the language problems rectified myself.”(2b)More formal contacts were made, in a variety of ways, throughthe students because everyone agreed that “that’s how the teachersbuy in - through the kids.”Those contacts were made very specifically - this kindof salesmanship type thing we did. (2c)We are trying to work it every way we can if it is givingthem a break because when they know there is someadvantages with being involved in this project . .We wanted to get the formal objective testing so wegave them a GAP test. So we just sent the teacher off tohave a spare. (2a)122I found myself totally ineffective, because I didn’t knowwhat kids were doing. I guess after a month and a halfor so I sort of decided what I’m going to do. I’m going togo and take 4 blocks and I just go to every class for amonth, I go into the classroom and be like a student andlearn the subject. Then by doing that I can do thehomework and the kids can come in here and I can helpthem with the homework or in the classroom I can help.(4c)We went to all classes. We started it off with the topstudents, the ones who are integrated, then ones whoare in transitional class and ELA class. (4c)2) CollaborationWhether the contact was formal, informal or a combination ofboth, the key was to establish some form of joint work. The TCs hadreceived some formal training that suggested ways to workcollaboratively, a model where responsibility is shared but,nonetheless, the TC was expected to take the role of consultant,somewhat the expert. They were to see to it that work at leastprogressed beyond brainstorming and talking about possibilities. Inthe process of establishing joint work with their colleagues, theTCs attempted to clarify and refine what they saw as the essenceof such collaborative efforts and what forms of it seemed bothacceptable and workable. The issue of definitions and variations onjoint work will be discussed next.123a) Collaboration isAs we have seen in Chapter 2, collaboration is defined in avariety of ways in the literature and much confusion exists whendetails of the day-to-day process are sought. In a more localcontext, teacher-librarians in the same school district as thisstudy, trained to be “cooperative program planning and teachingresource teachers” ( a program already in place for a number ofyears), were surveyed as to their reactions to and involvementswith the Pilot Project. (Dunn, 1 992) They pointed out that“cooperative” and “collaborative” were terms they used somewhatindiscriminately and several also stated that cooperation, to them,meant team teaching while collaboration meant team planning. Withthis further confusion of terminology in mind, let us turn to howthe subjects in this study chose to view the joint work they weredoing.Both the TCs and the ST5, also, had preconceived notions of whatcollaboration was - based on previous experiences at the schoollevel, notably around the integration of special needs learners. Hereagain, the medical model becomes the fall-back position, whereboth the TCs and the subject teachers see the TCs’ role, at least inpart, as one of prescribing appropriate intervention in order to “fix”(depending on your viewpoint) either the students’ problems or theapproach used by the subject teacher.On a strictly affective level, over the period of two years, bothgroups of teachers described and defined collaboration in a varietyof ways: Collaboration is scary; show time; undefinable; more rapidchange; exhilarating; the only way to go; working with, not for;124shared responsibility; fun; almost like detective work; a test ofyour flexibility.One TC sums up the contrasts in some detail:It’s a very painful process. I think from the beginning,working collaboratively is very difficult because we’reall - the people that have come in the program - wewere all very successful as individuals . . . andindividuals is the word. We followed our own ideas andthen . . . it was very difficult to give up yourindividuality for something that at first you might havethought wasn’t as good as your own ideas. . . and (interms of the TC team) having three people was really agood balance because if there’s three people, you know,that if you put something out and two people don’t agreewith you then maybe it’s not the right one - and yetsometimes it’s very hard to give that up. . . but once yousort of have worked collaboratively and then you seethe results are better than what you did yourself. . . Themore you do it, the more you see that the results,working things together, turns out better than what oneperson could do alone. (4c)The subject teachers expressed their trepidations, too:I made myself collaboratively teach with her. Initiallyit’s like waltzing with somebody. When you first dancewith them you’re worried about stepping on toes. But itis something to be able to realize that your way ofteaching something isn’t the best way . . . (2g)While the TCs were willing to accept a number of variations onwhat collaboration “should” be as an entry point, they had a definitevision in mind of how the ideal of joint work should look. They wereboth right and wrong. In their struggle to both fulfill their mandateand not “step on the toes” of colleagues, they learned that the ideal125according to Little (1 990b), where parity, shared responsibilityfrom inception to completion of a project is the norm, was oftennot only impossible but at times, not even desirable.One TC describes her involvement with a project that includedseveral classroom teachers and the teacher librarian. Initially, shewas trying, over coffee, to diagnose just exactly how one teacherwas trying to articulate that she needed assistance. The projectsnowballed and became a very successful theme study - one finallytaught by the classroom teacher alone, for a number of reasons,including the impracticality of having five or six teachers rotatethrough one classroom over a relatively short period of time.From the beginning, the teacher librarian assumed the expertrole and the TC sat back in awe as a hodgepodge of materials andideas took shape before her eyes. She confided that she was reallyglad she had not voiced her strong concerns over the number ofpeople involved and the myriad spin-offs suggested, which she feltwould destroy the cohesiveness needed to see a project tocompletion.In the end she asked this “expert” colleague, “Now how did we getfrom point one - which was this teacher didn’t know what he or shewanted to do - to ‘we’ve got an outline and everybody’s got a task.’7” (1 b) The response was an eloquent shrug and “I guess it’s justpractice and knowing the people.”The resulting theme study became a workshop showpiece and theTC involved struggled with how to describe what had happened inthis collaborative venture - specifically defining whatcollaboration looks like, since she knew workshop attendees would126be looking for a recipe that might allow them to reproduce such asuccessful team effort.I could hardly give that as a model of collaboration.What do you say? ‘Oh, we started with coffee and westarted thinking about ‘ and now, having done this anumber of times (since this specific project) - everytime is completely different. It’s not a defined set ofrules for any one person . . . (1 b)b) Flexible HatsThe term “Flexible Hats” was coined by the TC above to describeher duties as a Teacher Collaborator as she joked about having tocheck her timetable to see which hat she had to wear next. Thisimage for different variations of joint work with differentteachers seems apt as the many variations reported indicate.For example, while all TCs in their training had been encouragedto not simply be “an extra pair of hands” in the classroom, they alladmitted to doing precisely that with a view to progressing to amore interactive role as some measure of rapport and trustdeveloped between them and their subject-area colleagues.In addition, the earlier discussion of the perceived role or rolesthey chose to assume for a specific purpose, provides furtherexamples of wearing different hats in different circumstances. On acontinuum from minimal interdependence to joint work wherespecific roles are indistinguishable, the TCs created, adopted andadapted as seemed appropriate.127Aside from being the extra pair of hands in the classroom, theydescribe working in isolation with a topic for which somematerials were requested, sitting with a teacher to plan and createa unit of study and then handing it off for the teacher to do with ass/he chose or , more rarely, planning and implementing a themestudy together with the classroom teacher. What the TCs ended updoing most frequently depended on circumstances, timetablingconstraints, and the individuals involved. Some of the more commonvariations are discussed below.I) Playing StudentSitting in on content classes and playing student in order toanalyze the difficulties students were having with the contentmatter and its linguistic hurdles proved to be a common techniqueoften associated with an initial way to get the proverbial foot inthe door.So it’s working with an individual student that’s beenrecommended (for help) and through the class theteacher has seen the improvements. . . hey that reallyworked and I like that sheet you gave her and . . . wouldyou like a copy. . and it’s into her hands and next thingthe whole class is using it. ( 2a)This type of contact was perceived as fairly low risk by the STs,and even welcomed.At first I thought it would take her so long to learn thestuff that she would not be able to be helpful orbeneficial . . but what it did serve to do is . . . she waslearning it from their perspective and she had more torelate to in terms of their inability to learn some of it128than I would, or a person who knew the content verywell. (4e)This role, however, had its detractors, too. Both STs and someTCs felt that it was an inexcusable and costly waste of time andexpertise of highly trained individuals. One TC expressed hisconcerns as follows.I don’t know if it warrants the effort to sit throughlong, numerous classes when perhaps there’s only asingle student they want you to help them with. I thinkit would be more beneficial if someone that knew whatwas going on went in there, could assess the situationpretty quickly and be useful to that person - likeimmediately. (2a)ii) Expert/consultantAs discussed earlier, the TCs understood that the role of expertwas to some extent expected of them, although they were extremelyconscious of the hazards of such a role - the negative stereotypesand fear of evaluation and judgments associated with it in theminds of teachers. Nonetheless, in order to begin to work toward amore collaborative model, they had to accept this role when it wasthrust upon them - and it often was. This role is particularlyreminiscent of the doctor asking leading questions to get at the“real” problem the patient is having.Often I find that people have a great deal of difficultyexplaining what exactly the problem is. They say,‘They’re (the students) having trouble.’ That doesn’treally help me. Then I have to keep asking questions . .Some just don’t understand why they (the students) don’t129get it. Others understand why they don’t get it but theydon’t know what to do about it. (2c)ft’s difficult to know what they’re getting at. They talkalmost cryptically. They don’t know what they want. SoI’ll say, ‘I think maybe you’re thinking of. . andsometimes they’ll say, ‘ Yes, that’s exactly ...‘ and othertimes they’re saying no they’re not. . . (1 b).we had teachers calling us to come in; teachersapproaching us with concerns about the kids in theirclasses; teachers coming in here or in the hallwaystopping to say, ‘This is what’s happening. Can I getsome help?’ (4b)I went in and observed because he wondered how hecould help his ESL kids. (3a)iii) Guest TeacherAside from being put in the position of expert who would fix theproblem, perhaps the most common hat the TCs wore was that ofguest teacher. Indeed, this role evolved, almost inevitably, from oneof the two above forms of collaboration - playing student or expert.In discussion with the TCs, it was pointed Out that going in to dosomething that was specifically requested or that met a need thathad been voiced, was an excellent way to showcase the usefulnessof involvement with the Pilot Project in general and the TC team inparticular. School One was the first to pick up on an opportunity toplay guest teacher by teaching study skills to grade eight and ninestudents.The general idea was based on comments about kidsbeing weak in specific skills . . .we were teachingspecific study skills that the teachers had requested130and were trying to direct it into whatever material theywere using at that point in time. . . It put us in contactwith tons of teachers in a most positive way becausethey had given us the idea - they’d selected those skills.(1 a)This project was so successful that the other schools worked tocreate similar opportunities.Another form of guest teaching occurred when an ST decided tomake use of the opportunity to be freed from a teaching block inorder to plan or refine a topic of study s/he wanted to work on.During the planning with one member of the TC team, a secondmember would take over that block of teaching , usually 3 one-hoursessions per week for a period of two to four weeks.This was another opportunity to demonstrate the quality ofsupport that was available through the Pilot Project. The TCs alsorealized how important it was, in these instances, to be very clearas to the expectations of the ST involved.We have to be really careful with that. We don’t want itto be something where they come back and say, ‘Oh well,of course in this time I would have covered so muchmore.’ And the other thing is it has to be a finite unit. Itcan’t be something which we open and then they close.That doesn’t work very well because they have their ownways of approaching a unit. So we really need a timeframe. (ib)Realizing that despite relishing an opportunity to work on futureteaching units during school time, the STs involved would still beconcerned about how their classes were doing in their absence, theTCs also worked hard to reassure the STs involved.131I would always check in with him once a week just tolet him know what we’re up to, what’s going on, whichprojects are taking place . . . and he, I think, came awayfeeling really good about his classes being left in sortof a comfortable situation. . . that they weren’t fallingbehind in their work. They were doing what needed to bedone. I took on the full role for that class from themarking to everything else. (2a)iv) Turn-takingCo-teaching, where the collaborating teachers planned andexecuted a topic of study together, was aspired to by all TCs. Thereality was, in fact, what Fullan and Hargreaves( 1 991) consider, atbest, comfortable collaboration. In simple terms, two teacherswere present but only one was “teaching” at a time. While onepresented an agreed upon section, the other either sat back andwatched, circulated among students providing individual help, orleft the classroom entirely. At some designated point the twowould reverse roles. This “turn-taking” seemed to suit manyteachers, both TCs and STs.I sometimes teach with him - we divide the class in thesense that he would do the first 25 minutes or so and I’ddo the last 25 minutes. (2a)We took turns, though. I’d go up and then it would get toa point where I didn’t even know quite what she wantedto do with the next section. So she’d do it. (1 b)If there’s two teachers co-teaching then it’s not so hardto say, ‘OK I’m taking some time off to . . . you still havethat class flow running because the two of you aretogether. (2e)132The last comment above offers a very different definition of coteaching and also reflects the often mentioned convenience aspectof turn-taking as opposed to a more interactive model of coteaching.v) on the firing lineIn the second year of this study, all TCs taught at least one blockof grade level classes. Despite the need for more, not less, time toplan and work with colleagues, they all felt out of touch and lesseffective in their roles because they had not been “on the firingline”, teaching their own classes for the last year. The STs agreed.Though the TCs had been successful teachers, in many cases in thesame schools, as soon as they became TCs and non-enrolling, theircredibility became questionable.There’s more trust now, in our abilities to help topinpoint problems and they’ll be much more forthcomingwith information, I find. Whereas it was before, ‘Well,you wouldn’t understand because you’re not teaching.Now that we’re teaching, that has been a benefit. (1 b)I can just be someone else who’s teaching that unit atthe same time. She’s going, ‘What am I going to do withthis unit I hate?’ and you can just say, ‘Well I’ve gotsome stuff, you know. . ‘ (2c)133vi) Mentor/ModelDespite adamantly insisting that “I’m just one of the colleagues”,many of the TCs found themselves taking on the role of expert. As aresult of deliberately putting themselves back into the classroompart time, the TCs were able to use their teaching blocks as yetanother way to forward the aims and specific strategies of thePilot Project. Within a very short space of time, there was agrowing demand for demonstration lessons and related forms ofpeer coaching and mentoring.I didn’t feel ill at ease teaching in front of him andobviously he didn’t in front of me. And I think, had I gonein and sat at the back of the room or something likethat, I don’t think it would have worked as well . . . himtrying some of the strategies I demonstrated. (3a)They are in control of what problem or content orprocess they want to work on. . . in many cases they doknow about ESL kids, even though they may not realize itat first. They do know some of the things they have todo. So it really is reassuring in that sense.(1 a)It offers the opportunity for people to come and seewhat we are doing. Rather than saying this is what youshould be doing, we can say, ‘Why not just come and seehow I deal with this problem or situation?’ (2c)134PROBLEMS/CONCERNSWhile both TCs and STs waxed poetic about some of theirsuccesses using one form of joint work or another, all alsoarticulated some concerns. Beyond the scope of this study are thelitany of complaints about the perceived “lacks” of the studentsthemselves. For example, many STs commented on the ESL students’lack of readiness for the demands of their subject areas as well astheir inability to understand and follow the contextual or anecdotalbackdrop to events under discussion.Also of interest for more specific future research, and relevantto the present context, is the notion presented earlier about thedifferences of perception of what the “problem” really is. Like theexample in Chapter 4, of how differently the two groups of teachersviewed the “text” , what the key issues of the Pilot Project, andpossible solutions were, was often distinctly different for the twogroups.The mandate of the Pilot Project was for the TC5 to help STsdeal with this increasing diversity, both linguistic and experiential,while teaching the content. How the TCs attempted to achieve thishas been the subject of this chapter. The discussion makes it clearthat the STs did not always agree with these “solutions”.What was also of concern to both TC5 and STs were issues moredirectly related to their efforts to institute some form of jointwork. As discussed above, the TCs saw a number of possibleproblems from the outset and worked to minimize them. However,135two key issues, time and teacher autonomy, remained and wererepeatedly articulated throughout the term of the Pilot Project.1) TimeConcerns over time were expressed by all participants. Despitethe fact that there was now additional time to plan, organize andreflect by virtue of having extra teachers per school available toassist in almost any way requested, the STs still felt a chronic lackof time to “cover the curriculum”, meet to plan with the TCs, orcreate and adapt materials that would assist the ESL learners intheir classes.One ST voiced her strong opinion (supported by others on staff)that “having the non-enrolling bodies who can relieve you in variousways doesn’t seem to be the answer”. She justified her conclusionbased on two criteria. She pointed out that the offered “timeshare”, where a TC would take your class so you could plan with asecond TC or work on your own project, was severely under-utilizedin the school because people could not be creative on demand.You have to have blocks of time and it has to be . . .mean to be creative you can’t be forced into it. You haveto have your own time and be free of everything else. Ifyou’re sitting worried about what’s going on in yourclass . . . I don’t know, it just doesn’t work. (2e)Also hinted at in the above is the second concern, time spentaway from “my class”. In the earlier discussion of different modelsof joint work, TCs tried in various ways to support the strong senseof ownership and responsibility that the STs felt for their classes.However, this concern was obviously not completely dealt with.136Because you like to know where your own kids are. Youdon’t want to leave them for two weeks or even longer...not as a professional, so that’s not satisfactory. (2f)In addition, voices of newer teachers argued that simply keepingup with the demands of the curriculum was about all they couldhandle on a day-to-day basis. To plan for time away also involvedsetting up a program to be followed during this absence andteachers, despite the fact that they could articulate the benefits ofplanning with a more experienced colleague, felt unable orunwilling to meet this additional demand on their time.The fact that the TCs, also, felt always pressed for time anddespite this gave up some of their time to teach one class (seeabove) further supports the importance of this concern.2) Teacher as ProfessionalEqually difficult to reconcile within a collaborative frameworkis the issue of the teacher as a professional and an individual. Thesense of responsibility for “delivering the curriculum” within alimited and set time frame is part and parcel of the sense offreedom teachers feel they need, to impose their individual stylesand approaches on that teaching. Both TCs and STs saw this as anissue. One ST expressed it as follows:You have different teaching styles, different ways ofevaluating, different emphases, and for me that’s myclass in there and I want to be with them and do it myway. (2f)137In addition, many STs expressed a concern that their chosenspecialty was in danger of being co-opted in favour of someperceived larger good.I certainly see the need to be an introducer of basiclanguage as frustrating. I think it frustrates manyteachers . . . (4f) I agree totally. (1 e)Even if the need to work collaboratively in order to be moreeffective in the classroom is a given, STs saw time to talk, workand plan with those in their own departments as time better spentthan the time to work collaboratively that was offered through thePilot.In my Utopia, keep them out of my classroom and giveme the time to get together with fellow professionals.The only people that can possibly, in the context ofschool, work for me are the people I’m directly workingwith. (lh)Again, the discussion above has pointed out that TC5 were verysensitive to this perception and tried to accommodate by clarifyingtheir own role, how it did not impinge on that of the STs, and howthey proposed to step in and “cover the curriculum” in the ST’s placeas carefully and effectively as the ST would be doing.A final note is in order. As mentioned earlier, specificdepartments signed up to participate in the Pilot Program. Given thefrequent contact of this researcher, it was clear that participationwas not always voluntary nor enthusiastic. Moreover, manyteachers, even in the departments officially committed, chose not138to take advantage of any of the opportunities offered by the PilotProject.In such a situation, Anita de Boer has counselled those in rolessimilar to that of the TCs to recognize when to “stop wateringrocks” ( workshop comment). This reality was recognized by all theTCs.So many teachers are in their classrooms and they’rehappy the way things have gone. They’re happy tocontinue that way and they don’t want somebody else inthe classroom. (2b)The VSB Pilot Evaluation (Dunn, 1 992) displays at some lengthother comments and concerns of teachers who chose not toparticipate more directly. Since this reaches beyond the mandate ofthis thesis, the reader is directed to that work for further details.This chapter has outlined, in considerable detail, the roles andattendant responsibilities of the subjects of this research. The TCshave worked to create an appropriate image of themselves ashelping individuals and as members of a school team. In addition,how they created and implemented instances of joint work isdocumented, as is the reaction of their ST colleagues. Finally, twokey issues that create dissonance with the premises of joint workhave been articulated in the words of the respondents.To conclude this presentation of findings, the following summaryfigure provides an outline of many of the key elements presented inthis chapter. Figure 2 summarizes the data by providing outline139profiles of the four schools, including the school image created bythe TCs, and the essential concerns and approaches of both the TCsand STs.Figure 2: School ProfilesSCHOOL #1 SCHOOL #2 SCHOOL #3 SCHOOL #4IMAGE producers organizers professionals teHtbustersinformal; formal; individual, informal;TCs’ incredibly referral of self- blitz allA P P ROACH present students directed; departmentsscheduledtimedo this for do this for I want to do do this forme; work me; let me ... ; what do me;STs’ with these work, don’t you think give meAPPROACH students! bug me; just about...; some timetopics; fix ‘em can I try ... to..let’s .... let’sTCs’ we’re here we’re on top a gift of try it, youRATIONALE to work for of it and we time just mightyou can help honours like ityour effortsTCs’ CHIEF establishing establishing non- total schoolCONCERN credibility credibility interference involvementresources are you specific studentsSTs’ CHIEF that work earning your topics and lack skills;CONCERNS keep? routines is thisworth thetime?TCs’ student humanities class lists;SOURCES coincidence; referrals; teachers; referrals;OF solicitation drop-ins; self- coincidenceCLIENTS coincidence selected140In the next chapter the key elements presented here will bereiterated in light of the original research questions, as will theimplications of the use of the medical model of joint work inschools. The impact that DICE has on interactions such as jointwork will also be discussed. Then, questions and implications forfurther research will be outlined and a summary of possibleconclusions that can be drawn from this research will complete thechapter.141CHAPTER SIXCONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONSinstitutions affect our lives and through theirhierarchical structure elicit characteristic kinds ofbehaviors within them. . . . Although people may not beconsciously aware of hidden constraints, theynonetheless act in accordance with unstated rules ofbehaviour and communication. ( Bonvillain, 1 993:37 1)This case study has described and analyzed how a group ofTeacher Collaborators (TCs), specialists in English as a SecondLanguage pedagogy and practice, attempted to and learned to workcollaboratively with their subject-area specialist colleagues. Theexploratory question of the study focussed on how this joint workmight be constructed and enacted on a day-to-day basis within thecontext of secondary schools.In addition, the de facto model of joint work typically used inschools, the medical model, was considered as a foil forhighlighting the evolution of joint work in the present study.Finally, discourse in institutional consultation encounters (DICE),especially the pre-assigned rights and constraints inherent inthese encounters, was used as a lens to help focus and fine-tuneunderstanding of events and issues.This final chapter summarizes the major findings of this studyand discusses possible conclusions to be drawn from such findings.First, at the descriptive level, six key findings will be presented142and discussed. Limitations of these findings are also addressed.Then a careful look at the two frames of reference used throughoutthis research, DICE and the medical model, will consider the impactthese may have had on what occurred. This helps to explain, at theinterpretive level, why joint work eventuated as it did. Theimplications of the study for both theory and practice form thefocus of the conclusion.FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONSix key findings are presented and discussed in light of briefexamples. Further examples of each can also be found in therelevant sections of both Chapters 2 and 5. It should be kept in mindthat what follows is a brief overview, many points of which will bere-visited later, in light of the implications of these findings.1) Finding: In the view of the TCs, constructing the parameters oftheir new roles, was both the most difficult, and considered themost critical, aspect of joint work endeavours.Discussion: Greenburg (1987), among others, makes it clear thatrole changes represent disruptions to the routines that are part ofwhat is “comfortable and known”. Woods (1 983) further points outthat roles are actively constructed in accordance with howindividuals define their situation and are, therefore, dynamic andevolving. The ten TCs in this research set themselves the task of143not only creating their new roles but also of making boththemselves and their subject-area colleagues as comfortable aspossible within this new context.From the first moment of accepting their new roles, the TCsendeavoured to create for themselves and fit themselves into aniche within the school. Their own prior experiences as classroomteachers had not prepared them for these new roles, but these sameexperiences appeared to help them intuit what roles and procedureswere likely to succeed within their school contexts.To this end they sought, in particular, to be seen as supportiveand non-threatening. The terms and descriptors they used allreflected the common message of “I’m here to help, not hinder.”They pointed out to their subject teacher colleagues (STs) that theycould act as supporters, liaisons, stress-relievers, extra pairs ofhands, encouragers, ones who follow through- the reliable ones,and, simply, helpful colleagues.It is important to note that this supportive role was, in reality,only one aspect of the roles the TCs worked to establish forthemselves. Concurrently, they saw their roles in a more persuasivemode, referring to their roles as managers, coordinators, SDAs(Staff Development Associates), and coaches. This duality of rolewas not lost on them or their subject-area colleagues, who, asillustrated in Chapter 5, fully expected them to take the lead insome cases. The critical factor for the TCs was knowing “when towear which hat”. One TC expressed this for the group as follows:144I think most of the people . . . are interested in tryingout new things but you’ve got to approach them in theright way. You just have to watch them and watch thewhole situation and see how you can approach it in apositive way. (2c)Further implications that the TCs cited include the need to “bewilling to give up lots of time outside your schedule” and “ workyour tail off” to produce something agreed to before any preestablished deadlines.What these findings suggest is that the recipes and prescriptionsthat abound in the literature for how to do joint work neither beginto address the interpersonal and intrapersonal aspects of creatingand negotiating joint work, nor do they provide a template forstepping into and adjusting to a new role.2) Finding: Credibility was a highly subjective but vital componentof joint work.Discussion: Fay (1992) in her case study on the nature of teacherleadership, points out how important it is for “lead teachers”, rolesclosely resembling those of the TCs in the present study, to beperceived as having the appropriate expertise and commonbackground - subject area, classroom experience and so on - to thatof their peers, in order to be effective in these roles. She furthernotes that it is equally vital that the lead teachers continue toteach while in their new roles.These findings are generally confirmed by the results of thepresent study. At the outset, the TCs worked to establish their145credibility in a variety of ways. They presented themselves andoutlined their background and experience (even where they had beenon staff previously), made themselves specifically available to bothteachers and students, produced quality materials requested in veryshort order, created their own versions of official reporting andprocedural forms, found and organized a collection of subject-specific material resources that were made available to teachers,and set up specific hours for teacher-referred students.The TCs were enormously pleased to be part of a non-enrollingteam because, as they saw it, this would provide them theopportunity to meet with STs during school time and give them theflexibility to adapt to the schedules of their colleagues, includingacting as guest teacher while other team members planned with anST colleague.However, while they provided support and services far above andbeyond their scheduled school hours, it quickly became apparentthat their ST colleagues thought that a) TCs had “eight spares” to doas they chose and b) TCs couldn’t possibly know what it was reallylike in the classroom if they were not teaching- guest spotsnotwithstanding.This rather took the TCs aback, all of whom had been carrying aregular teaching load the previous semester. As a result, by thesecond year, all the TCs were teaching at least one class, and, eventhough this meant less time to support their ST colleagues, thiswas heartily endorsed by the latter as a “good move”. STs continuedand, in fact, increased their requests for model teaching lessons146that they could watch and from which they could “learn somestrategies that work with the ESL kids”.While these findings confirm other findings in the field, it isimportant to note that this demand for establishing credibility hasa cost - less time is available for TCs to work with their teachingcolleagues (more on this dilemma later).3) Finding: The sense of professional responsibility andaccountability for “delivering the curriculum” was a mitigatingfactor in joint work efforts.Discussion: Cohen (1 990) discusses at length the reasons for adistinct lack of change in schools over the decades. One thingblamed for this is the continued tradition, especially at thesecondary level, of using the transmission model of instruction.What is repeatedly cited by subject-area teachers in this studyas a reason not to engage in more joint work efforts is theirconcern that they meet their professional responsibilities, namelyto “cover the curriculum”. The responsibility they feel to deliver thecurriculum as laid down - and examined- is often felt to precludethe time it would take to do joint work. This was an issue for theST5 from two standpoints.First, the reasoning went, since I only see this group of studentsfor a very limited number of periods per term, I do not feel goodabout taking time and energy for other projects and ideas. Second,if I take time out to plan with you, while so-and-so takes my class,I’m worried that time will be wasted getting to know the kids and147materials instead of getting on with the topics that I would havecovered in the same time frame.Hargreaves (1994), calls this persecutory guilt. ( This term wasfirst coined by Alan Davies in his essay “The Politics of Guilt”.)Persecutory guilt is the kind of guilt that leads manyteachers to concentrate on covering the requiredcontent, rather than ignoring it or subverting it todevelop more interesting materials and approaches oftheir own. (p.143)In terms of using the transmission model of teaching, the STs inthis study argued that they really have no other option, given thesheer volume of material to cover and the fact that, with upwardsof 1 20 students seen per week, getting to know individual students’strengths and then moving then forward from there is “nothing but apipe dream”. As one ST put it, “That’s all very well in theory butwhen you literally run through that many kids it’s just not an option- if you want to have a life that is.” (workshop conversation)These findings confirm what research in the educationalchange literature has repeatedly noted, namely that theinertia of the known and routine can be a powerful inhibitoryfactor to change. In addition, a teacher’s sense of efficacy canbecome a personal veto card for any proposed change effortthat does not clearly demonstrate a minimal cost formaximum gain. (see Chapter 2 for details on these issues.)1484) Finding: The forms joint work took in this study appeared to bedirectly related to the roles assumed by the TCs.Discussion: Bonvillain (1 993) notes that individuals ininstitutional contexts behave and interact in particular ways basedon not necessarily conscious awareness of hidden constraints, whathas in this study been labelled DICE . This seems to be borne out bythe actions and interactions of the respondents of the presentresearch.Joint work was originally defined for this study as any form ofjoint effort on the part of teachers to take each other, theirstudents and their curricula into account in their planning andteaching. Chapter 5 outlines several versions of joint work as theymanifested themselves in the day-to-day work of the TCs and theirST colleagues. While some form of joint work occurred in all fourschools of this study, the specific forms taken varied significantly.The variations appear to be closely linked with the roles the TC5established for themselves.For example, at School One, the TC team created for themselvesthe image of Producers. They created and collated extraordinaryamounts of materials both for their own use in joint work venturesand as the “extra pair of hands” assisting ST colleagues. That thiswas seen as an important and worthwhile use of their time andtalents, was expressed by both TCs, “time and a like-minded personpromotes getting long-needed tasks done”, and STs “the greatestconvincer for the ordinary classroom teacher is to have resourcesthat work well”.149By comparison, School Three produced relatively little. Given theschool image of Professionals, it is perhaps not surprising thatmuch of the TC’s time was spent on model teaching and mentoringor coaching activities. The TC leader at this school had expressedconcern about joint work from the outset: “my personal style is notcollaboration. So I asked myself, what can I give people . . . time .to think and do for themselves.” (workshop conversation).One administrator at the same school backs up this viewpoint:• . having the subject-area teachers watching ESL teachers [usingthese ideas and strategies] will assist them in understanding howthey need to adapt for their integrated ESL learners.” (staffroomconversation). An ST put it as follows: “Change is here. We shouldnot be dinosaurs - we know what happened to them.” (workshopconversation).What these examples illustrate is borne out at the other twoschools in this study (see also Figure 2, above, for an overview). Inparticular it is noted that the initial setting up of the TC rolesappears to be directly related to the kinds of joint work and theattendant roles that the TCs were called upon to take.What is less clear and a potential topic of great interest forfuture research in this area, is which came first - are the types ofjoint work requested and negotiated a result of the role parametersthe TCs created for themselves, or were these parametersdeliberately created as a reflection of the culture of the schoolcombined with the intuitive knowledge of the TCs as to how the STscould be induced to “buy in”? The latter would support the body ofresearch in institutional contexts which posits that the hidden150constraints of institutional hierarchy and power structures dictatehow interactions are conducted.While the information from this study is only a small sampling,preliminary speculation based on the data available would indicateit is probably a combination of both kinds of factors, such that rolecreation is a function of understanding what will work and theaction and interaction within that role would be emergent andevolutionary rather than static and fixed.5) Finding: Assumptions embedded in joint work processes bothfacilitated and inhibited joint work.Discussion: Some of the assumptions about joint work includehow it should proceed, what roles each party to the effort plays,who is “in charge” and how that power is shared, and whereultimate responsibility for the process and/or the product shouldlie. Another very basic assumption is that the participants in ajoint work effort want to work together, which in turn impliesthat they feel they have something to learn from each other thatwould benefit their students and, possibly, their subject area.Bryk et al (1 990), among others, point out that a system of masseducation such as the urban high schools in this study, completewith the inherent processes of subject specialization andbureaucratic centralization of power, create a work ethiccharacterized by “that’s not my job”.This sentiment was frequently expressed by STs in this study,who felt that teaching ESL learners, was not their mandate. While151no one would argue that teaching ESL learners the English languageper se is the domain of the ESL specialist teachers, the teaching ofthe “language” of specific subject areas is another matter. The STsin this study seemed to feel that this latter was not theirresponsibility either. In fact, the STs saw themselves not asteachers in the general sense, but labelled themselves as teachersof specific subject matter- “I’m a math teacher” rather than “I’m ateacher”. One ST summed it up this way:You’re not going to have science teachers and socialstudies teachers having a real interest or a love for thelanguage. That’s not what their interest and love is. Theyassume, either that the kids already know that or theydon’t feel it’s their job to do that. (2e/f)Where STs thought that they owned “the problem”, as opposed tovesting it in the ESL students (which tended to automatically makeit the ESL teachers’ problem), they were willing to learn from theirESL colleagues and in fact demanded lessons in language acquisitionand strategies for helping the ESL learners acquire the subjectmatter.What this finding points out is that the assumptions embedded injoint work efforts includes variables that are not necessarilypredictable in advance- variables that form part of the culture ofthe school as well as the individual perspectives of the teachersinvolved. Since the research into joint work efforts has focussedprimarily on recipes and prescriptions for executing the process,the area of prior assumptions before joint work efforts even beginrequires much further study and research. (Prior assumptions alsoplay a role in the model of joint work used - more on this later.)1526) Finding: The provision of time and human resources to do jointwork created a dilemma for teachers.Discussion: As Hargreaves and Dawe (1989) found in theirextensive research, simply providing teachers with more time doesnot necessarily result in more joint work taking place. Much of thebody of literature also points out that teaching is a never-endingtask. It is perhaps no wonder then that teachers choose to devoteextra time given to the myriad and mundane tasks that are part ofteaching on a day-to-day basis.In addition, as pointed out earlier in this discussion, the non-enrolling time-frame given to the TCs, was looked at askance by theSTs, some of whom saw it as an endless continuum of “spares” to dowith as desired. The TCs also felt the need to appear to be workingand put in many extra hours to convince themselves, as well astheir colleagues, that they were indeed working . Despite this,however, the TCs also felt it necessary to give up some of theirtime in order to gain increased credibility with their ST colleagues,as noted concerning the second finding above.STs, too , faced the dilemma of time with regard to time off inone teaching block, offered to facilitate collaboration with the TCs.For example, at one school there was lengthy discussion among STsas to the pros and cons of taking the offered time block. On the plusside was in-school time to work on something that would likelyhave to be done at home or after hours otherwise.However, the factors against taking that time often won out.These included, having to do some measure of preparation for153someone else to take over the class for that time period, concernthat “all the right stuff” would be covered in their absence, concernover the already short time frame in which they had to get to knowthe students well enough to evaluate them appropriately, and thenotion that “being creative on demand, at a particular time of theday, and turning it off when the bell goes” was not realistic.What these findings indicate is that time continues to be aparadox for teachers: there is never enough but sometimes it mustbe given up for both professional and personal reasons.LIMITATIONS OF THE FINDINGSAs indicated in Chapter 3, findings in case study research are notgeneralizable to a specific population. Instead such findings mustbe judged by the reader by looking for possible “fit” with, andtransferability to, the context the reader has in mind. To this end, Ihave attempted to paint a clear and comprehensive picture of boththe context and the events of this study.In addition, the findings for this study relate specifically to ESLteachers working with their subject-area colleagues for the benefitof ESL learners. Hence generalizations to joint work efforts inother contexts must be considered with appropriate caution.Relevant research for the findings cited has been reviewedextensively in the literature review of this dissertation, and154highlighted briefly during the above discussion. Beyond the sixfindings specific to this study, a number of both practical andtheoretical issues and their implications are worthy ofconsideration. That is the topic of the next section.THE MEDICAL MODEL OF COLLABORATIONThe medical model was a constant component of the joint workefforts documented in this study. The reader is reminded that themedical model forms the basis for the type of joint worktraditionally done in schools. All teachers had prior experience withthis model, especially where the integration of learners withspecial needs is concerned. This type of joint work was, in responseto the move toward inclusive education, often mandated withoutany prior preparation for the classroom teacher.In both the literature review of this study and the outline of thefindings, the dilemmas inherent in this expert/novice dyad, similarto the doctor/patient relationship, were highlighted. While thecurrently popular version (in education) of the medical model,collaborative consultation or collaborative problem solving, deemphasizes the inequality of status inherent in the doctor/patientrelationship, prior practical experiences of teachers seem todictate otherwise. As illustrated clearly in the data, both the TCsand the STs saw the cosmetics of a changed label as no real changeat all and acted accordingly.155The question then arises as to whether or not this model isappropriate for the promotion of joint work in schools, especiallygiven the dismal record of joint work efforts documented in thebody of research on such efforts. Perhaps the one size fits allapproach to doing joint work in schools needs to be re-examinedwith a view to a more precisely tailored fit to reflect specificneeds. The many and varied examples of how joint work emerged inthis study seem to indicate this as a valuable avenue for furtherexploration.One possible alternative approach that may have merit ininstitutional contexts is that proposed by Gray (1989). Usingorganizational theory, he has proposed four categories of what arecalled collaborative forms to create mutually acceptable versionsof joint work. These forms are exploratory, advisory, confederateand contractual. He argues that they are hierarchically arranged anddistinguished by their functions and corresponding outcomes. Hefurther implies that all stages are necessary for optimal andlasting implementation of agreed upon change efforts.In the present study, the purpose of collaboration included anincreased appreciation and understanding of ESL issues. Therefore,according to Gray, the form of collaboration used should have, firstand foremost, been exploratory in nature - both parties gaining ashared understanding and common problem definition, which wouldthen lead to a refinement of the issues and consequent actions. Suchseeking of common ground could also have led to concretediscussions of how the assumptions embedded in the medical model156of joint work would be dealt with in the reality of day-to-dayefforts.In contrast, what Gray calls the advisory category ofcollaboration was created. At this stage in the hierarchy, theexploratory findings should be analyzed, and agreed upon optionsimplemented. In other words, the first step of creating a commonbasis upon which to build had been omitted and an expert/novicedyad was created.This is reflected in the data of the present study. For example, apoint frequently highlighted by the respondents was the lack offelt interdependence. The aims of the TCs were not seen asparticularly important or valuable by the STs. Rather, the STs feltthey were being asked to do yet one more add-on from which theydid not necessarily see the benefits that might accrue, or at worst,they saw it as doing someone else’s (the ESL teacher’s ) job.According to Gray, without a real awareness of interdependence theconfederative stage, that of adoption and implementation of agreedupon strategies and solutions, is not easily reached.Referring back to the doctor/patient analogy, the doctor (TC)told the patient (ST) what the correct prescription was and did notallow for any discussion of the pros and cons or even, whether thepatient agreed with the diagnosis in the first place. While in actualfact no TC had the temerity to specifically tell STs what to do, theassumption that this would more or less be the format wasembedded in the mandate of the project. The results varied fromdutiful taking of the prescription (rarely) through a half-hearted157effort to comply, to complete dismissal of the diagnosis,prescription and all.Gray’s final category of collaborative forms is the contractual.At this stage collaboration could be institutionalized, similarly tothe final stage of change implementation outlined by Fullan (1991).The results would include contracts enforceable by law or otherforms of authority.This alternate conception of joint work in institutional settingshas merit in the present context and is offered as a possiblestarting point for further research. Together with Gray, however, Iwish to caution the reader that this is not proposed as yet anotherprescription to follow: “Collaboration is essentially an emergentprocess, rather than a prescribed state of organization.” (p.1 5) Thisraises the question of the forms that such an emergent processtakes. One value of the present study is that it outlines some formsof that process.DISCOURSE IN INSTITUTIONAL CONSULTATION ENCOUNTERS (DICE)Throughout the presentation of this study, reference has beenmade to the importance of keeping in mind discourse ininstitutional consultation encounters (DICE) when considering theanalysis of day-to-day joint work efforts. The impact the preexisting structures of DICE have on what occurs during joint workefforts should not be underestimated. What DICE illuminates is how158the strict parameters of professional relationships are enacted injoint work contexts.Fisher & Todd (1 986) outline the differences. During ordinaryconversation there is an expectation of turn taking, topic changeand equal question and answer exchange. When moved to aprofessional relationship mode as in DICE, however, “status andpower have been shown to wreak havoc with this symmetry. . . Thestructure of the institution is organized so as to lend those inpower the authority to pursue defined goals.” (p. ix)In terms of the present study, the professional relationshipbetween the TCs and STs was bounded by the dynamics of DICE. Thismanifested itself in a number of ways. First, since no direct powerand authority was given to the TCs, it appears that they created ameasure of power and authority for themselves by having control ofboth material and human resources. Acting as the gatekeepers forthe use of time and newly created resources allowed the TCs to set,to some extent, the agenda for joint work efforts.Second, technocracy, as used in DICE, can become a tool ofcontrol. Just like the technical wizards of this computer age dazzleand overwhelm those less literate in computer technology, the TCswere able, at times, to use their expertise in linguistics andlanguage acquisition to demonstrate their ability to analyzecontent-area subject matter in a way the STs could barely fathom.Third, the TCs, by virtue of their appointment as non-enrollingsupport personnel had accrued a measure of status and powerwithin their schools. Unlike their enrolling colleagues, they were incontrol of their own schedules and could allot that most valuable of159resources, time, both to themselves and their ST colleagues, invarying ways. Such control, according to DICE, supports the right todetermine to some extent the content and direction of both talk andresulting activity.However, all was not as simple and straightforward as theforegoing would indicate. In terms of control over resources, theTCs found themselves having to use these same resources as theproverbial carrot to even begin a negotiation towards joint work.Sceptical and overworked, STs, for the most part, wanted ready-made materials that were relevant to their subject area and thatworked without having to put in the time to create them, eitheralone or in collaboration with the TCs. IF they heard through wordof mouth that some materials created and offered appeared to workwell, they were inclined to “give them a try” with no promise toparticipate in future joint work.The technocracy of TC expertise was often dismissed out ofhand. For example, the TCs set up a workshop session for scienceand social studies teachers to help them gain some measure ofunderstanding of the linguistic demands of their subject areas.Through the use of model exam questions in both subject areas andthe subsequent process of analyzing “How do I answer thisquestion?”, STs began to realize that there was a very specificlanguage component to each subject area.Some also realized that as the experts of a given area they foundit more difficult to isolate the linguistic components of that area.It was suggested that this might be because they were too160conversant with the content. A science teacher summed it up thisway:I had trouble seeing it in science- isn’t that funny- butit’s easier if I don’t know the material, like with thesocial studies question. It was obvious to me that iswas a before and after situation. (workshop session)While all agreed that this was indeed fascinating andinteresting, when asked if they would now apply these new insightsto their teaching, the answer was invariably in the negative, andthe prevailing reason for this was that “this takes time from andhas nothing to do with covering the content”.The third area of access to power and authority outlined aboverelates to the control TCs had over their own schedules. Asindicated above and in Chapter 5, the STs were very ambivalentabout availing themselves of opportunities to leave theirclassrooms in order to engage in joint work efforts. Suchopportunities were almost seen as a dereliction of duty by someand, for one ST, the open-ended schedule of the TCs was seen as awaste of precious human resources that could be better used inother, more beneficial ways.What all three manifestations of DICE point out is that statusand authority in institutional settings are not impersonal factors ofthe setting. Instead, they are created by the people involved andvalued according to unwritten perceptions and belief systems. Whatthis research has done is, to some small extent, highlight what161people generally have arranged not to talk about because it is agiven in institutional encounters.Gray (1 989) discusses this problem in terms of developing atheory of collaboration in organizational contexts. He points outthat what is needed is threefold:1) education about the advantages of and skills neededfor collaboration,2) . . guidelines for when and how collaboration can bedeemed useful and3) reward systems.(p.254)In my view, these three points are also of crucial importance inthe present research. While some attempts were made in all threeareas, both by the school district and the TCs, the foregoingdiscussion has amply illustrated that such efforts were not enoughto bring about the desired level of involvement and understanding onthe part of the STs.Since the body of research on joint work efforts is rife withfailed and less than stellar attempts to create and/or mandatejoint work, it remains open to conjecture and further research as toexactly what processes and guidelines will bring a more consistentrate of success.162QUESTIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH1) Questions Related to the Medical Model and DICEThe summary, above, of the impact that both DICE and joint workrooted in the medical model have on how joint work efforts areenacted on a day-to-day basis, highlights the need for furtherexploration and research in several related areas.First, there needs to be a heightened recognition andunderstanding of the preconditions to joint work. As has beenrepeatedly pointed out in the literature, it is not as simple asproviding time and resources, nor can it be achieved by putting twoteachers together in one room and telling them to work together.Individual personalities, past experiences, familiarity with jointwork efforts and models, an appropriate working relationship andthe hidden constraints of DICE, all need to be considered.In other words, a way needs to be found for two professionals tonegotiate their roles and responsibilities in such a way that theywill be able to equitably share the “territory of the classroom” totheir own and their students’ benefit. It appears that the field oforganizational theory as noted above, and the area of projectmanagement in the corporate world ( see Chapter 2 and, forexample, Frame, 1987) may be pointing the way toward new modelsand approaches that could be adapted for educational settings.Second, in order to avoid the difficulties inherent in the medicalmodel of joint work, alternatives may need to be constructed inorder to begin to resolve some of the many dilemmas raised in the163present study. Gray’s (1989) categories (above) have led him topropose a theory for dealing with inter-organizational conflictmanagement and resolution. Further examination of this and othermodels may provide new and successful approaches that areapplicable in education.Third, since the majority of research in the field has pointed tothe many benefits of joint work of whatever variety, this areaseems a worthy avenue for further exploration. Reasons to do jointwork range from improved school climate (Little, 1 990b), through away of sharing the collective knowledge and experience of teachers(Rosenholtz, 1 989) to more practical concerns for the promotion ofa particular discipline (Snow, 1 994).From a global perspective, our interdependence is a fact, not apiece of fiction. Individual teachers cannot hope to keep up with theexplosion of knowledge in their respective fields of expertise, norcan teachers assume a homogeneous student body, mono-culturaland monolingual. Joint work with colleagues seems a useful way ofsharing these increasing complexities of teaching. By combiningexpertises, teachers can assist learners to see how differentbodies of knowledge connect and interrelate, as well as learning tounderstand and live in an increasingly multicultural andmultilingual world.As pointed out by Fisher & Todd (1986) the “unintended”, both inactions and their consequences, are so pervasive in our personal andprofessional interactions that we hardly notice. They suggest that:164“collective work or the combination of studies acrosssettings, perspectives and methodologies are requiredto create a broader vision than single efforts canprovide. . . insights can be drawnfrom combining thework of disparate scholars [in differentdisciplines] tocreate a more complete collage than any one aloneoffers. (p. xiv)Louis & Miles (1 990) point out that any form of coordination ofefforts - such as in the present study - “requires legitimacy, theright as well as the sheer time totake coordinative action.” (p.265)Incidents in the present study sawTCs trying to gain access to thisright with varying success. Muchmore research is needed into howsuch rights can be constructed and negotiated on a day-to-daybasis.Frame (1 987) asserts that Project Managers,the equivalent ofthe TCs in this study (see Chapter 2) are something like politicians:Typically, they are not inherentlypowerful, capable ofimposing their will directly on their co-workers . . . Likepoliticians, if they are to get their way they have toexercise influence effectively over others. (p.43)This importance of personality and personal style should not beunderestimated and deserves much further examination as animportant element of joint work efforts.Fourth, another important element that interweaves DICE and themedical model is power. How it is derived, according to Wasley,(1 992) depends on the relationships ofthe partners in joint workefforts. What her research indicates is that the power to effect1686. How significant a factor is personal autonomy in mitigatingagainst joint work? There is no doubt that some autonomy must besacrificed in the interests of pursuing joint endeavours, both in andout of the classroom. What the internal cost/benefit analysis maybe that results in choosing to do joint work or not, would beextremely illuminating for researchers and practitioners alike.7. One fundamental issue concerning what it means to be ateacher has been noted in this study. Specifically, is it a teachersmandate to teach subject matter or to teach children what theyneed to learn? The answer to this question is fraught with politicalthreat and possibility. For all intents and purposes, in the presentcontext, the majority of secondary teachers would opt for beingconsidered subject matter teachers, while teachers in theelementary grades would be inclined to speak of themselves asteachers of children, rather than subject matter.Given that the enormous changes in student clientele haveradically altered what secondary students are capable of in theEnglish language, it is important to explore further what motivates,for example, science teachers to take some of their limited classtime to specifically teach the language of science so that their ESLlearners will better understand and comprehend both lectures andtextbooks.8. The issue above is also related to responsibility. How can theacceptance of responsibility for all learners in the classroom, ESLlearners included, be facilitated? How can this be reconciled withthe sense of responsibility for “delivering the curriculum” ascommonly stated by secondary teachers?1699. While this research has illuminated one small piece of thepicture that examines how joint work can be enacted on a day-today basis, much more research is needed to clarify its dynamics andparameters from the viewpoint of those most intimately involved,the teachers themselves. The endless recipes and prescriptionsavailable in the body of research appear to break down the momenttwo people have to negotiate their roles and how they will worktogether in a face to face situation. Any efforts to gain furtherinsights and understandings would benefit the educationalcommunity.CONCLUSIONSIt is difficult to draw firm conclusions from the qualitative datapresented here. What this study has done is to present anexploratory incursion into what is a complex area, one that holdsthe promise of much richly illuminating further research. It hasdocumented the process of becoming teacher collaborators for thebenefit of ESL students. As a result, these data suggest certainissues and offer some directions for further consideration andinvestigation.According to Poole & Okeafor (1989), researchers and theoristsdescribe educational change as a process of resocialization. This isparticularly true when it comes to having teachers learn to workcollaboratively, as in this study. Teachers themselves have171Joint work that empowers and enhances, managing to succeeddespite the constraints of technocracy and tradition, is hard toachieve but appears worthy of the effort and is achievable, as thebody of research in the field and the present study have documented.Practically put, Bullough et al (1 984) point out, that while “theobstacles to altering teacher role are formidable” (p 356), the factremains that teachers make dozens of decisions daily that tap theirability to deal with contrary values and balance contrasting needs.Joint work appears to be a necessity for the improvement in theacademic education of ESL students and has been shown, by thisstudy, as possible.The present research has illuminated the process in all itscomplexity and demonstrated how a small group of teachersconstructed and negotiated new roles for themselves in theirefforts to do joint work. Their trials and their errors, their actionsand reflections provide much food for thought, admiration andspeculation. It is hoped that this small contribution can be builtupon to further enhance and expand the promise and possibility ofjoint work in schools.This research has also shown the inadequacies of the medicalmodel of joint work. It has indicated that research needs to movebeyond static models of joint work and develop dynamic models.These models will need to capture the processes by which theprerequisites for joint work are constructed through the use ofinstitutional discourse within the context of the school.174Crandall, J. (Ed.) (1 987). ESL Through Content-area Instruction.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.Cuban, L. (1 982). Persistent Instruction: The High School Classroom,1 900-1 980, PHI DELTA KAPPAN 1982 October: 11 3-1 18.Cuban, L. (1990). Research, Restructuring and Radical Ideas,PHI DELTA KAPPAN 1990 February: 484-488.Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and Special Education: Issues inAssessment and Pedagogy. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters.Csikszentmihayli, M. (1993). The Evolving Self A Psychology for theThird Millenium . New York: Harper Collins Publishers, Inc.d’Andrea, A.L. (1986). Teachers and Reflection: A DescriptiveAnalysis of the Reflective Process which Teachers use in theirExperiential Learning. Unpublished EdD. Dissertation, Toronto:Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.deBevoise, W. (1986) Collaboration: Some Principles andBridgework.Educational Leadership 43 (5) 9-12.deBoer, A. L. (1986). The Art of Consulting. Chicago, ILL: ArcturusBooks.Dempsey, J. L. (1995). Collaborative Planning to Integrate Languageand Content Instruction: A Case Study. M.A. Thesis, University ofBritish Columbia.Denzin, N.K. (1989). The Research Act: A theoretical introduction tosociological methods. (3rd Edition). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall Regents Publishing.Doyle, W. & Ponder, G. (1977). The Practicality Ethic in TeacherDecision Making.INTERCHANGE 8 (3)1-12.Dunn, Elizabeth (1 992). Evaluation of the English-As-A-SecondLanguage Pilot Project. Research Report 92-01. Vancouver:Student Assessment and Research, Vancouver School Board,February 27, 1992.175Dunn, Elizabeth (1 992).The Role of Teacher-Librarians in ESL PilotProject Schools. Vancouver: Vancouver School Board. May 1 992.Early, M., Mohan, B. & Hooper, H. (1989). The Vancouver School BoardLanguage and Content Project. in J. Esling (Ed.) MulticulturalEducation and Policy: ESL in the 1 990s. Toronto, Ont.: OISE Press(pp. 107-122).Elbaz, F. (1983). Teacher Thinking: A Study of Practical Knowledge.London: Croom Helm.Erb, T.O. & Doda, N.M. (1989). Team Organization: Promise, Practicesand Possibilities. Washington, DC: NEA. ERIC DocumentReproduction Service No. 313339.Erickson, F. (1 986). Qualiatitive Methods in research and teaching,in M.C. Wittrock (Ed.) Handbook of Research on Teaching (3rdEdition). New York: MacMillan (ppl 1 9-1 61).Fay, C. (1992). Empowerment Through Leadership: In the Teachers’Voice, in C. Livingston (Ed.) Teachers as Leaders: Evolving Roles(NEA Restructuring Series) ERIC Document Reproduction ServiceNo. 347631.Feiman-Nemser, S. & Floden, R.E. (1986). The Cultures of Teaching,in M.C. Wittrock (Ed.) Handbook of Research on Teaching (3rdEdition). New York: Macmillan (pp.505-526).Fisher, S. & Todd, A.D. (1986) Discourse and Institutional Authority:Medicine, Education, and Law. Norwood, NJ: Ablex PublishingCorporation.Flinders, D.J. (1988). Teacher Isolation and the New Reform. Journalof Curriculum and Supervision. 4(1)17-29.Fogarty, R. (1991) How to integrate the Curricula . Palatine, ILL:Skylight Publishing Inc.Fontana, A. & Frey, J.H. (1994). Interviewing: The art of science. InN.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of QualitativeResearch. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications (pp.36 1 -376).176Frame, J. D. (1 987). Managing Projects in Organizations. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Friend, M. & Cook, L. (1 992a). Interactions: Collaboration Skills forSchool Professionals. New York: Longman.Friend, M. & Cook, L. (1 992b). The New Mainstreaming: How it ReallyWorks. INSTRUCTOR 101 (7) 30-32, 34, 36.Fullan, M.G. (1991).The New Meaning of Educational Change. (2ndEdition) with S. Stiegelbauer. Toronto: OISE Press.Fulian, M. & Hargreaves, A. (1991).What’s Worth Fighting For?Toronto: Ontario Public School Teachers’ Federation.Garmston, R. (1987). How Administrators Support Peer Coaching,Educational Leadership. 44 ( 5)18-26.Garmston, R. & Weliman, B. (1994 DRAFT). Developing AdaptiveSchools in a Quantum Universe. (workshop handout)George, P.S., Stevenson, C., Thomason, J. & Beane, J. (1992). TheMiddle School and Beyond. Alexandria, VA: ASCDGlaser, B.G. & Strauss, A.L. (1 967)The Discovery of Grounded Theory:Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine PublishingCompany.Glickman, C.D. (1984/5). The Supervisor’s Challenge: Changing theTeachers’ Work Environment, Educational Leadership . 42 (4) 38-40.Goodlad, J.l. (1984). A Place Called School: Prospects for the Future.New York: McGraw -Hill.Gray, B. (1989) Collaborating: Finding Common Ground forMultiparity Problems. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Greenburg, D.E. (1987). A Special Educator’s Perspective onInterfacing Special and General Education: A Review forAdministrators. ERIC Reproduction in Education Service No.280211.177Habermas, J. (1970) Toward a Rational Society. Boston, Mass.:Beacon Press.Hall, G.E. & Hord, S.M. (1987). Change in Schools. Albany, NY: StateUniversity of New York.Hammersley, M. & Atkinson, P. (1 983). Ethnography: Principles inPractice . London: Tavistock Publications.Hargreaves, A. (1 984). The Occupational Culture of Teachers, in A.Hargreaves & P. Woods (Eds.) Classrooms and StaffroomsLondon: Open University Press (ppl 25-148).Hargreaves, A. (1989). Curriculum and Assessment Reform. MiltonKeyes: Open University Press.Hargreaves, A. (1 993). Individualism and Individuality:Reinterpreting the Teacher Culture. International Journal ofEducational Research. 19 (3) 227-46.Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing Teachers, Changing Times:Teachers’ Work and Culture in the Postmodern Age. NewYork:Teachers College Press.Hargreaves, A. & Dawe, R. (1989). Coaching as UnreflectivePractice: Contrived Collegiality or Collaborative Culture . Paperpresented to the American Educational Research Association, SanFrancisco, March 1 989.Hargreaves, A. & Wignall, R. (1989). Time for the Teacher: A Studyof Collegial Relations and Preparation Time Use, Toronto: OISEPress.Huberman, A.M. & Miles, M.B. (1982). Innovation Up Close: A FieldStudy of 12 School Settings. Andover, MASS: The Network, Inc.Hurren, P. (1994). How an ESL Specialist and a Classroom TeacherCollaboratively Plan Instruction which Integrates Language andContent Demands of Tasks. M.A. Thesis, University of BritishColumbia.Idol, L., Paolucci-Whitcomb, P. & Nevin, A. (1986). CollaborativeConsultation. RockviNe, MA: Aspen.178Jacobs, H.H. (Ed.) (1 989). Interdisciplinary Curriculum: Design andImplementation. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervisionand Curriculum Development.Johnston, J.H.; Markie, G.C. & Arhar, J.M. (1 988). Cooperation,Collaobration and the Professiona Development of teachers.Middle School Journal 19 (3) 28-31.King, A.J., Warren, W., & Peart, M. (1988). The Teaching Experience.Toronto: Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation.Langer, J. & Applebee, A. (1987). How writing shapes thinking.Urbana, ILL: National Council of Teachers of English.Lieberman, A. (1986). Collaborative Work. Educational Leadership43 (5) 4-8.Lieberman, A. (1992). The Changing Contexts of Teaching.Chicago, ILL.: University of Chicago Press.Lieberman, A.; Saxi, E.R.; Miles, M.B. (1988). Teacher Leadership:Ideology and Practice, in A. Lieberman (Ed.) Building aProfessional Culture in Schools . New York: Teachers CollegePress (ppl 48-1 66).Lincoln, Y.S. & Guba, E.G. (1990). Judging the quality of case studyreports. Qualitative Studies in Education 3(1) 53-5 9.Lincoln, Y.S. & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills,CA: Sage.Little, J. W. (1 982). Norms of Collegiality and Experimentation:Workplace Conditions for School Success. American EducationalJournal 19 (3) 325-340.Little, J.W. (1 984). Seductive Images and Organizational Realities inProfessional Development. Teachers College Record 86 (1) 84-102.Little, J.W. (1 990a) The Persistence of Privacy: Autonomy andinitiative in teachers’ professional relations. Teachers CollegeRecord 91(4) 509-536.179Little, J.W. (1 990b). Teachers as Colleagues, in A. Lieberman (Ed.)Schools as Collaborative Cultures: Creating the Future Now.London: Falmer Press (ppl 65-1 93).Little, J.W. (1 992). Opening the Black Box of ProfessionalCommunity, in A. Lieberman (Ed.)The Changing Contexts ofTeaching., Chicago, ILL: University of Chicago Press. (ppl 57-177).Lofland, J. & Lofland, L.H. (1984). Analyzing Social Settings: A guideto qualitative observation and analysis . (2nd Edition). Belmont,CA: Wadsworth Publishing.Lortie, D.C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A Sociological Study.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Louis, K.S. (1 992). Restructuring and the Problem of Teachers’ Work,in A. Lieberman (Ed.) The Changing Contexts of Teaching.Chicago, ILL: University of Chicago Press.Louis, K.S. & Miles, M. B. (1990). Improving the Urban High School:What Works and Why. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Marris, P. (1975). Loss and Change. New York: Anchor Press!Doubleday.Maxwell, J.A., Bashook, P.G., & Sandlow, L.J. (1 986). CombiningEthnographic and Experimental Methods in Educational Evaluation:A Case Study, In D.M. Fetterman & M.A. Pitman (Eds.), EducationalEvaluation: Ethnography in Theory, Practice and Politics. BeverlyHills, CA: Sage Publications (pp 121-142).McLaughlin, M.W. & Marsh, D.D. (1978). Staff Development and SchoolChange.Teachers College Record 80 (1) 69-94.McLaughlin, M.W. & Yee, S.M. (1988). School as a place to have acareer, in A. Lieberman (Ed.) Building a Professional Culture inSchools. New York: Teachers College Press (pp 23-44).Merriam, S.B. (1 985). The Case Study in Educational Research: AReview of Selected Literature. Journal of Educational Thought 19(3), 204-217.180Minnes, W-J. (1991). Teacher Collaboration Around Computer Usewith English as a Second Language Students. MA. Thesis,University of British Columbia.Mohan, B. A. (1986). Language and Content. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Murphy, J.; Well, M.; Hallinger,P. & Mitman, A. (1 985). SchoolEffectiveness: A Conceptual Framework. Educational Forum 49(3) 361-374.Norris, C.A. & Reigeluth, C.M. (1991). A National Survey of SystemicSchool Restructuring Experiences. ERIC Educational ReproductionService No. 335001.Peshkin, A. (1 988). Understanding Complexity: A Gift of QualitativeInquiry. Anthropology and Education Quarterly 19 (1988) 416-424.Poole, M.G. & O’keafor, K.R. (1989, Winter). The Effects of TeacherEfficacy and Interactions among Educators on CurriculumImplementation. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision 4(2)146-161.Pryzwansky, W.B. (1 974). A reconsideration of the consultationmodel for delivery of school-based psychological services.Journal of Orthopsychiatry 44: 579-583.Rist, R.C. (1982). On the Application of Ethnographic Inquiry toEducation: Procedures and Possibilities. Journal of Research inScience Teaching 19: 439-450.Rosenholtz, S.J. (1987). Education Reform Strategies: Will TheyIncrease Teachers’ Commitment? American Journal of Education95 (4) 534-562.Rosenholtz, S.J. (1989). Teachers’ Workplace: The SocialOrganization of Schools . New York: Longman.Rosenholtz, S.J. & Kyle, S.J. (1 984). Teacher Isolation: Barrier toprofessionalism. American Educator 8 (4)1 0-1 5.181Rutherford, Wi. (1986) Teachers’ Contributions to SchoolImprovement: Reflections on Fifteen Years of Research. Paperpresented at the annual meeting of the American EducationAssociation in San Francisco, April 1 986. (cited in Scott &Smith, 1987).Sarason, S.B. (1 982). The Culture of School and the Problem ofChange. (2nd edition) Boston: ANyn & Bacon.Schatzman, L. & Strauss, A. (1973). Field Research: Strategies for aNatural Sociology . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Schlechty, P.C. (1990). Schools for the Twenty-first Century. SanFrancisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Scott, J.J. & Smith, S.C. (1987). From Isolation to Collaboration:Improving the Working Environment of Teaching. ERICEducational Reproduction Service No. 287215.Showers, B. (1985). Teachers Coaching Teachers.Educational Leadership April 1 985: 43-48.Sizer, T. (1984). Horace’s Compromise: The dilemma of the AmericanHigh School. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Snow, M.A. (1994) Collaboration Across Disciplines inPostsecondary Education: Attitudinal Challenges. CA TESOLJournal 7 (1) 59-64.Spack, R. (1 988). Initiating ESL Students Into the AcademicDiscourse Community: How Far Should We Go? TESOL Quarterly22(1) 29-51.Tumposky, N.R. (1987). Staff Development and CurriculumImplementation. Educational Forum 51(2)185-194.Turner, J. R. (1993). The Handbook of Project-based Management.London: McGraw-Hill Book Company.van Maanen, J., Dabbs, J.M. Jr., & Faulkner, R.R. ( 1982)Varieties ofQualitative Research . Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.182van Manen, M. (1990). Researching Lived Experience: Human Sciencefor Action-Sensitive Pedagogy. London , Ont: Althouse Press.Wasley, P.A. (1 992). Working Together: Teacher Leadership andCollaboration, in C. Livingston (Ed.) Teachers as Leaders: EvolvingRoles. (NEA Restructuring Series) ERIC Document ReproductionService No. 347631.Webb, R.B. & Ashton, P.T. (1987). Teacher Motivaton and theConditions of Teaching: A Call for Ecological Reform, in S. Walker& L. Barton (Eds.) Changing Policies, Changing Teachers. London:Open University Press (pp2 2-40).West, J.F. & Cannon, G.S. (1988) Essential CollaborativeConsultation Competencies for Regular and Special Educators.Journal of Learning Disabilities 21(1) 56-63.West, J.F. & Idol, L. (1 987). School Consultation (Part I): AnInterdisciplinary Perspective on Theory, Models and Research.Journal of Learning Disabilities 20 (7) 388-408.Wildman, T.M. & Niles, J.A. (1 987). Essentials of ProfessionalGrowth. Educational Leadership 44 (5) 4-10.Winitzky, N. Stoddart, T. & O’Keefe, P. (1991). Great Expectations:Emergent Professional Development Schools. ERIC DocumentReproduction Service No. 338576.Woods, P. (1986). Inside Schools: Ethnography in Education research.London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Yin, R.K. (1984)., Case Study Research: Design and Methods.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Yin, R.K. (1989). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. (revised)Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Zahorik, J.A. (1 987). Teachers’ Collegial Interaction: An ExploratoryStudy. Elementary School Journal 1987:4:385-396.183APPENDIX 1: CODE CATEGORY DESCRIPTIONSIn total twenty-three code categories were used during the twoyears of this study. These codes were used in preliminary stages ofdata analysis and are used to demonstrate how the data weregrouped during the analysis process. These codes refer specificallyto the information presented in Chapter 4 of this dissertation.Each code and a brief explanation of its intended significance islisted below in alphabetical order. Codes later collapsed are markedwith a check mark () and codes found most significant overall aremarked with an asterisk (*)CODE CATEGORY NAME EXPLANATION OF CODE* collaborative efforts what does collaboration look likein action/ constraints inhibiting factors towardworking collaborativelyfirst contacts both planned and accidentalcontact with the aim ofestablishing collaborationideal Pilot Project outcomes personal views of what theoverall program should achievemanaging role perception deliberate but informal ways ofestablishing “what we do, don’tdo and/or could do”,/ negative staff reception general view of programme vsspecific objections tocollaboration as an approach/ negative view of collaboration staff view of collaboration asreported by TCs and stated bySTs184new job description experience, personalcharacteristics, etc. deemedappropriate for this rolenext efforts what we need to work on next(end of Year I perceptions),/ not enough time time is key factor in lack ofability to do, to teach, to plan, tomake, to collaboratepeer help / clubs elective club options for helpingESL learners (as opposed to in-class support)personal changes here is something I changed tosupport the Pilot’s purposes* personal view of role here is how I feel TCs should be,act, support, etc. - both TCs andST5 viewpoints/ positive staff reception positive views of Pilotprogramme and the TCs newroles in the school.J positive staff view of positive views of collaborationcollaboration per se* / problems difficulties cited by TCs and STsin terms of difficulties forthemselves and for ESL learnersprovide time to provision of time to teachers todo, plan, research, etc.purpose of Pilot Project staff mandate of espousedgoals/aims and personal viewsexpressed* school outcomes observed changes in school as awhole, reports of espoused aimto foster school changes - asopposed to student outcomes185setting up shop organizational and managementefforts to get ready to offerservices to the schoolsolutions! supports material and other forms ofsupport that address problemsstudent outcomes changes in student ability tocope, perform, etc. as opposed toschool outcomesteam cohesion how the TCs present, view andorganize themselves as a teamCOLLAPSING OF CATEGORIESOn reviewing incidences of some categories it became clear thatthere was enough overlap of implication to justify collapsing them.As a result the following categories have been combined.ORIGINALLY NEW CATEGORYConstraints problemsproblemsnegative staff receptionnegative view of collaboration staff view + or -positive staff receptionpositive staff view of collaborationnot enough time to time (needed orprovide time to provided)186Appendix 2: Question Areas for InterviewsSemi-structured interviews were conducted in five rounds over aperiod of two years. While an initial set of question areas werecreated, possible discussion areas were noted as issues ofrelevance arose. For each round, the general question areas thatformed the focus of the interview, are listed below.Round I - Individual Interviews with Teacher Collaborators (TCs)1. Describe the school setting, atmosphere and other issues you seeas relevant to your position here.2. How do you see your new role in the Pilot Project in general, andin this school, in particular?3. How do you plan to communicate this vision of your role to yourcolleagues?4. What are your plans/strategies for getting started working withyour subject-area colleagues? Describe what you have done or howthings have eventuated already?5. Describe how you have gone about “setting up shop”.Round II - Interviews with TC Teams1. Spend a few minutes writing a job description for your presentposition, in terms of what you actually do and what thequalifications and requirements on a detailed job application wouldlook like.1872. Talk about your new role based on its day-to-day reality. How isit the same as or different from what you were expecting when youapplied for this position at the outset of the project?3. If you could advise a person about to take a similar position inanother school what “words of wisdom” would you offer?4. How do you see the staff reacting to your position and to you asa team in terms of what you do and how they think you could helpthem?5. Tell me about your thoughts and plans for the next school year -plans, things you will do more of/less of, new ideas, plans, etc.Round III - individual Interviews with TCs1. How has your role evolved up to this date? Does it still fit thejob description you wrote? If not, how is it different and why doyou think that may be so?2. Describe what working collaboratively is like for you. What doesit look like from day to day, even hour to hour on your schedule?How is it the same or different depending on the people involved orthe topics?3. Please talk about any thoughts and reflections on your role,working collaboratively, or anything else you would like tocomment on.188Round IV - Individual Interviews with Subject Teachers (STs)1. Describe your role in the school and how you came to be involvedwith the Pilot Project.2. Tell me about your experiences working with the TCs at yourschool: what worked, what could have been done differently, whatyou liked and what was not so great?3. Please talk about any other thoughts and reflections that seemrelevant to you.Round V - Individual Interviews with Administrators1. Describe your role in the school, specifically in terms of howyou are involved with the Pilot Project.2. As an administrator, tell me your thoughts on the impact of thePilot Project on the school as a whole, as well as on individualsand/or departments as seems relevant to you.3. Feel free to comment on anything else that you have seenworking and/or you wish could have been done differently.

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0054848/manifest

Comment

Related Items