Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Teacher collaboration around computer use with English as a second language students Minnes, Wendy-Jene 1991

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1991_A8 M56.pdf [ 4.49MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0055236.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0055236-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0055236-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0055236-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0055236-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0055236-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0055236-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0055236-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0055236.ris

Full Text

TEACHER COLLABORATION AROUND COMPUTER USE WITH ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE STUDENTS By WENDY-JENE MINNES B.A., B.Ed.,  P r i n c i p i a C o l l e g e , 1981 Queen's U n i v e r s i t y , 1982  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE  REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in  THE (Center  FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES  f o r the Study of Curriculum  We accept  t h i s t h e s i s as conforming  to the r e q u i r e d  THE  and I n s t r u c t i o n )  standard  UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA April  1991  © Wendy-Jene Minnes, 1991  In  presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the  requirements for an advanced  degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive i  copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department  or  by his  or  her  representatives.  It  is  understood  that  copying or  publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission.  Department of  C u r r i c u l u m and I n s t r u c t i o n  The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date  DE-6  (2/88)  April  1991  ABSTRACT  This  study  assumed use  analyzes  some f o r m  with  what happened  of teacher  E n g l i s h as  c o l l a b o r a t i o n around  a Second Language  implemented.  I t describes  collaboration  found  patterns  emerged by e x a m i n i n g  that  and  cultural  of  collaboration  to  the nature  occur  features of school considered  Conditions  established  content  learning of  interviews teachers  tended  relationships, knowledge. around  encounters; implicit related that  to  the school's  authority,  as  The p a r t i c u l a r explicit,  teachers  on  in  would  ongoing  coordinate  and  and  ESL  "expert-novice"  the extent  common t o b o t h  informal exchanges;  An a n a l y s i s  of their  and  teacher  short-term a focus  of these  ii  norms  teacher  classroom or  "peer" computer  forms of c o l l a b o r a t i o n  organization of p h y s i c a l  w e l l as  notion  implementation  Observation  resource  and e x p e c t a t i o n s ;  concerns.  f o r the  structural  use were t h e f o l l o w i n g p a t t e r n s :  brief,  roles  that  depending  teacher  use t o i n t e g r a t e the language and  engage  Generally  computer  some p r e v a l e n t  ESL s t u d e n t s .  indicated  of  was  N  that  around computer  computer  t o account  f o r the innovation's  the expectation  work  extent  involves  and mutual planning.  their  and  life.  that  (ESL) students  and seeks  discussion  revealed  when a n i n n o v a t i o n  on  patterns space,  one-on-one planning; computersuggests time,  and  of i n d i v i d u a l i s m  and  noninteraction, to  their  a practicality  emergent  classroom-centered  ethic,  forms of teacher  may  have  served  collaboration.  iii  focus  and to  adherence shape  the  TABLE OF  CONTENTS  Abstract  i i  Acknowledgements  v i  Dedication 1 .  v i i  Introduction  1  Purpose  3  of Study  Background  2.  t o the Study  5  Limitations  8  Key Terms  9  Review of L i t e r a t u r e  11  Cultures  14  Teacher  of Teaching Isolation  Structural  17  Conditions:  The  Organization  of P h y s i c a l Space  18  The  Organization  of Time  19  The  Organization  of A u t h o r i t y  20  Cultural  Conditions:  Norms o f I n d i v i d u a l i s m a n d N o n i n t e r a c t i o n  21  The  26  An  Immediacy  of the Classroom  E t h i c of P r a c t i c a l i t y  27  Teacher C o l l a b o r a t i o n i n a Context of Isolation Teacher  Collaboration:  Supportive  iv  Teacher  Conditions  29 31  3.  4.  Methodology  40  Observations  41  Interviews  43  Analysis  45  D i s c u s s i o n of F i n d i n g s  48  Expectations  49  of C o l l a b o r a t i o n . . . .  Forms o f C o l l a b o r a t i o n  50  Emergent P a t t e r n s  59  Teacher C o l l a b o r a t i o n : Prevalent  School Conditions  Structural  69  Conditions:  The  Organization  of P h y s i c a l Space  70  The  Organization  of Time....  73  The  Organization  of A u t h o r i t y  76  Cultural  Conditions:  Norms o f I n d i v i d u a l i s m a n d N o n i n t e r a c t i o n  78  The  80  An  Immediacy o f t h e C l a s s r o o m E t h i c of P r a c t i c a l i t y  Summary: 5.  The I n f l u e n c e o f  The A c c o m m o d a t i o n o f t h e I n n o v a t i o n to F i t Prevalent School Conditions  Conclusions  and I m p l i c a t i o n s  83 85 87  Conclusions  87  Implications  90  Directions  f o r Further  Research  C o n c l u d i n g Remarks  94 97  References  99  v  ACKNOWLEDGEMENT S I w o u l d l i k e t o thank D r . M a r g a r e t E a r l y , D r . B e r n a r d Mohan, and D r . W a l t e r Werner, f o r t h e i r i n v a l u a b l e assistance and guidance i nt h eresearch and w r i t i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s . I also w a n t t o e x p r e s s my a p p r e c i a t i o n t o t h e s e v e n t e a c h e r s who, as k e y i n d i v i d u a l s engaged i n i m p l e m e n t i n g an innovative approach t o second language l e a r n i n g , generously agreed t o s h a r e t h e i r e x p e r i e n c e s w i t h me. I am f u r t h e r g r a t e f u l t o t h e many f r i e n d s a n d f a m i l y m e m b e r s who c o n t r i b u t e d , e a c h i n t h e i r own w a y , t o t h e successful completion of this thesis. Special thanks t o Midge, Geoff, Cindi, Chris, andGrant M i n n e s , t h e Romero f a m i l y , Carla S p i n o l a , a n d George P a v l i c h . F i n a l l y , and s p e c i a l l y , I would l i k e t o thank Miguel Romero Martinez d e l Sobral f o r the inspiration ourfriendship provides.  vi  To my  grandfather,  Burdette  vii  Farrand  1  CHAPTER  ONE  INTRODUCTION  The  notion  favorable joint  of  1982;  a way  programs, r e s e a r c h "attractive  various  forms  the  brief  extensive arise. any  of  even  of  Alternately,  context  meaningful  teachers  t h e m s e l v e s , as  teachers  work.  role  (Little,  1987;  this  to  school  literature  though  to  involve,  without  Fullan,  concept  effective  accounts  is  school  f o r what 1986,  implement an are  the  p.  25)  Their  for instance,  informal  the  innovation's  any  need  specific  w e l l as  the the  for  use  or  further  involve  more  problems as  they  f o r m of c o l l a b o r a t i o n depend on  innovation,  possible.  c o l l a b o r a t i o n may  to c l a r i f y  will  in  scarce.  may  particular  engaged  decade, the  Zahorik,  collaboration  efforts  up  indirectly,  c o l l a b o r a t i o n " (Hord,  work t o g e t h e r  discussion  The  given  1986;  t h a t documents and  of m a t e r i a l s  conversation.  past  the  exchanges p e r t a i n i n g to  sharing  or  t o g e n e r a t e v i b r a n t and  in practice i s  collaborative and  1988,  in  conjures  actively  in supporting  however,  ideals  When t e a c h e r s  Over t h e  repeatedly  Lieberman,  Notably,  like  efforts.  emerged  promoted as  look  o r more t e a c h e r s  collaboration  change has  1982).  two  collaboration often  related, either directly  improvement  teacher  1987,  teacher  images o f  ventures  school  of  that  innovation  occurs  itself,  conditions within  in the  which  2  Currently v i e w of an  basis,  Lieberman,  teacher  Bullough,  is  school  present  that  p.  difficult  (Little,  However, t h i s to  sustain  work  are  said  1975).  a feature  is  school  more f o r m a l c o l l a b o r a t i v e  not  1989;  identical  1986;  Little, (Goodlad,  life  exception"  these  that  among  relations  of  schools  P r e d o m i n a n t among of  fragile  form  in  to p r e v a i l  sustained collaboration  often  1987,  (Hargreaves,  this culture  Lortie,  to  rare,  why  are  may  teachers "not  (Little,  the 1987,  493). In  (ESL), opting  (Mohan,  the  of t e a c h i n g E n g l i s h and  content  t o combine t h e i r language 1989,  Wesche,  possibilities enhance  field  language  academic  and  1982).  i n which they  isolation,  the  and  particular  d i s c u s s i n g on  (Feiman-Nemser & F l o d e n ,  1982;  a barrier  but  is  Certainly  sites  Sarason,  rule,  Fullan,  some g e n e r a l norms  teacher  such  1988;  the c u l t u r e  1982), y e t 1984;  what t h e y a r e d o i n g  1987).  offers a  that involves teachers  collaboration  because of  across  research l i t e r a t u r e  collaboration  ongoing  1982;  the  ESL  introduction  and  of  content and  learning Genesee,  Benesch,  two  teaching  are  more  or and  of c o m p u t e r s  ( H i g g i n s and  Johns,  1984;  known a b o u t  collaborative  1988).  among 1989;  ESL  a s an Wyatt,  may  promote students  B r i n t o n , Snow,  Furthermore,  more t e a c h e r s w o r k i n g learning  Language commonly  expertise to simultaneously  Snow, Met, 1989,  teachers  as a Second  together  increase with  innovative teaching 1984).  teacher  In l i g h t  relations,  the to the tool  o f what i s  questions  are  3  inevitably may  take  raised  given  The  about  the larger  particular  this  thesis  This  form  i s of  context  notion  related  t o these.  as  undoubtedly they  such  i n which  collaboration  teachers  of c o l l a b o r a t i o n  collaboration  solutions  interactions  forms t h a t  a predominant  around problems  they  the  to  one  considered i n  i n current  entails  literature.  explicit  discussion  an i n n o v a t i o n , and  Other  forms of  are  with  work.  working  collaboration,  respect  to  promote, a r e not c o n s i d e r e d  as  the  out rich  teacher  here.  Purpose of the Study  This a  study  curriculum  isolation  an a s s u m p t i o n  ESL  extent  of implementation  to  break  a means f o r p l a n n i n g of s e v e r a l  that  teachers  This  collaboration accounts  study  found  involved  and  for  would  examining  some s t r u c t u r a l  and  down  teacher  second  language  work  use  together i n  with  describes the  t o occur  the  of  supportive conditions  form around computer  students.  of  year  designed  The p r o v i s i o n  some c o l l a b o r a t i v e level  the f i r s t  innovation  by a d v o c a t i n g  learning. revealed  analyzes  among  patterns  cultural  secondary nature  and  the teachers  t h a t emerged  by  conditions of  school  What h a p p e n s  t o an  life. The innovation when  major that  implemented  specific  question  asked  a s s u m e s some f o r m i n a context  questions  include:  i s : of  teacher  of teacher What  collaboration  isolation?  forms  does  More teacher  4  collaboration and  what  can  be s a i d  take  around  structural  The  and c u l t u r a l  t o account  at teacher  While  i t i s recognized  influence  (for  factors) occur  was  this  to  insight  ESL c l a s s r o o m  methods used  four states  of  discusses  their  review  work  factors  and  norms.  may  was  serve  may  found  culture.  situation teachers  take  l e a r n i n g of ESL i n f l u e n c e of  to By  where i t  would  computer  use  find to  students, prevailing  collaboration. chapters.  of the l i t e r a t u r e  to collect  to  administrative  f o r what  around  the  Chapter  and analyze  research  findings,  conclusions, implications  research.  of school  collaboration  a particular  research questions.  the  schools  i t se f f o r t  the school  c o n s i s t s of f i v e  a critical  students?;  within  in  other  and r e s o u r c e  c o n d i t i o n s on t e a c h e r  the specific  the  t o account  regarding  thesis  lies  terms  teacher  examination  i s gained  presents  in  the language and content  The  to  an  study  personality,  seeks  coordinate  integrate  school  that  gender, study  conditions  numerous  a t what happened i n  assumed  ways  that  t h e forms  through  looking  of t h i s  collaboration  example,  ESL  f o r these?  significance  look  to  computer use w i t h  the and  Chapter  that  i s related  three  describes  data. chapter  and d i r e c t i o n s  two  Chapter five  for further  5  Background t o the Study  In the  September  1989, a c u r r i c u l u m  use of computers w i t h  inner  city  high  ESL s t u d e n t s  school.  The  u n i v e r s i t y - b a s e d and d i s t r i c t the  lab  and r e l e a s e  provided  by t h e  Excellence  The first, 1986)  as  for  Three  comprised  critical i t  time  proposal  ESL  resource  resource  the p r o j e c t  integration  for  ESL s t u d e n t s ;  teachers  second,  to support  this  third,  i t  assumes, b u t  teacher  collaboration  l a n g u a g e and  t o second does  E S L Fund f o r and  f o u r ESL  framework  not  (Mohan,  to organize  content  i t i n v o l v e s the  approach  was  a r e as f o l l o w s :  f o r ESL t e a c h e r s  of academic  Funding f o r  "team".  Mohan's knowledge  t h e p r e f e r r e d means  by  teachers  and t h e  features of the innovation  advocates  the  was s u p p o r t e d  consultants.  three  promoting  was i m p l e m e n t e d a t an  M i n i s t r y of E d u c a t i o n  Project.  consultants  innovation  teaching  use of computers  language  t e a c h i n g ; and  s p e c i f y , some  around p l a n n i n g  computer  form  use  of  f o r ESL  students. The  knowledge  framework  o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c a t e g o r i e s , or reflect p.  83).  and  " s i x major The  "choice"  those linked  types  categories are  of " c l a s s i f i c a t i o n " , with  theoretical,  termed  knowledge"  of s i x  (Early,  1990a,  " d e s c r i p t i o n " , "sequence", practical  "principles" or  comprised  knowledge s t r u c t u r e s , s a i d t o  of  equated with  is  knowledge,  while  and " e v a l u a t i o n " a r e  background  E a c h knowledge s t r u c t u r e c a n be i d e n t i f i e d  knowledge i n , and  (ibid). expressed  6  through,  written  knowledge  framework  ESL  students,  knowledge and  subject  graphics.  since  on  represent work  with  established  course  "key  enhance  they  serve  seen  that  teachers  m a t e r i a l s employing  time  to  six categories in  innovation's  release  ESL  would key  students.  for  in  adapting  and  of  three  the  content  both  were  computer  use.  collaborate  able  three  material  conveyed  through  guide  students'  the  the  of  linguistic  forms  resource  the  themselves.  the  to  using their  around  to  revealed  link  and  language of  to assist  students  to  were  the  that any lab.  experienced  knowledge  understanding  framework of  this  teachers ESL  were  and  scheduled  available  take  the  create  ensured  planning  and  Conditions  plan  assumed  to  form  teachers  the  i t would  extend  capacity  graphic  teachers  innovation  that  way  provision  bring their  way  the  have  resource  to apply  some  a novel  jointly  The  materials  While in  to  computer use, teachers  specific  content  lessen  visuals  chose  who  two  for  implementation  ESL  well,  units for  dynamically.  w i t h c o m p u t e r s was  As  the  understanding  t e x t and  someone f a m i l i a r teacher  their  since they  f o r the  for  the  are  to present  categories  content  topic  visuals"  and  those  expectation  teaching  content  structures  framework  i t s  t a s k s and  using  students.  Computers were knowledge  When  identified,  These  development  demand p l a c e d  the  Once  knowledge  matter  graphics.  examine a  structures.  appropriate  and  to design  teachers  selected  language  text  left  to  would  students' open  to  7  The student  high  p o p u l a t i o n of  Considerable students  wide.  Over  second,  students two  or are  hundred  many o f  originating  seventy  basis.  The  the  school  varied  room t o  t o meet  ESL  throughout  ESL  time one  s i x years monthly,  Most  by ESL  classroom  scattered  speak  earlier, not  i s adjacent  throughout  the  a  have  shortage to  the  building.  of  either  program.  a  or  a  often, to the  own  as  "floaters",  of  space.  at  An  ESL  forum  for  discuss teachers  classrooms move  Although  l a b , the  of  part  have been  years.  or  Since  teachers  full  provides  computer  these  number  Ten  teachers  their  as  Approximately  year.  department head  teachers  of  ESL  more  body  English  majority  to twenty  i f  the  these  several others, specified because  the  a  ninety.  student  c l a i m a n t s , the  p r o g r a m on  from  either  The  of  has  countries, world  students  refugee  l e n g t h of  formed  room  two  i n v o l v e d i n the  are  the  time  although  are  students  involved with  themselves.  among t h e  sixty the  staff  academic programs.  fluctuated  raised  and  in regular  are  issues  of  conducted  language.  students  teachers  was  additional  ESL  department,  exists  from  percent  students  these  study  fourteen hundred  ethnic diversity  with  a  s c h o o l where t h i s  rest  from one are  8  Limitations  Two l i m i t a t i o n s  1.  This  study  forthis  i s based  end  of  the  implementation.  Thus,  of collaboration  stages  of  reflect  at  only  The s t u d y  Although  not  that occurred.  forms  particular  focuses problems made  a  on o n g o i n g  interactions the  year.  about  the  various  that  teachers  engaged  initial  were asked  that occurred  to  earlier  of the project.  types  of  t o examining  the  collaboration;  one  mutual planning  Subsequently,  of  the actual  the  a l l possible  d i s c u s s i o n and  any  four  innovation's  during  I t i s limited of  a  picture of collaboration  examine  type  of implementation.  about  a  over  activities at  the  teachers  i n the l i f e  collaboration of  of  occurred  provides  i n time  does  year  collaboration  the study  one p o i n t  reports of t h e i r  that  on t h e forms o f  the year,  follows:  n o c l a i m s a r e made  implementation.  in  2.  self first  forms  are as  on s e l e c t e d o b s e r v a t i o n s  week p e r i o d a n d t e a c h e r the  study  other i n during  that around  no c l a i m s kinds  of  the course  are rich of  9  Key  Terms  Collaboration: individuals  Joint  working  work o u t  solutions  informal  exchanges  regarding  the  In  this  those  specific  Social  in  from  detailed  for  the  i t s use.  refers  ongoing discussion problems.  brief,  discussion  specifically  requires  A teacher learning  area  Students  designed  additional  problems and  range  and planning  more  and  This  to  joint  form of  establishment  of  who  works  academic  ( f o r example,  with  ESL  content  English,  in  a  Science,  Math).  students:  to  who  teach  are  registered  English  as  a  in a second  school or  an  language.  Implementation: innovation, classroom  involve  teacher:  subject  Studies,  program  itself  or  conditions.  engaged  particular  may  lengthy  innovation-related  supportive  classroom  This  more  collaboration  two  t o commonly d e f i n e  these.  to  involving  c o l l a b o r a t i o n more  around  students  ESL  to  innovation  study,  sustained  ESL  together  interactions that  planning  action  how  Refers  t o what  i t i s used,  practice.  teachers actually  i n t e r p r e t e d , and  do w i t h  translated  an  into  10  Innovation: example, plans  Anything  or c u r r i c u l u m  i n the  classroom integrating  Teacher  is  new  relative  teaching materials, strategies,  Resource teacher: time  that  their  Isolation:  among t e a c h e r s instructional  activities,  program  policy).  A  teacher  computer  teachers  to the user ( f o r  who  lab to allow  who  want  students'  Refers  to  been  them t o  to  allotted assist  use computers  language and  f o r the purpose matters.  has  specific those  as an  content  a i d to  learning.  the lack of s u s t a i n e d of a d d r e s s i n g  ESL  contact  curricular  and  CHAPTER TWO REVIEW OF LITERATURE  The  s i g n i f i c a n c e of the teachers'  change h a s been w i d e l y  acknowledged  1982;  As D o y l e  F u l l a n , 1982).  claim,  teachers  practice"  (p.  innovations  about the  75)  since  specific  activities, teaching  the  particular  that  decide  and l e a r n i n g  astutely  of  not  classroom  only  an i n n o v a t i o n C e r t a i n l y an  for  (Werner,  change t a k e s  in  and/or  1988, p .  will  be  innovation  example,  resources  what  program  assumptions  2).  However,  u l t i m a t e l y d e p e n d s upon  individual  teachers  give  to  a  innovation.  Numerous f a c t o r s  are said  teachers'  regarding  innovation.  make  For  instance,  teachers  may u s e  include:  first,  need  perceived  need?);  second,  concepts  and  the  Fullan  to influence the  three  ( i e . , Does  any  use  of  criteria  educational  an that  change  address  ( i e . , Are the  underlying  of  implementation  complexity  benefits?)  the d e c i s i o n s  the innovation  clarity  process  actual  important  assessing  and t h i r d ,  outweigh  Additionally,  when  the  established?); costs  they  setting.  that  (1977)  "ultimate a r b i t e r s  evaluation,  interpretation  a n d Ponder  changes;  form an e d u c a t i o n a l  i n educational  ( C r a n d a l l , 1983; Cuban,  b u t a l s o how  a classroom  advocate  goals,  the  t o accept,  used w i t h i n may  are  role  (ie.,  (Werner  (1982) s p e c i f i e s  a  clearly  Do t h e p e r c e i v e d &  Case,  characteristics  1988). at the  12  school and  district  relations,  a d m i n i s t r a t i v e support,  participation) system  itself  levels  as w e l l  as  a  provide  managerial  Viewing the  external to  the  extent of  the  insight  school  support  from  to further influence  f o r those  perspective  process  of i d e n t i f i a b l e i n t e n t of  from t h i s  and  persuading  over  clearly a  time.  who choose  towards  school  p e r s p e c t i v e , the  change.  e n t a i l the manipulation  classroom However,  to  successful  defined variables, teacher such  u n r e a l i s t i c a l l y assume the teacher  a  with  the  adopt a  new  perspective  may  to  i s a "passive consumer a t  the end of the chain w i l l i n g t o adopt a new product" 1981,  and  (pp. 63-75).  implementation of an i n n o v a t i o n may  program  development  s t u d i e s that form the b a s i s f o r these a s s e r t i o n s ,  undoubtedly some adopt  teacher-teacher  staff  that a r e b e l i e v e d  implementation process The  example,  those  ( f o r example,  government agencies) the  (for  (House,  worked on r a t h e r  p. 22); t h a t i s , an i n d i v i d u a l t o be  than wi t h. A  major drawback  educational  change  acknowledge the school  of the  seems  to  managerial p e r s p e c t i v e lie  in  " l a r g e r c u l t u r a l dynamics"  s e t t i n g s ; those  patterns  of  belief  assumed 'normal' by the many i n d i v i d u a l s life an  (Rossman, C o r b e t t , and examination  i t s failure  of  these  a l t e r n a t i v e explanation make when presented  a t work and  to  within behavior  immersed i n school  F i r e s t o n e , 1988, p. 18). dynamics  on  appears  f o r the a d a p t a t i o n s  with an i n n o v a t i o n based on  to  Yet,  offer  teachers  an may  one or more  13  assumptions that conditions  run  contrary  prevalent  in  t o the  the  context  Several  prominent  researchers  valuable  insight  the  on  example, G o o d l a d , 1982) the of  emphasize "matrix  of  the  studies that  identify  serve  insight  are  structural  r e g a r d l e s s of  the  One  feature,  is  that  of To  1984,  and  teacher its  date, Tye  physical  temporal  and  (Lortie,  when  an  commonly  shared In  literature, and  in  cultural  this  (for  by  1971,  understanding  p.  ideas"  171).  Their schools  than  change,  induce  innovations these  proposed.  researchers,  1975)  expectation chapter,  i t i s argued  1988,  stressed  the  pervasive. of  Goodlad, impact  of  schools,  yet  Restricted  by  a t change w i t h i n  teachers their  assuming  a context  features  (Flinders,  school  life,  and  t o embrace norms of i n d i v i d u a l i s m  p r o g r a m s on  innovation  implemented  change,  f e a t u r e s of  e a c h of  features  a tendency  new  of  have  reportedly  by  make s e n s e o f  1984) efforts  additionally autonomy  number  shed  Sarason  1971,  rather  researchers  on  is  and  or  have  p r a c t i c e s and  cultural  n o t e d by  & Tye,  influence  and  work.  isolation.  few  isolation  gained  (Sarason,  stability  nature  teacher  be  and  relationships,  a part  to maintain  prevalent  to  1975,  cultural  they  writings  educational  Lortie,  existing  which t e a c h e r s  of  and  where  whose  process  1984,  structural  where of  the  reinforcing  frequently  left  to  own.  What happens  then  teacher  collaboration  is  teacher  those  based  that  are  on  isolation  within a  the  a  workplace?  review  p r e d o m i n a n c e of teacher  is  of  current  structural  isolation  leads  to  14  the  following  situation:  collaboration  will  implementation  to  In  this  a cultural  is  adopted.  study  "cultures  of  impact  the  of  these  collaboration possible are  that  presented.  teacher  r a i s e d by  the  the  that  promote  a  isolation. assuming  innovations  chapter  literature  The teacher  Suggestions  such The  by  Further  that  innovations  which  change  literature  schools  i t s  conditions.  i s meant  the  emphasized.  under  in  initially.  of  of  teacher  educational  what  forth  within  school  on  of  overview  then  questions  involved  those  existing  c o n s t r a i n t s on  additionally  specific  an  conditions  by  i s set  feature,  is  assuming  perspective  conditions  cultural  innovation  explanation  teaching" provides  describes  shaped  accommodate  T h u s , an  discussion  central  be  an  as  to  may  work  concludes  with  that  this  study  addresses.  Cultures  The forth  of  Teaching  explanation  i n h i s book  Ethnography, claims given  that  sort  for  the  of  the  is  thought  f o r the  culture" a  loose,  the  inform,  3).  Van  Maanan  the  (1988)  Field: of  this  On  sets  Writing  study.  He  knowledge members...of less  share;  embed, s h a p e ,  not-so-routine  (p.  of  purposes  t o more o r  s a i d to  r o u t i n e and  t h a t Van  Tales  "culture refers to  that  necessarily  culture  entitled,  i s adopted  group are  the  of  activities  Maanen  s l i p p e r y concept,  of  knowledge  of  and  account  the  members  admits c u l t u r e since  a  i t is  "is  anything  15  but unchanging",  y e t nonetheless s t a t e s that i t i s expressed  "by the words and a c t i o n s of i t s members" not s p e c i f i e d by study, a l s o  Van Maanen, c u l t u r e ,  refers  t o the complex  v a l u e s , assumptions,  and  (ibid).  Although  as employed i n i n t e r p l a y of  expectations  this  beliefs,  h e l d i n common  by  group members and expressed through t h e i r words and a c t i o n s . In an i n f o r m a t i v e summary under the heading, & Floden the  of r e s e a r c h broadly subsumed  "The C u l t u r e s of Teaching", Feiman-Nemser  (1986) s t a t e that t e a c h i n g c u l t u r e s are embodied i n  work-related b e l i e f s  b e l i e f s about  and  knowledge  a p p r o p r i a t e ways  rewarding a s p e c t s  of  teachers  a c t i n g on  of t e a c h i n g , and  share—  the job and  knowledge that  enables  t e a c h e r s t o do t h e i r work" (p. 508). S a i d t o be i n t e g r a l to such t e a c h i n g mind, and notion  of  cultures  patterns  a r e "shared  sentiments, h a b i t s  of i n t e r a c t i o n "  teaching  cultures,  (p. 515).  Feiman-Nemser  support the more g e n e r a l concept of Teachers, as members of share c e r t a i n (p.  520)  lead  a t t i t u d e s , and  common  actions  i n t e r a c t i o n that a r e c l o s e l y adhered Feiman-Nemser and Floden speak about to  and  and  the presence  values"  a r e r e l u c t a n t , however,  of  shares a common  answered" (p. 506). Recognizing  seen to  of  t o by the group.  teaching  A c c o r d i n g t o these a u t h o r s , "the q u e s t i o n of m a j o r i t y of t e a c h e r s  here.  forms  a s i n g l e t e a c h i n g c u l t u r e as they p r e f e r  acknowledge  Floden  an i d e n t i f i a b l e group, are  to  their  c u l t u r e advocated  " b e l i e f s , knowledge,  which  In  of  to  instead  "cultures". whether even a  c u l t u r e has not  that teachers " d i f f e r  been in  16  age,  experience,  marital that  status,  results  they in  teaching In  well  belief  there are  these  Bullough and  that  if  teach  and  (p.  507),  arguably  are  they  (p.  127).  features"  1988,  "free  in  about  discuss "patterns  that  communities  c o n s i s t e n c y and While  from  within teaching feature,  84).  Both  "clearly  nor,  not  among  viewed  as H a r g r e a v e s  (1980)  of c e r t a i n  "common t h r e a d s "  cultures,  make i t p o s s i b l e  the predominance  of t e a c h e r  the  states,  contradiction"  and  teacher  on  as m o n o l i t h i c  the prevalence  of  are  teachers.  teaching, like  and  that  not a l l  "there  inconsistency  1989)  (1987)  w r i t e r s focus  understandings  c u l t u r e s of  origins  Bullough  acknowledges t h a t  (p.  3)  of  "reasonably  range,  p.  cultures,  f e a t u r e s " that are  general, are  p.  (Hargreaves,  acknowledging  hold  teaching  (1987) b o t h  (p. 27).  the  Nevertheless,  central  values,  Hargreaves  shared  study,  of c u l t u r e  Maanen,  the  26).  nevertheless threads"  this  (Van  and  they  n o t i o n of  (Hargreaves,  their  c o m m o n a l t i e s and  notion  ability",  teachers  assumption"  of d i s p u t e "  common  In  gender,  knowledge, b e l i e f s ,  the  "dominant  even  p i e c e " , he  certain  one  well  and  recognizes that teaching c u l t u r e s are  of a  1987)  of  to share  remain matters also  as  i n the  support  tend  known,  wisdom, where  expectations  (1989) and  thinking,  asserts  schools  background,  learning.  further  Hargreaves  cultural  teach d i f f e r  and  and  educators  the  variations  assumptions,  and  subject matter,  furthermore,  students  of  social  "dominant (Bullough, to  isolation. isolation  pursue In within  17  these  cultures,  consider can  be  t o be  certain their  identified  tendencies  Teacher  norms  reflecting  "appropriate"  and  seen t o  ( H a r g r e a v e s , p.  27;  role  what  teachers  (Bullough,  enhance  Bullough,  p.  83),  "individualistic" p.  83).  Isolation  Somewhat "isolation"  of  to describe  work e n v i r o n m e n t . work demands t i m e and  a paradox  Teachers  for  example,  states that  and  students  " s p e n d 70% 114).  (1984) a s s e r t  that  " i f teaching  of  realm  a r e many e d u c a t o r s  who  or,  notion  teaching  as  teachers  of  teaching  have w i t h  the  subsequent  and  instructional  with  well. high  their  during  class  Cuban  and  one  Miller  u n d e r s t o o d as  that  loneliness  a  lies  C e r t a i n l y , there  L i e b e r m a n and and  Miller's isolated  to Sarason's (p.  the minimal  adults, especially  (1982)  133).  Such  contact  that  their  of o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o d i s c u s s  matters.  teachers  be  11).  relate  (1982),  day...with  "a p e r s o n a l i z e d  from  since  Lieberman  of  term  teachers'  school,  school  lonely profession"  stems  other  lack  as  in turn, "a  as  i s to  source  identify  teaching  ( p . 42)  a view  the  alone  students  the  of c h i l d r e n " ( p .  activity" of  of  Additionally,  outside  of  after  t o 80%  p r o f e s s i o n ' , then the  and  with  the  of most  rarely  in a t y p i c a l  'lonely  description  are  continual contact  (p.  in using  a central feature  frequently before  another"  exists  peers,  and  curricular  18  While of  certain  interaction  portion  among  of time features  values,  and  features  assumptions  (including  about  schools  the extent  the  there  significant  a r e , as  f o r e x a m p l e , common  isolation.  within  restrict  students),  (including,  their  conditions  teachers  spent w i t h  cultural  reinforce  structural  teaching) An  that  beliefs,  that  further  examination lead  to  well,  of  such  some  isolation  follows.  Structural Conditions:  The been  physical isolation  well-documented  Lieberman 1982).  & Miller, As  contained  noted  by  "classroom  cells"  Lortie  (1975) p r e s e n t s  14),  rapid as  citing  expansion  reasons  significant the  of  growth  interdependence (ibid).  This  encourages  "multiple  turnover  subsequent  among physical  a  historical distinct  account  "separation  teachers" pattern of  and  persists cellular  186). of  classrooms" and  the  century,  "egg c r a t e "  However, d e s p i t e and a  self-  (p.  patterns  emergence o f t h e  1971,  separation,  i n the nineteenth  patterns  1984,  of  teacher  staffing  (p. 15).  in staffing rate,  Sarason,  the prevalence  of public schools  changes  peers has  Goodlad,  1975, and  an i n s i g h t f u l  schools  their  a s a b e h a v i o r a l norm  these  high  f o r the  architecture  of  of  from  example,  Goodlad,  interdependence  development  for  1984, L o r t i e ,  than  the  of teachers  (see  rather  (p.  The O r g a n i z a t i o n o f P h y s i c a l S p a c e  some  stabilization low  task  nevertheless organization  19  appears to have entrenched  a s o c i a l p a t t e r n whereby t e a c h e r s  work for extended p e r i o d s of time classroom, excerpt  with l i t t l e or  from  no c o l l e g i a l  the book e n t i t l e d ,  T h e i r Work, the essence  largely  c o n f i n e d to t h e i r  interaction.  Teachers,  In an  T h e i r World  and  of t h i s s o c i a l p a t t e r n i s p o r t r a y e d :  Once s i g n - i n procedures are completed, g r e e t i n g s exchanged with c o l l e a g u e s , the l a s t s i p of c o f f e e downed i n the t e a c h e r s ' room, and the warning b e l l sounded, the classroom becomes a t e a c h e r ' s t o t a l world. I t i s a world that i s unique and separate from the world of other a d u l t s . For s i x hours a day, f i v e days a week, teachers l i v e i n an e x c l u s i v e and t o t a l l y c o n t r o l l e d environment. For the m a j o r i t y of the day they are bound i n space and time (Lieberman and M i l l e r , 1984, p. 5 ) .  Structural Conditions:  As the suggests,  The O r g a n i z a t i o n o f Time  above sketch of  teacher  isolation  s e l f - c o n t a i n e d classrooms  a t e a c h e r ' s "world and i s not  only encouraged by  t y p i c a l of many  a l s o r e i n f o r c e d by the s c h o o l schedule. environment where spent  i n the  the major  work"  portion  s c h o o l s , but  Teachers of any  classroom with s t u d e n t s .  the is  work i n an  given day  A high s c h o o l  is day,  f o r i n s t a n c e , i s d e s c r i b e d by Cuban (1982) as, . . . . s l i c e d i n t o p e r i o d s of l e s s than an hour, with teachers f a c i n g between 125-170 students a day i n batches of 25 to 35, with a t e a c h i n g load of f i v e c l a s s e s and two or more d i f f e r e n t l e s s o n p r e p a r a t i o n s with a dozen other e x t e r n a l requirements of g r a d i n g , c r e d i t s , and exams" (p. 117). Inevitably, contact  under such c o n d i t i o n s , o p p o r t u n i t i e s  between teachers  are  severely  limited  to  for brief  20  encounters between c l a s s e s , during  lunch p e r i o d s .  "free"  time  has  student  This  not  assignments, school  before or a f t e r s c h o o l , assumes, however,  already  been  sports, c l a s s  allotted  that for  any  "duty"  p r e p a r a t i o n , marking  of  work, and/or formal meetings with e i t h e r students  staff.  As Sarason (1982)  observed, time c o n s t r a i n t s  c o n s i d e r a b l e o b s t a c l e s to teacher  interaction since  spend  with  almost  their entire  day  students  Consequently " f a c e - t o - f a c e c o n t a c t s " are rare do not  exceed a  few minutes  found t e a c h e r s ' c o n t a c t s to  and/or  t h e i r major  instructional (Flinders,  with one  obligations" quality is  1988,  p.  (ibid).  (p.  Lortie  maintained  132).  generally also  "peripheral  that  in  teachers  (1975)  another were 232),  pose  (p.  and  or  of  their  ensuring classrooms  25).  S t r u c t u r a l C o n d i t i o n s : The O r g a n i z a t i o n o f A u t h o r i t y  The  s t r u c t u r e of a u t h o r i t y  with the p r i n c i p a l at at the bottom. vice principal  the top of the  accountable  to the  who  a c t i v i t i e s of  a s p e c i f i c group  Miller,  p. 38).  tends to be are  "loosely  in place,  they  coupled". are  teachers  a s s i s t a n t or  p r i n c i p a l and,  assist  Even so,  and  be an  the secondary l e v e l ) or  elementary l e v e l )  1984,  is hierarchical,  "ladder"  A d d i t i o n a l l y , there may  department heads (at (at the  i n schools  in  lead  turn,  teachers  in coordinating  of teachers  (Lieberman  authority within While the l i n e s  f r e q u e n t l y not  the and  schools  of command  specified  unless  21  contested.  Within  the classroom sphere,  "almost complete a u t h o r i t y " seem t o p r e f e r  "little  (Lieberman & M i l l e r ,  are given p. 14) and  interference in their daily  routines, p a r t i c u l a r l y instruction"  teachers  for decisions  (Feiman-Nemser  classroom  about c u r r i c u l u m  & Floden, 1986,  p. 509).  and Any  s u p e r v i s i o n and e v a l u a t i o n of t h e i r work by the p r i n c i p a l or vice-principal  i s o f t e n a f o r m a l i t y that occurs only r a r e l y .  However, i n c o n t r a s t  to the extent  of  e x e r c i s e w i t h i n t h e i r own classroom, are  s a i d t o "have l i t t l e  affect  c o n t r o l that  teachers  once o u t s i d e ,  teachers  a u t h o r i t y i n making d e c i s i o n s  t h e i r environment"  (Lieberman  Rather, i n the l a r g e r school context  &  Miller,  pleasant  Recognizing that teachers' confined  t o the  classroom,  that can "make  or unbearable" ( i b i d ,  authority serves  p. 14).  i t i s the p r i n c i p a l who  u l t i m a t e l y r e t a i n s c o n t r o l and " s e t s a tone" working i n a school  that  p. 12).  i s , f o r the most p a r t , to  reinforce  teacher  i s o l a t i o n , since i t i s  l a r g e l y w i t h i n the p r i v a c y  of t h e i r  own room that teachers  can and do, determine not  only what  they teach,  Cultural  but how they choose t o teach  i t ( i b i d , p. 14).  Conditions:  Norms o f I n d i v i d u a l i s m a n d N o n i n t e r a c t i o n  Structural obstacles difficult  to  c o n s t r a i n t s i n and  enhanced  " f o r teachers  teacher to  of themselves  interaction,  making  know how w e l l they a r e  pose it  doing or  to see what others a r e doing" (Feiman-Nemser & Floden, 1986,  p.  516).  As  schools  are  Hargreaves  (1989) o b s e r v e s ,  "the  segmented  into  and  compartments...  (divides) teachers  (makes) c o m p a r i s o n and (p.  27).  In  preoccupation over  which  "sustained of  a  overlapping cultural  observations  with  those  time  not  and  adapt  lack  are  to  and  energy"  adults during only  "a  matters  t h a t the  other  they  preference  or  to view  t o norms of  focus  on  additionally, frequently  the  their  resists  cultural  t e a c h e r s can  of be  i t in  many " t e a c h e r s 1986,  of the  teachers  being  alone"  of a  r a t h e r than  and  school  are  preference  a more p o s i t i v e 1980).  of  the  The  teacher and  no  life  isolation light,  adherence  classroom; ethic"  and, that  examples  isolation.  noninteraction one  colleagues"  L i e b e r m a n and  a  noninteraction;  "practicality  as p r e v a l e n t when but  for  i n s p i r e s change, are  individualism  508).  interacting  i n d i v i d u a l i s m and  immediacy  have p e e r s p.  a  (Hargreaves,  adoption  seen  that  c o n d i t i o n s of  c o n d i t i o n s promoting  Norms  & Floden,  structural  f o r "autonomy"  teachers  their  indicate  c o n d i t i o n s that r e f l e c t  among t e a c h e r s ,  of  alone...but  difficult"  immediate c o n t r o l  their  means  and  133). Such  of  day,  another  cultivates  with  comments  contact" with  school  "psychologically (p.  of  (1982) a l s o  personal  and  that  insulated  between them  affairs,  major p a r t  one  isolation  t e a c h e r s have d i r e c t  Sarason  course  teacher  classroom  the  from  collaboration  turn,  with  w h i c h consume (ibid).  isolated  fact  realizes  among that  (Feiman-Nemser  Miller  (1984),. f o r  23  instance, among  b e l i e v e that  teachers  students,  "about  about note,  as  oblique,  acceptable  relates  to  generally and be  and  tend  avoid  on  sharing  classes,  about  Instead,  p e e r s may  be  any  that although  teachers  content,  or  terms'", t h e i r related  teaching  viewed that  classrooms"  (ibid).  issues  11).  discussion  encouraged  substantive  characterized  sports are  what happens i n  'friendly  these  p r o t e c t i v e " (p.  news, w e a t h e r , and  and  l a c k of  8).  defensively  or  also affirm are  (p.  with  a  about  for conversation,  accepted  instructional they  the  "instruction  likely  to  and  topics  not  Floden  teaching,  "relations  W h i l e d i s c u s s i o n of as  i s , overall,  perceptions"  researchers remote,  there  to  methods"  is  Feiman-Nemser "may  very  well  conversations "curriculum, (p. 509).  As  explain, In most s c h o o l s , t h e c l a s s r o o m i s c o n s i d e r e d inviolate. T e a c h e r s are not supposed t o invade one a n o t h e r ' s c l a s s r o o m o r a d v i s e on methods o r content unless d i r e c t l y asked. The p h y s i c a l i s o l a t i o n ( o f c l a s s r o o m s ) c o n v e y s t h e message t h a t t e a c h e r s ought t o c o p e w i t h t h e i r p r o b l e m s on t h e i r own, r e i n f o r c i n g t h e norm of individualism. W o r k i n g i t out a l o n e comes t o be a c c e p t e d a s t h e way i t s h o u l d be i n t e a c h i n g (p. 517). When L o r t i e  teachers  to  determine  colleagueship" was  considered  (p.  194).  teachers, resource  (1975) i n t e r v i e w e d  (p.  193),  t o be  their he  However, s h a r i n g was  seen  materials  to and  views  learned  friendly,  e l e m e n t a r y and  that  open and  i n the  merely useful  of a  "tricks  "appropriate  "good  colleague"  willing  sense  involve  secondary  the of  to  share  u s e d by  these  exchange the  of  trade"  24  (p.  195).  According  any  mention  discussing for  of new  teachers  collegial  "*sink  p.  210)  largely  or means  make  findings  further  "ongoing  exchanges groups  same s c h o o l s " teachers  core  tasks  formal  he  stem  from  As  given The  (ibid).  "endemic  concerns result,  c a r r y on  activities"  teachers  as  hold  in  their  the  (p.  crustiness  or  and  side  "ideology  of  promote  an  arrogance"  lies  "teacher behind  a  denying  teachers  express,  hesitancy, Lortie inherent  similar  and  self-assured;  uncertainties"  the  concludes,  even  cooperation that  the  188).  cautious—it  individualism  in  l i e with  by  of  schools,  f u r t h e r comments t h a t and  (1984)  importance  Goodlad  side  own  way  individuals  which  own.  (Lortie,  Goodlad's  (1975) c l a i m s ,  to praising  This  their  on  t o embrace an  Lortie  cocky  draw  between  a  i s more g u a r d e d  (ibid).  uneasy"  of  another,  considerably less  primary  separated  may,  one  practices across  or  assumes  their  e x p l a i n s , " i s not  and  these  teachers  interaction,  i d e a s and  of  from  decisions.  large extent  rhetoric  conflict"  frequently  However, L o r t i e  individualism  that  of  "self-assured  210).  implications  is  purposes  socialization"  teachers,  tendency  of  the  d i l e m m a s on  teaching.  individualism"  (p.  of  187)  than  essentially  image  for  lacking  with classroom  show t h a t  (p.  of  The  notably  in isolation  classroom  of  "teachers... to a but  the  teachers  to  for  interaction  t o work  swim'  expertise  between  findings,  practice.  learn to deal  The  these  programs or  classroom Left  to  i t is hesitant suggests,  may  i n t e a c h i n g as  an  25  occupation example, judging  134);  in setting the  Although for  (p.  goals,  scope  of  some t e a c h e r s  assistance,  (Lortie, their  p.  teachers  monitoring  simply  student  that  requests  than  another" asserts  t o work he  in  relation  powerful  with  do,  (p.  like  met with  "most  students  reflects  the  he  nevertheless  since  teachers  autonomy others  one him,  least  displays  a  reminds  us,  of i n d i v i d u a l i s m and n o n i n t e r a c t i o n  can,  side  by s i d e  with  friendly  aspects  He  by  from  before  culture  (p. 142).  do  from c o n t r o l  are concerned,...at  the occupational  relations i n staffroom  and  cooperative  of the teacher's  life"  144). As  system teachers (p.  Hargreaves,  individualism"  norms  "exist  social  i n freedom  i n the classroom,  to teaching,  however, that and  seek  their  "this  autonomy",  t o be a u t o n o m o u s  of  be  that  alone"  "as f a r as c o l l e a g u e s  cult  will  peers  (1980) s t a t e s  believes for  (pp. 141-142). that  their  grapple  i s not an a d e q u a t e a c c o u n t  they  143-148).  not, teachers  cautions,  'outsiders':  and  for help  concern  wish merely  outcomes  to  turn  professional's  not  for  do o c c a s i o n a l l y  Hargreaves  While  "this  arise,  alone.  prefer  141).  can  (pp.  1 9 5 ) , more o f t e n  uncertainties  that  one's e f f e c t i v e n e s s  confident  Alternately,  (p.  uncertainty  Feiman-Nemser  where  shared  are  expected  506),  individualism  i t and  seems  and  Floden  problem  (1986)  comment,  "in  solving  rarely  occurs  things  o u t on  their  t o work  understandable  noninteraction  prevail.  that  and own"  norms  Working  a  of in  a  26  c u l t u r e t h a t tends  to accept only " l i m i t e d ,  circumscribed cooperation" (Lortie,  1975,  specified,  p.  211),  must independently assess and u l t i m a t e l y come those p r a c t i c e s  and  ideas  which best  s t y l e and  teaching s i t u a t i o n .  tendency  to  focus on  becomes another  the  and  teachers  t o terms with  suit their  personal  In such a work environment, a "immediacy"  of  the  classroom  i d e n t i f i a b l e norm.  Cultural Conditions:  The Immediacy o f t h e C l a s s r o o m  A necessary e x t e n s i o n of any d i s c u s s i o n that focuses on t e a c h e r s ' " u n w i l l i n g n e s s " (Hargreaves or  avoidance  1989,  of  c o l l a b o r a t i o n with c o l l e a g u e s  p. 27), i s t o mention the  teachers.  experience  Furthermore,  he  of  (1989), t h i s  i s i n turn fed  classroom  p.  3)  (Hargreaves,  classroom-centered  A c c o r d i n g to Hargreaves  c e n t e r e d n e s s . . . a r i s e s from and recurring  and Woods, 1984,  focus of  "classroom-  by the d a i l y ,  isolation"  (p.  27).  states,  ...add to t h i s . . . t h e n e c e s s i t i e s of coping d a i l y with classroom c o n s t r a i n t s of low r e s o u r c e s , poor b u i l d i n g s and l a r g e c l a s s s i z e s , along with the s t r a i n s t h a t a r i s e from the c o n f l i c t - b a s e d c h a r a c t e r of the teacherp u p i l r e l a t i o n s h i p , and one can understand why t e a c h e r s become not j u s t concerned with but c o n f i n e d t o classroom l i f e and i t s problems. In such circumstances, i t i s h a r d l y s u r p r i s i n g that most teachers show l i t t l e i n t e r e s t i n becoming i n v o l v e d i n e x t r a - c l a s s r o o m a c t i v i t i e s . . . " (ibid). Required t o  spend the  bulk of  one's day  environment, as Lieberman and M i l l e r  in a  restricted  (1984) a l s o comment, i t  27  becomes  understandable  that  immediate i n t e r a c t i o n s students"  of  most  important  teachers have  a r e with  and their  (p. 9 ) .  Feiman-Nemser "such  that  "the  and Floden  i s o l a t i o n prevents  collegial  (1986) note, however,  teachers from  interaction—support  that  e n j o y i n g the rewards  and p r a i s e f o r work  well  done, s t i m u l a t i o n of  new i d e a s " (p. 511). Furthermore  working  one  apart  opportunity (p.  to  of  a "practicality  teachers  compare  "time  reality  teachers'  the classroom  and  they have  the  Subsequently,  another,  articulate  512), nor do  causes  of  from  to  "have  what  little  they  u n r a v e l the  teachers  face"  know" complex  (p.  preoccupation with the  in  516).  "immediacy"  i s l i n k e d i n t u r n t o t e a c h e r s ' adherence to e t h i c " , said to  guide t h e i r acceptance  r e j e c t i o n of c u r r i c u l u m i n n o v a t i o n s .  An  or  e x p l a n a t i o n of the  t  l i n k between  these,  "practicality  as  ethic"  w e l l as  in  helping  the  r o l e played  by the  reinforce  teacher  to  isolation, follows.  Cultural Conditions:  An E t h i c o f P r a c t i c a l i t y  Doyle and Ponder's (1977) "ethic  of  highlights  practicality" the  r e c e p t i v e to clearly"  notion  proposals  that  that  (p.  79).  exists  teachers  f o r change  (p. 77) and congruent  procedures"  i n s i g h t f u l d i s c u s s i o n of the among tend  that are  teachers, to  and  Miller  most  "communicated  with " c o n v e n t i o n a l  Lieberman  be  classroom  (1984),  also  28  found that teachers immediate  and  search f o r " p r a c t i c a l  concrete  and  can  be  ideas  effected  resources and s t r u c t u r e s t h a t c u r r e n t l y e x i s t " behavior seems "the added  p r a c t i c e " , but  which c u r r e n t  practices  tendency  additionally,  are highly  of  and  Woods  teachers  to  Feiman-Nemser and Floden and pace (p.  of events  1986, p. 516).  avoid  i s scarce  surprisingly,  the  pressing  classroom,  lead  practical  solutions"  among themselves  and  Woods,  complex  (1987) notes, aims of  with anything that  make q u i t e a show of how s i l l y  &  adherence  to  actions" innumerable critical  ibid).  demands  Not of the  Floden,  and  ibid).  teachers r a r e l y education; what  talk they  They show very  i s not ' p r a c t i c a l '  and  'theory' i s " (p. 8 8 ) .  T h i s focus on the classroom, emphasis and  number  "simple e x p l a n a t i o n s  (Feiman-Nemser  "about the  "to make  want t o know i s how to do something b e t t e r . l i t t l e patience  classroom,  and d e c i s i v e  &  teachers to seek  A c c o r d i n g l y , as Bullough  short-term p r o j e c t s  f o r " r e f l e c t i o n or  (Hargreaves  the  planning",  (p. 3 ) . In the  516). Since t e a c h e r s a r e r e q u i r e d  thought"  mention  "long-term  f o r quick  instantaneous d e c i s i o n s " , time  to  classroom  (1986) e x p l a i n , "the sheer  call  alter  "the degree  (1984) f u r t h e r  a difference"  to  adaptive t o  c o n c e n t r a t i n g t h e i r e f f o r t s i n s t e a d "on which might make  the  (p. 8 ) . T h i s  from attempts  (Feiman-Nemser & Floden,  Hargreaves  with  only teachers r e c o g n i t i o n of  c o m p l i c a t i o n s t h a t flow  established  realities"  t o r e v e a l not  (that) are  established  procedures  on p r a c t i c a l i t y by  teachers,  29  i n e v i t a b l y serves  t o perpetuate the c u l t u r e as i t i s , r a t h e r  than c r e a t e p o s s i b i l i t i e s  f o r fundamental change.  i s o l a t i o n , as one c e n t r a l f e a t u r e of t h i s be  seen t o a r i s e not only  as those d e s c r i b e d  from  teacher do  i s o l a t i o n can  supportive  section,  consideration  that school c o n d i t i o n s have on i n n o v a t i o n s  f o r , teacher  reinforcing  that  collaboration.  assume, but Additionally,  c o n d i t i o n s a r e o u t l i n e d that may serve  collaborative efforts from  themselves hold about  In the next  t o the impact  not p l a n  (such  e a r l i e r ) but i n t u r n , by c e r t a i n b e l i e f s ,  and l e a r n i n g .  i s given  c u l t u r e , can thus  structural constraints  v a l u e s , and assumptions that teachers teaching  Teacher'  among t e a c h e r s ,  t o enhance  rather than  detract  these.  Teacher C o l l a b o r a t i o n  Teacher more  i n a Context of Teacher  c o l l a b o r a t i o n may be  teachers  working  together  concern, over a p e r i o d of time. such c o l l a b o r a t i o n  s a i d t o i n v o l v e two on  projects  may e n t a i l p r e d i c t a b l y  t o the next, c o l l a b o r a t i v e teacher  aim  bring  1989,  p.  about "improvement  6).  Currently  educational  collaboration  collaboration  i s only  still  l a c k i n g are  of  or  mutual  While the s p e c i f i c s of what  context to  Isolation  in  differ  from  one  e f f o r t s generally  education"  there  i s ample  (of  which  one of many p o s s i b l e  d e s c r i p t i o n s of what the  (Wideen, talk  about  teacher-teacher alliances) yet, actual practice  30  entails  a n d how c o n d i t i o n s w i t h i n s c h o o l s  detract  from t h i s In  documented  striking i s the  contrast,  prevalence  another, and  on  instructional, 1987,  "work o u t  p l a n and prepare  struggle  their  Thus,  may  be a d a p t e d  an  together"  efforts  One o f t h e s e  alter  those  inhibit any be  i s that the  extent  teachers.  d i s r e g a r d e d by t h o s e On  (considering  the other  teachers  hand,  that there  norm o f t e a c h e r  (Little, assumes  1986) e n t e r s  a  possible  i ti s introduced.  options  predominates,  t o which  conscientious secondly, to  c o n s t r a i n t s known Without may  such  to  effort,  understandably  f o r whom t h e i n n o v a t i o n was  a n d p e r h a p s more  realistically  that teachers  conditions are altered  isolation  their  or,alternately, i t  i s the assumption  work t o g e t h e r ) , i f c e r t a i n  alone,  of  that  t o acknowledge, and  and c u l t u r a l  i n t e r a c t i o n s among  most  one  i n n o v a t i o n w i l l be  i n which  of these  depend on t h e  structural  from  t h e norm, two  f o r whom i t was meant  firstly,  hearing  innovation  i n n o v a t i o n t h a t assumes c o l l a b o r a t i o n  meant.  the  and  (Lieberman,  t o f i t the context  a r e made  where t e a c h e r s f o r  solve  i s not  Whether one o r t h e o t h e r w o u l d seem t o  conditions  l e s s o n s and m a t e r i a l s to  when  collaboration  by t h o s e  i n large  a n d management p r o b l e m s "  context  rejected  isolation  a situation  own  "work  options exist.  repeatedly  and c u l t u r a l  of s i g h t  teachers w i l l where  been  has  of teacher  their  curricular,  p.491).  what  Both s t r u c t u r a l  h a v e been shown t o r e i n f o r c e part,  enhance o r  process.  numbers o f s c h o o l s .  t h e most  either  i s , at least,  such  will that  challenged, i t  31  is  more l i k e l y  teachers the  that  directly  larger  the innovation  responsible  impede  that  have  follows the  implementation  collaboration.  on  teacher  Little  that, for is the  (1987),  or,  as  described  than  such p o t e n t i a l i s a c t u a l l y  realized,  to  which  entrenched  Supportive  and  she c a l l s  briefly;  p h y s i c a l and/or  counter.  rather  teacher  such  conditions  conditions known  to  Conditions  summary o f l i t e r a t u r e limits  them,  a r e thought  collaboration  that  t o support  of  then,  among  these  within  "dimensions of t o enhance teachers.  conditions  "institutional  among  conditions  support"  possibilities Each  i n summary, r e f e r e n c e  structural  pertaining  collegiality  outlines s i x general  together,  sustained  conditions  assuming  i n her  (p. 491),  taken  isolation  within  several  isolation.  the " p o s s i b i l i t i e s  schools,  those  of  innovations  firmly  Teacher C o l l a b o r a t i o n :  teachers"  by  tof i t  the extent  t h o s e more  perpetuate  to  adapted  f o r i t s implementation,  potential of  Whether  however, depends challenge  be  context.  A discussion schools  will  leading  supports"  of  these  i s made t o to  teacher seek  to  32  1.  P u b l i c Endorsements and  P u b l i c endorsement, level,  of  the  by  essential,  an  and  t e a c h e r s and,  such  efforts  important  among t e a c h e r s  Policy  the d i s t r i c t  of  o f what  i s considered  "joint action"  (p.  step 508).  school  in  turn,  are thought in  to  encouraging  A l s o viewed  i s the p r o v i s i o n of o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r t e a c h e r s  work t o g e t h e r assignments,  through time,  "the r o u t i n e  and  institutional policy  2.  leaders at  "team e f f o r t s "  precise descriptions entail,  Institutional  other  o r g a n i z a t i o n of  resources",  as to  staff  reflected  in  (ibid).  School O r g a n i z a t i o n and  Teacher L e a d e r s h i p  As an e x t e n s i o n o f i n s t i t u t i o n a l p o l i c y , t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n o f a school  staff  i n t o teams,  learning experiences" thought  t o go  (among  teachers)  Certainly, ideally,  of a s p e c i f i c  "a l o n g way  the  toward  but does  schedule  and  not  curriculum units by  important Otherwise,  or  that teachers  guarantee  staff  t h e y may  assignments,  i t " (p.  509).  o r g a n i z a t i o n can  lead,  and  "with  (ibid),  is  However, i t i s  their decisions carry  o n l y meet " t o r e s o l v e  respect  the development of  administrators alike. feel  is  p e r m i t t i n g c o o p e r a t i v e work  i n s t r u c t i o n a l approaches"  t e a c h e r s and  the  group of s t u d e n t s ,  t o a s i t u a t i o n where d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g ,  to scheduling, grouping  shared  "each...responsible... for  weight.  routine matters"  33  but  not  daily  3.  to discuss  classroom  experience"  there  was  topic  success  alone"  (p.  mentioned  close to  the  heart  of  t o work  together, i f  (ibid).  and  any  than  at  such  both  school  day other  could  to  week",  interests  to happen, that  as  their  materials  instructional  grouping,  the  of  student  school  of  of  a  i n common" c a n  likely  technical,  the  master  encourage  specific  teachers  district  will  work, and  progress"  and  teachers  to matters  must accommodate  each  from  curriculum,  support,  allocation  team  expect  know  in collaborative  the  or  g l o r y of  for this  assessment  Schedule  a  reflected  However,  nature.  Through  or  the  substantial,  t o engage  subjects,  the  efforts  teachers  "each  one  cooperative  For  importance"  e a c h member  the  Without  the Master  activity.  than  areas  and  Time and  of  (or s i x ) heads b e t t e r  assignments,  4.  schedule  that  supported  (ibid).  restrict  that  is  of  activity  valued  two  that  crucial  student  classroom  compelling  need  selection,  time,  of  inclined  above, t e a c h e r s  in  rather  more  510).  "decisions  level  be  i t probable  outshine  working  to  e n o u g h t o make  t o make  will  said  i s "some  "complex  are  strike  Latitude for Influence  Teachers are  and  "issues that  with be  blocks  this of  "students, assured  that  34  opportunities  "to  schedule  511).  (p.  scheduled those  monthly  that  w o r k on  or  to  of  Training  Since  to  work  of  for  the  sight  and  and  practiced"  (p.  in  the  norm of  presents  a  teachers  can  include,  with  regard  on  provision  master  most  "teachers  to the  continuity  daily,  part,  and  school-wide  other  adults,  511).  As  powerful, to  govern  their  work  regular  issues,  well, with  specific  their  "in a  and  and  (p.  t r a i n i n g and  engaged  in collaborative efforts,  succeed  in creating  the  sustained instruction  develop  explicit  Examples of using  an and  512).  number  of  to  reaching the  teachers  groups  celebrating"  these  agenda,  Through  assistance  "achievements worth  teacher's  Nevertheless,  discussion,  tasks"  less  profession  and  (ibid).  meetings,  ability  another  curriculum  together.  with  " i s often  serious  facilitating and  "work...  others",  certain techniques  decisions of  that  (ibid).  departure"  "scheduling  prioritizing  achieve  interfering  is  radical  agreements to  closure  not  practices  collaboration  to  sound of  polished  or  meetings  Assistance  with  views  master  i n s t r u c t i o n with  disagreements",  cooperatively  which  enable  and  the  less effective  To  seem p r o m i s i n g  teachers,  students...out  curriculum  by  shows t h a t  far  regularly.  resolve  and  enhanced  are  r e g u l a r i t y needed  "morning meetings"  5.  are  research  quarterly,  more  problems and  together"  Notably,  or  occur  persistence depth  work  that  35  (p.  5 1 1 ) may  well  6.  Material  Support  The  final  together "the  t o address  quality  selected  and  of  availability  adequate  With  "teachers' together"  these such  ability i s  copying and other  although  512).  support"  for  teachers  i s s u e s o f common c o n c e r n  problems,  support",  enhanced.  "dimension  materials,  (p.  be  of reference  "other  notably  heightened  are not  to  firmly work  of  "time  teachers  a r e found  interactions of  teacher  of  Although  Little  support"  for  Most  a  structural teacher  organization  place.  challenge  to a  teacher  i t  seems,  order  of the master  quality  six  collaboration, i s  Little  (ibid), of  the predominance  these  of overlap  certain  severe  schools.  (1987) s p e c i f i e s  and c u l t u r a l  isolation,  m u s t be i n  otherwise  within  degree  importantly,  leads  the k i n d and  that might  place,  Alternately,  to  isolation  examination,  in  f o r group work"  from  human  specified  and i n c l i n a t i o n refrain  on  successfully  (ibid).  h o w e v e r , when a l a c k o f m a t e r i a l r e s o u r c e s shortage  and other  m a t e r i a l and  forms"  willingness  t o be,  consultants  material supports  and  said  texts  equipment, forms of  i s  working  in  constraints  "institutional states  on  evident to  found  that  t i m e t a b l e and  "dimensions  among counter  to  supports"  these  closer them. the  perpetuate ( p . 513)  include:  the  the teaching  staff  36  to  ensure that  (is)  prominent  the year"  in  (p.  opportunity that  "opportunity  can  516);  to  be  510);  and  human  schedule the  engage  and  of  the  two  or  and  r e q u i r e d , to time  rigorous  examination  of  and  well  "complex"  as  tasks  through  the  working  together  material  resources  enable  available  study  t h e week,  only  adequate p r o v i s i o n of  the  shared  endorsement, as  more t e a c h e r s  use  to  teachers  them f o r  teaching  and  to "the  learning"  513). Taken  supportive  together,  of  potentially  counter  lead to  regarding  the  authority  are  asserts  the  to  teachers,  rather  instructional  than  together  themselves.  p r o p o s e d by  are  tasks  given  conditions norms  time,  Little  (1987),  staff  it  and,  can  collaboration  who be  among  (p.  513).  n o n i n t e r a c t i o n are opportunity  decisions regarding  curriculum  but  that  in  not  can  space,  from  be  o n l y the  achieve  Furthermore,  to  instance,  teaching  i n d i v i d u a l i s m and  matters,  to  and  detract  make v i t a l  in concrete  cultural For  "rigorous"  when t e a c h e r s  and  and  of p h y s i c a l  those  found  collaboration,  isolation.  timetable  norms of  a u t h o r i t y to  work  by  promote  and  engaged  structural  teacher  offset  organized  challenged,  the  conditions,  teacher  organization  that  Additionally,  these  sustained  known t o  to  t h e day,  accomplished  most e f f i c i e n t l y  (p.  work and  in "compelling"  a s s i s t a n c e , as  mutual  for  public  successfully  combined e f f o r t s (p.  the  f o r shared  turn they  r e q u i r e two goals  that  are  regularly  o r more  teachers  they  have  set  the classroom-centered  focus  and  37  practicality offset  by  already  ethic a  known  to  combination  highlighted.  availability assistance  exist of  As  of s u f f i c i e n t  i s essential,  alternatives  to  among  the  t e a c h e r s , may  institutional  well,  ensuring  resource  supports  the  materials  ready  and  i f teachers are expected  conventional,  be  human  to explore  well-established  classroom  practices. Having known  to  specified  support  r a t h e r than  among t e a c h e r s , t h e s e support  for  assumes in  the  teacher  the review  collaboration.  and c u l t u r a l  isolation,  r a t h e r than  that  any  reinforce norms.  that  collaboration teachers  work,  individuals school  isolation  this  reason,  any  may  of  innovation  to  been  school  i t i s  continue  teacher  i t was  earlier assumes  by t h e  culture  be  can  be to  collaborative  that  subsequently  presume  that serve  by  innovation  dominate  to  are supplanted argued  shown  teacher  collaboration  the conditions  that  cultures,  to  unrealistic  in  this  teacher in  which  m o d i f i e d by  those  involved i n i t simplementation,  conditions.  to provide  However, as has  be c o n s t r a i n e d  a n d may  be s a i d  any  collaboration,  intended, u n t i l  teacher  chapter,  efforts  conditions that perpetuate  i n n o v a t i o n assuming  For  impede c o l l a b o r a t i v e  pertaining  Consequently,  implemented as  schools  implementation  of l i t e r a t u r e  life.  conditions within  c o n d i t i o n s can a l s o  structural  school  certain  to f i tprevalent  38  Numerous q u e s t i o n s and  collaboration  the  culture of schools.  of  the  More  are raised  questions  collaboration  collaboration  questions that  around  follows:  1) W h a t  implemented  in  norm?; 3)  a  2) What  for  these  cited  innovation  may  used. not  and  use. when  recurring  in this  be a l t e r e d  In turn,  this  assume t h e  form  talk  collaboration their  around  the  among t e a c h e r s  planning  teacher  short-term.  that would  Both  structural  as  cultural  and  noninterference,  practicality the  ethic  subsequent  ones a  (including  forms  space, norms  classroom-centered  among t e a c h e r s )  that  the i t i s will  (1987, explicit Instead,  be s i t u a t i o n - s p e c i f i c  the organization of time,  as  the  "serious" involve  may  that collaboration  be  and  constraints  and a u t h o r i t y )  of  individualism  focus, seen  takes.  to  on  which  innovation's use.  may  i s the  collaboration  terms  (including, well  thought in  i s  take?; and  Based  i ti s  are as  c a n be s a i d  patterns?  513); a form of c o l l a b o r a t i o n extensive  isolation  collaboration  Little  teacher  innovation  to f i t the context  that  of  an  conditions  means t h a t  particular  These q u e s t i o n s such  chapter,  teacher isolation.  a  form  teacher  and c u l t u r a l  examines  about  about  some  where  that  of teacher  a r e asked  forms does teacher  literature  p.  context  asked  context  computer  isolation  p u r s u e s a n s w e r s t o a few  be  implied  happens  What s t r u c t u r a l  account  study  can  within a larger  one  teacher  by t h e l i t e r a t u r e  This  that  specifically,  innovation;  p e r t a i n i n g t o both  and  the  to influence  39  In  the  questions discussion  next  are of  chapter,  set the  the  forth, findings.  methods used  followed  in  to  research  chapter  four  these by  a  40  CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY  This and  chapter  analysis.  study  a context  of  school  where  life.  forms  use  of computers  teacher  structural  its  use,  daily  During  aid  would  given  spent  one time,  language  teacher two  students,  chatting  related  to  w i t h one  setting  around  observing  1984,  p. 5 ) . that  use o f computers t o learning i nthe  seemed school,  a group o f students were  either  another,  or  However, a review  thecultures  lab,  classrooms  l a b  the what  the assumption  their  o r more t e a c h e r s  own.  i n turn,  and M i l l e r ,  worked w i t h  i n t h e computer  of their  around  collaboration  to thelab,  most o t h e r  norm  emerged.  and content  together  project  and,  that  t o determine  took  i n t h e computer  (Lieberman  few v i s i t s  Unlike  predominant  conditions within the school  time  of this  implemented  i t sought  students  c o l l a b o r a t e around  students'  where o n l y  ESL  i sa  t h eforms o f teacher  "rhythms"  plausible.  any  I  the first  teachers  with  was  actually  for thepatterns that  examine  computer  isolation  collaboration  collection  an innovation  collaboration  specifically,  andcultural  account To  teacher More  what  could  of teacher  data  one, t h e purpose  o u t w h a t h a p p e n e d when  some f o r m  in  t h e methods o f  As s t a t e d i nchapter  was t o f i n d  assumed  outlines  of schools  frequently interacting  at found with  grappling with of  revealed  a  the literature that  certain  41  structural teacher norm.  and  cultural  isolation, F r o m my  computer  subsequent when  an  data  that  using  that  on  interactions. observations  the A  as  and v i s i t s  that  served  a  to the  to  guide  emerged;  that  i s , what  happens  assumes  some  form  teacher  To  answer  collaboration  these  promote  collaboration,  literature  computers with  interviewed  perspective  their  i s implemented?  t h e forms  teachers  of t h i s  collection  innovation  observed  than  within schools  an o v e r r i d i n g q u e s t i o n  collaboration  also  rather  review  lab,  conditions  took  detailed  question among  i n the  teachers  collaborative  more  this  ESL s t u d e n t s  same  of  to  those  l a b , and  gain  nature  I  their  of  explanation  their of  the  and i n t e r v i e w s f o l l o w s .  Observations  Prior at  two a f t e r - s c h o o l  teachers, and  to starting  meetings  ESL department  to  teachers content  the lab,  w o u l d work learning  Additionally,  the  data  collection,  (involving  head,  two  gain lab.  this  served  district  to reveal  together of  ESL  initial  students  a sense of the teachers' Thus,  collaboration  the  around  computer  ESL  consultants  using  study and  that  the language and computers.  observation  use  resource  and two m o r n i n g  and students'  decision to  attendance  the assumption  to coordinate  period of  my  the three  two u n i v e r s i t y - b a s e d p r o j e c t d i r e c t o r s )  visits  to  formal  enabled  me  activities in  forms of in  teacher  turn,  the  42  conditions teachers' early  of  school  encounters  class  1990.  with  end  observations (Spradley,  school  would  be  1980) s i n c e  working with occasions,  began, I  i n t h e computer  each  I assumed technical  students,  many o f  hindered  through  observed  l a b during  these  this  day.  time, The  e x p a n d i n g them a t  majority  nonparticipant  I  g e n e r a l l y not  was  or t e a c h e r s .  a  more  to  whom were u s i n g  of  these  observation involved  in  However, on s e v e r a l  active role  assistance  thirty-  May a n d J u n e ,  termed  the students  provide  and/or  was r e a c h e d  collection  fieldnotes during  of  helped  teachers.  data  periods  I made  the  that  collaborative efforts,  Once f o r m a l five  life  when  asked  beginning-level  computers  to ESL  f o r the  first  time. During  this  identified.  observation  I t included  were k n o w l e d g e a b l e teachers  who s p e n t  resource  teacher  resource  teachers,  and  familiar  designing teachers  ESL were  computers;  at least  the  who  experienced  knowledge  the  ESL  framework a s  initially  their  were  student  observing each  familiar  events  of these  in with  three  teachers  a means  The f o u r ESL  limited  classroom  Of  teaching materials.  two  interviewing  teachers  i n t h e l a b when  available.  two were a l s o  was  f o u r ESL  one c l a s s p e r i o d was  population  resource  a b o u t c o m p u t e r s and  framework t o c r e a t e By  the three  support  with  p e r i o d the study  classroom  understanding  using  for  the  of  knowledge  tasks. in seven  the  computer  teachers,  lab  I gained  before some  43  sense of before  their  asking  continued  p a t t e r n s of them  interaction  to describe their  observations  initial  interviews with  confirm  comments  explore  i s s u e s and  in  the  these  computer  experiences.  lab  while  teachers.  that teachers themes  around  I  also  conducting  Thus,  initially  use  I was  made  as  my  able  to  well  as  teachers  and  in follow-up interviews.  Interviews  Initial four  ESL  classroom  period. the  interviews with  Two  teachers  teachers  s e c o n d week, and  Flexibility each  was  interview.  were the  Rather  teachers  many d a y s  i n advance,  Thus,  the  lunch  time  interviews music  to  beginning consent  times  included  each form  than  h e l d over  three  arranged  from  school,  and  agreed  in  the  time  third  and  time  time  and  the  own  place  by  one,  location.  location  the  classrooms. signed  of  to the  library, Prior  an  interviews  for  schedule  and  one  two  week.  place  interview  date,  week  week,  lab, staffroom,  teachers to  three  first  interviews  while  several teachers'  a  a preparation period  computer  interview,  an  a convenient  ranged  the  the  establish  particular  I  resource  i n t e r v i e w e d the  select  after  room, and  were  remaining  to a  teachers  interview  three  required to establish  committing  letting  the  to  informed  being  tape  recorded. In was  asked  the  initial  a  series  i n t e r v i e w s , each of of  questions  to  the  find  seven out  teachers  what  these  44  teachers these  understood  teachers  teachers  felt  during  teachers  were the  within  the  school  p.  their  A  beforehand, teachers they  clarify  all  efforts  based  and  The without  that  follow-up  of  the  teachers  who  discussion. weeks p r i o r  had  particular  the  earlier  the  I  had  of  yet  concerns them  to  Following highlighted  i n t e r v i e w s were  conducted  However, as  well  I  as  quickly teachers'  inhibited  For  were c r e a t e d  reason,  for each  teacher  interviews,  initial  interviews.  held  with  interviews, held with i n the  open-ended  year  this  this  second  school  use.  focus.  their  the  or  1989,  defined  responses.  interviewer,  engaged  with  prepared  i s s u e s and  i n t e r v i e w s were c o n d u c t e d end  were  during  third  & Gall,  r e c o r d i n g and  study's  as  (Borg  interviewing.  the  helped  I encouraged  questions.  made  and  These to  well,  more  conditions  either  questions  on  questions  to guide  interactions  had  to expand  follow-up  to  or  not  Additionally,  c o m m e n t on  that  the  role  comments  teachers,  of  constraints,  my  specific  These served  on  guide  approach  to  problem  As  to  two  informal  on  the  time of  their  one  or  c o l l a b o r a t i o n around computer  t r a n s c r i b e d the  first  year.  believed  number  elaborate  expectations  based  at  themselves.  specific  realized  and  they  encouraged  comments r e l a t e d  the  "semi-structured"  on  interview I  of  lab  that  whether  "collaborated" with  describe  computer  certain  were  raised  each  to  i n t e r v i e w s were  452)  had  course  asked  in  These  they  the  others  hindered  c o l l a b o r a t i o n t o mean a n d  during  the  five two  follow-up the  when s t u d e n t s  two were  45  no  longer  during  in classes.  the  together. three  the  date,  time,  other of  day,  interviews  Thus,  s i x were  week  chose t o  place  two were  of the  chance  to confirm,  themes, and interviews  that  own was  and/or  and  selected  The  the  locations  computer  lab,  classrooms. to give  expand  e m e r g e d when e a c h  a  teachers  day while  hours. the  week  The  teachers  on  a  patterns,  of the  initial  examined.  interviews  I was  time.  forty-five  t h e seven  conscious  However,  duration  thirty  initial  and  nine  of the constraints  minute  interviews. from  school  closely  Five  the school  interview  more  teacher  included  clarify,  When c o n d u c t i n g  A  each  teachers'  flexibility  the f i r s t  convenient.  after  follow-up  issues were  and  more  spaced  during  during  again  library,  purpose  was  had  be  Again  interviewed  interviews  staffroom,  held  that  interviewed  teachers could  following.  and  be  the  Since  the  limit sixteen  to seventy-five  follow-up  on  was t h u s  teachers'  set  interviews  on a l l  ranged  in  minutes.  Analysis  A  review  interview  of f i e l d n o t e s  and examination  t r a n s c r i p t s suggested  patterns,  themes, and  the  focus  of study.  the  design  issues This  of questions  that  initial  that  were  the  of the  presence  of  were d i r e c t l y a n a l y s i s served later  asked  first  certain  related to t o guide  i n the follow-  46  up  interviews with teachers.  more e x t e n s i v e a n a l y s i s of Descriptive teachers' effort  around  computer  perceptions of  their  of  provide  insight  to  questions  interactions  that  efforts  and,  asked  in  an  to describe  and  another  focused about  on the  and  additionally,  the nature  how  computer  these  lab.  confirm  collaboration  that  one  in turn,  to c l a r i f y  activities  individual  with  held  made i n t h e  teacher but  chose  analysis  teachers  comments s e r v e  observation,  examining  their  to observations  of  conducted.  of  specific  This  beliefs  through  certain  that  they  Not  emerged  served  would  not  focused  on  to  have  been  noted.  An  interpretative  teachers' larger  was  teachers  use.  patterns  otherwise  data  were t r a n s c r i b e d , a  these  collaborative  did their the  how  form of  and  corresponded only  to the  to determine for the  the  analysis consisted  responses  account  Once t h e s e  activities  context  teachers'  and  within  conditions  the  perceptions  which  comments and  highlighted  analysis  they  their  that appeared  to  revealed  worked.  of  these  about  the  Consideration  interactions  prevalence  what  with  structural  i n f l u e n c e the  one  another  and  forms  of  cultural of  teacher  collaboration. A  discussion  findings  follows  direct  excerpts  using  a  through  letter G  refer  of  i n the  the  next  from  teacher  and  number  to  descriptive  individual  and  chapter.  interpretative  Reference  interview transcripts combination. teachers.  A,  The C,  to  are  and coded  letters E,  and  G  A are  47  the  f o u r ESL  three  resource teachers.  following or  one o f t h e s e  third  transcript after  c l a s s r o o m t e a c h e r s w h i l e B,  a  The numbers letters refer  1,2,  or 3  to the  first,  number  specifies  The  page number.  F o r example, use o f t h e code  thesis,  means t h a t  Teacher  A's f i r s t an  idea  or  paraphrased  reference to t h i s  to  expressed  second  interview transcript.  on  in  the  "A1.6" the  on page s i x o f  Alternately,  page n i n e  second,  t h e body o f  i s found  interview transcript.  refers  are the  immediately  interview.  comment q u o t e d  second  D, a n d F  "G2.9"  of Teacher  G's  48  CHAPTER FOUR DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS  Based  on d a t a  collected  interviews,  and  teacher  for  what h a p p e n e d when a c u r r i c u l u m  some f o r m o f t e a c h e r implemented  i n  predominant  norm.  did  coordinate  this  study  that  which  deal  with  an  efforts  to  their  extent  of  one a n o t h e r  that  was  teachers  t h e forms t h e i r  of teacher  Third,  appear  to  that  that  which  students.  First, were  reveal  structural  influenced  this  culture.  in the  i n their  Second,  c o l l a b o r a t i o n was f o u n d  f o r why  t o accommodate t h e s c h o o l  ways,  discussion to arise.  a to  and c u l t u r a l  the nature  c o l l a b o r a t i o n a r e examined. i soffered  teachers  would c o l l a b o r a t e  prevalent have  i s a  collaboration;  conditions  ESL  u s e , was  i n various  form of  introduced  assumed  isolation  and ongoing  several  that  computer  problems as they  computers with  that  explanation  adapted  of  the innovation  use  teacher  planning  and accounts  innovation  a particular  joint  observations  describes  i t i s acknowledged  work w i t h  i sgiven  i ssetforth.  conditions  an  While  assumption  description take  where  innovation-related  when  inherent  a context  involves  chapter  c o l l a b o r a t i o n around  considers  overview  place  this  through classroom  and  I n summary,  innovation  was  49  Expectations of C o l l a b o r a t i o n  The  assumption  form around inherent this  the  teachers.  allotted  these  had  while  computers  w i t h ESL  of scheduled  Out o f  f o r ESL  a resource  teachers  the  assumed  w o u l d c o l l a b o r a t e i n some  i n the i n n o v a t i o n from t h e s t a r t .  cycle)  resource  teachers  use of  was t h e p r o v i s i o n  resource  third  teacher teacher  given  lab  with  resource  teacher  their  with  b e i n t h e l a b a t t h e same  as  installation  ESL  teachers  six  blocks  allotted for  of time,  teachers  intended  students.  As  of students  in  were  familiar  to  link  language  them t o  jointly  resource  teacher  and content  support  was  thus  t o use t h e  assured  that  a  scheduled  evident i n  f o r t h e use of  of  learning,  of time  were  Since  few  computer  experience  f r a m e w o r k a s a means the  opportunity f o r  computer-based  available.  mentioned, e i g h t , were  department.  had p r i o r  teach  was  was e a r l i e r  w i t h Mohan's knowledge  plan and  I t was  two b l o c k s  another  i n t h e ESL department  or  time  mainly  out of a p o s s i b l e t o t a l  f o r ESL u s e ; t h e r e m a i n i n g  the use  of release  time.  of computers  and t h e i r  Two  t h e c o m p u t e r s was  A f u r t h e r expectation of c o l l a b o r a t i o n the  of  well.  who c h o s e  c o u l d be  (per  use, five  (D1.2/D1.6). teacher  f o r three  l a b time  two b l o c k s  students  familiar  of  scheduled  one  was  An i n d i c a t i o n o f  and student  were each g i v e n was  students  r e l e a s e time  s i xblocks  t h a t any ESL c l a s s r o o m  computer  to  that  work  with  50  While  these  c o n d i t i o n s encouraged  collaboration  around the  alone,  combination,  nor i n  happen.  of c o l l a b o r a t i v e  the p r o v i s i o n  Forms o f  to  this  the period  following  referred  of  the  this  would a  t o be e n h a n c e d  "collaborative"  known t o have  spent  i n t h e computer  data  descriptions  to  took. as  collection.  based  the  The f i r s t  relationship  on t h e  c o m p u t e r s a s an  of  extent  of  classroom Alternately,  "expert"  teacher in  t e a c h e r s have a  the  (CT)  in  the  summarized  that  form  of c o l l a b o r a t i o n  relationship  use,  s i m i l a r degree of  is the  labels with  learning.  In  teacher  (RT)  while  considered among  while The  the resource  relationship  teacher  familiarity  and c o n t e n t  to /  with  forms  "peers".  once  extent  somewhat  These a r e  computer  is  together  at least  varied  teachers'  "expert-novice" relationship, a s an  lab, While  among  a i d t o language  time  pair  two  an " e x p e r t - n o v i c e "  i s termed a  i s viewed  term  common p a t t e r n s emerged.  collaboration  the  one  teachers exploring  t e a c h e r s worked t o g e t h e r  each p a i r ,  are  of  that  a r r a n g e m e n t s seemed  discussion,  two t e a c h e r s  which these  second  c o u l d guarantee  neither  of the supportive c o n d i t i o n s d e s c r i b e d .  with a group of students during  computers,  of teacher  Collaboration  In refers  of  However, t h e p o s s i b i l i t i e s  variety by  use  some form  a  the  "novice".  "peers",  proficiency  ESL  i n terms  both of  51  their on  ability  language and content  m a t e r i a l f o ruse  the computer.  Expert-Novice  In resource rigidly an  t o adapt  an  Relationships  expert-novice  teacher defined.  "expert",  computer  and  use,  the  the roles  ESL c l a s s r o o m  teacher  were  the resource  teacher  was  Since  and  relationship,  the  classroom  classroom  teacher  teacher  a  forstating  what  she/he hoped  for  relevant content  information.  providing  resource classroom  teacher  teachers'  distinction teachers, teachers  assumed  i n roles  responsibility  ideas  for  assumed  respectively,  i s  use  by t h e r e s o u r c e revealed  considered  "novice"  in  in  assumed  t o achieve and  for  on t h e  the  somewhat  generally  responsibility  of  In turn,  the  adapting  the  computer. and  words  The  classroom spoken  by  themselves:  RT: "...the teacher...(would t e l l ) the l a b person...what i t i s t h e y w o u l d l i k e t o do o r what a r e a s they'd l i k e t o cover a n d t h e n ( t h e l a b p e r s o n ) w o u l d v e r y q u i c k l y come up w i t h a n idea that might s u i t t h a t . . . " (B1.2). RT: " . . . I needed t o t a l k t o h e r t o s a y what a r e y o u d o i n g ? how a r e y o u d o i n g i t ? How many are you doing? what t i m e f r a m e s ? . . . . s h e w o u l d t e l l me w h a t s h e w a s d o i n g and I would v i r t u a l l y do a l l o f t h e computer work..." (B2.4) CT: "...the teacher has and t h e computer person done..." (61.1)  t o s p e l l o u t what t h e y want t o do h a s t o s p e l l o u t what c a n be  CT: "...(the resource teacher) asked i f I could present him with some ideas...and so I did...again (the resource t e a c h e r ) h a s t a k e n t h e m a n d h e made t h e a c t i v i t y t h a t we d i d l a s t week..." (C2.6)  52  CT: " . . . I w a s new t o M a c i n t o s h s o I w a s b r i n g i n g my c l a s s e s i n a t t h e b e g i n n i n g a n d I gave a r o u g h i d e a o f what I wanted t o do a n d . . . . i t was up t o ( t h e r e s o u r c e t e a c h e r ) t o m o u l d i t i n t o s o m e t h i n g o n t h e c o m p u t e r f o r me..." ( A 1 . 1 ) . CT: see can  " . . . I would have an i d e a o f what I wanted B1.3) t o do a n d t h e n we'd s t a r t t o work f r o m we p u t t h i s i d e a i n t o c o m p u t e r s . " ( A 1 . 8 ) On s e v e r a l o t h e r  had  little  notion, at  computers' "take  informed  about  classroom  teacher  she  what  teacher  could  "totally  though  she accepted  As also the  familiarize vocabulary stated, figure  both and  her  teacher)  use, the  ahead  first  went  a l l the d i dand  there  I  I learned  was a watch  she  step what  teacher even  specify  teacher  t h e computer t o as  required. effort with  to new  nevertheless  teacher  it...when  d i d what  resource  was s t i l l  classroom  time...I'd  then  time,  the  (E1.4/E2.2).  herself  then...I  Another  in  of  have  would  a concerted  and  One  achieved  new s t e p s  made  students  key steps  i to u t " (E1.2).  students  required  for introducing  teacher  to  classroom  teacher  classroom  teacher  she j u s t  that the resource  i n computer  the  doing.  students  " I wasn't a l o t of h e l p  "When I  while  and f o rdemonstrating  one  be  another  skills  about  was t h e one t o  o f what h e r  t h e computer  teacher  classroom  would  i n charge"  responsibility  students  Although  control  teacher  willingness  In contrast,  the "expert"  assumed  her  beginning,  the  students  expressed  to retain  demonstrate  i n the  keeping  the  (€1.10).  when a c l a s s r o o m  the resource  (E1.2),  wanted  and  least  capabilities,  the reins"  resource  occassions,  (my c l a s s . , there...how  trying to explained,  ahead (the  of  the  resource  (students)  asked  53  me  later  how  teacher)  do i t I j u s t  do..."  In for  to  responding  teacher  to  students  as well.  attended  to  the  concerns  For  the  responsibility  concerned  her/himself with  computer  (F2.4/C1.4/E2.4).  An  was a b l e  language  to figure  out  the paint  (his) disk  Meanwhile,  students  importance  of having  two p e o p l e  are  different  p a r t s of  the brain  i f you're  doing  "expert-novice" designed  to this  pairs,  saying,  occurred  by t h e r e s o u r c e  teacher  of the task  i n here...you used...there's  what  she f e l t  was a n e n t i r e  related ended  division  of labour  the computer  involved only  As i t  of  there  (ibid). among  program  several basic  the classroom  to  teacher  a l o t of  (G1.4) by  learning  giving  know  deemed " s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d " (G1.3) a n d " v e r y  e m p h a s i s on  what  teacher  procedures  original  "was  "I think that's part  when  teacher.  one  why ( t h e  the classroom  everything"  apparent  by  correctly),  The r e s o u r c e  the  exception  event  cited  machines and  with aspects  and c o n t e n t .  i s  tools  in their  account  load  matters  when he  (use  this  content  and  occasion  his  cognitive  of  teacher  an  trying  the  classroom  mentioned  t r y " (F2.4).  to assist  to  this  q u i t e a b i t of time  them a n o t h e r  resource  of  spending  went wrong, p u t t i n g  the  clearly  example  teacher  couldn't  be  related  the  language  to  part,  questions while  resource  students)  who  appeared  t h e most  student  of  An  (the resource  (A1.1).  operation  both  I saw  "expert-novice" relationships,  established  to  d i d what  turned  simple"  out, the  t h e computer q u i c k l y  shifted  emphasis  (G1.9).  on l a n g u a g e  54  Since  the  classroom  expectation  that  teacher  the  computer  than  teacher  would a s s i s t  return  to  they  her  resource  teacher's  differed  from hers Another  teacher  was  However,  lab  on  learning  still  the  he  was  found  he  with  i n the  between  these  among t h e s e  the  two  the  resource chose  to  that  to  be  and  c o u l d not the  f o r him on  the done"  to  teacher  his  (A2.5).  students'  worked  having  in  on  in  computer  o n l y when  this  return  stack  teacher  However, i f teacher  (ibid). teacher  concerns, said  the to  was  h i s ideas  to  assist  relationship  have assumed  working  that  teacher  an  specific  classroom  resource  i n the  time  weekends  participated  teacher.  the  spent  deal with, did this  the  to adapt  resource  liked  s c h o o l and  time,  Yet,  classroom  as  Thus,  teachers, unlike the  of  c r e a t e d the  t e a c h e r s c o u l d be  form.  have  having  resource  the  t h a t the  earlier  were u s i n g .  dependent  two  pairs,  resource  had  computer-related  "expert-novice"  novice"  he  lab at  to wait  certain  many  workshop  t h a t he  Ultimately  address  after  students  had  would  computer  a s s i s t a n c e from not  he  well  computer  request  as  as  intensive  problems arose  she  realized  said  because of  occasions,  Additionally,  h i s ESL  (G1.5),  t h i n g s ought  teacher  available  (A1.5).  that  more about  t h a t the  she  her  (G1.2).  concerns  t o use  or  once how  to have d i s c u s s e d learn  students  "agenda of  could  other  the  classroom  as  computer-related  would  (G1.2/G2.4)  classroom  not  he  students did  own  seemed not  of  relationship  other  not for  an  "expert-  dependent use  on  on the  55  computer n o r introduce this  d i d the classroom  o r d e m o n s t r a t e new  classroom  assistance  teacher  from  the  this  d i d not  found his  creation  he knew  students  he  resource  would  teacher  have in  to  While  liked  more  responding  to  q u e s t i o n s and i n h e l p i n g w i t h the  of a d d i t i o n a l  happen  r e q u i r e support  steps to h i s students.  said  students' computer-related d e s i g n and  teacher  (A2.5).  ESL computer  Still,  the classroom  enough a b o u t c o m p u t e r s t o the l a b , with only  "stacks",  to continue  minimal  teacher to  resource  bring teacher  support. The two  form  of c o l l a b o r a t i o n  teachers,  descriptions earlier. represent observed work  does of  not  t h a t thus  directly  "expert-novice"  Instead,  their  another  form  working of  coincide  collaboration "peers".  in c a n be  the  A description  was f o u n d  to  take  collaboration  This  o f t h e form forth  that  teachers  t o comprise  i s set  the  presented  r e l a t i o n s h i p may be s a i d t o  lab.  said  these  with  relationships  among r e s o u r c e and c l a s s r o o m  together  e n s u e d among  form  relationship  that i n the  this  also  scheduled to  alternate a  was  of  among  relationship  discussion  that  follows.  Peer R e l a t i o n s h i p s  A  "peer"  r e l a t i o n s h i p among a c l a s s r o o m  teacher  i s said  to exist  in  computer  the  when b o t h  l a b together,  teachers  and r e s o u r c e  scheduled  t o be  a r e c o n s i d e r e d competent  in  56  their  ability  computer  use,  to  adapt  as  well  computer procedures Generally, resource this  "peer"  teachers  was  in  ability  as  their  and respond  a classroom  teacher  students  teacher  when t w o  i n t h e l a b a t t h e same t i m e ,  although  were  as the  resource  teacher  teachers  actually  s i n c e they  to  teacher  come.  was  found  previously cited  chose  t o the l a b a t a time  requested  In  there  to  use,  teacher  content  i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t were  not  additionally, computer.  one o f teacher  the role of  b r i n g a group no o t h e r  act  as  a  two  how  alternately,  scheduled  "consultant"  (D1.4).  this  "peers", the  Either, goals until  with computer-related  "Basically,  b e c a u s e he knows  the classroom  through  teacher  former  do,  but  the use of  found  t o choose  he a s s i s t e d  the  classroom  been  set or,  that  had  specifically  asked  for  problems.  option,  about  teacher  was t h e n  (theclassroom  a s much  ideas  f o r computer  was t o be a c h i e v e d  waited  the  adapted  where t h e  with  would  achieving the he  then  teacher  students  The r e s o u r c e  Describing explained,  what  options.  in  assistance  only  of  classroom  the other,  the resource  i n a r e l a t i o n s h i p among  decided  the  provided  example  i n thel a b  contrast to "expert-novice" relationships,  classroom and  to  turn,  were  assumed  when  (F1.6/F1.14) o r " t e a c h i n g a s s i s t a n t " In  introduce  t o occur  so,  one r e s o u r c e  to  for  concerns.  relationships were  ideas  t o any  H o w e v e r , when t w o r e s o u r c e  together,  their  m a t e r i a l s and  to students  not always  showed.  content  one r e s o u r c e teacher)  computers as  teacher  i s i n control I do, i f not  57  more s o . . . I  just  a c t as a teaching  is  what we're g o i n g  on  task...."  clarified was a  (D1.4).  I  trying  do and I t r y t o keep  On a n o t h e r  h i s role,  teacher's  cause  to  once a g a i n ,  assistant  knew he  a s s i s t a n t . . . h e says  stating,  (to the  had a handle  t o get across...He  occasion  just  there  to assist..."  Alternately, relationships students  in  classroom  the  small  their  fact  that  equal,  teacher  with  students  to  the  Nevertheless having  to  he  knowledge..." While to  teachers teachers  "never  teacher)  there  of  so I  by m y s e l f  One  for  takes  this,  advantage  i t ' susually  stated  the  claimed,  to  lacking.  when h e  in  "peer"  assistance  when he w a n t s  teacher  t o be..." that  the  brought  his  year  "I  with  a  (F1.14).  learned a  l o t  kind of  spotty  n o t have been  i n the  (F1.15).  this  resource  teacher  provide  ongoing  support  and t h e i r he  was  idiosyncrasies,  computer and  earlier  i n there  he  higher, i n  the reasons  there"  optimistically  operate  on  classroom  lab  or  c o m p u t e r s was  I know t h e  was  I  teacher)...  content  of such  (the resource  Another  teacher  " I t was more l i k e  instances  provision  group of k i d s so....he's  resource  were  speculating  "I think  (D1.4-5).  lab  work  same  (D2.4).  there  the  teacher,  explained: of  where  this  on w h a t e v e r  terms of t h e (computer) and i t ' s l i t t l e was  (the students)  classroom  w a s a l s o my  this  worked  w a s r e q u i r e d o r when  students, i n "intense  may  for  certain  according  t o one  classroom of  b u r s t s " when s p e c i f i c  the resource  teacher  "had a  new  these help idea"  58  he wanted  to  confirmed  this  provided  technical  Additionally, the  new  share  (F3.5).  saying  that  he was  seen  they  to present Another  and  classroom  regularly. described was  said  to  as  both  teachers  related for  make i t "more students certain  computer-related  roles tended  on  between  or,  "expert-novice"  you might  worked  i n the l a b  together  these  two  find  (F3.3).  teachers  (and)  out  the  resource more  did  was  since i t  speculating" same  Their discussions  software  things" focused,  c o u l d be s t r u c t u r e d  do"  order  on how  learning had  to  achieve  "roughly  the  computer  time  (F1.6).  the resource  teacher  resource  role"  between  and d e s i g n "  (F3.3).  same number o f  and c l a s s r o o m  this  found  teaching  a "balance  U n l i k e what  in  of  to for  ideas  l a b , any d i s t i n c t i o n  of " c o n s u l t a n t "  relationship,  have t h a t c o m p u t e r  of p r i o r i t y  and c o n t e n t  i n the  that  to b l u r with  "peers",  o f i d e a s on how  software  among a  "the  teachers to  of  the  a c c e s s i b l e or a p p r o p r i a t e l y c h a l l e n g i n g "  skills";  a b o u t what  bundles  sharing occurred  "to  ways t h a t  most o f  into  the t e a c h e r s as " e x p l o r a t o r y "  sought  (F3.7);  both  (D1.9/D2.5).  (D2.6).  what  to instruction on  readily  computer  i n v o l v e "wondering t o g e t h e r  example,  Since  who  of  by one o f  the  source  form of i d e a  Much  teacher  asked  ideas....little  information"  teacher  teacher  a s " t h e one t h a t b r o u g h t  t h a t . . . . g i v e s you another want  when  about  were  classroom  the resource  assistance  information  lab....mostly  A second  t h a t he  (D2.4).  teacher  happened  relationship  in  i n an among  " d i d n ' t have t o  59  In  "peer"  considered materials address  students'  the  as well  teaching  activities, lab.  11/A2.2).  In  creating  teacher,  case  he  might  time  he o f f e r e d  decide  "peer"  language classroom  a t times  of materials  In  an  with  "assistant"  responded  suggestions  that a  through  on  (D2.10-  responsibility content  teacher.  offered  to  The  support  learning resource  i n the design  f o r u s e on t h e c o m p u t e r . such  for  support  Inthe was more  guaranteed.  Patterns  comparing  relationships  and  and c o n t r a s t i n g  among  included:  informal  involved  teacher  and  of "expert-novice" r e l a t i o n s h i p s  Emergent  When  classroom  to follow  relationships  computer  i n the lab.  of  the  i n  what  teacher  both  to  determined  actively  the resource  content  were a b l e  new s t e p s  the role  from  adapt  were  computer-related  teacher  more  teachers  both  and/or  their  assumed  f o r help  as a "peer",  generally  These  was  l a y with the  creation  to  content,  during  computer-based  activities  ability  computer, and  Additionally,  teacher  both  classroom  As such,  students.  classroom  and  the  teacher  numerous r e q u e s t s and  their  where  as t o demonstrate  would achieve  resource  the  in  language,  ultimately,  students  in  competent  f o r u s e on t h e  concerns, use,  relationships  teachers,  "expert-novice" and common  1) o n e - o n - o n e e n c o u n t e r s  brief  meetings;  patterns among  3) s h o r t - t e r m  "peer"  emerged.  teachers; planning;  2) 4)  60  implicit related these  roles  and  e x p e c t a t i o n s ; and  concerns.  In  patterns  appropriate, between  of  the  mention  is  the  made o f and  are  any  on  computer-  When  that  relationships, these  than  of  described.  differences  between  more p r e v a l e n t  focus  d i s c u s s i o n , each  is  "peer"  similarities  collaboration  a  following  interaction  "expert-novice"  notably  5)  two  occur  although forms  of  their differences.  1 . One-On-One Encounters  Whether themselves  engaged  relationship is,  with  teachers  classroom lab  resource in either one  worked w i t h  teacher  who  resource  teacher.  generally  the  language  computer. of  the  classroom  Only  when  computers  occur.  In  the  resource  teacher  relationships  was  then  able  In  earlier  the  ideas the  latter  to offer  with  teacher an  the  on  classroom situation,  to  the  scheduled i t  what  the  had  was  content  use  of  little  exception  the  notion  to  this  relationships,  responsibility f o r use  that Each  students  through  did  "peer"  pairs.  determined  conveyed  or  mentioned,  "expert-novice"  assumed  in  alone.  was  be  of  teachers'  this  interaction  capabilities  case  in  of  who  found  t r e n d emerged;  another  a classroom  classroom "peer"  a common  to bring their  teacher  ideas would  teachers  "expert-novice"  one  chose  As  classroom  an  another,  e s t a b l i s h e d some f o r m  and  and  the  for  the  adapting  computer,  teacher  the  was  f u r t h e r a s s i s t a n c e to the  whereas  able  resource  the  to  do  teacher  teacher  and  61  students  in their  focus  on o t h e r  found  t o occur. The  more  pattern  coordinated  work  effort  classroom  teacher, teacher,  activities resource  and t h e time  of  different.  Tasks  and  teachers,  ranged  identifying,  were  single  their  own " c l a s s  a  specific" of  level  the  of the  i n t h e l a b were a l l  made  (F1.1).  computers  for  Thus,  something  autobiographies,  solar  system,  to  countries, creating  as w e l l as c l a s s i f y i n g  each  with  and strengths  the language  the  the  Rather,  consultation  from w r i t i n g  European  of a  in  the choices  used  p r o j e c t s about  options  use (B2.15).  a v a i l a b l e t o work  students  maps, d e s c r i b i n g  Both  was n o t o n e  interests  contribute to  each group  reports  came u p w i t h The  alternately, to  a l l participants i n discussions  frequently  (G2.3).  to  then  f o r general  and classroom  students, thought  emerged  involving  a program  or  t e c h n i c a l concerns.  that  regarding  resource  on t h e c o m p u t e r ,  types  of  story  labelling  charts  and  bees and house  flies.  2.  I n f o r m a l and B r i e f  Informal another novice" informal  "peer"  exchanges  According the  and b r i e f  common p a t t e r n and  coffee  Meetings  meetings that  f o rplanning  emerged  relationships. before  t o one c l a s s r o o m  r o o m . . . w h a t a r e we d o i n g  both  Teachers  class to teacher,  with  purposes  discuss  today?"  "expert-  spoke lesson  " i t was v e r y (E1.2).  was  about plans.  casual i n Another  62  teacher their  r e p o r t e d t h a t she  plans  (G2.2). meet  " i n two  although  "the  even  classroom  to  (A1.8) o r  discussion not  next  work  (C2.6).  her  knowledge  no  the  (A1.11).  time  in  would  the  words when  Nevertheless, and  teacher, teaching  While how  not,  at  one  "lunch"  each  other"  computer-related or  what m i g h t  encounters  had need  were  classroom  to b u i l d  "one  t o move from  "see  one  not  teacher  "tasks related  computer"  Instead,  (C2.9)  meetings  were " r e a l l y  did no  (ibid). review  i n the  t e a c h e r s , no  meetings  informal  "unpredictable" (F3..6).  such  for this.  resource  scheduled  spontaneous, since,  to  to she  between  informal"  (El.2)  f l y " (B1.17/B2.11/C2.5).  Among t h e regular,  had  l e s s o n or  framework a n d . . . t o t h e  t h e r e was  "on  reduced  to  (B1.2)  f o r example, what had  However,  t e a c h e r s , more o f t e n t h a n and  c o u l d be  opportunities for  d e s i r e to learn  having  classes"  Conversations  particular  (E1.6).  expressed  discussed  between  t e a c h e r s happened to  during a  scheduled  found  of time  to provide  regularly  the  minutes  (A1.9) c o n c e r n i n g ,  worked  further  five  when two  teacher  three d i f f e r e n t c l a s s e s "  s e c o n d s " when t e a c h e r s  the  were a l s o s a i d  resource  t e a c h e r s a l s o spoke a b o u t  t h a t amount  minute or t h i r t y  the  minutes before  Several other  during  and  one  felt  the  need f o r  (F3.6/D1.8/B2.10).  Instead,  e x c h a n g e s were c o n s i d e r e d  preferable  of  one  teachers he  resource might  claimed,  were  l a b b e c a u s e t h a t was  "need  i f they  According sessions  teacher,  to  a  to  was  consult"  needed  to,  second  resource  scheduled t h e way  it  people  they  regarding involved  63  wanted sort  i t (D1.8/D1.11).  of s y s t e m "  t h e r e was people  an  i f meetings  preference  formal  computers One  not  he  A third  for "faster  regular, scheduled  aspects said  of t h e  t o have  (A2.9).  during  ESL  into  After  (about)  an an  also  much t o  be  l a b t o use  commented  attributed nature  t h e way  set meetings  the  that  with  people  ESL  to  teachers  of t a l k i n g the  i n the one  the  to  be"  to discuss various  f o c u s on  meetings e a r l y  of  use  this  i t seems  participating  initial  i n f o r m a l exchanges  Short-Term  (A2.9)  i n f o r m a l way  what d i f f e r e n t  the  in pairs,  computer's use,  department  d e p e n d e d on  with  were each  computer year,  another  were d o i n g "  to  lab  teachers "get  an  (A1.11).  Planning  Short-term meeting  having  expect  Thus,  was  " i t ' s just  "developed  other"  idea  than  (D3.4)  meetings t o d i s c u s s the  "relaxed"  accepted  meetings  (B2.1/B2.16) s i n c e he  t e a c h e r s who  Rather  to  his  of  the c l a s s r o o m  "...the  stated  (B1.17).  d e p a r t m e n t and  go  resource teacher  teachers getting  " l o o s e " (A2.8),  (A2.8).  d i d not  meetings"  the computer, as a group or  the  who  own  explained that  meetings because  t h a t were t h e r e  t h e r e were no  came) t o our  further  people  were h e l d ,  with  s t a t e d , "(we  to agendas a t meetings"  (ibid).  more c o n c e r n e d  3.  stick  he  L a t e r , he  absence of  who  accomplished  of  (D1.11).  involved...(are)  or...people even  As  planning  to discuss t h e i r  was  c h a r a c t e r i z e d by  l e s s o n p l a n s d u r i n g the  few  teachers minutes  64  between c l a s s e s and staffroom, little the  or  period  was  time"  As  one  (what  free-for-all...for  less  i n t i m i d a t e d by  Once  i n the  one  working  us  to  relationship  (G2.3) d i d not  the  to  the  lab  teachers  Implicit  teaching  use for  pertaining regarding classroom earlier  noted  time. in  these  were  (E1.1).  a  one-toresource  f o r the d i s c u s s i o n  packages use  of  that  could  that  teachers  (D1.3/D3.4), benefit  or  a l l  (B2.3).  Expectations  i n terms  of  the  resource  and  ESL  students,  was  in this  who  of  "class-specific"  t o enhance content  and  "more  scheduled  computers  teachers'  computer  was  established  of  to  (F2.2)  first"  might  materials  regarding  People  there  for what  "immediate"  generally allow "complete"  range plan  in future years  R o l e s and  Also teachers'  more  teacher,  decisions  the  that  t o one  stated, i t  in a  with  hallway,  long  on  teacher  mentioned  of  development  classroom  4.  was  development  focus  get  i n the  w o u l d come) d u r i n g  teacher  a classroom  encounters  coming  to  computers...got  It  "a  Instead,  tended  teacher.  or  According  teacher  classroom  lab,  encounters  for this.  (D3.4).  activities  concerns.  on  made t o e s t a b l i s h  terms of  of  classroom  a  cafeteria  attempt  lab in  depending  use.  resource chapter,  little  roles Although teachers these  and the  and  explicit their  language  discussion expectations  roles  assumed  classroom  that  were  were a p p a r e n t l y  various described  not  adopted  65  on  the  basis  either  the  seemed  to  any  adopt or  computers.  a  l a c k of While  chose  differences  or  regarding  collaboration.  particular  role  i t ,regarding  several teachers  relationships  others  discussion  innovation  expertise,  "peer"  of  to  occurred  in  of  teachers  according  to  technical  their use  of  in "expert-novice" minimally,  somewhat  terms of  nature  Rather  the  interacted only interact  the  the  and  alternately  more.  In  assistance  turn,  offered  to  students. For  some  expectations what  the  concern.  and  regarding  resource One  resource  creation  of  However, t h i s  teacher  them". was it  teacher The  going was  like,  expressed role  her  when s h e  was  the dead"  said, able  helping  the  to  chose  was  d i s a p p o i n t e d when even  one  who  went on would  (ibid).  "I  feel  as  the to  such"  the  person  lab,  the  "almost  nothing  with  say,  "I thought  (G1.5).  to the  lesson...and classroom resource  he then  teacher teachers'  i n (the computer  student  kept this  the  second  regarding  respond  class  A  the  When  to  do  computer.  t h o u g h he  (A2.5).  the  design  use  t o have done  teacher  i n the the  and  caused  for  bring h i s students  said  do,  expected  role" on  their  teacher  to  f o r example,  "active  teacher  expectations  n e e d s t o be with  a more  between  resource  c l a s s ) i n sometime"  classroom  t o be  the  o f f e r e d to help  eventually did  resource  contrast  actually  materials  "never  (your  of  teacher,  to take ESL  the  role  teacher  classroom  saying...bring teacher  the  classroom  teacher  resource  teachers,  lab)  questions...they're She  a l s o would  have  66  liked  the  resource  resources  in  t h e way  However, n e i t h e r apparently Instead really on  of  d i d not  this  teacher  of  resource he  and  "so  much j u s t  According for  standing  teacher, really  (F2.5).  A  any  lab  b e t t e r j o b of  and  a  As  in  new  among  described  was  lab, stated,  another  teacher  teacher  (B1.3).  teachers  no  need  their  work to  teacher his the  quick  "...he  and knows  there  I know h e ' l l  From t h e v a r y i n g observed  themselves,  there  and  long-  roles  d o e s so  cause  the This  to  enabled  pairs"  to plan  able  that  explained,  l e a v e t o him  (D2.4).  hard  resource  regarding  roles  (ibid).  being  there  "collaborative by  f o r the  dealing with  thing"  about  the  example,  naturally"  know t h i n g s t h a t he  them..."  For  the  speculated  this  just  indicate  account  teacher  concerns  I do...I  interaction  working  experience  stating  third  many t h i n g s I w o u l d  of  teacher.  was...he was  " i t w o u l d have been  such  f r i e n d s h i p with  things that  she  "wasn't  happened  have no  further  to  d i v i d e t h e work between t h e  of  since  teacher  further  assumed  a l s o spoke  responsibilities.  the  teacher  happened...it  teacher  resolution  (ibid).  resource  expectations.  attempting  lab....it's  consciously  met  resource  comments  r o l e s and  a classroom  "intuitively",  himself  other  their  i t b e c a u s e we  classroom  t h a t the  gather  does  were the  her  (G1.4).  to t h i s  computer  expectations  found  teacher,  that  librarian  d i s c u s s them w i t h  Several  one  helped  l a b ) much...and when he  the computer"  implicitness  have  teacher  her  teacher  ( i n the  a  to  are do  degrees in  the  was  an  67  indication  that  in  differed.  the  5.  lab  A F o c u s on  Computer-Related  Regardless and  classroom  was  a recurring  engaged b o t h appeared  some t e a c h e r s ' p e r c e p t i o n s o f  of the e x t e n t  addressing  of  computer-related  bring  lacked a  their  key  to  pattern  and  for  aspects  of  the  the  However, o n c e a c l a s s r o o m  undertook any,  t o adapt  further  (F1.4/G1.9). meet b r i e f l y that the  the steps  order  to  (G1.2).  activities,  these  f o r computer about  A r e s o u r c e and before a  resource in  student  discussion  teacher  computer  complete  class  use  had  where  designed  students  the a c t i v i t i e s  little,  subject  t h e computer or  to  had  been  if  matter only tasks specify  would have t o l e a r n that  the  teacher  t e a c h e r might  (C2.4)  to  working  provided  with  the c h o i c e of  to review  a  resource  use  the  necessarily  teacher  classroom  In  of c o m p u t e r s  was  the  than  classroom  support,  teacher  of  more  innovation.  l a b without  established.  purposes  concerns  understanding  resource  Teachers  relationships,  the  relationships,  with  ideas for  matters.  "peer"  relationship  initial  a  commonly e m e r g i n g  q u e s t i o n s and  sufficient  students  resource  discussion  "expert-novice"  teachers  among  interaction  computer-related  with  with addressing other case  of  in "expert-novice"  concerned  function  Concerns  teachers, another f o c u s on  their  in  prepared  68  In c o n t r a s t t o in  the  "expert-novice"  "peer"  in  teacher  was  the  was  While when  no  most  one  impressive something  of  occurred.  and  they'd  file  that,  next  later  the  end  Generally, tended  acquired  a  deal  software  of  various  be  and  "the  most  somebody  made  saying  this  often  just  have a  look  lab)  saying)  and  The  "sharing"  would  by  (F3.6),  ideas.  such  (the computer respond  with  p e r t a i n i n g to  when that  alone  ideas  show  such  how  with  this  and oh  then I  and  saw that  i t " (ibid).  conversations the  information.  certain  the  explained,  d r i v e and  this  to  discussion  hard  but  to emphasize  computer-related  not  a l s o shared  he  would  students'  problem  describe  in  to  a computer-related  i t and  you're  themselves.  demonstrate  show  (the person  i t ' s p r e t t y cute  w o u l d be  pairs  time  language  resource  new  communication...would new  computer,  could  As  and  in  from a  teachers  teacher  at  days  when  teachers  teachers  respond  w e l l as  extensive  p u t t i n g i t i n the  two  to  teacher  involve this  the  p o s s i b l y i r r e l e v a n c e , of  resource  commonly  on  someone had  or  classroom  Thus, a s s i s t a n c e  these  mention  relevance,  words of  use.  classroom  (D3.2/A1.5).  there  c o n c e r n s as  classroom  to adapt content  able  required only a  another  use  were  computer  that  for  they  computer-related  one  relationships,  activities  Furthermore,  arose  a s s u m e d by  r e l a t i o n s h i p s were a b l e  learning  steps  role  level  of  among v a r i o u s sharing  and/or  "collaborative" acquisition  Thus, a classroom comfort  and  of  teacher  who  understanding  in  69  their  computer  resource  Teacher The  u s e c o u l d be f o u n d  teacher  Collaboration:  As structural  mentioned  first  opened  and  their  students.  assumption  for  ESL  intended mainly Since  or  experience  to  link  would  using  classroom  teaching  for  descriptions  of  an  inherent  in  some  time  for  these three  had  prior  content was  of computers and  computer  way  the  resource  t h e use of ESL t e a c h e r s  that their  experience  framework  as  language and content  learning,  most o f t h e  wanting  these  to  use  teacher  f o r teacher  i ti s  to leave  work c o l l a b o r a t i v e l y t h e forms t h a t  as  a  support.  collaboration  i n place,  a means  computers  c o n d i t i o n s were c o n d u c i v e  would have had any i n c e n t i v e to  teachers  Mohan's knowledge  I f n e i t h e r were  classrooms  of  was t h e i n s t a l l a t i o n  teachers  possibilities  ESL  language and  The f i r s t  a i d required resource  Certainly  collaborate  release  several  i n p l a c e when t h e c o m p u t e r  t o enhance  few t e a c h e r s  students'  chapter,  f o r the benefit of  students.  t h e second  students.  this  These c o n d i t i o n s r e v e a l e d  of scheduled  teachers;  use.  doors  that teachers  provision  the  i t s  Conditions  in  firmly  the use of computers  teaching  ESL  earlier  c o n d i t i o n s were  lab  were  i n the l a b without  support.  Influence of Prevalent School  around  working  around  unlikely the  ESL  sanctity  i n the  teacher  to increasing  lab.  computer teachers of  their  However,  collaboration  took  70  and  the  "peer" of  p a t t e r n s t h a t e m e r g e d when t h e s e relationships  other  school  structural context  interaction. the  review  physical the  focus  In  their  following more  than  sustained  with  ESL  particular  discussion,  ways  in  that within  among t e a c h e r s  classroom; ethic  to  closely  practicality. conditions  isolation,  the  of  tendency  and,  of  these  teacher  around  school, like  (1975)  classroom  refers  Organization  students  computer  l a b or  use  from  resource  of  of  is  rather  computers  Physical  space  s o many o t h e r s , to  as  wanting  language  else  physical  and  their  arranged teacher  separate  t o use content  regular t o meet  the  was  this  typical  from  the  next.  computers  learning  them t h e r e , was  of  architecture  classroom  support  Space  within  "egg-crate"  is distinctly  teacher  promote  when  The  o r g a n i z a t i o n of  her/his  time  the  were o r g a n i z e d  each of  collaboration  where each c l a s s r o o m  to  included  t o an  commonly promote  high  what L o r t i e  tool  adherence  Conditions:  The  ESL  the  teacher  students.  Structural  An  of  larger  highlighted  noninteraction; their  "immediacy"  and  prevalence  for  earlier  predominance  and  the  opportunities  authority  the  at  c o n d i t i o n s i n the  chapter,  and  setting;  the  hint  same c o n d i t i o n s ,  individualism  shown t o  cultural  limited  time,  to t h i s ,  the  examined,  literature  space,  on  linked  and  that  These of  school  norms of  were  "expert-novice"  as  a  brought to  the  during  a  available.  71  Alternately, their  two r e s o u r c e  regular  resource  teacher  each assumed times.  ESL  "classroom"  was s c h e d u l e d  the  role  (D2.11)  of classroom  Although  both  they  taught  kept  during  the  computer l a bas  two  periods  to provide  classroom  teacher  i n other files  school  rooms  and  year  Thus these  their  common  because of  building  at various  personal  a  during  the l a bas  i n the  when  assistance.  portion of the  space  their  used  a l s o shared  f o ra  shortage  day,  of a  These teachers  home b a s e  teachers  a  (F1.14).  times  of the  belongings  i n the  computer l a b . The teachers cycle,  p r o v i s i o n o f an would  meet  for a  a n d , i n some c a s e s  encounters  a c t u a l p h y s i c a l space where specified  common a m o n g t e a c h e r s ,  assured  the  potential  objectives one  sought  teacher  achieve  pointed  w e r e t h e r e a t t h e same t i m e , length  while  on-going both  rooms  one, the  lesson  teachers  requiring  f o ra  they  limited  (B2.2).  Furthermore, had  other  a t t e n t i o n and so they  i n the building, periods  only  t o perhaps  (B1.1).  At  though  were  time,  meant  pertaining tothe  were unable  or both  they  t h e same p h y s i c a l  i n the lab.  o u t , even  other,  usually  their  between c l a s s  t o share  i fonly  to  t h e one-on-one  relationships.  e x i s t e d f o r some d i s c u s s i o n  both  resource  teacher,  each  r e g a r d l e s s of whether  or "peer"  of the opportunity  space as another  of time  each day, supported  were engaged i n " e x p e r t - n o v i c e " least  period  two  However, as two t e a c h e r s  t o chat  a t any  involved  w i t h an  a t t h e end of a classes would meet  or leave again,  class,  students f o r other briefly,  72  Yet, another of p h y s i c a l  difficulty  problem  teachers"  was  since  "from c l a s s from  magnified  neither  period  had  that  upcoming l e s s o n s t h i s two  distance before the  been  next  between c l a s s e s and  a permanent over  not  the  having  travelled,  moved Apart  i n the computer  to  walk By  about  "four the  seconds  time  these b r i e f  an  floors,  would  f o r exchanging  lab,  In some  with another  Still,  they  day.  "floating  c l a s s r o o m and  (C2.6).  only  began. few  were  o f t e n c r o s s (C1.15).  r e a c h them  class  teacher  s c h o o l " (C2.9).  shared  entailed  were t h e  this  remain moments  information  ideas. Certainly  r e s o u r c e and in progress,  the p r o v i s i o n  classroom  d i d not  their  work t o g e t h e r .  talked  lab  (D2.11) and  same t i m e efforts  guarantee  as  a physical  enabled  them  encounters.  space  computer  of  their  to  extensive discussion  Even t h e two common  worked  by o t h e r p r e v a l e n t s c h o o l c o n d i t i o n s . the  way  sharing  such  shared  claimed  t o g e t h e r a l o t when t h e r e in their  that  time  was  was more  pertaining  and  a  in  t e a c h e r s who  classroom  where  a class  engage  Yet merely  ( F 3 . 4 - 5 ) , were c o n s t r a i n e d  undoubtedly  space  t e a c h e r w o u l d meet w h i l e  potentially  l e n g t h y one-on-one  was  both  wanted t o t a l k  b l o c k s " to had  a r o s e when one  when  they  most t e a c h e r s ' p a t h s d i d c a s e s , when a t e a c h e r  school's organization  d u r i n g the c o u r s e of a s c h o o l  to class a l l  t h e one  almost  the  s p a c e , more g e n e r a l l y ,  wanted t o c o n t a c t a n o t h e r This  with  to the they  at  the  collaborative One  of  organized.  these A  73  discussion teacher  of  i t s influence  collaboration  around  Structural Conditions:  The resource potential the  could  be  available cases,  at  assured  take  f o r students'  particular  resource  a specific  teachers teacher come.  time  arranged who  encounters teachers  relationship,  work for  was s c h e d u l e d  and they  resource  teachers  students  during  focus  in  an  and  scheduled  sustained collaboration  time  around  that  classroom  the  p e r i o d they  ESL c l a s s r o o m class  content  t o be i n t h e l a b  with  these  release  be some  Knowing  resource chose  of time  teachers  i n the computer  to  one-on-one  on w h e t h e r  "expert-novice"  Thus, p r o v i d i n g  in  where ESL  depending  to the  would  and,  varied i n the extent  to assist  of the s i x  students  language  the class  the use of  teacher  one-on-one  in their  engaged  among t e a c h e r s .  ensure  their  a situation  three  and students' use,  a s was a l r e a d y m e n t i o n e d ,  varied were  five  u s e on t h e c o m p u t e r .  ledto to  around  assistance  adapting  for  condition with the  a resource  teacher  was t h e r e  However,  who b r o u g h t  of  time  During  technical  of  Time  release  collaboration  that  charge  of  f o r ESL t e a c h e r s '  teacher  to provide  activities a  allotted  ESL c l a s s r o o m  lab  teacher  and p a t t e r n s  use, follows.  structural  w i t h ESL s t u d e n t s .  blocks of time any  scheduled  was a n o t h e r  t o promote  computers  computer  The O r g a n i z a t i o n  provision of  teachers  on t h e f o r m s  or  the "peer"  interaction for and  three their  lab, d i d not use.  Instead  74  the  organization  of time  appeared  to  impose  teachers'  collaborative  Simply  found  numerous  set  what was  going  on i n  opportunities  their  objectives prior  her/his  students  may be l i n k e d which,  in  (teachers) school  did  not enable  meet  with  *prep' one  the next  Thus,  words  teachers  another  planning  setting"  Such  if  purposes  hour  of  timetable  ever,  in  their  plan,  lab,  routinely  and  not" ( i b i d ) .  implement,  time  that  y o u want t o  a classroom  but you're  to find  did  the s i t u a t i o n  i n t h e computer  to  "locked  preparation periods to  that person's  teachers  timetable  every  t o h i m , "when  jointly  with  limitations  the master  (C2.8-9/G1.6/B1.10/B1.20). for  on  establish  person,  almost  rarely,  of both  they  teachers' a r r i v a l  resource  According  activities  schedule  available  them t o  of the school  hour t h e y ' r e a v a i l a b l e  be r e q u i r e d on t h e p a r t crowded  for  More common was  to  that  (F1.9/F1.17/D3.3/B2.8/C2.9)  t o use t h e i r  were  and  t o d i s c u s s and r e f l e c t  one  since  Resource  mentioned  Furthermore,  teacher  i f teachers  evaluate c l a s s  not  of  a classroom  described.  then  teacher,  to a classroom  periods overlap.  to  ESL c l a s s r o o m (G1.7).  were l i m i t e d  day ( B 2 . 3 ) .  talk  time  the l a b  one a n o t h e r ,  teacher  by an  t o the o r g a n i z a t i o n  into  the  hindered  (D1.3/G1.2/G1.6/C2.11).  the  setting  that  repeatedly  to find  since  school  constraints  up f o r t a l k i n g "  teachers a l i k e  i tdifficult  the larger  efforts.  p u t , as noted  "schools aren't classroom  within  effort  in Since  and would  an a l r e a d y time  s i t down  was for  (C2.6/G1.7-8/A1.9/B2.12), s e v e r a l t e a c h e r s  75  suggested lunch, were  t h a t a r r a n g e m e n t s c o u l d h a v e b e e n made  or  after  often  taken  counselling, In  turn,  school  home"  many  to  of  to  with  supervision,  student  "everyone  were  "other  not  well  that  students  explain  teachers the  setting f o r the  after  (G1.7/D3.3) o r  simply  among r e s o u r c e  examined more  closely.  were g i v e n  scheduled  their  of  use  content  to  just  wants t o  teachers discuss  were  found  on  generally  and  teachers. t o meet  pertaining Examining  As  go  dealt with to  the  teachers  three  the  was  o r g a n i z a t i o n of  ESL  and time they  forms  since  than  and  to  imposed  l e d them these  to  could  could those  did, offers  to  resource  classes  attempt  in and  available  instructional i n an  were  language  not  have  of  teachers  constraints  may  concerns  begins  teachers  between  time  time  day,  teachers  students'  time  interact  resource  to assist  teachers  curricular  given when t h e  informally  in less  c o l l a b o r a t e d as  any  where  teachers  to  Thus, classroom  well,  classroom  expected  classroom  t o enhance  computer-related be  and  r e l e a s e time  lesson plans.  resource  are  emerged  a corresponding  same c l a s s r o o m  environment  timetable confines  Although  computers  learning,  i n an  v a s t p o r t i o n of  "collaboration"  why  student  stay  bushed and  where they  patterns that  focus  times  lesson preparation.  prepared  work  master  the  on  lunch  at  (B1.16).  a classroom  these  and/or  commitments"  i s pretty  o r g a n i z a t i o n of  with  However,  teachers  Realizing the  up  (G1.6/D3.3).  department meetings,  because  because  school  t o meet  issues  matters. to  suggest  a partial,  but  76  not  final  turns  explanation.  to a  third  authority,  structural  While  the  the  teachers,  teachers  their over  discussion  now  organization of  as  among  this  those  within  vice-principal, loosely  teachers  hierarchical, hierarchy,  coupled.  and/or  and  though  to the  actions  methods of  c o n t r a s t , any s u p e r v i s i o n and e v a l u a t i o n  heads  Even  school  taken,  exercise considerable  of curriculum  high  department  accountable  a n y d e c i s i o n s made  choice  within a  be g e n e r a l l y d e s c r i b e d  t o be  own c l a s s r o o m  of Authority  of authority  seen as u l t i m a t e l y  for  their  The O r g a n i z a t i o n  principal, tend  are  principal  In  can  relationships  and  reason,  condition, the  the organization  setting  including  this  a n d i t s i n f l u e n c e on t e a c h e r c o l l a b o r a t i o n .  Structural Conditions:  school  For  in  control  instruction.  of their  work i s  minimal. At  the high  hierarchical as  nature  this  and c e r t a i n teacher  revealed.  Also  study  computers with  given  the status from  authority  evident  students.  of "resource  the other lay in  instruction  was c o n d u c t e d , t h e firmly  i n place,  c o m m e n t s made  " o f f the  was  o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s among t h o s e  using  them  where  o r g a n i z a t i o n o f a u t h o r i t y was  observation  record"  school  rather  Although teacher",  ESL t e a c h e r s  their than  expertise in  the loosely teachers three  coupled  involved i n  teachers  were  thus d i s t i n g u i s h i n g  who c a m e t o  the lab,  i n computers  any power, or " r i g h t  their  and computer to  enforce  77  obedience", the to  i n v e s t e d i n them.  resource adapt  the  learn  achieve found  ESL  language  computer, would  and  as  the  to  ESL  classroom and  well  "take  as  charge"  as  "teaching  assistant"  technical  a s s i s t a n c e as  relationships,  assume  responsibility  lacked  and  sufficient  such,  resource  but else  adapting  ideas  computer  teacher  for  computer  knowledge  do  responsibility  f o r what h e r / h i s s t u d e n t s  students' resource by  teacher  control  over  those with  specifying teacher these  might  who  a  loss  what  or  themselves  students, i t was  still  they  teachers  In  was  the  ever  this  maintained be  taught.  w o u l d do.  In  their  lab with  content  (D2.12). complete  activities.  the  computers  responsibility turn,  for adapting  provided, accepting,  a  perceived,  relinquished  assumed  school of  control  about  they  themselves.  have been  learning  to  teachers'  still  of  for  one  since  computer  transfer  a  "expert-  the  use  would  not  requests  o r g a n i z a t i o n of  l a n g u a g e and  retained responsibility  "novice"  in  was  to  t o a c t as  g e n e r a l l y i n charge  teacher  students  found  their  are  the  understandably  classroom their  teacher  on  working  involving  ESL  along  teachers  activities,  no  Even  reflecting  where  some, a s  Yet,  classroom  to  the  used  classroom  each  authority,  t o be  to  ability  students  teacher  respond  where  on  what  r a t h e r chose  resource  for  the  f o r use  determined  Nevertheless,  Further  had  r e q u i r e d (D1.9/D2.5). the  content  both  c o m p u t e r was The  (D1.4) o r  novice"  language  the  set.  relationships  materials  teacher  how  they  "peer"  teacher  content  classroom  goals  In  the  the  for  resource materials  without  any  78  apparent  question  teachers'  choice  novice"  and  resource  or  lengthy  of content.  "peer"  teachers  to  focus  questions  matters  i n the classroom with  a  partial  on  collaboration.  regard  for  one  aspect  predominant  school conditions.  to  cultural  provided  resource  with two  and  the bulk lab.  might  resource classroom  class  and  of  concerns  instructional  and  time,  authority offers patterns of  emphasized life  examining  that  lacks  a  the  number  of  Thus, c o n s i d e r a t i o n i s given believed to  have  further  around computer use.  teaching  teachers,  of their  During  come t o  schedules  indicates  time  any g i v e n  teachers  of  that  working  with  cycle,  an ESL  teachers  Even  though  students  for  a resource  in  classroom of  a t t h e most, were a v a i l a b l e and t h e i r  both  another  t h e l a b f o r one p e r i o d o u t  teachers,  periods.  Noninteraction  of the  classroom  computer  while  and  school  by  collaboration  examination  spent  teacher  tendency  Conditions:  An  the  "expert-  hands.  of  conditions  Norms o f I n d i v i d u a l i s m  never  the  Y e t , i t i s once a g a i n  insight  teacher  both  some o f t h e e m e r g e n t  additional  Cultural  was  classroom  computer-related  teachers'  for  teacher  influenced  to  of the organization of school  only  a  o r g a n i z a t i o n o f p h y s i c a l space  explanation  several  common  pertaining to curricular  the  consideration  Also  relationships,  leaving  As  discussion,  seven, t o work  a maximum o f teacher  was  79  scheduled  t o be  classroom  teacher  instance,  during  out  of  the  support,  two  different to  teacher.  their  of  would  interplay  the  of  the  but  teachers  for  use  of  and ESL  encounters  among t e a c h e r s  otherwise.  However,  interactions  and  of  a  ESL  classroom alike  teaching  time The  f r o m b r i n g i n g one  of  another  of  f o r much  not  only  Although  are  the  release  not  have  made  and they  actions. time  intended  students  examination they  and  and  complex  intangible,  words  their  what  individualism  values, assumptions,  that would  comments  their  to  scheduled  closer  by  appeared  decide  norms  and  used  students.  l a b with computers  teachers  of  teachers  their  norms of  teachers'  a  blocks  lab.  free to  of  of  time,  teacher  were  especially,  apart  beliefs,  provision  three  their  to p r e v a i l .  through  three  role  w i t h one  these  the  a  For  of  resource  classroom  teachers,  teacher  blocks  brought  the  with  contact  that comprise  resource  who  p o r t i o n of  computer  how,  Of  these  and  activities  knowledge,  the  of  a classroom  appeared  revealed  Certainly,  major  classroom  teach  expectations  the  resource  generally left  noninteraction  are  both  in their  and  out  assuming  classes to  e a c h day  occasion.  two  numerous o t h e r  ESL  on  l a b when  ESL  were a l s o t h e r e .  t o have  teachers  in  Limited  they  scheduled  resource  spend  alone  schedules include  to  n e c e s s a r i l y mean  o b s e r v a t i o n p e r i o d , two  filled,  the  d i d not  her/his students  blocks  Thus,  found  working  lab, this  were used o n l y  regularly  were  and the  five  time  classes  i n the  for mainly  permitted  been p o s s i b l e of  teachers'  regarding  their  80  collaboration  around  individualism  and  resource  and  computer  noninteraction  classroom  teachers  Individualistic have c o n t r i b u t e d retained  to a  c o n t r o l over  regarding teacher  assisted with  notably  this  only  "expert-novice" requested.  the  resource  share  teacher  new  have  focused  knowledge as  regarding,  for  As  with  norms of  among  pressing  classroom  structural  teachers'  adapting  able  to  might act ideas. on  the  The  a  another.  use,  case  content  computerdiscussion, use  may  students.  Classroom  noninteraction, energy  have been  r e i n f o r c e the and  Although  or  teachers'  considerable  students  himself,  computer  t o ESL  the  assistant  acquiring  the  of  specifically  these  implications  demands, a p p e a r s t o  one  resource  the  t o more e x t e n s i v e  that  decisions  the  in  teaching  and  focus  teacher  these materials  i n d i v i d u a l i s m and  conditions  may  r e l a t i o n s h i p s where  Immediacy o f  to  teachers  lab.  when  Thus,  sharing  opposed  teachers  with  as  when  f o r computer as  of  door  While  or  adapt  at  instructional  materials  i n "peer"  norms  classroom  d o n e when r e q u i r e d ,  interactions with  interactions  and  the  learning.  l a n g u a g e and  Conditions:  tendency  by  content  instance,  for teaching  Cultural  where  curricular  software  interactions related  was  left  among t h e s e  relationships,  teacher  that  a r r i v e d i n the  situation  Generally,  classroom  suggest  were not  tendencies  l a n g u a g e and  was  use,  the on  perpetuated priority  restrict  several  of their  structural  81  conditions teacher and  were  place  collaboration  classroom  were  in  in  the  around  teacher  were  company  of  expected  attention  from  Teachers'  adherence  to  expectations students,  the  i s again  likely this may  to give hinder  place  (B1.9). rush by  up  an  classroom  my  instill  let's  pencils, treat  just  we  a computer?"  teachers'  at  i n the  what do  concerns  out  the  that  the  why  start  i f I  of  have a  computer  do  our  lay  with  them  year.  Regardless, the  As  a  and full not  offered for  she  not said, class  been  here  t h r e e months come  with  room?...how do  however, of  curriculum  since  level  they've  let's  come i n t o  not  might  reason  for  are  lab  l a b was  beginning  books,  w h e n we  (E2.7).  the  who  already  teachers  in  in ( i t ) "  curriculum  that are  lab until  t h i n k I need with  the  e x p l a i n e d her  lab  (B1.20) a r e  computer  computer  with  classroom  teachers  doing"  ESL  the  ESL  value  and  actions.  computer  see  to cover  to  who  students  come  to  schedules  students  "...none of  three months...I  to  to the  teacher  t o go  f o r an  time  students  ready  comments and  classroom  coming w i t h  are  interactions  teacher,  on  teachers.  to  are  perspective  and  assumptions,  have  on  required  values,  they  e x t r a burden  resource they  both,  their  for  together,  who  not  in their  attempts  when a  work  i n what  to bring their  a  i f  pointed  their  Another  use,  to  bring students  b o g g e d down  may  one,  "...they  possibilities  students  beliefs,  H o w e v e r , he  "already  ESL  resource  to  place  (B1.10).  scheduled  reflected  t o one  to decide  first  computer  that give precedence  According teacher  that created  t h a t had  to our we  whether to  be  82  covered new  (B1.9),  school  revealed to  with attempts  (E2.7) o r  teachers'  students.  avoidance  For  both  with their  some t e a c h e r s  this  of  that  occurred  activity  collaborative  efforts  One-on-one appeared  "peer"  relationships  concerns.  This were  l o t of  what  almost  not  answer  doing  because one"  A  f o r every (D3.3).  be  shared  of whether  students  primarily  on d i r e c t i n g  problems  that  second  two p r o b l e m s  computer-related  classroom  f o r those i n teachers' and  advantageous  when  arose.  computer  students'  and needed  one  resource  i n t h e l a b who and  know  method i t ' s  resource  teacher,  j o b becomes h a l f teacher  as  .(can)  responsibility  for  concerns  not  could  relationships.  one o r two t e a c h e r s  around  in  questions  the other  contrast,  i n "expert-novice"  assisting  any  and  As  content  s t a t e d , "...the  In  a  all.  enhanced  two p e o p l e  (F2.4).  belief,  an  engaged  favorable  (A2.3).  of  to students  irrespective  resource  especially  i n terms  responding readily  who  students'  and guidance"  "when y o u h a v e  this  ledto  use, after  they  to  t o be  responsibility  introduced t o the computers  work..."  reiterating tough  was s a i d  help  they're  since.  respond  first  noted,  among  t o be p a r t i c u l a r l y  to  comments  F o r o t h e r s , such  those  computer  encounters  these  their  contributed to the patterns  among  around  teachers  opportunities  further  to  may h a v e  of t h e l a b a l t o g e t h e r (B1.10). have  teacher  students  preoccupation  might  "a  orient  a t t h e same t i m e ,  preoccupation  students  to  were  use, their  activities  and  Still,  involved in focus  was  addressing  83  Any to  student  f a r outweigh  matters. whether those  in  "peer" they  to  practicality.  reassure  concrete,  framework on  the  knowledge  individual  classroom  (B2.10).  t o do  i n the  lab  that  (F1.4).  Practicality  value for  these  teacher  concern  for  pressing  t o an  focus  that teachers' change  that are may  of to  place  deemed  on  practical,  u n c l e a r and be  ethic  i s thought  with established classroom ideas  concern  practice. do  rejected,  a way  to  for practicality  was  discussion pertaining  to create teaching units  computer.  "exposure"  enabled  computers  seeming adherence  situation  specific  as  teachers,  not f i t i f  not  modified.  Teachers' of  the  teaching  significantly  the  classroom-centered  proposals  own  content  seemingly  the  teachers'  their  congruent  their  scarcity  was  This  and  of  E t h i c of  to these  or  Alternately, with  An  reinforce  innovations  use  w o u l d have work  matters  continually  their  to  seemed  in "expert-novice" relationships,  served  Linked  m e e t i n g s among  d e a l w i t h any  Cultural Conditions:  classroom  brief  relationships with  use  language and/or  class,  had  students  to  to computer  d u r i n g , or a f t e r  teachers  encounters  pertaining  i n f o r m a l and  before,  those  their  those  Thus,  problems For  questions pertaining  (F1.9)  framework  Those and  few an  c o u l d be  teachers  evident to  the  who  to  the  students  had of  the  knowledge  f o r ESL  understanding applied  in  prior'  how  the  design  of  84  student  tasks  incorporate work. in  on  key  Others  The  were  said  how  this  learning  words  was  of  explanation  of not  do  together  constitute  know...and  was  "not  he  thought  of  l a n g u a g e was  being  to  be  some l a t e r  i t was  filled The  appears familiar  expressed related tasks  the  to  demands o f  with  classroom  complete  control the  computer on  point  i t s to  these to  matters the  (C2.4).  and  more  knowledge he  mentioned  that  what  "gaps"  type  needed  knowledge  t h a t even a  classroom  of  application, about  and  allow this  appeared  still  building  tasks  (about)  building  Yet  constant  the  f o r any  teacher  teacher  sharing computer-related  framework  the  a d a p t a t i o n of  Teachers  which  (F1.10).  (C2.9).  so  clear  answer  nature  resource  and  not  h a v e an  i n t u r n what  not  possible  s i x boxes  don't  classroom  did  (F1.10).  I  framework  life  and  that's  such  computer"  selection  the  i n time  "know  their  interest  a  "...it's  the  abstract  have been  t o the  about  concerns  to  offer  a means f o r c h e c k i n g  l e a r n e d and  and  much  situation  (F1.8) a l t h o u g h as  in  framework)...and  teacher  knowledge  dialogue  the  useful  desire  the  related  regarding  place"  complexity  framework teacher  at  this  their  (meaning  to  For  starting  expressed  commented,  knowledge  that"  tacitly  o r g a n i z i n g language  the  for  a  he  to  framework  teacher  w i t h them  ( t e a c h e r s ) want (F1.9).  t o have  resource As  found  knowledge  method of  for this.  should  the  were  appropriate to  one  what you  what  computer  aspects  discussing  content  the  gave  over student to  lengthy  decisions tasks  focus  information.  almost  The  for  their form  85  of  their  ideas  encounters  perceived  applicable  to  rather  discussion  Summary:  may  and/or  The  in  with  in  School  in  indicated  the around  their  their  verbal  and  concerns.  encounters; of  of  of this  around  use  teachers of the  would computer  given  of the who  were  relationships,  The  recurrence  typically  of  i n one-  planning;  and expectations;  school  brief,  involved  short-term  with  concerns,  and  the their  may p o i n t  conditions  on  to  their  innovation.  c o l l e c t e d , i tappears within  opportunities  collaboration, planning  roles  prevalent  conditions  restricted  to F i t  the conditions  "peer"  on c o m p u t e r - r e l a t e d  From t h e d a t a cultural  their  their  to focus  implementation  extensive  i n t e r a c t i o n s were c o n c e r n e d  on-one  influence  of  assumption  e x c h a n g e s among t e a c h e r s  the  Innovation  an o v e r v i e w  informal  tendency  require  o f c o l l a b o r a t i o n among t e a c h e r s  immediate pedagogical  implicitness  immediately  p r i o r to use.  "expert-novice"  that  and  However, t h e d e s c r i p t i o n s  and extent  engaged  f o r teaching  Conditions  revealed some w a y  that  o f The  began w i t h  ESL s t u d e n t s .  nature  those  Accommodation  that  collaborate  straightforward  clarification  chapter  place  be than  Prevalent  This  indicate a preference  involving computer  the  that  larger  fora particular ongoing use.  s t r u c t u r a l and  school kind  discussion  The p r o v i s i o n  setting  of  teacher  and of  mutual  scheduled  86  release of  ESL  time  for three  teachers  the  provision  for  their  since  space, as  isolation.  well  study  reveal  realized  i n any  shared  In result  and  framework  curriculum  and  units  mainly  on  of  the  are  research  to  work  against  that  promote  context, about  contributed to  of  the computer  Even  those  this  the  the findings teachers  of  jointly was  teachers  entailed,  not with  focused  rather  the conclusions reached set  forth. for  those  a r e d i s c u s s e d , and  suggested.  school  physical  than  concerns.  findings  implementation  mainly  collaboration  computer-related,  chapter,  study  as  of  Thus,  on  work  well  expectations  t o have noted.  the  intended  the larger  a b o u t what  instructional,  this  implications  further  appear  begin  that the p o s s i b i l i t y  the following of  time  o r g a n i z a t i o n of  beliefs  understanding  curricular  the  elaborate fashion.  discussions  the l a b , as  conditions  within  collaboration  knowledge  their  However,  interaction,  planning  a  cultural  teachers'  forms of teacher  class  conditions  and . a u t h o r i t y  as  collegial  this  and  in  to support  the importance  supportive  time,  students  suggested  structural  teacher  their  teachers  of computers and  use  these  those  and  resource  as  a  Additionally, involved  in  directions for  CHAPTER F I V E CONCLUSIONS AND  In  this  chapter Since  chapter  the findings  are discussed this  study  collaboration  focused  school  conditions  found  well,  the " i n s t i t u t i o n a l "  deems  supportive of  provide  insight  address; implies a  that some  context  these  i s ,  support  for  forth.  Finally,  for  further  an  suggestions  these  collaboration  and  to prevailing  Little  may  As (1987) are  be s e e n  to  sought  to  study  innovation  that  i s implemented i n  Several implications  of  p l a n n i n g and p r o v i d i n g  implementation are  of  collaboration  when a n  involved i n  innovation's  type  isolation.  that  that this  happens  review.  discussion  teacher  teacher  isolation?  f o r those  ongoing  together,  of teacher  of teacher  particular  structures  sustained  what  a  i s made o n c e a g a i n  t o t h e , problem  form  findings  on  t o promote  Taken  i n the preceding  of the l i t e r a t u r e  involves  mutual p l a n n i n g ) , reference  mentioned.  presented  i n the light  (one t h a t  further  IMPLICATIONS  given  are  regarding  also  set  directions  research.  Conclusions  This innovation way a r o u n d  study  s e t out t o determine  t h a t assumed t h e use  teachers  of computers  what  h a p p e n e d when a n  would c o l l a b o r a t e i n for  language and  some  content  88  learning,  was  implemented  structural  and  isolation.  Two s p e c i f i c  cultural  forms does t e a c h e r 2)  a high  f o r these?  school  conditions questions  collaboration  What s t r u c t u r a l  account  in  i n such  teacher 1)  what  a c o n t e x t ? and  c o n d i t i o n s c a n be  said to  in  t h e computer l a b  over  a f o u r week p e r i o d and i n t e r v i e w s w i t h  t h e r e s o u r c e and  ESL  classroom  questions  were  were f o u n d  to  Through o b s e r v a t i o n  where  support  were a s k e d :  take  and c u l t u r a l  setting  teachers obtained. engage  computer  use  computer  knowledge.  pertaining  for  brief,  related  i n two  seemingly  Rather  regardless  of  than  whether  the  school  collaboration  The types  to  extent  of  generally  practical, of  provided  around their matters  i t s broader limited computer-  these  were e n g a g e d  conditions  patterns,  in  "expert-  some e v i d e n c e  that  made  of  sustained  difficult.  f i n d i n g s of t h i s  of c o l l a b o r a t i o n  when t h e i n n o v a t i o n  teachers  teachers  relationships,  teacher  the  recurrence  n o v i c e " or "peer" i n f l u e n c e of  on  these  teachers  extensively discuss  exchanges The  to  and c l a s s r o o m  o f t h e i n n o v a t i o n and  ESL t e a c h i n g ,  concerns.  answers  forms o f c o l l a b o r a t i o n  dependent  informal  some  Resource  to the nature  implications their  involved,  may  study  indicate  be d i f f i c u l t  that  particular  t o engage  assumes t e a c h e r s w i l l  work  i n , even  together to  commonly d e f i n e a n d work o u t p r o b l e m s p e r t a i n i n g t o i t s u s e . Specific  organizational  may  required,  be  "...like  the  which  practices  supports are,  f o r teacher as  themselves,  Little  collaboration (1987)  neither  states,  subtle  nor  89  mysterious" review  (p.  513).  of l i t e r a t u r e  As  chapter,  "dimensions of support" "team e f f o r t s " t o engage their  in  and  earlier  included  are:  in  1) t h e p u b l i c  staff  2)  endorsement of  assignments to  on c o l l a b o r a t i v e  tasks  the o r g a n i z a t i o n allow  teachers  that require of the  teachers  projects during  the  proposed  p r o v i s i o n of o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r  effort;  t i m e t a b l e and  mentioned  in Little's  "complex" a n d " c o m p e l l i n g "  combined  together  was  master  to  work  school hours;  and  3) t h e p r o v i s i o n o f a d e q u a t e m a t e r i a l a n d human r e s o u r c e s t o enable  teachers  effectively  t o u s e any t i m e  and  around  support  computer  teacher level,  t e a c h e r s was  mainly  for  and c o n t e n t  with  ESL  have  discuss specific teachers  enabled  their forum  work  as  apparent. the  certain teacher  and  staff  was  Endorsement  school for  i n the  although  and  district  three  resource  and l a b  computer  regularly  to  As w e l l , by  or i n p a i r s ,  time  students.  The  time  more  to address  lab to  which  extensively  there  resource  a  scheduled  outside class  teachers  together.  their  of  assignments permitted  t o meet  planned  these  study  collaboration  w e l l as computers  ESL t e a c h e r s  not  this  teacher  s i n c e r e l e a s e time  established  as a group,  formal  both  students,  o p p o r t u n i t i e s were might  at  where  supportive conditions, a lack  becomes  provided,  t i m e t a b l e and  resource work  use  seems e v i d e n t  school  school  f o r more  collaboration,  intended  high  i n terms of L i t t l e ' s  of planned  for collaboration,  efficiently.  Considering the conducted  allotted  and  was n o t  a  classroom  any p e r c e i v e d  90  lack  of  conceptual  task  that  promote  they  formal  teacher  norms  of  the of  the  the  computers  to  learning  such  supports  for  ESL  for  and the predominance of  more other  organization of p h y s i c a l  larger school  i n d i v i d u a l i s m and focus,  in  context,  may  have  noninteraction,  and adherence  to a  their  practicality  to prevail.  The should  of  c o n s t r a i n t s such as the in  inherent  i s , using content  the absence  classroom-centered ethic,  and  collaboration  and time  enabled  clarity  i n ;t h a t  language  Thus,  structural space  engaged  academic  students.  and procedural  innovation's  modification to  n o t be s u r p r i s i n g .  i n n o v a t i o n , computer Mohan's knowledge  implementation teachers  may  f i t school  Even w i t h knowledge,  framework,  teacher and  this  be c o n s t r a i n e d  by  enthusiasm f o r  their  study  conditions  understanding  illustrates  the culture i n  how which  work.  Implications  T h e r e a r e some i m p l i c a t i o n s planning  and p r o v i d i n g  innovation among  any  a s s u m i n g more  teachers.  important  are  2)  Those  that 1)  regarding  facilitate  expectations;  3)  f o r the  formal  as follows:  assumptions  innovation; and  support  f o r those  implementation  or sustained the  facilitate  teachers'  with  considers  clarification inherent  clarification  teachers  o f an  collaboration  researcher  collaboration  provide  involved both i n  the  of  in  of an  roles  opportunity  91  for  regular  practical, and  scheduled concrete  develop  their  ideas, as  guarantee  additional  p r o f e s s i o n a l support.  supportive  c o n d i t i o n s were  study  was  conducted.  serve  as a  for  those  engaged  suggestions  i s  provide  w e l l as time  o w n ; a n d 5)  reminder  4)  meetings;  i n place  of  value  i n the  of  these  where  this  findings  these  may  Each of these  explained  them  the a v a i l a b i l i t y  the research  potential  with  discuss  at the school  i n implementation.  further  to  C e r t a i n l y aspects  Nevertheless, of the  teachers  have  general  discussion  that  follows.  1.  F a c i l i t a t e c l a r i f i c a t i o n of collaboration  Any a  innovation  specific  given  inherent i n an  that  purpose,  should  c a n be e x p l i c i t l y  s t a t e d and  f o r d i s c u s s i o n of t h e forms such d i s c u s s i o n teachers  working  relationships with  innovation. clarify  reasons fit  Alternately, the  assumptions  for this,  one  should another  i f teachers regarding  context.  collaborate for opportunity  collaboration could  the innovation w i l l  the larger school  regarding  innovation.  assumes t e a c h e r s  Through  to  any assumptions  be a b l e  to  i n the light lack the  take.  establish of the  opportunity  c o l l a b o r a t i o n and likely  be m o d i f i e d  the to  92  2.  Facilitate  teachers'  clarification  of  roles  and  expectations.  Inherent  i n any  collaboration roles  and  teachers of  what  are  subsequent  with  likely  cultural  3.  Yet  Provide  order  raise  time would  providing understanding  collaboration that  a  of  without  may  be  may  discussion, that  to  be  innovation.  collaboration  such  involves  found  particular  t o i n t e r a c t i n ways  teachers  not  teachers  be will  are consistent  with  with  the  opportunity  for  t i m e c o n s t r a i n t s on t e a c h e r s  status  work  may  of teachers'  n e e d t o be  to discuss seem  an  given  curricular  particularly  allow  understanding  and  outside  Meetings teachers  and t o  the  instructional  that held  requires on  to clarify  of the innovation  a  release  matters.  This  a r e engaged i n more  weekly in  help  classroom,  r e g u l a r l y scheduled  u s e f u l when t e a c h e r s  innovation  collaboration. e x a m p l e , may  regular  meetings.  implementing  their  form  their  teacher  teachers'  By  t o counter  the  teachers  regarding  planning  for  of  norms.  scheduled  In  mutual  form  this  continue  some f o r m  to c l a r i f y  roles entail,  preferred  Alternately,  assumes  responsibilities.  opportunities  d i s c u s s i o n and  necessary.  that  certain expectations  teachers'  ongoing the  innovation  extensive basis,  an o n g o i n g  and t o engage  in  for  manner joint  93  p l a n n i n g and  evaluation  of t h e i r  progress.  Furthermore,  such meetings might encourage t e a c h e r s  to c r i t i c a l l y  on  and e x p e c t a t i o n s  their  a c t i v i t i e s a n d on t h e b e l i e f s  underlie these. likely will  In c o n t r a s t , monthly  not counter  c u l t u r e on a t t e m p t s  4.  Provide ideas develop  Linked  with  numerous  ample  larger school  time  practical, to  discuss  concrete them  and  own.  t o t h e seeming  opportunities  or q u a r t e r l y meetings  the i n f l u e n c e of the  w e l l as  their  that  t o c o l l a b o r a t e more f o r m a l l y .  teachers as  reflect  for  advantage of r e g u l a r l y  teachers  to  discuss  their  scheduled  use  of  an  i n n o v a t i o n a s s u m i n g s u s t a i n e d c o l l a b o r a t i o n , may be t h e n e e d to provide  teachers  with  p r a c t i c a l , concrete  ideas  that  t  exemplify clarity  this.  that  of such  ideas to t h e i r  i f d e s i r e d , and  Through t h e  develop  p r o v i s i o n of  ideas  for  themselves,  i t seems more l i k e l y  ways  particular  teachers  to  context.  adapt  situation, new  ideas  to discuss  of  the  innovation  bring  discuss the extend  their  i d e a s and  and c r e a t e  that they  help  further  tangible teaching  opportunity  various  these  regarding the innovation's use, teachers  relevance them  To e n s u r e  the  materials  may a l s o to  own.  suit  explore their  94  5.  Guarantee the a v a i l a b i l i t y  of a d d i t i o n a l  professional  support.  Teachers their  engaged  i n implementing  collaboration  professionals,  the  may  and  take  assumptions  their  roles  teachers  the  form  inherent and these  ideas  related  to the  collaborative  efforts  availability  essential  with  procedural  experience clarify  disregard  of  who  related  ambiguous.  In one  implications support  in  such  the  may  t o an  innovation,  o r more key  do  those  and be  may  clarify  to  specify  to  these. practical that  enhanced.  The  be  lack  particularly conceptual with  knowledge teachers  might  This  t o ways  closely  background  such  and  provide  itself  working  that  to  relation  t e a c h e r s may  absence of  only  in  assistance  other project  teachers  innovation  have  aspects  for  an  By  by  institutions.  assisting  innovations that  Directions for Further  Not  of  other  innovation  those  those  from  among  supported  assumes  consultants,  professionals  clarity.  professionals  innovation that  further  expectations  Additionally,  ready  be  including  administrators, support  may  an  other  and may  prior  seek  otherwise  or  to  remain  assistance, teachers  may  features.  Research  this  study's  engaged  for implementation  of  an  in  findings  highlight  p l a n n i n g and  providing  innovation assuming  teacher  95  collaboration. for  further  1.  Interview  around  the  Closer  research.  those  use  of  analysis  understanding school  life  teacher  2.  A d d i t i o n a l l y , they Eight  of  their  found  to  y e a r s of  the  note  seems  be  to  regarding the  collaborate  determine provide  why.  further  cultural conditions  from,  rather  this  interest  and  expertise  than  of  promote,  use  3.  Extend  the  the  larger  school  of  those  who  "keepers of interest  influence  findings  among  possess  the  the  gender  male  and  related to  to  these  include  lacking  to  that  similar  computer teachers.  g e n d e r may  also  collaboration  of  control  others may  sharing  wield  was  female  specific  teachers  amount of  there  study.  issues  expertise  use  of  teacher  in this  Of  computer as  degrees  forms of  their ability those  of  and/or  collaboration.  r e l a t i o n a l issue,  context,  in limiting  over  teacher  varying  documented  knowledge",  ensures  of  is a  c e r t a i n of  computer  on  e t h n i c i t y , age,  c o l l a b o r a t i o n around  study  collaboration for  gender,  consideration  in  account  of  experience  evidence  this  detract  to  may  s t r u c t u r a l and  influence  teaching  particular  around  comments  to  here.  collaboration.  Explore  Since  attempt  directions  outlined  chose not  c o m p u t e r s and  those  possible  suggestions are  t e a c h e r s who  of  flag  a  consideration lack.  h a v e an that  within  As  invested  occurs  since  c e r t a i n degree  expertise.  of  96  4.  Conduct a  case study of two  e x e m p l i f y i n g an  "expert-novice"  a relationship  among "peers".  documented i n t h i s study may an e f f o r t made that  either  "collaborative" r e l a t i o n s h i p and In doing  be probed  to h i g h l i g h t other discourage  or  pairs: the  so, the  one  other,  findings  more e x t e n s i v e l y and  f a c t o r s , such  promote  as gender,  collaboration  among  teachers.  5.  Compare and  c o n t r a s t the forms and p a t t e r n s  collaboration highlighted emerge  among teachers  particular between  in  involved  consideration  the  two  in  this  to  study with  in  of  Examine  computer use proceeding,  a context  of  differences  for  a  s p e c i f i c purpose.  administrator  involvement  c o l l a b o r a t i o n with those computers  teacher  into their  c o l l a b o r a t i o n might  in  isolation.  at  offer  Before  to confirm t h a t  would least  teachers attempting  program.  around  teachers' u s i n g computers  This in  and  isolation.  collaboration  however, i t would seem necessary  a d m i n i s t r a t o r s had an i n t e r e s t  Give  prevalent s t r u c t u r a l  teacher/administrator in  that  team t e a c h i n g .  c u l t u r a l s c h o o l c o n d i t i o n s that l e a d to teacher  6.  teacher  those  s i m i l a r i t i e s and  terms  of  then some  form  of  to i n c o r p o r a t e  Documentation  additional  ensure  insight  of on  their how  i n n o v a t i o n i s adapted to f i t p r e v a l e n t s c h o o l c o n d i t i o n s .  an  97  7.  Assess the  nature  computer  use and  cultural  features  of  seek of  to  student determine  school  life  r e c u r r i n g forms of c o l l a b o r a t i o n . be given t o expected  the s p e c i f i c  t o engage  collaboration what  around  structural  may  account  Consideration  supports r e q u i r e d  and  f o r any  might a l s o  i f students a r e  i n substantive collaboration  pertaining  to matters of language and content, as opposed t o a focus on computer-related  8.  concerns.  Pursue a study of teacher  use  focusing  on the  c o l l a b o r a t i o n around computer  second  and/or  i n n o v a t i o n ' s implementation. an e x p l o r a t o r y  third  Since the  n o t i o n , i t can  assume i n the s i t e where used. might  explore  different  whether  or  Thus, a  not  teacher  than was documented here.  conditions supportive  of the  i n n o v a t i o n began as  be expected  more years t o c l e a r l y e s t a b l i s h what form  years  t o take two  i twill  or  ultimately  f o l l o w - u p study one collaboration  is  As w e l l , any a d d i t i o n a l  of teacher c o l l a b o r a t i o n ,  or on  the  c o n t r a r y , any that have been withdrawn, should be c o n s i d e r e d i n terms of t h e i r  i n f l u e n c e on what happens t o an i n n o v a t i o n  that assumes some form of teacher c o l l a b o r a t i o n of teacher  isolation.  Concluding  Remarks  T h i s study t h a t assumed  e x p l o r e d what happened when  teachers  would c o o r d i n a t e  i n a context  an i n n o v a t i o n  t h e i r work  around  98  computer teacher and  use  in  isolation.  their study  that  typically the  Even  focused  adaptation  of  i t was  teacher  structural  and  expectation  of  be  said  and  differences.  Instead,  the  and  teacher  the  combined shape  may  and  cultural  be  conditions  environment,  collaboration  effects  rather  found  than  sustained  no  t o emerge  forms use  of  of  or  through  teacher  w i t h ESL  these any  involving  unrealistic. condition  p a t t e r n s of on-site study  collaboration  alone  teacher  observation suggests  school conditions  students.  in  promoting  altered,  seems  cultural  the  Until  collaboration  forms and  prevalent  are  these  context  a culture  collaboration.  However, t h i s  i n f l u e n c e of  occur.  activities,  their  planning,  f o r the  to  on  teacher  structural  account  unaware of  conditions  mutual  to  generally  evidence  cultural  found  around computer  school  teacher  interviews.  the  structural  in a  to account  collaboration  to  similarities  d i s c u s s i o n and  Certainly, can  teachers  provides  isolation,  ongoing  individual  i n n o v a t i o n t o accommodate the  used,  of  on  the  the  in a context  not  prevail  and  implemented  focus  teachers'  conditions  was  was  on  p a t t e r n s of  though  which  The  individual  this  for  some way,  that  that served  emerged  99 REFERENCES B a l l , S., & L a c e y , C. ( 1 9 8 4 ) . S u b j e c t d i s c i p l i n e s as the o p p o r t u n i t y f o r group action: A measured c r i t i q u e of subject s u b - c u l t u r e s . I n A. H a r g r e a v e s a n d P. Woods (Ed.), Classrooms and staff rooms: The sociology of teaching ( p p . 149-170). E n g l a n d : Open U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . B e n e s c h , S. ( 1 9 8 8 ) . L i n k i n g c o n t e n t and language teachers: Collaboration across the curriculum. I n S. Benesch ( E d . ) , Ending remediation: Linking ESL and content in higher education (pp. 5 3 - 6 5 ) . W a s h i n g t o n , D.C.: TESOL Publications. B r i n t o n , D., Snow, M., & Wesche, M. ( 1 9 8 9 ) . Content-based second language i nstruction. New Y o r k : Newbury House. B o r g , W., introduct  &  G a l l , M. (1989). Educational research: i on ( 5 t h e d . ) . New Y o r k : Longman.  An  B u l l o u g h , R. ( 1 9 8 7 ) . Accommodation and t e n s i o n : Teachers, t e a c h e r r o l e , a n d t h e c u l t u r e o f t e a c h i n g . I n J . Smyth (Ed.), Educating teachers: Changing the nature of pedagogical knowledges (pp. 83-94). New York: Falmer Press. C a m p b e l l , S. ( 1 9 8 8 ) . Richmond's l e a r n i n g s e r v i c e s team: A r e s p o n s e t o e d u c a t i o n a l c h a n g e . Res ear ch Forum, 5, 25-27. Crandall, D. (1983). improvement. Educational  The t e a c h e r ' s role in Leadership, 43 ( 3 ) , 6-9.  Cuban, L . ( 1 9 8 2 ) . P e r s i s t e n t i n s t r u c t i o n : c l a s s r o o m , 1900-1980. Phi Delta Kappan,  school  The h i g h school 64 12), 113-118.  D o y l e , W., & P o n d e r , G. ( 1 9 7 7 ) . The e t h i c of p r a c t i c a l i t y : I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r c u r r i c u l u m d e v e l o p m e n t . I n A. Molnar and J . Z a h o r i k ( E d s . ) , Curriculum Theory (pp. 74-80). Washington, D.C.: Association f o r Supervision and C u r r i c u l u m Development. E a r l y , M. ( 1 9 9 0 a ) . ESL b e g i n n i n g l i t e r a c y : A content-based a p p r o a c h . TESL Canada Journal, 7 ( 2 ) , 82-93. Early, M. learners  (1990b). Enabling first i n t h e c l a s s r o o m . Language  and Arts,  E a r l y , M. (1989). Using key v i s u a l s t o comprehension of content classroom Canada-Lecture. 7 ( 4 ) , 202-212/  second language 67, 567-575.  a i d ESL texts.  students' Reading-  100  Feiman-Nemser, S., & F l o d e n , R. (1986). The c u l t u r e s o f t e a c h i n g . I n M. W i t t r o c k ( E d . ) , Handbook of research on teaching ( 3 r d ed.) ( p p . 5 0 5 - 5 2 6 ) . W a s h i n g t o n , D.C.: American E d u c a t i o n a l Research A s s o c i a t i o n . Flinders, Journal  D. ( 1 9 8 8 ) . Teacher i s o l a t i o n of Curriculum and Supervision,  Fullan, M. (1982). The T o r o n t o : OISE P r e s s .  meaning  a n d t h e new r e f o r m . 4 ( 1 ) , 17-29.  of  educational  change.  F u l l a n , M., a n d P o m f r e t , A. ( 1 9 7 7 ) . R e s e a r c h on c u r r i c u l u m and i n s t r u c t i o n implementation. Review of Educational Research, 47 ( 2 ) , 335-397. Goodlad, J . (1984). McGraw H i l l .  A  place  called  school.  New  York:  Goodlad, J . (1983). A study o f s c h o o l i n g : Some findings and h y p o t h e s e s . Phi Delta Kappan, 64 ( 7 ) , 465-470. Goodlad, J. (1983). A study implications for school Delta Kappan, 64 ( 8 ) , 552-558. Hammersley, Principles  of schooling: improvement.  M., & Atkinson, P. (1983). in practice. New Y o r k : T r a v i s t o c k .  Some Phi  Ethnography:  H a r g r e a v e s , A. (1989). Curriculum policy and the c u l t u r e of t e a c h i n g . In G. M i l b u r n , I . Goodson & R. Clark ( E d s . ) , Re-interpreting curriculum research: Images and arguments (pp. 2 6 - 4 0 ) . L o n d o n , O n t a r i o : A l t h o u s e P r e s s . H a r g r e a v e s , A. ( 1989). Curriculum and M i l t o n K e y n e s : Open U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s .  as s es sment  reform.  H a r g r e a v e s , A. & Woods, P. ( E d s . ) . ( 1 9 8 4 ) . Classrooms and staffrooms: The sociology of teachers and teaching. E n g l a n d : Open U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . Hargreaves, D. (1980). The o c c u p a t i o n a l culture of teachers. I n P. Woods (Ed.), Teacher strategies: Explorations in the sociology of the school ( p p . 125148). L o n d o n , E n g l a n d : Croom Helm. Higgins, J . & Johns, T. (1984). Computers in Language Learning. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley. H o r d , S. ( 1 9 8 6 ) . A s y n t h e s i s o f r e s e a r c h on o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c o l l a b o r a t i o n . Educational Leadership, 43 ( 5 ) , 22-26.  101  House, E. (1981). Three perspectives on innovation: Technical, political and c u l t u r a l . I n R. Lehming & M. Kane ( E d s . ) , Improving schools: Using what we know ( p p . 17-41). B e v e r l y H i l l s : S a g e . Huberman, A. & M i l e s , M. ( 1 9 8 4 a ) . Innovation up close: A field study of twelve school settings. Andover, M a s s : The Network I n c . Huberman, A. & M i l e s , M. (1984b). R e t h i n k i n g the for school improvement: Some f i n d i n g s from the s t u d y . Teachers College Record, 86 ( 1 ) , 34-54.  quest DESSI  J o n e s , S. (1985). Depth I n t e r v i e w i n g . In R. W a l k e r (Ed.), Applied Qualitative Research (pp. 44-70). Aldershot, E n g l a n d : Gowen. Lieberman, culture  A. (Ed.). (1988). Building a in schools. New Y o r k : T e a c h e r s C o l l e g e  Lieberman, A. (1986). Collaborative Leadership, 43 ( 5 ) , 4-8.  professional Press. Educational  work.  Lieberman, A. & M i l l e r , L. (1986). School improvement: Themes and variations. In A. Lieberman (Ed.), Rethinking school improvement: Res ear ch, craft, and concept ( p p . 9 6 - 1 1 1 ) . New Y o r k : T e a c h e r s C o l l e g e P r e s s . L i e b e r m a n , A. & M i l l e r , L . ( 1 9 8 4 ) . Teachers, their world, and their work: Implications for school improvement. Alexandria, Virginia: Association f o r S u p e r v i s i o n and C u r r i c u l u m Development. Lincoln, Y. & Guba, E. (1985). B e v e r l y H i l l s , C a l i f o r n i a : Sage.  Naturalistic  inquiry.  L i t t l e , J . ( 1 9 8 7 ) . T e a c h e r s a s c o l l e a g u e s . I n V. R i c h a r d s o n Koehler (Ed.), Educators' handbook: A research perspective (pp. 4 9 1 - 5 1 8 ) . New Y o r k : Longman. Little, J. (1982). Norms of collegiality and e x p e r i m e n t a t i o n : Workplace c o n d i t i o n s of s c h o o l s u c c e s s . American Educational Research Journal, 19, 325-340. L o r t i e , D. (1975). Chicago Press.  Schoolteacher.  M c L a u g h l i n , M. & Marsh, s c h o o l c h a n g e . Teachers Mishler, E. narrative.  Chicago:  University  of  D. ( 1 9 7 8 ) . S t a f f development and College Record, 80 ( 1 ) , 69-94.  ( 1986). Research interviewing: Cambridge: H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y  Context Press.  and  102  Mohan, B. (1989). Knowledge structures d i s c o u r s e . Word, 40 ( 1 ) , 99-115. Mohan, B. (1986). Language Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley. Oakes, J . , Hare, S., & inquiry:  A congenial  and  and  content.  Reading, Collaborative  S i r o t n i k , K. (1985).  paradigm  in  academic  a cantankerous  Chicago, Illinois: Annual Meeting Educational Research Association. Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 261 073)  world.  of the (ERIC  American Document  Rossman, G., C o r b e t t , H., & F i r e s t o n e , W. (1988). Change and effectiveness  in  schools:  A  cultural  perspective.  Albany: S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y of New York. Sarason, S. (1982, 1971). The Culture of the School the Problem of Change. Boston: A l l y n and Bacon. Sarason, S., the  promise:  Pascareli, J . & A  fresh  sharing in education. S e r v i c e No. ED 265 159) Scott,  J.  collaboration:  &  Smith,  Cohen, L. (1985).  look  at  (ERIC  S.  Document  (1987).  Improving  teaching. Elmhurst, Educational O f f i c e . No. ED 287 215)  collaboration  the  and  Fulfilling and  resource  Reproduction  From  isolation  working  to  environment  of  Illinois: North C e n t r a l Regional (ERIC Document Reproduction Service  Snow, M., Met, M., & Genesee, F. (1989). A c o n c e p t u a l framework f o r the i n t e g r a t i o n of language and content i n second/foreign language i n s t r u c t i o n . TESOL Quarterly, 23 (2), 201-218. Spradley, J . (1980). Participant H o l t , R i n e h a r t and Winston.  observation.  Spradley, J . (1979). The ethnographic York: H o l t , Rinehart and Winston. Tye, K. & Tye, B. (1984). reform. Phi Delta Kappan, Van  Maanen, J .  et hnography.  ( 1988).  New  interview.  York: New  Teacher i s o l a t i o n and s c h o o l 65 ( 5 ) , pp. 319-22.  Tales  of  the  field:  On  writing  Chicago: The U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago P r e s s .  Watson-Gegeo, K. (1988). Ethnography i n ESL: D e f i n i n g the e s s e n t i a l s . TESOL QuarterIy, 22 ( 4 ) , 575-592. Werner, W. (1988). Understanding School Programs (first draft). Vancouver: University of B r i t i s h Columbia, Center f o r the Study of C u r r i c u l u m and I n s t r u c t i o n .  103 Werner, W. & Case, R. (1988). Factors Affecting Implementation of Issues-ReI at ed Innovations (EDGE, O c c a s i o n a l Paper #15). Vancouver: U n i v e r s i t y of British C o l u m b i a , R e s e a r c h and D e v e l o p m e n t i n G l o b a l S t u d i e s . Wideen, M. (1989). p o s s i b i l i t y ? Research  Collaboration: Forum, 5, 4-7.  Woods, P. educational  Inside schools: London: Routledge  (1986). research.  New  fad  Ethnography and Kegan  or  new in  Paul.  W y a t t , D. ( 1 9 8 4 ) . Computers and ESL. W a s h i n g t o n , DC: Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics. Document R e p r o d u c t i o n S e r v i c e No. ED 246 694)  ERIC (ERIC  Zahorik, J . (1987). Teachers' c o l l e g i a l interaction: An exploratory s t u d y . The Elementary School Journal, 87 (4), 385-396.  

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.831.1-0055236/manifest

Comment

Related Items