Developing Pedagogical Judgment in Novice Teachers - Mediated Field Experience As A Pedagogy For Teacher Education

This article was downloaded by: [188.114.161.
241]
On: 27 August 2015, At: 05:39
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: 5 Howick Place, London, SW1P 1WG
Pedagogies: An International Journal

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hped20
Developing pedagogical judgment

in novice teachers: mediated field
experience as a pedagogy for teacher
education
a
Ilana Seidel Horn & Sara Sunshine Campbell

a
Peabody College, Vanderbilt University, Wyatt Center 265,

Nashville, TN 37203, USA
b
The Evergreen State College, 2700 Evergreen Parkway NW,

Olympia, WA 98505, USA
Published online: 23 Mar 2015.
Click for updates

To cite this article: Ilana Seidel Horn & Sara Sunshine Campbell (2015) Developing pedagogical
judgment in novice teachers: mediated field experience as a pedagogy for teacher education,
Pedagogies: An International Journal, 10:2, 149-176, DOI: 10.1080/1554480X.2015.1021350
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1554480X.2015.1021350
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Downloaded by [188.114.161.241] at 05:39 27 August 2015
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions
Pedagogies: An International Journal, 2015

Vol. 10, No. 2, 149176, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1554480X.2015.1021350
Developing pedagogical judgment in novice teachers: mediated field

experience as a pedagogy for teacher education
Ilana Seidel Horna* and Sara Sunshine Campbellb
a
Peabody College, Vanderbilt University, Wyatt Center 265, Nashville, TN 37203, USA; bThe
Evergreen State College, 2700 Evergreen Parkway NW, Olympia, WA 98505, USA
(Received 16 April 2013; accepted 6 August 2014)

A common critique of teacher education centres on the gap between coursework and
schools, with ample evidence that novice teachers seldom bring ambitious forms of
instruction into classroom placements. We describe a 6-year design experiment conducted in a university teacher education program secondary mathematics methods
course focused squarely on this issue. Using the framework of hybridity, or the
merging of two contexts to make a third that has elements of the originals, we
developed a pedagogy we call the mediated field experience (MFE). We present our
design framework and describe the MFE cycle, where novices learned a concept in
course activities, followed by guided classroom observations and facilitated debriefs
with partner teachers. We highlight how this pedagogy facilitated connections across
coursework and classrooms through narrative cases of novices learning. We argue that
their learning provided the basis for a complex form of teacher thinking, pedagogical
judgment. This article offers a proof-of-concept argument that teacher education can
support novices learning in the service of ambitious practice.
Keywords: design research; field experience; mathematics education; teaching methods; teacher education
1. Introduction: teacher education and the recontextualization problem

Increasingly in the United States, the value of pre-service teacher education has been
called into question. In addition to academics expressing concerns about its contribution
to the broader educational enterprise (Levine, 2006), the proliferation of alternative
certification pathways suggests that formal professional education may be superfluous
to the work of teaching (Brantilinger & Smith, 2013; Zeichner, 2010a). These programs
have garnered tremendous support from policy think-tanks (Gatlin, 2008), philanthropists
(Rotherham, 2008), as well as the US Department of Education (Duncan, 2009; Paige,
2003), reinforcing the general scepticism about the need for pre-service education.
While some critiques of traditional teacher education are certainly warranted, to
scholars of teaching, the widespread devaluation of professional education reduces teaching from a professional to a technical activity. This perspective, often called the New
Professionalism (Brantilinger & Smith, 2013; Zeichner, 2010a), diminishes the importance of formal knowledge and training, such as the knowledge represented by theoretical
frameworks on student learning or guided practice in instruction through student teaching.
*Corresponding author. Email: ilana.horn@vanderbilt.edu
2015 Taylor & Francis
150
I.S. Horn and S.S. Campbell
As teacher educators, we agree that teacher education needs to develop more effective
pedagogies. At the same time, we, along with many of our colleagues (Grossman,
Hammerness, & McDonald, 2009; Lampert, Beasley, Ghousseini, Kazemi, & Franke,
2010; Windschitl, Thompson, & Braaten, 2011) see that accomplished teaching can begin
in pre-service education. In this article, we talk of our work engaging critiques of
traditional teacher education through a design experiment (Cobb, Confrey, diSessa,
Lehrer, & Schauble, 2003) in the context of a university secondary mathematics teaching
methods class. This work aims to better foster novice teachers emergent competence.
Design experiments are an especially useful way to develop scholarship-in-practice
(Singer-Gabella, 2012) since they entail both the engineering of particular forms of
learning and the systematic study of that learning within the contexts that support it.
Through the testing and revision of learning environments, successive iterations of
designs provide variations that uncover the role of the environment in learning. The
outcome of design experiments are theories of learning and instruction that can inform
others working toward similar goals. In this spirit, we aim to contribute to a common
vocabulary for teacher education and support a more methodological investigation of this
work (Ball & Forzani, 2009; Grossman & McDonald, 2008; National Academy of
Education, 2009).
The present work grew out of a response to a familiar critique of teacher education,
the limited uptake by novices of research-endorsed teaching practices in placement
classrooms and in full time teaching (Borko & Mayfield, 1995; Feiman-Nemser &
Buchmann, 1985). Earlier work suggests that these practices often re-emerge later in
novice teachers careers, provided they are supported by teachers conceptual understanding of underlying goals (Grossman, Smagorinsky, & Valencia, 1999). In a study
we conducted as a part of a Teachers for a New Era (TNE) grant, we found novices
especially struggled to maintain interactive teaching practices (Horn, Nolen, Ward, &
Campbell, 2008; Nolen, Horn, & Ward, 2011; Ward, Nolen, & Horn, 2011).
This finding was alarming because our own secondary mathematics methods courses
focused on highly interactive teaching practices, with the goal of making student learning
more equitable. Many of the well-articulated equitable teaching approaches, such as
culturally responsive teaching (Gay, 2010), building off of childrens ideas (Newman,
Grifin, & Cole, 1989), building off childrens funds of knowledge (Moll & Gonzalez,
1994), or Complex Instruction (Cohen, 1994), are characterized by teachers responsiveness to the particularities of their students, making them highly situated forms of instruction. In other words, the methods we most valued were the most likely to be
misinterpreted or abandoned by the novices.
Often called ambitious teaching (Lampert & Graziani, 2009), practices that support
the learning of children from all racial, ethnic, class and gender categories in understanding key ideas in mathematics were the emphasis of our course. For example, we
wanted our novices to learn how to engage students in solving rich problems. This is
ambitious practice when a broad range of students use this activity to sharpen their
mathematical thinking through the authentic mathematical discourse of justification and
generalization, deepening their own understanding of important ideas (National Council
of Teachers of Mathematics, 2000). In the TNE study, we too often watched novices from
our program transform ambitious teaching practices into pedagogies-as-usual problem
solving would turn into procedures thus inspiring our redesign.
In our new course, we reworked our secondary mathematics methods course to
address this problem through what we called a mediated field experience (MFE). A fuller
description of the MFE follows, but the general idea was to structure the methods class so
151
that the expertise of partner teachers and university instructors could jointly guide the
novices interpretations of teaching in those settings, supporting a deep and situated
understanding of how mathematics teaching looks when it strives to maintain disciplinary
integrity while reaching more students. The first author began revamping the methods
class to address this challenge, leveraging relationships with local classroom teachers to
turn the course into a mediated field experience. The second author served as a consultant
in the initial design, eventually taking over teaching the course, refining the design and
studying the novice teacher learning in the MFE as her dissertation work (Campbell,
2012).
The article is organized as follows. First, we review literature on teacher education to
dig deeper into the challenges of uptake what we refer to as recontextualization (van
oers, 1998) and the relationship to well-known issues in pre-service education.
Leveraging a framework that puts novice teachers learning at the centre, we then outline
our designed responses that focus squarely on shaping learning toward our desired aim, a
form of situated teacher knowledge we call pedagogical judgment. Next, we explain how
this redesign came together as a pedagogy and practice for our methods course, describing
how we tracked our success and failures in reaching our learning goals with the novice
teachers. In our findings section, we illustrate the ways the mediated field experience
supported novice teachers learning in ways we see as responsive to design. In the same
section, we discuss limitations and promises of our approach. We end with reflections on
the contribution of this study and its implications for studies of novice teacher learning
and the design of teacher education.
2. Prior work: what gets in the way of recontextualizing teaching practice?
Our review of earlier research on novice teachers learning pointed to three main issues in
traditional teacher education that contribute to the commonly identified difficulties in
recontextualizing instructional practices. First, in what we call the Learning Outcome
Dilemma, it is not always clear whether teacher educators should prepare novices for the
schools that are or the schools that should be. This ambiguity makes a fuzzy target for
teacher educators as they design learning experiences in certification programs. Second,
traditional teacher education typically uses an acquireapply pedagogy. As we will further
explain, this pedagogy contributes to the recontextualization problem by treating theory
and practice as if they live in two different places, driving a wedge between what one says
and what one actually does as a teacher. Finally, traditional teacher education often
marginalizes experienced teachers knowledge and perspectives, setting up novices to
have negative judgments on the very people they are seeking to become. This arrangement creates a potential identity conflict, adding to the recontexualization burden by
exacerbating the divide between universities and schools, theory and practice.
2.1. The learning outcome dilemma
Any good instruction should specify its goals for learners. In the case of teacher education, thoughtful program designers might ask what well-prepared novice teachers should
look like. However, the answer to this critical question is not straightforward, due, in part,
to the endemic dilemma of teacher preparation we described above. That is, do we prepare
future teachers for the schools that are or the schools that should be? When the aim is
helping novices learn ambitious teaching practices, teacher education squarely sets its
sights on the latter goal. While this may be laudable, it stands to intensify potential
152
conflict within the learners, since teachers must function in the schools that are even if
they are working to transform them to the schools that should be.
The Learning Outcome Dilemma touches both teacher educators and novice teachers.
By introducing novices to ambitious teaching practices, teacher educators risk either
falling short of preparing them for the institutions they will work in or expecting them
to have the fortitude to work against the grain of well-established norms (Cochran-Smith,
1991). This dilemma also stands to communicate mixed messages to novices about the
value of school placements as sites for professional learning. Undoubtedly, classroom
experience is critical in learning to teach. Yet when teacher educators idealized version of
teaching is not well represented in classroom placements, we may unintentionally devalue
the learning potential of these settings settings that, paradoxically, we are training
novices to work in.
Novices, then, are frequently set up to negotiate different value systems across their
coursework and field placements. The gap between coursework and fieldwork is pervasive and frequently mentioned in the literature on pre-service education. It has been
described in many ways: the two-worlds pitfall (Feiman-Nemser & Buchmann, 1985),
the university-school divide (Anagnostopoulos, Smith, & Basmadjian, 2007), and perhaps
most dramatically, the Achilles heel of teacher education (Darling-Hammond, 2009).
2.2. Acquireapply pedagogy
Teacher education practice, like any institutionally rooted endeavour, is shaped by its
social and cultural history. Thus, common models of teacher education are effectively
cultural practices, not wholly the result of deliberate design by teacher educators, with
learning goals explicitly stated and concerted deliberation on the contradictions inherent in
the Learning Outcome Dilemma we described in the previous section. Even when
individual teacher educators are reflective and intentional, novices learn across multiple
instructors and contexts in teacher preparation programs, leaving them to encounter the
coursework/fieldwork gap in multiple forms and with some frequency.
As with any cultural practice, traditional approaches to teacher education reflect their
origins (Clifford, 1990; Lortie, 1975). To point to one source for common structures in
teacher education, we note that academias residue appears in many of the usual learning
activities for novice teachers. For instance, as with much post-secondary coursework,
learning practices like reading articles and writing papers dominate instruction in teacher
education. The tacit assumption is that this coursework will help future teachers develop
understandings of teaching and then apply them to their classrooms. This acquireapply
pedagogy presumes that effective performance in university coursework provides an
adequate basis for novice teachers learning (Zeichner, 2010b).
However, the default acquireapply pedagogy of teacher education contributes to the
coursework/fieldwork gap. In fact, as we said in the introduction of this article, research
on pre-service education frequently reports the difficulties novices have recontexualizing
practices from university coursework to the field (Britzman, 2003; Kennedy, 1999, 2005;
Zeichner & Tabachnick, 1981). Acquireapply pedagogies underestimate the inherent
challenge of moving across contexts, and in doing so, sidestep much of the complexity
of what it means to learn to teach.
As we found in our own TNE study, implementation problems are particularly acute
with more interactive and student-centred teaching practices (Horn, 2008; Kennedy, 1999,
2005). As a consequence, many novice teachers simply succumb to the dominant practices of their particular schools or retreat to the practices they experienced as students
153
(Borko et al., 2000; Brouwer & Korthagen, 2005; Lortie, 1975; Peressini, Borko,
Romagnano, Knuth, & Willis, 2004; Zeichner & Tabachnick, 1981). In this way, the
acquireapply pedagogy of teacher education has greatly limited teachers and teacher
educators ability to transform teaching practice, highlighting the consequential tension
of the Learning Outcome Dilemma.
Since the regression to traditional practice is such a common finding in teacher
education research, the acquireapply pedagogy has already been a target for other
redesign efforts. Numerous teacher educators have worked to be mindful and move
beyond traditional university learning activities. For instance, novices often rehearse
components of teaching in what Grossman and her colleagues have called approximations
of practice (2009). These pedagogies have a long history in teacher education, from
microteaching (Kallenbach & Gall, 1969) to the more recent content-specific rehearsals of
instructional activities (Lampert & Graziani, 2009). Yet even when teacher educators
broaden their teaching tools to couple approximations with analytic decompositions
(Grossman, Compton, et al., 2009), these approaches may remain inadequate for overcoming the gap.
Why is this? To begin with, enactments are not typically done in the complex
environment of the classroom. While they may give novice teachers an embodied
experience of, say, giving clear directions or explaining an idea, they omit the oftenunpredictable responses of students, leaving critical aspects of the work unrepresented.
Even when fellow novices are asked to play the role of students, they are likely to draw on
their own (successful) experience in school, under-representing hard-to-reach students.
Likewise, critiquing traditional schooling through decompositions may motivate novices
to learn new teaching practices, but it does not guarantee their effective implementation.
In sum, acquireapply pedagogy not only exacerbates the coursework/fieldwork gap,
it does so by underrepresenting the complexity of the classroom and limiting novices
ability to learn about responsive, ambitious teaching practices. Even when instructors try
to bring in complexity through richer representations of practice (Grossman, Compton,
et al., 2009; Little, 2003), they are limited by the affordances of the traditional teacher
education setting. For this reason, this standard pedagogy was also a target for redesign
towards one that deeply considers maintaining the complexity of practice while making it
visible to novices.
2.3. Marginalizing experienced teacher knowledge
The limitations of acquireapply pedagogy go beyond providing insufficient support for
the implementation of ambitious teaching practices. Returning to the endemic tension in
pre-service education between what is and what should be, we note that a focus on the
latter glosses schools as contexts with their own norms and practices worth understanding.
When university instructors view schools as settings in which novices should apply the
ideas and practices from coursework, they unintentionally de-value the extant norms and
practices in the field. Because not all field placements have norms and values worth
emulating, the landscape for pre-service instruction grows complicated quickly, leading
some pre-service educators to support partnerships with like-minded placements (DarlingHammond, Bullmaster, & Cobb, 1995). Brouwer and Korthagen (2005) report that this
strategy of deep university-field alignment provides better contexts for novices long term
learning, but we wonder whether the radical heterogeneity of US schools would affect
what they found in the Netherlands; in the United States, more homogenous contexts for
teacher learning may only delay the clash of teaching values until the novice finds a
154
full-time position outside the universitys sphere of influence (Ward et al., 2011).
Although more university-based teacher education programs are beginning to re-evaluate
the role of clinical experiences in their programs, the field of teacher education continues
to position schools as places to demonstrate learning rather than places in which to learn
(Zeichner, 2010b).
Acquireapply pedagogy also devalues experienced teachers knowledge. In particular, this approach privileges the universitys view of good teaching practice and reduces
practitioner knowledge as unimportant or irrelevant (Feiman-Nemser, 1998). This stance
on practitioner knowledge leads to attitudes such as a deficit view of teacher practice
(Britzman, 2003), putting novices in the uneasy position of disdaining what they are
working to become.
However, because traditional forms of teaching continue their dominance in US
classrooms (Banilower, Smith, Weiss, & Pasley, 2006), much to the chagrin of those
wanting to promote ambitious instruction, this stance is easy to fall into. If we take a step
back to think about teaching more than teachers, we see a profession embedded in
organizations with certain resources, values and demands. We do not, for instance, have
effective systems for ongoing teacher professional development. Even as teacher educators, we do not typically help this issue: few teacher education programs have resources to
support mentor teachers development, even though we know mentors trained in targeted
forms of practice are more effective in supporting student teachers (Dever, Hager, &
Klein, 2003; McIntyre & Killian, 1987). Such mentors are few and far between, perpetuating the gap and continuing the marginalization of practicing teachers knowledge and
limiting the value of their guidance for the new teachers. The problem for teacher
educators then becomes finding ways to support practicing teachers and valuing their
particular expertise, even if their practice does not reflect the ideals promoted in teacher
education.
Again, taking the larger view on the cultural context of teaching, we can reframe the
misalignment between university methods and the field. Instead of positioning traditional
practices as a deficit of the teachers themselves, we contextualize their ubiquity, in part, as
a consequence of how schooling is organized. Additionally, we as teacher educators value
what practicing teachers do have to offer, even if their instructional methods do not align
to the ideal of ambitious practice. For instance, they often have deep knowledge of their
students, parents, community setting and time management on the job.
In this review of prior work on novice teachers learning in teacher education, we
point to the typical and often problematic relationship between teacher education coursework and the field, highlighting the ways in which institutional arrangements contribute to
the Learning Outcomes Dilemma. In the next section, we discuss how we responded to
these issues in our re-design.
3. Theory and methods: designing to develop pedagogical judgment

In an effort to deliberately engage the Learning Outcome Dilemma, our redesign was
guided by the question: what would be a desirable learning outcome for novice teachers at
the end of teacher education? Following Kennedys (1999) analysis of pre-service education, we aimed our design at fostering novices situated knowledge [], knowledge that
is understood through specific situations rather than, or in addition to, knowledge that is
understood abstractly (p. 71; emphasis in the original). In other words, rather than the
typically inert, propositional knowledge supported through acquireapply pedagogy, we
155
wanted to support the development of enacted, situated knowledge that, in Lamperts

words:
involves being fluent with routines in order to work efficiently and innovate when necessary, rethinking key ideas, practices, and values in order to respond to nonroutine inputs.
(2010, p. 24).
We also wanted to extend other innovative pedagogies in teacher education that focus on
instructional activities to put more emphasis on the latter part of Lamperts formulation:
the need in teaching to respond to nonroutine inputs.
In our view, this is where the responsiveness of ambitious practice often falls
short. Teachers need frameworks to work nimbly in the commonplace situation where
students do not respond to activities as expected. For this reason, our learning goal
was for novices to develop pedagogical judgment. Perennial puzzles of teaching
whom to call on, how much time to spend on a topic, whether to proceed with a
lesson as written or attend to an unanticipated student misunderstanding often have
indeterminate answers and rely on teachers pedagogical judgment built on their
situated knowledge of their particular teaching context. Pedagogical judgment is at
the very heart of ambitious teaching practices. By design, these practices aim to be
responsive to particularities of students and situations the very thing our novices
struggled with coming out of our earlier methods class. Our goal, then, was to help the
novices develop views on teaching that would sharpen their responsiveness to these
critical moments of classroom life.
Based on earlier work on pedagogical reasoning (Horn, 2005, 2007; Horn & Little,
2010), we noted that a hallmark of sophisticated pedagogical judgment is ecological
thinking about the classroom. That is, teachers accomplished in ambitious instruction
reason about situations in ways that keep in mind the interconnectedness among things
like classroom climate, teaching moves, student participation, mathematical activities
and student learning. For our design, we would view novices articulation of pedagogical problems and tradeoffs in instructional choices as evidence of pedagogical
judgment.
In the spirit of design research (Cobb et al., 2003), we set out to build off of the
critique of the acquireapply pedagogy to reformulate our methods class, with an aim
toward cultivating novices pedagogical judgment. In design research, investigators
leverage the empirical and theoretical findings of earlier scholars to re-imagine educational situations. In this way, we worked to re-imagine the relationships among novices,
practicing teachers, methods instructors, coursework and field placements using perspectives on learning that stood to cultivate this form of knowledge.
To support our work, we primarily drew on a situative perspective on learning. Greeno
(2006) describes a situative approach as one that focuses on individual learners in activity
systems. In this view, information structures such as knowledge and beliefs are insufficient in themselves for thinking about learning. Instead, analyses of learning need to
encompass broader activities, including the activity systems of both coursework and
school placements. As we will explain in this section, three concepts from sociocultural
learning theory organized our redesign framework. These are contradictions, identities,
and hybridity, and they capture the interface between the individual learners and the
activity systems through which they learned.
156
3.1. Contradictions
Learners make sense of new ideas through activity systems. To capture the nature of
learning through activities, we drew on Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT). Like
other sociocultural perspectives, CHAT emphasizes that learning and development are
socially mediated activities (Edwards, 2005; Engestrm, 1999; Roth & Lee, 2007). That
is, people learn through participation in cultural contexts and through their use of cultural
artefacts, or tools, which support their actions and help to interpret what is culturally
relevant (Edwards, 2011). As people engage in situated practices, they interpret and act
upon their world through their use of these conceptual and material tools. Their actions
and tools change their world so that learners continually shape and are shaped by their
environment (Edwards, 2005; Roth & Lee, 2007).
CHAT helped us frame coursework and field placement activities as two different
systems that would reflect different values and knowledge that the novice teacher learners
would need to negotiate. In the previous section, we made much of the contradictions and
tensions between coursework and the field placements that novices had to navigate in
traditional teacher education. CHAT takes such conflicts as a given by highlighting
tensions between learning as an internal process and learning as a process of socialization
(Engestrm, 2001; Gutirrez, BaquedanoLpez, & Tejeda, 1999). Taking tensions as
given and using this analytic framework, we conceptualized the courseworkfieldwork
gap in teacher education as a result of contradictions between two learning-to-teach
settings, the university and field, and worked to imagine the ways these tensions can be
productive for learning. The central contradiction we sought to reconceptualize stemmed
from the potential identity conflict in new teachers disdaining what they were working to
become. By making practicing teachers practice and thinking available to novices, we
sought structures that would uncover the connections and complexity to help reconcile the
seeming incongruities. We focused on designing a new activity system that drew on each
of the original settings, what we called the Mediated Field Experience.
3.2. Identities
Early on in the original TNE study, we saw the value of looking at the relationship
between novice teachers identities and their learning during their pre-service education.
The concept of identity provides a helpful link between sociocultural learning theory and
longstanding work on teacher development (e.g., Cochran-Smith, 1991, 2004). Identity, as
an analytic construct, provides descriptive language capturing both individuals dispositions and the different environments they encounter; it helps us see the novices whose
learning we are trying to understand in context. For example, in our initial study, the
multiple meanings of good teacher revealed one source of these contradictions. In the
teacher preparation program, judgments of goodness highlighted fidelity to disciplinary
thinking (in our case, mathematics) and inclusion of a broad range of students in
instructional activities. Judgments of goodness varied in the novices field placements,
focusing on anything from dynamic instruction, positive relationships with students, good
classroom management, or good test scores.
Identity, as a construct, helped us reconcile the contradictions described in the
previous section. Note, for instance, that in the images of good teaching we highlighted,
the ideas emphasized in different settings are not mutually exclusive. In this way, the
concept of identity pressed us to design structures and activities that would create
coherence across these often-divergent settings to allow novices a strong identification
157
with each place. In our ideal structure, the novice teachers could be both intellectual (a
primary value of university instructors) and authentic (a primary value of mentor teachers), not forced to choose one dimension of teaching identity over the other. Instead of
trying to eliminate the gap between coursework and field placements, we sought to
reconceptualize it. The question then became one of making places for novice learning
that were intellectual and authentic, that valued multiple forms of pedagogical
competence.
3.3. Hybridity
The idea of hybridity helped us think carefully about the new learning environment we
would design with elements of the two activity systems that supported novices teaching
identities as intellectual and authentic. Hybrid learning spaces contain elements of the
original settings, including discourses and cultural patterns of interaction, but these
elements are themselves transformed through the interaction of multiple settings. In
their research in elementary school classrooms, Gutirrez and colleagues viewed hybrid
learning environments as polycontextual, multivoiced, and multiscripted (1999, p. 286),
another way of naturalizing contradictions across settings.
For our purposes, we sought to create a hybrid space between coursework and field
placements. In the resulting mediated field experience (MFE), activity was directed
toward novice teachers learning. Because the expertise novice teachers need in order to
learn how to teach is located in schools, colleges and universities, and communities, the
practices and activities of the MFE needed to strategically incorporate the knowledge of
both the university and the field. In doing this, a reorganization of roles, division of labour
and ways of participating created new activities and outcomes that could help to resolve
the contradictions between the two original activity settings.
Through the creation of the MFE, we recognize that simply moving a university-based
course into the field does not necessarily shift the ways in which novice teachers access
different forms of knowledge. Rather, it is the inclusivity of the activities and structures,
the privileging of knowledge often marginalized in more traditional forms of teacher
education, which help create such a hybrid space. In the next section, we provide
principles, rooted in providing novice teachers access to multiple forms of knowledge,
for the design of the MFE.
3.4. Design conjecture

To create a hybrid space that leveraged the strengths of both coursework and field settings,
we redesigned our methods course to help the novice teachers develop the understandings
about classroom life that would support them in doing this complex work.
Our principle conjecture wove our guiding concepts together: by attending to contradictions across settings and supporting positive teaching identities through the design of
hybrid settings that embraced the contradictions of coursework and school placements, we
could support novice teachers in developing a particular form of situated teacher knowledge, pedagogical judgment.
To specify this notion, we came up with six pedagogical principles for the MFE. We
have labelled them as addressing contradictions (C), identities (I), or hybridity (H) to point
to the parts of our design conjecture that they responded to. They were the following:
158
(1) Complexity. Providing novice teachers with a common object of classroom

instruction that, unlike video and cases, is fully dimensional will help them see
complexity in teaching. (C)
(2) Collegiality. Introducing novice teachers to collegial teaching where instruction
and curriculum planning are public and open to discussion will support the
exploration and reconciliation of any (desired) conflicts that arise and contribute
to the development of pedagogical judgment. (C, I)
(3) Student Learning. Focusing novice teachers attention squarely on student learning over time while making connections between student learning and teaching
practice will contribute to the development of pedagogical judgment. (C, H)
(4) Transparency. Instructors and partner teachers working collaboratively to support
novice teachers as they observe and make sense of common aspects of classroom
life that are often invisible to the novice eye (e.g., norms, status, transitions) will
help with the development of pedagogical judgment. (C, I, H)
Our labelling of each of these ideas is not meant to be exclusive, but highlights the ways
we attended to our interpretation of the literature in our redesign.
4. The redesigned methods course
In this section, we give an overview of the previous iteration of the course and the ways
we incorporated our pedagogical principles into the redesign.
4.1. Background: the original mathematics methods course
The original mathematics methods course was centred on four essential questions
(Wiggins & McTighe, 2005) that guided the activities, readings and discussions throughout the quarter. These were the following:
Why do some students struggle in math?

What does it mean to teach mathematics for understanding?
What is equitable mathematical learning?
What kind of classrooms, curricula and teaching practices optimally support
equitable mathematical learning?
Activities at the university were typical of a methods course. The novice teachers engaged
in mathematics tasks meant for secondary students and explored the mathematical ideas
within the task as a way of anticipating students responses. They would read papers on
effective teaching, watch video case studies, analyse mathematical tasks for cognitive
demand (Henningsen & Stein, 1997), rehearse high-press questioning (Kazemi & Stipek,
2001), and put these practices together for an end-of-quarter microteaching assignment.
Complex instruction served as the primary ambitious pedagogy in both the original
and MFE versions of the course (Cohen, 1994; Horn, 2012). Concepts and practices such
as recognizing student status dynamics, creating multiple-ability mathematics tasks and
effectively using groupwork roles and norms were taught, rehearsed and discussed
throughout the quarter.
Before the MFE, the methods course spanned two quarters, meeting two days each
week at the university. During weeks five and six of the first 10 week quarter, novice
teachers left the university coursework and had their first full time field experience. As is
159
typical with field placements, they were placed in distinct classrooms and most often in
different schools. The university instructors gave novice teachers assignments during the
field experience, but other than that had little connection to their school-based activities.
At the conclusion of the two-week field component, the novice teachers would then return
to the university to complete their remaining coursework for the quarter.
In the revised version of the methods course which included the MFE structure, the
methods course met once a week on campus for the 10-week period. For seven of the ten
weeks, instructors, novice teachers and partner teachers met together a second day at the
partner school. The university activities remained more or less the same. The main (and
significant) difference was that they were followed up by related, structured observations
in partner classrooms. The partner classrooms were selected based on a previously
established partnership with an urban public school, Septima Clark High School.1 We
detail the formation and structure of the partnership in the next section.
4.2. Mediated field experience redesign: partner classrooms
Our goal was to find partner classrooms where we could create hybrid-learning environments for our novice teachers. Septima Clark was well suited for this since the mathematics teachers were actively working to improve their teaching practice and increase
their students success. They had participated for the previous 5 years in a professional
development project led by the first author that used complex instruction as a vehicle for
equitable mathematics teaching, the same ambitious pedagogy we built our methods
course around.2 In this way, both groups of teachers were working on the same pedagogy.
Important for our goals for both projects, the teachers were personally and emotionally
invested in helping their students succeed in mathematics and were persistent in their
efforts to improve their instruction. This alignment of goals served to support our hybridlearning environment (Wenger, 1998).
4.2.1. Contributions of partner teachers
Because we wanted to reduce identity conflict in our novices learning, we intentionally
focused on the important resources the Septima Clark teachers brought to the partnership. First, they had developed collegial norms and conversational practices to support
public reflection and investigation into their practice (Bannister, in press). Second, they
were conversant in the target pedagogy of the methods class and familiar with the
concepts the instructors used in the course. They had trusting relationships with the
instructors, characterized by mutual respect and shared curiosity. Additionally, they
taught a diverse group of students, providing the methods instructors a means for
teaching the novices how to have respectful curiosity about different childrens mathematical engagement and thinking, something glaringly underrepresented in the original
methods class. Finally, the meta-message of the partnership conveyed to the novice
teachers was that hybrid teacher identities exist: they need not choose between a
university/intellectual and a classroom/authentic identity as teachers.3 They could, as
they say, have it all.
The MFEs goals were to be mutually beneficial: to work in what Cochran-Smith
(1991) has called collaborative resonance by offering learning opportunities for all
involved. The MFE worked to link what novice teachers learn in their preparation
programs with what they learn in their field experience by providing them with both
the analytical skills they need to think critically about school practices and the resources
160
to function as social agents. In addition to the resources the Septima Clark teachers
offered, our partnership supported the partner teachers through the novice teachers
targeted observations and our collective discussions. The partner teachers reported being
more intentional on the days when the novices visited. Their continued participation
with the university over 6 years provided evidence that they found value in our shared
work.
4.3. A hybrid-learning environment for novice teachers, teachers and instructors

Our goal was to create a productive hybrid-learning environment for the novices, partner
teachers and methods instructors, integrating and expanding university and practitioner
knowledge. Using the principles of complexity, collegiality, student learning and transparency (Figure 1), we structured learning activities as described in this section. First, novices
were introduced to a concept or practice in a university activity. In the next class session,
they participated in a guided observation in partner teachers classrooms. During these
observations, interns were paired with students the partner teachers identified as struggling in mathematics. This structure allowed the interns to observe the classroom through
these students. Immediately after the guided reflection, the interns would debrief with the
partner teachers and instructors. Finally, the novices submitted written reflections after this
cycle of activity.
Our weekly themes strongly resembled those of the original methods class, highlighting important concepts or practices for effective ambitious mathematics teaching.
Each week, at the first of our two class meetings, novice teachers and instructors gathered
at the university and participated in fairly standard course activities around topics such as
high-press questioning, maintaining cognitive demand or status dynamics in the classroom. The second meeting of the week took place in our partner classrooms. This second
meeting was a guided classroom observation attended by all novices and university
instructors. This observation was considered a shared text and focused on the same
topic as the previous days work in the university.
Pairing of novices with

struggling students not
like them
Guided
observation
Partner
teacher
debrief
Written
reflection
University
activity
Figure 1.
Developing a concept through the hybrid activities of the MFE.
161
4.3.1. Student-novice pairing

Our design needed to serve the goal of keeping student learning in the centre of the
novices emergent understandings of teaching. Before our first MFE visit to Septima
Clark High School, the partner teachers provided us with a list of students struggling in
their classrooms. We asked the partner teachers to specify the reasons the students were
having difficulty. Novices were asked to select a student for focused observation who was
unlike them in some important way. For instance, highly organized novices were encouraged to pair with a student with the messy backpack who always lost his homework;
novices who had never been outside of the United States were prompted to pair with
recent immigrants.
The novices discretely observed their focal student during each guided observation.
This structure supported our goal of broadening the novices pedagogical reasoning by
developing their sensitivity to the diversity of student experience, particularly experiences
significantly departing from their own. Research shows that novice teachers often make
the narcissist error; that is, they often gravitate to structures and practices they liked as
students (Hargreaves, 1994). Observing the same focal students across a 10-week period
aimed to broaden their pedagogical judgment by familiarizing them with students whose
experience in math class differed from their own. We reasoned that this pairing would
enable the novices to look more closely at the relationships between context and student
engagement in mathematics learning.
Critical to their role as observer, the novices sat in proximity to their focal students
without interacting with them beyond smiles and simple greetings. From the university
instructors standpoint, the novices initial visits to the classroom provided opportunities
to observe how students made sense of mathematical ideas and responded to different
activities. From our partner teachers perspective, teacherly interactions would inhibit the
students own burgeoning mathematical independence and the newly developed interdependence within their small groups. If the novices had interacted freely with the students,
it would have inhibited the students interactions with each other. The students would no
longer look to their group members for help but would instead begin to look to the novice
teacher for explanations and assistance.
4.3.2. Structuring the visits

We structured our visits so there was mutual transparency about our partner teachers
goals and our own. With the assumption that inherent contradictions exist across our
settings, we nonetheless tried to support novices concept development by coordinating
our work. The partner teachers had copies of the syllabus and access to readings at the
beginning of our work together.
Before each observation, the university instructor and partner teachers communicated
over email. The instructor informed the partner teachers of the weekly theme. When
available in advance, the partner teachers also received observation guides and anticipated
discussion questions. In return, the partner teachers emailed the instructor the lesson they
intended to teach during the observation and sent any handouts they planned to use in
class.
The novices then received this information and were instructed to informally explore
the mathematics activity before the observation. In practice, this scheme did not always
work, as partner teachers made last minute adjustments to their plans based on student
learning or unanticipated events at their school. When it worked, this supported the
162
novices guided observations, since we prompted them to anticipate how their focal
students might solve the problem and then see how students thinking actually unfolded
in class. When it did not, we could reflect with the novices on how teachers need to adjust
the pace of instruction for a variety of reasons, in line with the complex realities of
teaching.
4.3.2.1. Guided observation. During the classroom visits, novices used protocols to
guide their observations, some of which were co-planned by the partner teachers and
instructors. For example, the second weeks theme centred on the question, What keeps
students from learning math? Our goal was to focus the students on the social and
emotional aspects of mathematics classrooms through the concept of equal status participation (Cohen, 1994; Horn, 2012). This is often a hard concept for novices to understand as it is dynamic: it refers to mathematical conversations that emphasize what is
being said rather than who says it and in which every student feels entitled to participate.
During the guided observations, the novices were instructed to use an interaction
tracker, noting verbal and nonverbal student participation in the small groups they
observed. This activity not only allowed the novices to focus on studentstudent interactions but to notice how the interactions shifted in response to varying activity structures
and teacher interactions.
In this way, the guided observations moved novices past the abstract ideas of the
concept of equal status participation and introduced a level of complexity, focusing their
attention on often-imperceptible aspects of classroom life. The tool, as an artefact, lived in
a productive hybrid space between the university and the classroom, representing both
instructor and partner teacher goals: it pressed the novices to attend to aspects of practice
deemed central by both the university instructor through the essential questions of the
course and the partner teachers through their teaching goals of increasing student participation. (In fact, the partner teachers asked if they could keep the filled out trackers as a
way to check on the students small group dynamics).
4.3.2.2. Debrief. The debrief was the heart of the MFE and where its design parts ways
with many models of traditional field experiences. Conceptually, it allowed us as instructors to help the rubber of theory meet the road of practice, with all the varieties of friction
and smoothness this metaphor implies. Our leading concepts of complexity, collegiality,
student learning and transparency all came together in a dialogic encounter with pedagogical judgment.
Immediately following each observation, the novices, partner teachers and university
instructors gathered in one classroom to debrief the observations. We had a routine for
debriefing sessions. First, the partner teachers detailed their goals for the days lesson,
what they thought their students had learned, their evidence of student learning and what
more they thought their students needed to learn. This allowed partner teachers to model
their pedagogical reasoning for the novices. This supported our principles of student
learning and transparency, while giving novices access to more expert teachers pedagogical judgment. Additionally, given the thoughtful way our partner teachers engaged in
the debrief sessions, it also supported a view of classroom complexity and modelled a
form of collegiality.
On a few occasions, these conversations challenged partner teachers because the
lessons did not succeed in ways they had hoped. However, leveraging the trust we had
established and in a great display of transparency, the partner teachers talked openly about
why they thought the lessons did not go as they had planned, usually pointing to their
163
assumptions about how students would respond to a lesson. For example, a worksheet
they had created in their collaborative planning period was deemed too challenging; the
partner teachers had overestimated the students prior understanding. These instances
also modelled another kind of pedagogical reasoning: the post hoc analyses that stand to
inform partner teachers next steps with their class, continuously refining and improving
their practice.
In the second part of the debrief routine, we invited the novice teachers to share
observations or ask the partner teachers questions centred on the weekly focus. Typically,
the questions and observations involved particular pedagogical decisions made by the
partner teachers or specific students and their histories as mathematics learners in that
classroom. Again, this made experienced teachers pedagogical reasoning and judgment
available to the novices. The partner teachers valued these discussions since they gained
additional insights into the focal students, precisely the children about whom they had the
most concern.
The debriefing sessions lasted about one hour, with roughly half of that time allocated
to the first part of the routine and half allocated to the second. The instructors focused on
facilitation, letting the main dialogue go on between the novice teachers and partner
teachers, only occasionally offering their own perspectives to connect up to the university
activities. This structure allowed for interpretive conflicts novices might see a teacher
giving a student more time to explain than others as unfair, which the partner teachers
might then reframe as important for the whole classs learning while revealing pedagogical reasoning and modelling collegiality, supporting the goal of hybridity. All of the
novices were required to speak during the debrief through a go-around protocol (e.g., go
around and share one observation or ask a question about something).
4.3.2.3. Reflection. In the second iteration of the MFE, novices were required to submit a
short online reflection the same evening of the observation. This additional design
element was added because instructors wanted to better assess all of the novices
sensemaking and provide a place for them to air questions or thoughts that they might
not want to share in front of the partner teachers out of a concern for being rude or
presumptuous. They were instructed to write their reflections based on the weekly theme,
university activities, guided observations and debrief sessions. This reflection activity
aimed to bring coherence to the novices learning by having them synthesize across these
experiences to articulate their current understanding of a critical teaching concept or
practice. For the instructors, the reflections served as formative assessment, allowing us
to identify what ideas the novices were struggling with and modify the focus of subsequent activities in the university-based part of the course. For our research, the reflections
served as a rich data set for examining the ways in which novices made these connections.
5. Data collection and analysis

5.1. Research design and setting
Our work aims to explore novice teacher learning in the cross-contextual learning
environment of the MFE. Our research sought proof-of-concept: can we redesign a
secondary mathematics methods course in ways that attend to our leading concepts and
support novices development of pedagogical reasoning? Given the situative nature of
design work, we have already provided a rich description of our research context. In
addition to ourselves as instructors, we include our partner teachers from Septima Clark
164
High School, whose experience ranged from 2 to 15 years. We note that we worked in a
relatively small-sized teacher education program and had between 8 and 12 novice
teachers during each MFE cycle.
5.2. Researcher roles and data collection

Our data come from two design cycles with this work. The first author led the instructional activities for the first cycle during the 20072008 academic year. The second author
participated by consulting on the design choices and collecting observational notes of the
MFE. To better understand how novices pedagogical judgment developed, we followed
four of them into their student teaching, conducting interviews and observations.
The second design cycle, which included revisions based on what was learned through
the first cycle and subsequent cycles, took place in 20082010. Another researcher
instructed the course, while the second author took on the role of collecting observational
records of the MFE for her dissertation (Campbell, 2012).
Data collection sought to capture novices learning across the settings of the MFE. We
collected data for two cycles of the 10-week course. Primary data were records of the
post-observation debrief, audio recorded interviews with novice teachers and written
reflections from novices in the second design cycle. In the first cycle, we have fieldnotes
of the debriefs, while in the second, we have video recordings. Interviews and videos were
both transcribed. Secondary data included artefacts of the MFE redesign (e.g., syllabus,
planning notes, observation protocols, methods course observations) and informal conversations with novices, which were memoed.
5.3. Data analysis

In looking at the effectiveness of the MFE, we sought evidence of novices development
of pedagogical judgment. To identify pedagogical judgment, we looked for critical
incidents (Emerson, Fretz, & Shaw, 2011) that signalled synthetic learning on the part
of the novices, precisely what our earlier methods course did not adequately support. That
is, we wanted to see evidence of novice teachers ecological thinking about teaching
through their identification of interrelationships among teaching practices, student learning and mathematics content.
For the first cycle, notes of the debrief sessions were read in an open coding manner
(Miles & Huberman, 1994), looking for evidence of novices learning. For the second
cycle, we added the written reflection element to the MFE with an aim of getting more of
the novices to make the kind of connections that some of the novices did in the first cycle,
ones that would support the development of pedagogical judgment. We analysed the
second cycle data in a similar open coding manner, looking for evidence of learning
across debrief transcripts, interviews and novices written reflections.
Using these critical learning incidents, we constructed narratives to show the unique
learning opportunities the hybrid learning environment of the MFE, with an emphasis on
the MFE resources they drew on that supported their critical insights. We argue that the
MFE structure, on the whole, afforded novices opportunities to develop situated understandings of teaching practices to support their emerging pedagogical judgment.
165
6. Looking at the development of pedagogical judgment through hybrid learning

environments
In this section, we present three narratives of novice teacher learning using critical
learning incidents of Luke, Hannah and Suzanne. Suzannes case came from the first
MFE cycle (20072008 academic year), while Luke and Hannah came from the
second (20082009 academic year). We make two claims about these critical learning
incidents, which we identified through their talk in the debriefs, written reflections and
interviews. First, the hybrid-learning environment of the MFE uniquely fostered this
learning. Second, the learning supported the development of pedagogical judgment.
We present each case of learning by providing an overview of the teaching knowledge the novices developed and its relation to ambitious teaching. We then describe the
critical learning incidents, explaining how the MFE uniquely supported it. Finally, we
explore how this understanding might support the learning outcome of pedagogical
judgment.
6.1. Luke: the need for classroom norms to cohere across activities
6.1.1. What was learned
Luke learned about the interplay of norms across classroom activities. Typically, novice
teachers are focused on getting through their lesson plan and do not attend to the
potentially contradictory messages about valued participation across, say, a classroom
competition and a cooperative group. Indeed, we saw this exact contradiction and subsequent student shutdown in our earlier study of the original methods course (Horn,
2008). Sophisticated teachers recognize the need to align norms across activities to give
students coherent messages. Norms are consequential for student learning: they communicate important messages about what mathematics is, how to participate and whose ideas
are valued in a classroom (Yackel & Cobb, 1996).
6.1.2. How Lukes learning was supported by the MFE

The weekly concept was on the importance of fostering positive interdependence among
students in collaborative learning. Positive interdependence where students rely on and
value each others thinking supports the creative and respectful exchange of ideas and
well-distributed participation. The goal is to minimize the common problems of dominance or non-participation in collaborative learning (Horn, 2012). The guided observation question was, How are teachers facilitating the lesson so that students are making
connections across each others ideas?
During the lesson, one of the partner teachers, Wendy Meyer, explicitly told her
students that she wanted them to use each others thinking. Afterwards, in the debriefing
session, one of the novices, Luke, noticed how Wendy had extended this expectation of
her students beyond the groupwork setting into a student presentation during a whole
class discussion. In this way, Wendy unwittingly modelled how to connect norms across
both situations.
As Luke recounted during the debrief, Wendy had asked a student, Marisol, to come
to the front and present a solution to a problem. Marisol struggled to communicate her
thinking. Luke went on to describe the interaction:
166
Marisol, she was unprepared but she went up to the board [] and Asheed said, She messed
up, huh, Ms. Meyer? and Wendy said, Youre in her group! Why arent you you should
be keeping track of this and helping out! So really putting the responsibility back on the
students and making sure they are focused on their groups. (4.23.2010, MFE debrief)
Lukes final sentence summarized the significance of Wendys reminder to Asheed that he
was to help Marisols thinking, not just correct it. Luke linked the interaction to the theme
of positive interdependence: in the whole class setting, Wendy [put] the responsibility
back on the students to support each other, in and out of their groups.
Lukes astute connection about how the norm for positive interdependence could be
supported across activity structures was uniquely afforded by the MFE, an observation
that could not be as clearly communicated in either the university or the field alone. It is a
challenging idea for teacher educators to highlight for novices, who might understand it in
the abstract but have trouble coordinating it with all the other issues competing for their
attention during instruction. From our own observations of her classroom, we think these
instructional moves were deeply intrinsic to Ms. Meyers practice.
6.1.3. How this understanding might contribute to pedagogical judgment

Pedagogical judgment is characterized by the ecological thinking captured in Lamperts
notion of needing to respond to nonroutine inputs (2010, p. 24). That is, teachers who
are effective with ambitious pedagogies must respond to students while keeping their eyes
on issues of classroom climate, content, pacing and broader learning goals. By recognizing the relationship of norms across settings, Luke was better prepared to take on the
potential conflicts in expectations in different activities in the classroom.
When Wendy asked Marisol to present and she really struggled, this became a
pedagogical problem. Decisions had to be made: should Wendy let her sit down? What
would that communicate to Marisol about the value of her rough draft thinking? Were
only correct and complete answers worth discussing? Should she have chastised Marisol
for not knowing since her group was ostensibly finished? Should she have helped her
along through leading questions that might lessen the intellectual work? As Luke noticed,
Wendy leveraged the norms developed in the small groups and demonstrated how that
same norm can apply to the presentations. Luke picked up on this as a judgment Wendy
made. It was not solely Marisols responsibility to be prepared for the presentation the
responsibility continued to fall on her entire group. This interaction, within the context of
the classroom dynamics and history, revealed to Luke the relationship between reinforcing
group interdependence and its consequences for other aspects of Wendys classroom
culture.
6.2. Hannah: rethinking on-task versus engagement
Hannah learned important differences between on-task and engaged student behaviour. In
discussion-centred mathematics classrooms, teachers often struggle to make this judgment. Most novices images of on-task behaviour come from traditional instruction, where
interactions are strongly teacher directed and students are limited to primarily academic
talk. Teachers working in discussion-centred classrooms need to reconceptualize what
student engagement looks like in this different setting. For instance, if students are given a
modelling problem to calculate which fast food chains French fries are a better deal, they
167
will most likely talk about French fries, fast food chains and other related topics in
addition to linear equations if they are engaged in the problem. When we broaden the
terrain of student learning and give students opportunities for sensemaking, the scope of
their talk will change accordingly, leading to different images of engagement.
Critical learning event: In the following excerpt from her reflection, Hannah commented on her observation of three boys who had lots of energy and (were) very
talkative:
I noticed that the students talked almost non-stop during the groupwork session. Their
discourse switched seamlessly and rapidly between math talk and social talk even some
quiet singing/chanting. I was using the task, social/personal, and behavior identifiers we
discussed in our Adolescent Development class to track interactions. After a few minutes, I
noticed that the boys continued to make steady progress on their worksheet even as they
bantered back and forth. Math talk seemed to break out whenever one of the students had a
question or was stuck on the problem. Then other group members would explain their
solution or offer suggestions. Just as quickly, the conversation returned to non-math related
topics. This pattern repeated continuously. At the end of the hour, the group had stayed
together and completed the front of the worksheet. During the Teacher Checkout [a classroom routine], each boy was able to successfully explain his reasoning in problem #3. This
made me wonder about the way I code student discourse. I was reminded of Boalers (2002)
remarks about off-task talk in Phoenix Park classrooms and Gays (2010) discussion of
culturally appropriate norms. I wonder if I need to adjust my interpretation of on-task, offtask discourse for this group of students. I wonder if my biases about appropriate student
behavior limit my ability to recognize all the times when students are doing math. (Hannah,
Reflection #6, 5.2010)
In this reflection, Hannah noted that the interwoven social and academic talk did not
detract from the students learning, as was evidenced by their performance with the
Teacher Checkout. By linking it to readings from her teacher education program,
Hannah made two important connections. First, by linking her observation to the Boaler
(2002) reading, Hannah invoked the distinction between compliance and learning, a
theme in that study. Second, Gays (2002) writing challenges teachers to understand
that the white middle class norms of school may not reflect childrens home cultures,
but these differences should not be seen as deficits. Hannah saw that the partner teacher,
by making a place for the boys less schoolish talk, made a place for their learning. As a
European American woman observing a classroom of mostly African American students,
Hannah commented on her own bias and reimagined the ways that she would respond
to on-task and off-task student talk in her future classrooms.
6.2.2. How the MFE supported this learning

The hybrid learning space of the MFE supported Hannahs synthesis of ideas from
multiple courses in her university teacher education program. Watching the boys work
more closely than she would be able to had she been conducting the class as a student
teacher or watching the lesson on video Hannah made critical links between readings in
her Math Methods (Boaler), Adolescent Development (task, social/personal scheme), and
Multicultural Education (Gay) courses. Ultimately, the work of teaching requires this kind
of synoptic analysis, making these linkages critical to Hannahs development. The push
for synthesis modelled in the MFE activity structure, as well as the ways this was
modelled through the debrief conversations, invited such extensions of the MFE.
168
6.2.3. How this learning contributes to pedagogical judgment
Teachers constantly make choices during instruction about speaking rights in the classroom (Cazden, 2001). Because Hannah could sit and observe the group interaction over
the entire class period, she was able to see the ways students got their work done. This
observation pushed against her previous conceptions about what on task looks like.
Sensitizing her to cultural differences and the ways social and academic talk can work
together, Hannah understood better that she needed to pay closer attention to what
students were actually doing when working small groups instead of just assuming that
social talk necessarily happened to the exclusion of learning. In her future work as a
teacher, this stood to inform her judgment about when students are engaged and how to
direct their discourse.
6.3. Suzanne: recognizing hidden competence

In our original methods class, we often emphasized the importance of getting to know
your students. It is a human truth that we are more willing to take risks when we trust that
our effort will be received with kindness and understanding. Making positive connections
to students engenders this trust and increases students willingness to think aloud and
contribute mathematically.
6.3.2. Critical learning event

To understand the significance of Suzannes learning, we must start with a bit of her
biography. Suzanne was highly sceptical of the teaching approach promoted in our
methods course. Teaching was Suzannes second career, and, given her own experiences,
she was sceptical about our emphasis on developing conceptual understanding in mathematics. Her own children had attended private schools where instruction strongly
resembled her own experiences as a student: mastery of procedures with limited applications in word problems. In an interview, Suzanne described herself as being a 4.0
student, over-achieving and competitive with myself and others. I am a perfectionist.
Suzannes critical learning event came over time, from an unexpected relationship she
built with her focal student Daniel. According to the partner teacher, Daniel struggled
because he was often absent and did not turn his homework in the ideal classroom tour
guide for organized and diligent Suzanne.
As Suzanne observed Daniel every week, she found herself bothered by his lack of
student skills. Soon, challenging circumstances in Daniels life led to a two-week absence.
When Daniel returned to school, the partner teacher asked Suzanne to work with him
individually to get him caught up. (This spontaneous tutoring, incidentally, was an
example of our presence serving as a resource to the partner teachers.)
Although we did not design for Suzanne to have individual time with Daniel, the
experience profoundly shifted Suzannes understanding of struggling students. In
Suzannes words:
Daniel was sharp but too cool to do any work. He didnt want anyone to know. [When I
worked with him] he was really successful. I learned how to not give up and let kids off the
hook.
169
Suzanne was surprised to find that disorganized Daniel had so much mathematical
aptitude. The experience she had with him drove a conceptual wedge for her between
being a good student and being good at math more powerfully, we add, than any of our
declarations that these were in fact different qualities.
Daniel became an important archetype for Suzanne as she entered her first year of
teaching. At her first full time position, she described a young man who reminded her of
Daniel and how she used what she learned from him to persist in working with this new
student:
Now I have a kid and he came into class as Mr. Macho. He came in not wanting to do
anything. He had a total attitude but I can tell he is really smart. One day I told him You are
so smart, why dont you do this stuff? Over the last several weeks, he really had a comeback. He participates from his seat. Now, Im going to work on getting him to come up to the
board and present. I didnt just write him off and I wouldnt let him sit in the back and do
nothing. My nagging was part of believing in him. One time I wrote on his paper: This is
really good why dont you let other people know how smart you are? (Suzanne, Interview
5A, 2007)
6.3.3. How the MFE supported this learning

Suzanne was able to reflect on what she learned about Daniel, distinguishing student skills
(organization, homework, compliance) with mathematical ability. Daniels example carried forth from the hybrid setting of the methods class into her own teaching, providing
her a way of interpreting the behaviour of this bright-but-macho student, reluctant to
participate, as well as a vision for a possible future that went against his own. Had
Suzanne not had the experience working with Daniel during the MFE, she may have
misunderstood this new students struggles in math, falling back on deficit-based narratives, and given up on him.
We believe that university coursework alone would not have sufficed in teaching a
novice like Suzanne, who was highly invested in traditional modes of instruction, the
important distinction between student competence and mathematical competence. The
MFE, with her poignant experience with Daniel, shifted Suzannes thinking in a way that
endured into her first years of teaching. In interviews, Suzanne reported always being on
the lookout for more Daniels in her classes.
6.3.4. How it contributes to pedagogical judgment

When teachers make decisions, they use what they know about students. The power of
expectations is a well-documented instructional phenomenon (Steele, 1997; Weinstein,
2002). Similar to Hannah, Suzanne recognized that she needed to stay open about students
and their engagement and ability in class. Hannahs observations challenged her assumptions about classroom talk, while Suzannes relationship with Daniel challenged her
assumptions that seemingly disengaged students are not smart. As a result of her experience, she reported a shift in stance to stay alert to students potential. She deepened her
pedagogical repertoire and took up the practices we worked on with our novices around
student status, working to broaden students understanding of what it means to be good at
math so they, too, can find their place in the mathematics classroom.
170
7. Discussion
We have presented three instances of novice teachers learning that, in our estimation,
arose out of the hybrid-learning environment of the MFE. By attending to contradictions
and giving novices opportunities to engage their identities, we saw powerful learning
happen. The understandings developed by Luke, Hannah and Suzanne would not have
come as readily through the university or the field alone. The hybrid learning environment, with its multiple discourses of academia and authentic practice, provided unique
opportunities for the novice teachers learning, providing them frameworks through which
to notice important aspects of classroom practice and complex settings in which to
develop their pedagogical judgment.
We summarize the cases of Luke, Hannah and Suzanne in Figure 2. We note that what
each novice learned involved aspects of teaching that, from our experience as teacher
educators, are difficult to communicate without live examples of practice. We also claim
that the MFE pedagogy supported the second part of ambitious practice the inclusion of
all students in ways that instructional activity pedagogies might not by supporting
novices in developing their ability to notice aspects of the classroom ecology that are
consequential for student participation and learning (van Es & Sherin, 2008).
These three examples built off of observations in the MFE spanning different amounts
of time and addressing different issues in teaching. Luke linked the way interactions
reinforce norms across activity structures in a single class period. Hannah made important
connections about student engagement, synthesizing ideas from multiple theoretical
perspectives through a single instance of classroom interaction. Suzanne learned to
distinguish doing school from learning mathematics by observing and developing a
relationship with Daniel over time. All of these are important concepts for novice teachers
to bring into their classrooms to support ambitious teaching practice, and the uniquely
hybrid structure of the MFE helped the novice teachers build these connections that will
support their future pedagogical judgment. These examples stand up to more careful
scrutiny of the data. In her analysis of the larger corpus of novice teachers learning in
the MFE, Campbell (2012) found that novice teachers learned to notice differently
through the hybrid learning environment before they were responsible for designing and
maintaining the activities in the classroom.
Novice
Luke
What was learned

Maintaining norms
across activities
Critical learning
event
Seeing a student held
to the same
expectations in two
activity settings
MFE contribution
Guided
observation,
debrief with
partner teacher
Pedagogical
judgment
Leveraging norms
in one activity to
support productive
student behavior in
another.
Hannah
On task and engaged

are not the same
Watching boys
switch seamlessly
between social and
mathematical talk
Guided
observation,
written reflection
Listen carefully to
students talk
before making
judgments about
whether learning is
going on.
Suzanne
Making distinctions
between doing school
and doing math
Working with a
student who was
good at doing math
but struggled with
doing school
Guided
observation,
debrief with
partner teacher
Students may be
capable of more
than meets the eye.
Figure 2. A summary of the cases of learning in the MFE and their contribution to pedagogical
judgment.
Guided
observation
Partner
teacher
debrief
171
Written
reflection
University
activity
Guided
observation
Partner
teacher
debrief
Written
reflection
University
activity
Guided
observation
Partner
teacher
debrief
Written
reflection
University
activity
Figure 3.
Representing multiple iterations of the MFE.
As Figure 3 represents, going through MFE routine repeatedly provided us as instructors to build concepts over time. The routine of university activity, guided observation,
debrief and reflections got repeated, giving instructors more opportunities to interweave
practice and theory. The class developed shared examples of practice from the guided
observations that become referents in university activities. Likewise, we revisited concepts
developed in earlier weeks as they emerged in subsequent observations. Future work can
better address the affordances of learning in the MFE over time, as novices build on and
revisit different concepts and episodes of teaching.
8. Limitations and promises of our approach

Like all complex and context-sensitive teaching approaches, the MFE has its challenges.
First, this teacher preparation pedagogy requires a particular type of relationship between
partner teachers and university instructors. In order for a teacher to agree to allow 10 to 20
novice teachers to observe their lesson on a weekly basis, the partner teacher must trust
that the university instructor will simultaneously protect the partner teachers needs,
represent the partner teachers practice respectfully in the university class and will
structure the debrief sessions in ways that benefit the partner teachers as well as the
novice teachers. In addition, the partner teachers and university instructors must take on
joint responsibility for communication about upcoming math activities, observation protocols and, most importantly, what they notice about how the novice teachers are making
sense of their experiences in the MFE.
Second, the university instructor needs facilitation skills that are different from the
skills needed to teach a typical methods course. This structure presses instructors to figure
out what is essential for novice teachers to learn. When the first author redesigned her
methods class to include the MFE, she had to significantly reduce her syllabus readings
and activities. As a consequence, the instructor needed to trust that the MFE could be an
172
alternative, and significantly more nuanced, way to go about teacher preparation. Rather
than staying within the safe and protected space of the university classroom where most
activities and events can be planned in advance, the instructor is required to be flexible
and responsive to the often unpredictable events in the classroom observations, as they
guide the content of the debrief conversation. This requires the instructor to hold onto the
critical focus of the observation, look for the student and teacher interactions during the
lesson that demonstrate the focus, while still being spontaneous. We have numerous
examples of this from our own instruction, but here it was illustrated by Suzannes
case. By letting her work one-on-one with Daniel instead of doing the observation as
planned, Suzanne had access to significant learning about teaching. Although this learning
opportunity was unique to her, she shared her experience with her classmates, who,
knowing Suzannes initial position on interactive teaching methods, took note of the
shifts in her thinking. This approach to teacher education takes both additional planning
and coordination while simultaneously heightening uncertainty.
Third, enacting the MFE requires teachers to take on an additional responsibility.
Although the teachers in our MFEs were compensated for their time, committing to
participate as a partner teacher in the MFE is a significant personal and professional
undertaking. It requires them to talk openly about their lessons, their students and their
school context. Not all MFE debrief sessions were lighthearted. At times, the lesson did
not go as the partner teacher had planned, and these days were filled with strong emotions.
With very little time for personal reflection, the partner teacher then had to reveal how and
why their lesson did not take its intended path. These were difficult conversations but also
critical in the learning process for novice teachers, as the partner teachers modelled coping
with the disappointing lesson.
Given these challenges, it is significant that the MFE continued over the last 6 years
with a number of Septima Clark High School math teachers participating as partner
teachers. It is obvious that they value this relationship and find it rewarding. In fact, one
of the partner teachers stated that she continued to participate in the MFE because she is:
willing to share my ideas and experiences. I am by no means saying, This is how you solve
this problem [of teaching]. But I am willing to talk about it. I am proud of being part of a
department that talks about this (4.2010).
She recognized expertise in teaching as a work in progress. Teachers improve in talking

about and analysing problems, but new issues arise constantly that respond to students
understandings and experiences.
In order for the partner teachers and university instructors to continue the MFE, both
groups of participants must fundamentally benefit in some way and believe that their work
also benefits the future teaching practices of the novice teachers who observe in the
classrooms. To date, this has been the experience of the novice teachers, instructors and
partner teachers in the MFE.
The second author has managed to continue developing her MFE pedagogy in an
elementary math methods class. The instructor, novices and partner teacher have found it
to be a positive experience: the novices reported it to be one of the most meaningful
experiences in their Masters in Teaching program and the partner teacher wanted to get
more involved in the co-planning. Given the potential to address the perennial courseworkfieldwork gap and the possibility of contributing to practicing teachers, we hope
others can benefit from what we have learned through this 6-year teaching experiment.
173
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Susan Nolen and Chris Ward for their collaboration in the study that inspired this
work. We are grateful to Elizabeth Self for providing helpful feedback on earlier versions of this article.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
This research was supported by a grant from the Carnegie Foundations Teachers for a New Era
project.
Notes
1.
2.
3.
This, along with all proper nouns, is a pseudonym to protect participants identities.
For more on The Adaptive Professional Development Project, please see Bannister (in press).
We state these dichotomies not to characterize the social position and related associations of
university and classroom settings, not to ennoble scholars or disparage teachers.
Notes on contributors
Ilana Seidel Horn is Associate Professor of Mathematics Education at Vanderbilt University
Peabody College. Her research uses sociolinguistic methods to study secondary mathematics
teachers learning, with the aim to improve education for students and supports for teachers,
particularly in urban schools. Her current research projects investigate instructional improvement
at scale and mathematics teachers use of student performance data.
Sara Sunshine Campbell is a faculty member at The Evergreen State College and teaches in the
Master in Teaching Program. Much of her work centres on supporting pre-service and in-service
teachers to implement teaching practices that support rich and equitable mathematics learning. She is
particularly interested in how to draw stronger connections between teacher education coursework
and classroom practice by leveraging practitioner knowledge.
References
Anagnostopoulos, D., Smith, E. R., & Basmadjian, K. G. (2007). Bridging the universityschool
divide horizontal expertise and the Two-Worlds Pitfall. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(2),
138152.
Ball, D. L., & Forzani, F. M. (2009). The work of teaching and the challenge for teacher education.
Journal of Teacher Education, 60(5), 497511. doi:10.1177/0022487109348479
Banilower, E. R., Smith, P. S., Weiss, I. R., & Pasley, J. D. (2006). The status of k12 science
teaching in the United States: Results from a national observation study. In D. W. Sunal & E. L.
Wright (Eds.), The impact of state and national standards on k12 science teaching (pp.
83122). Greenwich, CT: IAP.
Bannister, N. A. (in press). Reframing practice: Teacher learning through interactions in a collaborative group. Journal of the Learning Sciences.
Boaler, J. (2002). Experiencing school mathematics: Traditional and reform approaches and their
influence on student thinking. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Borko, H., & Mayfield, V. (1995). The roles of the cooperating teacher and university supervisor in
learning to teach. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11, 501518. doi:10.1016/0742-051X(95)
00008-8
Borko, H., Peressini, D., Romagnano, L., Knuth, E., Willis-Yorker, C., Wooley, C., Masarik, K.
(2000). Teacher education does matter: A situative view of learning to teach secondary mathematics. Educational Psychologist, 35(3), 193206. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3503_5
174
Brantilinger, A., & Smith, B. (2013). Alternative teacher certification and the new professionalism:
The pre-service preparation of mathematics teachers in the New York city teaching fellows
program. Teachers College Record, 115(7), 144.
Britzman, D. P. (2003). Practice makes practice: A critical study of learning to teach. Albany: State
University of New York Press.
Brouwer, N., & Korthagen, F. (2005). Can teacher education make a difference? American
Educational Research Journal, 42(1), 153224. doi:10.3102/00028312042001153
Campbell, S. S. (2012). Taking it to the field: Novice teacher learning about equity-oriented
mathematics teaching in a mediated field experience (Unpublished doctoral dissertation),
University of Washington, College of Education, Seattle.
Cazden, C. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of learning and teaching. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Clifford, G. J. (1990). Ed school: A brief for professional education. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in
educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 913. doi:10.3102/0013189X032001009
Cochran-Smith, M. (1991). Learning to teach against the grain. Harvard Educational Review, 61(3),
279310.
Cochran-Smith, M. (2004). Taking stock in 2004: Teacher education in dangerous times. Journal of
Teacher Education, 55(1), 37. doi:10.1177/0022487103261227
Cohen, E. G. (1994). Designing groupwork: Strategies for the heterogeneous classroom. New York,
NY: Teachers College Press.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2009). Charles W. Hunt lecture. Paper presented at the American
Association of Colleges of Teacher Education, Chicago, IL.
Darling-Hammond, L., Bullmaster, M. L., & Cobb, V. L. (1995). Rethinking teacher leadership
through professional development schools. The Elementary School Journal, 96, 87106.
doi:10.1086/461816
Dever, M. T., Hager, K. D., & Klein, K. (2003). Building the university/public school partnership: A
workshop for mentor teachers. The Teacher Educator, 38(4), 245255. doi:10.1080/
08878730309555321
Duncan, A. (2009). Teacher preparation: Reforming the uncertain profession remarks of secretary
Arne Duncan at teachers college, Columbia University. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/
news/speeches/2009/10/10222009.html
Edwards, A. (2005). Lets get beyond community and practice: The many meanings of learning by
participating. The Curriculum Journal, 16(1), 4965. doi:10.1080/0958517042000336809
Edwards, A. (2011). How can Vygotsky and his legacy help us to understand and develop teacher
education? In V. Ellis, A. Edwards, & P. Smagorinsky (Eds.), Cultural-historical perspectives
on teacher education and development. New York, NY: Routledge.
Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (2011). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Engestrm, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engstrom, R.
Miettinen, & R.-L. Punamaki-Gitai (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory: Learning in doing
(pp. 1938). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Engestrm, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity-theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14, 133156. doi:10.1080/13639080020028747
Feiman-Nemser, S. (1998). Teachers as teacher educators. European Journal of Teacher Education,
21(1), 6374. doi:10.1080/0261976980210107
Feiman-Nemser, S., & Buchmann, M. (1985). Pitfalls of experience in teacher preparation. Teachers
College Record, 87, 5365.
Gatlin, D. (2008). Thinking outside the university: Innovation in alternative teacher certification.
Washington, DC: Center for American Progress. Retrieved from http://www.americanprogress.
org/issues/2008/04/alternative_certification.html
Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(2),
106116.
Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Greeno, J. G. (2006). Learning in activity. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the
learning sciences (pp. 7996). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
175
Grossman, P., Compton, C., Igra, D., Ronfeldt, M., Shahan, E., & Williamson, P. (2009). Teaching
practice: A cross-professional perspective. The Teachers College Record, 111(9), 20552100.
Grossman, P., Hammerness, K., & McDonald, M. (2009). Redefining teaching, re-imagining teacher
education. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 15(2), 273289. doi:10.1080/
13540600902875340
Grossman, P., & McDonald, M. (2008). Back to the future: Directions for research in teaching and
teacher education. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 184205. doi:10.3102/
0002831207312906
Grossman, P. L., Smagorinsky, P., & Valencia, S. (1999). Appropriating tools for teaching English:
A theoretical framework for research on learning to teach. American Journal of EducationChicago, 108(1), 129. doi:10.1086/444230
Gutirrez, K. D., BaquedanoLpez, P., & Tejeda, C. (1999). Rethinking diversity: Hybridity and
hybrid language practices in the third space. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 6(4), 286303.
doi:10.1080/10749039909524733
Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times: Teachers work and culture in the
postmodern age. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Henningsen, M., & Stein, M. K. (1997). Mathematical tasks and student cognition: Classroom-based
factors that support and inhibit high-level mathematical thinking and reasoning. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 28(5), 524549. doi:10.2307/749690
Horn, I. S. (2005). Learning on the job: A situated account of teacher learning in high school
mathematics departments. Cognition and Instruction, 23(2), 207236. doi:10.1207/
s1532690xci2302_2
Horn, I. S. (2007). Fast kids, slow kids, lazy kids: Framing the mismatch problem in mathematics
teachers conversations. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(1), 3779.
Horn, I. S. (2008). Minding the gaps: Recontextualizing practices in teacher education. New York,
NY: American Educational Research Association annual meeting.
Horn, I. S. (2012). Strength in numbers: Collaborative learning in secondary mathematics. Reston,
VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Horn, I. S., & Little, J. W. (2010). Attending to problems of practice: Routines and resources for
professional learning in teachers workplace interactions. American Educational Research
Journal, 47(1), 181217. doi:10.3102/0002831209345158
Horn, I. S., Nolen, S. B., Ward, C., & Campbell, S. S. (2008). Developing practices in multiple
worlds: The role of identity in learning to teach. Teacher Education Quarterly, 35(3), 6172.
Kallenbach, W. W., & Gall, M. D. (1969). Microteaching versus conventional methods in training
elementary intern teachers. The Journal of Educational Research, 63, 136141. doi:10.1080/
00220671.1969.10883958
Kazemi, E., & Stipek, D. (2001). Promoting conceptual thinking in four upper-elementary mathematics classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 102(1), 5980. doi:10.1086/499693
Kennedy, M. (1999). The role of preservice teacher education. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes
(Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 426). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kennedy, M. M. (2005). Inside teaching: How classroom life undermines reform. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Lampert, M. (2010). Learning teaching in, from, and for practice: What do we mean? Journal of
Teacher Education, 61(12), 2134. doi:10.1177/0022487109347321
Lampert, M., Beasley, H., Ghousseini, H., Kazemi, E., & Franke, M. (2010). Using designed instructional
activities to enable novices to manage ambitious mathematics teaching. In M. K. Stein & L. Kucan
(Eds.), Instructional explanations in the disciplines (pp. 129141). New York, NY: Springer.
Lampert, M., & Graziani, F. (2009). Instructional activities as a tool for teachers and teacher
educators learning. The Elementary School Journal, 109(5), 491509. doi:10.1086/596998
Levine, A. (2006). Educating schoolteachers. Washington, DC: Education Schools Project.
Little, J. (2003). Inside teacher community: Representations of classroom practice. The Teachers
College Record, 105(6), 913945. doi:10.1111/1467-9620.00273
Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study (pp. 154). Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
McIntyre, D. J., & Killian, J. E. (1987). The influence of supervisory training for cooperating
teachers on preservice teachers development during early field experiences. The Journal of
Educational Research, 80(5), 277282. doi:10.1080/00220671.1987.10885767
176
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Moll, L. C., & Gonzalez, N. (1994). Lessons from research with language-minority children.
Journal of Literacy Research, 26(4), 439456. doi:10.1080/10862969409547862
National Academy of Education. (2009). Education policy white paper on teacher quality.
(S. Wilson, Ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics (Vol. 1). Reston, VA: Author.
Newman, D., Grifin, P., & Cole, M. (1989). The construction zone: Working for cognitive change in
school. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Nolen, S. B., Horn, I. S., & Ward, C. J. (2011, January). Assessment tools as boundary objects in
novice teachers learning. Cognition and Instruction, 29(1), 88122.
Paige, R. (2003). Meeting the highly qualified teacher challenge: The secretarys annual report on
teacher quality. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www2.
ed.gov/about/reports/annual/teachprep/2002title- ii-report.pdf
Peressini, D., Borko, H., Romagnano, L., Knuth, E., & Willis, C. (2004). A conceptual framework
for learning to teach secondary mathematics: A situative perspective. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 56(1), 6796. doi:10.1023/B:EDUC.0000028398.80108.87
Roth, W.-M., & Lee, Y.-J. (2007). Vygotskys neglected legacy: Cultural-historical activity theory.
Review of Educational Research, 77(2), 186232. doi:10.3102/0034654306298273
Rotherham, A. (2008) Achieving teacher and principal excellence: A guidebook for donors.
Washington, DC: Philanthropy Roundtable. Retrieved from http://www.philanthropyround
table.org/file_uploads/TeacherExcellence_B.pdf
Singer-Gabella, M. (2012). Toward scholarship in practice. Teachers College Record, 114(8), 130.
Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52(6), 613629. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.52.6.613
van Es, E. A., & Sherin, M. G. (2008). Mathematics teachers learning to notice in the context of a
video club. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(2), 244276. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2006.11.005
van Oers, B. (1998). The fallacy of detextualization. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 5, 135142.
doi:10.1207/s15327884mca0502_7
Ward, C. J., Nolen, S. B., & Horn, I. S. (2011). Productive friction: How conflict in student teaching
creates opportunities for learning at the boundary. International Journal of Educational
Research, 50, 1420. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2011.04.004
Weinstein, R. S. (2002). Reaching higher: The power of expectations in schooling. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. A. (2005). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2011). Ambitious pedagogy by novice teachers: Who
benefits from tool-supported collaborative inquiry into practice and why. Teachers College
Record, 113(7), 13111360.
Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27, 458477. doi:10.2307/749877
Zeichner, K. (2010a). Competition, economic rationalization, increased surveillance, and attacks on
diversity: Neo-liberalism and the transformation of teacher education in the U.S. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 26, 15441552. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2010.06.004
Zeichner, K. (2010b). Rethinking the connections between campus courses and field experiences in
college- and university-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(12), 8999.
doi:10.1177/0022487109347671
Zeichner, K. M., & Tabachnick, B. R. (1981). Are the effects of university teacher education
washed out by school experience? Journal of Teacher Education, 32(3), 711. doi:10.1177/
002248718103200302

Developing Pedagogical Judgment in Novice Teachers - Mediated Field Experience As A Pedagogy For Teacher Education

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Developing Pedagogical Judgment in Novice Teachers - Mediated Field Experience As A Pedagogy For Teacher Education

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

This article was downloaded by: [188.114.161.

Pedagogies: An International Journal