Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 854e862

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

Towards a collaborative, interactionist model of teacher change

Raimo Kaasila*, Anneli Lauriala
University of Lapland, Finland

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The aim of this article is to extend the scope of the models of teacher change to an interactionist view which
Received 31 March 2009 co-ordinates sociocultural and constructivist perspectives. Accordingly our focus will be on the cultural and
Received in revised form situational factors and processes of social interaction, as well as on the development on an individual level.
14 September 2009
First we study how roles, statuses, expectations as well as social and socio-mathematical norms were
Accepted 26 October 2009
formed in the group of four student teachers, when they were co-planning, teaching and assessing math-
ematics lessons during their teaching practice. Finally, we attempt to construct a collaborative, interactionist
Keywords:
model of teacher change integrating sociocultural and constructivist perspectives.
Teacher education
Interactionism Crown Copyright Ó 2009 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Collaboration
Roles
Norms
Identity

1. Introduction We understand teacher change as a growth: Teachers are assumed

There is at the moment an increasing emphasis on the social
dimension in the education of teachers. One indication of this is
that collaboration is regarded as a key factor in teachers' professional
development (see e.g. Gellert, 2008). According to earlier studies,
collegiality adds teacher efficacy, which is also shown to predict pupil
achievement (Lee & Smith,1991). So it is important that future teachers
learn collaborative skills and dispositions during teacher education.
In Finland, teaching profession is highly valued and teacher
education attracts many more students than can be taken in. In
general, students are of high quality, and very committed to teaching
profession. Students in primary teacher education take a Master's
Degree in education. Finnish teacher education is based on a teacher-
as-a-researcher eapproach, which is reflected also in student
teaching practices where inquiry-orientation is cultivated. The goal is
to educate reflective teachers who are able to combine knowledge
of educational science with pedagogical content knowledge, e.g.
pedagogy of mathematics. Further, training aims at developing future
teachers' collaborative skills. Courses in pedagogy in the university
and practicums are tightly connected to each other, and form
a continuum. Teaching practice takes place mainly in teacher training
schools, involving one practicum in field schools.
* Corresponding author at: University of Lapland, Faculty of Education, P. Box 122,
96 101 Rovaniemi, Finland. Tel.: þ358 16 3412 407; fax: þ358 16 3412 401.
E-mail addresses: Raimo.Kaasila@ulapland.fi (R. Kaasila), Anneli.Lauriala@
ulapland.fi (A. Lauriala).
to change (and learn) through acting and interacting in professionally
relevant learning communities. Teaching practices are thus seen as
fertile sites of teachers to learn both to teach and innovate teaching in
authentic, everyday situations. (cf. Clarke & Hollingsworth, 2002, 948.)
In earlier studies considering teacher change we can see the
dominance of theories of cognitive psychology: Their focus has often
been on how an individual's beliefs and practices are changing (see e.g.
Kaasila, Hannula, Laine & Pehkonen, 2008; Senger, 1999; Shaw,
Davis, & McCarty, 1991; Smith, Williams, & Smith, 2005). We see the
models emphasizing the psychological view of teacher change as
useful, but inadequate by themselves to explain teachers' change
processes. Hence, we see that it is appropriate to extend the view by
taking into account cultural and situational factors and processes of
social interaction according to the interactionist view adopted in this
study. We emphasize the co-ordination of sociocultural and construc-
tivist perspectives: in accordance with Cobb (1994, 13) we state that
“mathematical learning should be viewed as both a process of active
individual construction and a process of enculturation (socializa-
tion) into the mathematical practices of wider group or society”.
Focusing on collaboration in mathematics learning, pre-service
teachers' collaboration has been quite little studied. As an example
of this is Manouchehri's study, which focuses on two pre-service
secondary mathematics teachers' peer collaboration. According
to him, peer discourse, peer observations and peer feedback can
facilitate the development of professional knowledge of teacher
students. The peer student teachers helped problematize instruc-
tional issues for one another. (Manouchehri, 2002.)

0742-051X/$ e see front matter Crown Copyright Ó 2009 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.10.023
 R. Kaasila, A. Lauriala / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 854e862
It was especially difficult to find studies dealing with pre-service
elementary teachers' cooperative or collaborative planning in
mathematics. The reason for this can be that in many countries
teaching practice is organized in field schools, in which the research
is not so easy or customary to carry out. In Finland teaching practice
mainly takes place in teacher training school, i.e., Professional
Development Schools, which are meant to be experimental devel-
opmental schools. However, even in Finland there are few studies
focusing on pre-service elementary teachers' cooperative or
collaborative planning in mathematics or in any other subject.
In the study of Kazemi and Franke (2004) in-service teachers used
a common mathematical problem that they adapted for their own
students. For each collaborative meeting teachers selected some
students' work to share with the teacher group. Teachers learned
through collective work to focus on the details of their students'
mathematical thinking and to develop instructional trajectories.
(Kazemi & Franke, 2004.)
As a further example of previous attempts to enhance collabo-
ration is the Lesson study1 idea, which has been developed along-
side efforts to facilitate Japanese elementary teachers' professional
development since the late 1990. In a US study teachers jointly
produced a detailed lesson plan, and then one of them taught
a “research lesson” while the other teachers observed and made
notes. The results indicate that this kind of collaboration has an
impact on teacher efficacy. Teachers themselves emphasized the
socio-emotional and cognitive impact of their collaborative process.
(Puchner & Taylor, 2006.)
As to the research on student teachers' beliefs of mathematics,
these have often been studied without taking into account their
connections to teaching practices and specific situations. Yet we
know that a change in a student's view of mathematics does not
necessarily mean a change in his or her teaching practices (see, e.g.
Vacc & Bright, 1999): Although pre-service teachers talk about
change, their actions in a classroom may be in conflict with their
verbally expressed beliefs. So in our study we also pay attention
to student teachers' teaching practices. Contextual and situational
factors of change can manifest themselves, for example, in the
following way: The social and socio-mathematical norms and the
ways to act in different practicum classrooms often differ from each
other and create different possibilities and obstacles for student
teachers' learning and teaching (Lauriala, 2004). The first author's
(see Kaasila, 2000) research findings indicate that in some prac-
ticum classrooms student teachers developed a rich array of beliefs,
whereas in others the change and variety in beliefs was meagre
in comparison (Kaasila, 2000). In our earlier article (see Kaasila &
Lauriala, 2008) we focused on how four student teachers' former
beliefs, experiences and goals influence, and are in dialogue with
the situational demands of the classroom, which involved a new
approach to teaching and learning mathematics, i.e., the problem-
based approach. The focus of this article is to describe student
teachers' collaboration and its relevance to the change of their
beliefs and practices and finally, to attempt to construct a collabo-
rative, interactionist model of teacher change.
2. Theoretical framework
The chosen approach of our study, interactionism, has guided
our choice of the concepts. However we have aimed at leaving
space also for new phenomena arising from the data. The main
1
In Finnish teacher education the Lesson study e principle (joint reflective post
analysis) has a long tradition, although we in Finland usually don't use this term. For
example, the first author of this article has applied lesson study type approaches in
teaching practice and in the mathematics methods course since 1995.
855
concepts used are roles, norms, statuses, expectations as well as
identity.
2.1. Roles, statuses, expectations and norms
According to Woods (1992) student teachers' social interactions,
social observations and perceptions and the way they give and
receive feedback seem most significant for the construction of their
identity and for the determination of their roles. In addition, student
teachers also enter into a dialogue between their past, present and
future identity (Kaasila, 2000). When familiarizing themselves
with a new classroom situation and with a new pedagogical culture
student teachers' earlier beliefs about themselves emerge and may
end in a dialogue, even conflict, with the beliefs and practices
present in the new context (Lauriala, 1997).
In the project presented here we tried to facilitate student
teachers' collaboration which we conceptualize in terms of the
phenomena of group dynamics: Group structure refers to the stable
patterns of relationships among group members, involving roles,
norms and interpersonal relations. Group cohesiveness is under-
stood to reflect the strength of the bonds and feelings of attraction
between group members and the group. (Forsyth, 1999.) In social
situations a person must adopt a social role, which refers to a set
of expectations of how a member of a special group or community
is expected to act in his/her position. In the teaching practice
situations there are very clear, built in expectations of how student
teachers should act in their roles as teachers. So learning to be
a teacher is guided by a special set of norms.
‘Expectation state’ etheory (see e.g., Berger, Cohen, & Zelditch,
1972) suggests that if the members of a recently formed group
begin collectively to solve a task, each of the members evaluates
the joint work. Each person develops expectations on the basis
of his/her own status characteristic, for example, on the basis of
his/her skills, experience or gender. A person's status characteristic
is associated with his/her performance expectations, i.e., with
a belief about how a member having a given characteristic is
expected to perform. A member's status defines the weight given
to him/her by the other members when decisions are made inside
the group. Status and role are defined on the basis of competence:
The higher the status and role a member of a group has, the bigger
contribution other members of the group expect he/she to have
in solving the task. So the members who have a higher status are
expected to be more active than the members having a lower
status.
While studying the norms, we divide them into social and socio-
mathematical norms. Social norms are mutually constructed
expectations for the appropriate behaviour of members in a partic-
ular cultural group (Yackel & Cobb, 1996). So they are (unwritten)
rules of how people must act in a specific group or community.
While social norms can be enacted in any subject, socio-mathe-
matical norms refer to the normative aspects of interaction
which are specific in mathematics (Yackel & Cobb, 1996). These are
interpretations that become taken-as-shared by a community, for
example, a school class or a student teachers' group. One example of
socio-mathematical norms is the norm about what constitutes an
elegant solution in mathematics. When student teachers are talking
about and doing mathematics, norms are implicitly negotiated.
When they are talking about talking about mathematics, norms are
explicitly negotiated. (McNeal & Simon, 2000, 478.) In our study we
focus on partly implicitly, partly explicitly negotiated norms.
2.2. Identity and mathematical identity
Social interactions and collaboration have an impact not only on
professional thinking and action, but on a person's identity as well.
856 R. Kaasila, A. Lauriala / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 854e862
In our study identity is understood to mean a person's conception
of self at a certain point, not totally or universally, and involving
a reference to “we” or a group a person identifies him/herself
with (Hall, 1999; cf. Lauriala & Kukkonen, 2003, 2). Identity can be
regarded simultaneously as both stable and changing (e.g., Lauriala
& Kukkonen, 2001; Demo, 1992). According to ideas of symbolic
interactionism, people construct their identity through social
interaction, and different sides of identity arise in different situa-
tions. Further, social context and a membership in a group espe-
cially influence on how a person describes him/herself and what
kinds of choices s/he makes. A membership can enhance a positive
self-confidence and alongside a need to belong to a group. We can
talk about significant other as a kind of wholeness of collective
attitudes, roles and rules, which are guiding a person's actions and
thinking as a member of a group. Identity is the who-we-are that
develops in our own minds and in the minds of others as we
interact. As to our method, according to Ricoeur (1992), narrative
identity means that people often develop their sense of identity by
seeing themselves as protagonists in different stories: What creates
the identity of the character is the identity of the story and not the
other way around. (Ricoeur, 1992) Student teachers' narratives have
an important meaning in our study as a way of revealing their
evolving identities.
One of the key concepts of our study is mathematical identity: it is
a construction which describes a person's relationship towards
mathematics (Bikner-Ahsbahs, 2003). According to Op't Eynde
(2004), students' mathematical identity is developed in different
mathematics education communities (e.g., in a school class) through
their interactions with the teacher, the books, and their peers. While
these interactions are determined by the social context they are
situated in, student teachers have also a lot of experiences about
mathematics learning and teaching from their school years. A student
teacher's mathematical biography includes a retrospective explana-
tion of how his/her earlier experiences have influenced his or her past
and present mathematical identity (Kaasila, 2007). Students' stories
reveal stereotypical views and a predominance of traditional methods
in our schools, even today. These former views of mathematics
learning and teaching are often actualised during first practice
teaching phases (Kaasila, 2000).
All in all, students' view of mathematics is an important part
of their mathematical identity. We distinguish three components
in students' view of mathematics: 1) their view of themselves as
learners and teachers of mathematics, 2) their view of mathematics
and its teaching and learning, and 3) their view of the social context
of learning and teaching mathematics, i.e., the classroom context
including the socio-mathematical norms of a school class (Kaasila
et al., 2008; Op't Eynde, De Corte, & Verschaffel, 2002).
3. Earlier models of teacher change
We have earlier constructed a model of the phases of teacher
change by combining certain central elements of Smith et al.
(2005) and Senger's (1999) models: 1) problematising current
beliefs and practices, in which students accept that their views of
mathematics are not the best possible for teaching pupils effec-
tively; 2) becoming aware of a new approach, in which students
create new personal visions of what mathematics learning and
teaching should look like; and 3) exploring and testing alternative
beliefs and practices during the mathematics education course,
in teaching or in verbalising new beliefs; 4) reflectively analysing
benefits of the new approach in which students become more
convinced of new beliefs they adopt; and 5) changing one's views
of mathematics and one's teaching practices (Kaasila et al., 2008).
This model describes well how student teachers' beliefs and
practices change, but its main focus is on an individual level. Thus
it is not sufficient or adequate to describe the change processes on
a community level.
Lewin (1947) has observed instances of successful organiza-
tional change. His starting point was that the forces driving change
must be increased and the forces resisting change must be
decreased. Organizations often tend to resist change and return to
the previous state after a disturbance.
Our earlier studies indicate that new and ‘deviant’ contexts are
needed for pre-service teachers to become aware of the influences of
their former experiences and to be able to break the chain of influ-
ences of cumulative socialization (cf., Lauriala, 1992, 1997, 128). Here,
changes are studied in relation to classroom contexts, interaction and
cultures, as well as to student teachers' co-learning and collaboration.
One of the most central goals of our study is to familiarize student
teachers with a new kind of way to teach and learn mathematics and
to facilitate their collaboration.
When applying Lewin's (1947) theory of organizational change
we distinguish three phases in the process of teacher change:
1) unfreezing, 2) moving, 3) refreezing. Edgar Schein, building on
Lewin's work, has refined the model and extended it to the changes
in psychological processes that are necessary for an organization to
successfully change its culture. Schein (1992, 301) equates a group
with an organization: They react similarly in change phases.
For example Reio (2005) has applied Lewin's theory to educa-
tional reform. According to him, emotions are a key component in
school reform and teacher change. Teachers' emotional experiences
of reform influence their risk taking. Change can affect teacher
development by creating an environment of uncertainty (Reio,
2005, 986). Teaching practice situations can by themselves be
anxiety-provoking, and mean a threat to students' identities.
4. The method
4.1. The research questions
Our research problems are as follows: 1) How are the student
teachers' roles, norms and statuses formed in the student teacher
group? 2) How do their mathematical identities develop during the
practicum? 3) What kind of negotiations of norms are manifested
within the group? 4) How can we describe and explain teacher
change in the framework of interactionist theory; can we outline
a tentative model to describe teacher change?
4.2. The approach of the study
Narratives have considerable significance in teacher education.
Here we assumed that it is important to listen to the voices of pre-
service teachers talking and writing about themselves as mathe-
matics learners and teachers. (Kaasila, 2007.) When applying the
narrative inquiry, we are interested not only in the pre-service
teachers' views of mathematics as such, but also in the ways they
tell about these and the ways they talk about their collaboration.
4.3. The study context
The study was carried out as connected to Subject Didactic
Practicum 2 (SD 2) at the 3rd class in the Training School of the
University of Lapland in February and March 2007. The goal of the
four-week SD 2 practice was to familiarize students with planning
and teaching lessons in mathematics and two other subjects, as
well as with evaluating pupils' development in these subjects. As to
the pedagogical approach, in this practice the emphasis was on
collaboration and problem-centred teaching and learning. Students
gave about 12 lessons each, including 3 to 5 lessons in mathematics.
During SD 2, they received guidance from university lecturers
 R. Kaasila, A. Lauriala / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 854e862
specialized in education of subjects, and from a cooperative
teacher2 in the training school. The teacher of the classroom in
question (the cooperative teacher) has worked for some years in
the training school, and she has actively developed her teaching
and supervision practices during that time. She is regarded as
a competent and empathetic supervisor. There are about 20 pupils
in the classroom, and they are accustomed to active, collaborative
studying and learning.
The problem-based learning was introduced to the second year
students in the mathematics education course, which was given by
the first author of this article. At the end of the course, he provided the
students with some advance guidance in making their plans for the
mathematics lessons for SD 2. During SD 2, he provided feedback on
one mathematics lesson by each student.
In the mathematics education course, students were introduced
to the basics of problem-based teaching. In problem-based or
inquiry-oriented teaching of mathematics, pupils learn through
solving problems: a pupil acquires new mathematical knowledge
through problem solving and at the same time gets insight into
how new content is related to his already existing mathematical
knowledge (Nunokawa, 2005). The idea of new learning content
is carried out through pupils engaging in solving one or more
research tasks related to the contents to be learned. In addition,
pupils use manipulative tools or figures as an aid when solving the
problem.
4.4. The participants
The choice of the participants represents purposive sampling
to achieve a many-sided and rich picture of the phenomenon
under study. There are 18 classes in the Teacher Training School in
question, and so the students were divided into 18 groups, from
which we chose one group, consisting of four student teachers e
Jari, Kirsi, Risto and Meri, the participants of this study. From the
different types of purposive sampling presented by Patton (1990)
our sampling represents most closely the case of Intensity, i.e. a rich
case that manifest the phenomenon intensely, but not extremely.
Accordingly, the choice was based on the following factors:
1) Their biographies varied as to the amount of mathematics
teaching experience, and as to their success in learning math-
ematics at school: Meri had 7 years' experience of acting as
a substitute elementary teacher, and Jari had 3 years' experience
as a substitute special teacher, and he also acted as a substitute
elementary teacher during his teacher education. Kirsi had been
nearly half a year as a school assistant in a lower secondary
school: She has also been for some time a substitute teacher.
Risto's first teaching experiences were gained during teacher
education in Subject Didactics 1 (SD 1) practice teaching,
preceding the SD 2, under study here. Jari, Risto and Kirsi took
advanced courses in mathematics in upper secondary school.
Jari and Risto had succeeded quite well, but Kirsi's success had
been poor in the mathematics component of Matriculation
Examination. Meri took only general courses in mathematics in
upper secondary school with poor success in the mathematical
section of Matriculation Examination.
2) When starting to plan their mathematics lessons, at the end
of the mathematics education course, before the SD 2, the
participants' collaboration seemed to begin well. Majority
(n ¼ 3) of the participants were above average as to their
2
The teacher in whose classroom the practicum took place. Cooperative teachers
guide students' practice teaching daily, while University Lecturers in different
subjects supervise and observe them approximately two lessons per week.
857
disposition to collaboration, but there was also one deviant
case among the students.
3) Jari functioned as a tutor in mathematics for the 18 students'
practice group from autumn 2006. The aim of a tutor was to
guide the other group members while preparing themselves
for examinations in mathematics education course.
4.5. Data gathering
The research material consists of: a) the interviews of the four
students and one cooperative teacher, b) the observation notes of
the university lecturer in mathematics, and c) the student teachers'
mathematics portfolios. The portfolios comprise the individual lesson
plans and related self-assessments, an assessment of the progress of
one pupil in the class, chosen by the student teacher, as well as the
students' reflections on two self-chosen articles forming a part of the
required course reading (R€asa €nen, Kupari, Ahonen, & Malinen, 2004).
The use of different data gathering methods is an indication of
triangulation; i.e. method triangulation, as well triangulation of data
sources, and which may be used to confirm the results.
When interviewing the student teachers, we also utilised
a narrative inquiry (see e.g., Kaasila, 2007). The goal of the narrative
interview was to get the interviewee to tell stories about things that
were important to him or her. Especially at the beginning of the
interview we used narrative questions, for example: “Tell me about
the event or thing you best remember from SD 2.” We also asked
them to tell about their mathematical autobiographies. After that
we asked them to tell about central themes e.g. how their views of
mathematics had changed (or not) and how they felt that their
cooperation with other student teachers had worked out. The
duration of each interview was between 40 and 85 min.
4.6. Data analysis
In data analysis we applied narrative inquiry in the following
ways. We divided the analysis of our data into two parts. When
considering how student teachers' mathematical identity had
changed on an individual level, we read their mathematical auto-
biographies which were included in their teaching portfolios. In
a mathematical autobiography a student teacher told about his/her
own development in learning and teaching mathematics. (Kaasila,
2007.) Then we constructed student teachers' mathematical biog-
raphies: Our task was to elicit how a student teacher's earlier
experiences had influenced his or her past and present mathe-
matical identity. Here we used ‘emplotment’: A story line or plot
that serves to configure or compose the disparate data elements
into a meaningful explanation of the protagonist's responses and
actions' (Polkinghorne, 1995). Within each mathematical biography
we compared the teacher student's view of mathematics at the
beginning and at the end of the mathematics education course.
We also looked for principal facilitators of change manifested in the
trainees' talk. So each mathematical biography contained a retro-
spective explanation (Polkinghorne, 1995) linking central events in
the student teacher's past to account for how his or her mathe-
matical identity had developed.
When considering student teachers' collaboration, we applied
narrative analysis, which includes influences from the methodology
of the account of change (see Harre & Secord, 1972). The four student
teachers told how they felt the collaboration with each others. We
were also interested in the different ways in which a student teacher
talked about his/her collaboration with other students. From this we
see that student teachers' identity talk is always directed to some
audience or listeners. We compared student teachers' narratives
(accounts) with each other and with the ways the cooperative
teacher and the supervising lecturer (first Author) assessed their
858 R. Kaasila, A. Lauriala / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 854e862
actions. This may be seen to represent participant triangulation. We
constructed a ‘grand’ narrative, which combines the accounts told
by the different actors. To confirm our results, we let the cooperative
teacher read the ‘grand’ narrative and assess how she felt it corre-
sponded to her own experiences of the classroom events and
interactions. Although our analysis was data driven at the beginning,
in the later phase we looked for the connections between the results
and relevant theories of teacher change.
5. Results
5.1. Student teachers' roles and statuses in the group
The roles and statuses within the group were beginning to be
formed already at the end of the mathematics method course when
the student teachers made their section plan in mathematics, but
the events and situations during teaching practice significantly
influenced the role and status formation.
Jari's role: All the students of the group named Jari as an
authority on the grounds of his good mathematical proficiency
and wide-ranging teaching experience. Jari was already, at the
beginning of mathematics methods course in September, given the
central role, because he was chosen to be a mathematics tutor for
the whole mathematics exercises group, consisting of 20 student
teachers. When student teachers planned teaching periods and
lessons collaboratively, Jari's goal was not to tell directly his ideas to
others.: “Often I had to think how I could support others without telling
the right answer: I think I succeeded very well”. This further indicates
that Jari had internalized a socio-constructivist view of a tutor's role
as a promoter of insights. He was a very diplomatic negotiator. All in
all, Jari noticeably promoted the cohesion of the group.
Kirsi acted as an analytic reviewer in the group: She brought
many issues that deepened the collaboration between the student
teachers. Kirsi mentioned that in some co-planning situations
students had to vote on two different alternatives: “Often three of
four students had a common view. After voting all acted in accordance
with the opinion the majority of the group had presented.” All in all,
Kirsi was very eager to collaborate and she would have wished the
collaboration to yield even more.
On the grounds of her minor teaching experience Kirsi seemed
to have a some what lower status in the group than the more
experienced group members Meri and Jari.
Meri's role was twofold: On one hand, Meri was an authority figure
on the basis of her widest amount of teaching experience. On the other
hand, she was a novice on the grounds of poor mathematical profi-
ciency. Meri's view of herself as a learner and teacher of mathematics
was clearly weaker than that of the other three students who had
chosen advanced courses in upper secondary school mathematics.
According to the cooperative teacher Meri was quite nervous during
her first mathematics lesson: “Later she began to trust herself more.”
Meri described her role in the group by the following statements:
“I didn't want to show the others who's the boss.”and “I tried to be on the
same level with the others”. These statements crystallize Meri's goal to
be a conciliatory facilitator and equal member of the group, who also
wants to listen to others. On the other hand, when it seemed
necessary, Meri could bring forth her wide teaching experience: “If I
saw, on the basis of my experience, that something isn't going to work
then I said it. I had an opportunity to do it.” This kind of rhetoric,
grounded by experience seemed to get support in the group.
When applying Halai's (2006) classification, Jari's role can be
seen to be a subject specialist, while Meri's one is an ‘expert-coach’.
In addition, they can be seen also as critical friends to the other
members of the group.
Risto was partially unattached to the group. As an example of this
Kirsi told about Risto's role in the collaboration: “It is interesting to note
how Risto, although he had less experience than the others, sought others'
opinions and guidance least of all. He seemed to take a view that he knew
what teaching is about. Certainly, it is a good thing.”
It seems that Risto could not seek help from the others in all
situations. On the other hand, Risto had positive experiences about
collaboration with Jari in science teaching.
Risto seemed to have the lowest status in the group. In many
respects, he compared his way to plan the lessons to that exercised
by the more experienced students Jari and Meri: “I feel as if they
were already ready teachers, they had their own, clear thoughts in
beforehand. I was may be such a person who needed more time to
think about”.
All students named Risto as a novice on the grounds of his lack
of teaching experience. For example, Jari described Risto's contri-
bution in co-planning in the diplomatic way: “Risto could mention
a very good idea. Then Meri noted on the grounds of her experience
that ‘it is a good thing but when implemented it results in this or that ’.
For example, ‘it is better to use (a learning game) in the lessons in
which the class is divided into two smaller groups’.”
On the other hand, Risto was an authority figure on the grounds
of his good mathematical proficiency. All in all, a reflective thinking
was characteristic of Risto, according to both his interview data and
teaching portfolio.
5.2. Changes in the students teachers' mathematical identity
Meri's view of herself as a learner and teacher of mathematics
changed clearly towards a positive direction: “The word ‘math’
makes me no more feel like fainting! I thing I succeeded well in the
lessons I taught during SD 2. Now I feel that I am very eager to teach
mathematics.”
Also Meri's view of learning and teaching mathematics changed
into a more versatile direction: “Now I see the meaning of mathe-
matics much more clearly and I think it is a creative subject, and
doesn't mean only learning of the rules.”
Jari's positive view of himself as a mathematics learner and
teacher was confirmed during mathematics method studies and SD 2.
The positive development was enhanced by Jari's functioning as
a mathematics tutor for his own group:
“My view of myself as a mathematics learner was confirmed by
being a tutor. The members of my group often asked me for advice
in their task, as well during the exercises as before the examination.
Tutoring also increased my confidence as a mathematics teacher.
I felt myself to be a good teacher.”
Jari's view of mathematics teaching and learning also changed
towards a more action-oriented direction:
“In the mathematics' course I finally comprehended how important
it is to use manipulative tools in mathematics. Actually, while
planning mathematics lessons I decided to emphasize the use of
manipulative tools as much as possible.”
The cooperative teacher evaluated Jari's development in the
following way: “Jari's own professionalism was well developed. I
thought he was already a competent teacher. He presented many
ideas and was able to take different roles, thus he succeeded in getting
the children to become inspired in learning.”
Kirsi's view of herself as a teacher and learner of mathematics
‘didn't change much’ after SD 2: “The SD 2 was the first time that I was
acting as a real teacher. At least, based on the experience of the SD 2 I
got a view that I am a pretty good mathematics teacher, and I've also
a positive view of mathematics as a whole.”
The biggest change took place in Kirsi's view of learning and
teaching mathematics. Her view changed from a teacher-centred
 R. Kaasila, A. Lauriala / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 854e862
one, involving emphasis on 'drill and practice', towards more pupil-
centred and problem-based teaching:
“In the lectures and the practice of the mathematics education
course the emphasis was on using manipulative tools, problem-
based teaching and discovery learning. They were the skeleton
of the whole course. The course has dramatically changed my view
of mathematics and teaching of it.”
Risto's initially quite positive view of himself as a learner of
mathematics didn't change during practice teaching. Although he
had no previous experience in teaching mathematics, Risto was
rather satisfied with his mathematics lessons. He was also able to
present some suggestions for how to develop them. On the whole,
Risto's view of teaching mathematics seemed to be eclectic: On one
hand, during the interview he said that: “imitating could be the best
way to learn”. On the other hand, Risto's portfolio indicates changes
in his views of teaching and learning: “Learning is much more than
just silent cramming, rote learning and copying the teacher”. It seems
that Risto was striving towards interactive and pupil-centred
teaching, but the teacher-centred model, dating back to his own
school years, was deeply rooted in his mind.
To sum up, it seems that a student teacher's earlier teaching
experience had a greater influence on his/her status in making the
period plan than his/her mathematical proficiency. This could be
seen to continue during SD 2 teaching practice. A rise of status was
apparent in Meri's case, because she was able to invoke and take into
use her wide-ranging teaching experience. In addition, the commit-
ment to collaboration influenced how much a teacher student expe-
rienced she or he had benefitted from the group. The higher the status
and the bigger the degree of commitment a student had, the better
was the possibility that his/her view of mathematics developed.
5.3. Negotiation of norms
We divided the negotiation of norms guiding the actions in the
student group into two subcategories which are linked to each
other: 1) social norms, and 2) socio-mathematical norms of the
student group.
5.3.1. Social norms in the student group
a) The norm of security manifested itself in all teacher students'
narration: “Nobody is left alone”. The students learned to give
and receive help from each other. Kirsi also said that “it was
always possible beforehand to double-check with others if an idea
included in the lesson plan was really working in practice.” In all,
the student teachers used each others as reflective mirrors
(Markham, 1999) when building their identity. In a wider
perspective this refers to the norms of reciprocity (Putnam,
1995): A student teacher can think that helping the other
members of the group will increase the possibility that he or
she will receive help from the others in the future. This norm
was enhanced also by the trust grown within the group. On the
other hand, Kirsi told, that when students gave feedback from
each others' lessons they avoided giving negative feedback: “I
felt that it's very difficult to give constructive criticism”.
b) The norm of commitment manifested itself when student
teachers made their lesson plans and also during SD 2. Jari
crystallized this in the following way: “We worked together as
a group”. It is also a matter of the norms of collegiality (Little,
1982). On the other hand, Risto was not present when the
other students had their second planning session and made
their mathematics period plan together. Also the cooperative
teacher had paid attention to Risto's lack of commitment:
859
“Sometimes Risto was late”. Kirsi mentioned that Risto acted
during SD 2 more independently than the others. Often, in
teachers' talk collegiality is connected to the norm of loyalty: it
refers to the way to show loyalty so that people don't interfere
with the others' different way to act (cf. Hargreaves, 1980).
c) The norms emphasizing negotiations were characteristic for the
behaviour of this student group. The members of the group
underlined that when making the period plan in mathematics
‘everybody's views were taken into account’. Certainly, Jari and
Kirsi mentioned that the negotiations did not lead to consensus
in every case. In such cases the decision was done by voting.
The social norms negotiated in the student teacher group were
in many respects parallel to the norms negotiated in the teaching
practice class. The cooperative teacher crystallized this in the
following way: “To help and pay attention to each other, everyone is
accepted such as s/he is, pupils encourage the weaker pupils in the
class. Hard work is appreciated (in the class).”
When the first author of this article was observing the class-
room during SD 2, he noted the following social norms: The envi-
ronment of the classroom is respectful. Most of the pupils are ready
to talk about their ideas. In the whole class and in the smaller group
discussion pupils share their ideas with each other. Solutions to the
problems come from the pupils, and the role of the teacher is to
provide encouragement. These social norms of the practising class
are very near the ones Szydlik, Szydlik, and Benson (2003) have
noted in their study.
5.3.2. Socio-mathematical norms
Socio-mathematical norms reflect the goals of the mathematics
methods course and SD 2 practice teaching, that are based on socio-
constructivist learning theory: Accordingly ‘effective mathematics
teaching’ is characteristic of pupil- and problem-centredness
involving the use of manipulative models. Jari crystallized his view of
mathematics teaching in the following way: “By using problem-
centered approach and manipulative models pupils have to develop
themselves solution processes and discover the solutions. When I was
planning my mathematics lessons I decided to engage in using the
manipulatives as much as possible.”
Because Jari acted as a tutor and facilitator of the pedagogical
ideas in the group, his crystallization of these ideas can also be
seen to reflect the more widely negotiated and accepted socio-
mathematical norms of the whole group.
5.4. Collaborative, interactionist model of teacher change
When trying to form a collaborative, interactionist model of teacher
change our aim has been to unite sociocultural and constructivist
perspectives. The model is partially data driven, partially theory driven,
and in constructing it we have applied following ideas: 1) Kurt Lewin's
(1947) theory of the organizational change; 2) Edgar Schein's (1992)
theories refining Lewin's model; 3) some ideas including the cognitive
models of teacher change (see e.g., Kaasila et al., 2008; Lauriala, 1997;
Shaw et al., 1991; Smith et al., 2005), and 4) expectation state theory
(see e.g., Berger et al., 1972).
The main goal of the mathematics methods course was to develop
student teachers' views of mathematics. To aid student teachers to
change their view of mathematics, one of our central tools was to
support or encourage student groups' negotiations of social and
socio-mathematical norms and norms supporting professionalism.
These negotiations begun already during mathematics methods
course and continued during SD 2. So we related changes on an
individual level to social interaction and cultural context. In the
emerging model of teacher change we focus on mutual interaction
860 R. Kaasila, A. Lauriala / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 854e862
and transitions from the group (community) level to the individual
level. In the following we will start by describing first the change at
the group level and proceed then to the individual level. Here we
apply Lewin's theory which involves different phases or aspects.
According to Lewin (1947, 228) a successful organizational
change includes three aspects (or phases): 1) unfreezing the present
level; 2) moving to the new level; 3) (re) freezing group life on the
new level. Schein (1992, 303) emphasizes that Lewin's model
describes any change process in the individual, group or organiza-
tional level. We applied these phases in the process of teacher
change in the following way:
5.4.1. Unfreezing
5.4.1.1. Group level. Lewin called unfreezing the creation of a moti-
vation to change. For unfreezing to occur, the forces facilitating
change must overcome the forces resisting change. It is a matter of
shaking the equilibrium dominated in the group and convincing the
need of the change. The first subgoal of the mathematics methods
course was to facilitate this by getting students to question or make
questionable the socio-mathematical norms and the views of
mathematics they had adopted during their years at school.
According to Schein (1992) the unfreezing phase can be composed
of three different processes: a) enough disconfirming data to cause
disequilibrium (in our case one subgoal of the mathematics methods
course); disconfirming information is not enough, however, because
we can ignore or deny the information. So it is important b) to connect
the disconfirming data to central goals (in our case to goals of the
course) causing anxiety and guilt; c) in addition enough psychological
safety must be created to allow the organizational members to admit
the disconfirming data without defensively denying it; for instance in
the sense of seeing that it is possible to change one's views without
losing one's identity or integrity (Schein, 1992, 299).
We see that the ability to tolerate uncertainty plays a central role
in the changes both on individual and group level. Especially Jari e
as the mentor of the group e was ready to take risks when planning
the whole section. Schein (1992, 301) emphasizes the importance
of visionary leadership. It seems that Jari's beliefs and actions were
reflected in the whole group leading to growing of a climate of
uncertainty (cf. Reio, 2005). To conclude, we can say that peer
mentoring was in a key position in all phases of change and
accordingly relevant aspect in our model.
5.4.1.2. Individual level. According to earlier cognitive models of
teacher change we assumed that for a change to occur we need to
invoke a disequilibrium on an individual level. This means that
a student teacher experiences a cognitive conflict or perturbance in
his or her thinking and teaching practice. It is important that he or
she will become committed; i.e., he or she will make a personal
decision to realize the change as a result of perturbances (see e.g.,
Shaw et al., 1991). For example, it was regarded as pivotal that all
four student teachers started to question and reflect on their
current beliefs and practices (cf. Lauriala, 1997).
5.4.2. Moving (changing)
The second subgoal of the mathematics methods course was
to facilitate new socio-mathematical norms that support socio-
constructivistic views of mathematics learning and teaching. These
norms were negotiaded within the student group when students
planned collaboratively their mathematics section and also later,
during SD 2 practice.
5.4.2.1. Group level. Once an organization has taken the first steps
to unfreeze the dominant culture to achieve a complete organiza-
tional culture change, then the aim of the moving phase is to
persuade teachers to accept the new procedures linked with the
change and get them to believe that by changing their work habits
their performance develops (Reio, 2005, 990).
5.4.2.2. Individual level. On the individual level moving means that
the students of the group become aware of a new approach: They
create new personal visions of what mathematics learning and
teaching should look like, they explore and test alternative beliefs
and practices during the mathematics education course and SD 2
teaching practice, in teaching or in verbalising new beliefs (see
Kaasila et al., 2008; Smith et al., 2005) and possible identities.
5.4.3. Refreezing
5.4.3.1. Group level. In the last phase the group must ensure that
the changes of the moving stage are institutionalized, new norms
are crystallized and stabilized within the group. In the refreezing
phase (student) teachers execute the new practices and actions and
integrate these into their beliefs (Reio, 2005, 990). Without this
phase, there is a danger that the group (or organization) reverts
back to its original culture. Once the unfreezing has taken place,
initiatives can be put into place that actually serve to change the
existing teaching culture and move it into a new direction. Cultural
changes must be accepted at the individual, group and organiza-
tional levels if they are to be long lasting. (The concept of homeo-
stasis Schein, 1992.)
5.4.3.2. Individual level. On an individual level student teachers
reflectively analyse benefits of the new approach, and they become
more convinced of the worth of the new beliefs; and finally they are
changing their views of mathematics and their teaching practices
(Kaasila et al., 2008; Smith et al. 2005).
In addition to the above, we tried to conceptualize the process of
teacher change by applying expectation state theory (see e.g., Berger
et al., 1972) in the following way: Each of the student teachers in the
group evaluated both his/her own as well as the others' potential
contribution to the group work. So each person developed expec-
tations on the basis of his/her own status characteristic. The more
significant the other members of the group are for the individual, the
more their views and actions influence the student's views and
behaviour in the group. Both a status and role seem to be defined on
the grounds of competence: The higher the status and role
a member of a group has, the bigger contribution other members of
the group expect s/he to have to the co-planning process. Jari had the
highest status in the group, so he had the most dominant influence
on the other students' view of mathematics and teaching practices.
It is to be noted, that a student teacher's earlier teaching experience
influenced his/her status in the group more than his/her mathe-
matical proficiency. The rise of the status manifested itself especially
in Meri's case, because she could utilise her wide-ranging teaching
experience which became actualised and taken into collective use.
Further, the higher the student teacher's status and the stronger
her commitment was, the better opportunity there was for his/her
view of mathematics to develop. We can also say that the bigger the
cohesion in the group is, the bigger can the changes be.
6. Discussion
The aim of the study presented here was to extend the scope
offered by the previous models of teacher change; and from
an interactionist view our goal was to connect sociocultural and
constructivist perspectives. Teacher change (alike teacher's work) is
so complex and many-sided a phenomenon, that it's difficult to
describe it by a simplistic or one-dimensional model; also both
cognitive models and sociocultural models alone are too narrow.
When constructing the model our greatest challenge was how to
 R. Kaasila, A. Lauriala / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 854e862
co-ordinate different perspectives and combine them sensitively
with each other, which may be seen to lead to too eclectic a model
in building a working, appropriate model of teacher change. Here
we have here aimed to capture the dialogical relation between the
changes on an individual level and on community level, and how
they mutually influence each other. It's difficult to imagine
community level changes without preceding changes on an indi-
vidual level. On the other hand, becoming part of a new community,
culture may induce changes on a newcoming individual's views
and action, which may also happen through a cognitive conflict.
We see that roles, statuses, expectations and social and socio-
mathematical norms are useful tools to conceptualize the process
of change. Student teachers' collaboration began when they started
to make their section plans in the exercises of the mathematics
methods course. At the same time there could be seen role shaping
to start in the group. More experienced students Jari and Meri took
the role of the mentor when helping Risto and Kirsi to act on
a more developed level than they could have done alone. We can
conceptualize this by Zone of Proximal Development (Vygotsky,
1978): A mentor and a novice generated shared understandings,
through which the novice internalizes new ways to think.
Mentoring emerged as a key issue for changes to take place.
Also more generally teacher learning associated with mentoring is
seen as beneficial for both the mentor and mentee (Garet, Porter,
Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001). This phenomenon manifested
itself also in our study: Jari was from the beginning as a role of
a leader, because he was chosen the tutor of mathematics among
the whole exercise group. Jari could have succeeded well during
SD 2 practice also alone. On the other hand, his role as the leader
of the group seemed to lead to a social pressure, which influenced
his actions and reflections. Also Meri got a high status inside the
group on the grounds of her wide teaching experience. Kirsi and
Risto had an authority on the grounds of their good mathematics
proficiency but in the group they were in a novice role, due to
their meagre teaching experience as compared to Meri and Jari.
Kirsi, Meri and Jari were more strongly engaged with the collab-
oration than Risto. So they also benefitted more from the other
students than Risto.
Besides mentoring among the peers, the role of a leader seems
to be an important factor for changes to take place. It's important
that s/he is convinced of the necessity of the change, and that he
internalizes the change goals, although other members' beliefs and
dispositions do also matter, and it's important that all become
aware of the need of the change.
On the basis of the results it seems necessary to take into
account the following issues: Firstly, it is possible that student
teachers may give in the interviews a more positive view of
collaboration than what their collaboration really was (cf. Kaasila,
2007). The video-taping of the student teachers' co-planning
sessions could have enlightened the character of the collaboration
and the role of each student more clearly. On the other hand, we
were able to see the group dynamics to some extent; e.g., that there
were some tensions within the group. We see that these tensions
give a more authentic view of student teachers' collaboration
than the interviews alone did. We also used different data gath-
ering methods and contexts to confirm our results. In addition, the
cooperative teacher read the manuscript and confirmed that the
things described here were congruent with her own views about
the collaboration of this student group. Secondly, belonging to
a community can provide much support, but after the collaboration
there is the danger to turn back to traditional way of teaching
(Gellert, 2008). Also routine can often be seen as a barrier against
change (Gellert, 2008). Reforms can be realised, if teachers become
convinced that by innovative efforts they can collectively address
problems they meet at school (cf. Lauriala, 1997, 130).
861
The collaborative, interactionistic model presented here well
described the change process on the group level, although students'
starting points influenced on which phase they entered in their
professional development. For instance, Risto with his small
teaching experience was able to reach only the unfreezing phase,
and new learning caused a cognitive conflict in him. Jari and Meri
reached the phases were they became convinced of the worth of
the new approach, and they also changed their beliefs and practices
in accordance with the phases of moving and refreezing.
As to the different developmental profiles between the partici-
pants, Kirsi's case may raise some questions. Although she had
a good view of herself as a mathematics learner, which did not
change during the teaching practice, she remained in the side role
in the group. However, although she was as inexperienced as Risto,
she had an important role in strengthening the group cohesiveness.
She also wanted more collaboration. As to Risto's case, he did not
comply to the norms of collegiality which seemed to bind the
others. How to make this kind of students to develop collaborative
disposition and skills? Maybe we must pay more attention to the
individual starting points in teacher education; some students need
more guidance and time to melt themselves into the community
and to learn to trust and engage in genuine collaboration. Our data
does not directly support the view according to which differences
in student learning and action are gender erelated. Earlier teaching
experience and mathematical proficiency seemed to be more
important in defining the individual's role and status than his/her
gender.
From our results we can make some recommendations for
teacher education:
1) The relationship between theory and practice is in a central role
in teacher education: In this study the contents and timing of
mathematics education course had a direct relationship to SD 2
teaching practice. Student teachers had an opportunity to try in
teaching practice the principles and methods they had learned
during mathematics education course in the university.
2) Improving collaborative practices in teacher education may
be enhanced through implementing the following ideas:
Teacher educators should convince students of the advantages
of collaborative practices by collaborating themselves with each
other and giving thus students an example of good collaborating
practices and culture. They should also emphasize the decisive
role of all members, in building and maintaining a working
group, despite their differences; e.g., lack of experience. It is also
important to understand barriers to collaboration, that may be
previous experiences, expectations of others and self, lack of
motivation or fear of failure, which may lead to defensive reac-
tions, as is shown in Risto's case.
3) When grouping student teachers into different classes during
teaching practice the advantage of heterogenous groups is that
students with different backgrounds and capacities compen-
sate each other's strengths and weaknesses, and provide a basis
for social comparison and learning. For instance, if a student
teacher has a negative view of him/herself as a (mathematics)
learner and/or teacher, he/she can in the group at least partially
compensate for his/her poor proficiency in the subject matter
by a wider teaching experience and in this way get a higher
status within the group
Later it could be useful to test our interactionist model of teacher
change with several student groups teaching in different classes. It
would also be interesting to see if the changes we observed in this
study will transfer to the next teaching practices the pre-service
teachers’ own work, i.e., how situation dependent collaboration is
862 R. Kaasila, A. Lauriala / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 854e862
or to which degree collaborative skills are transferred to other
situations. In general multicontextuality is important in teacher
education to support learning and its transfer.
References
Berger, J., Cohen, B., & Zelditch, M. (1972). Status characteristics and social inter-
action. American Sociological Review, 37(3), 241e255.
Bikner-Ahsbahs, A. (2003). A social extension of a psychological interest theory. In
N. Bateman, B. Dougherty, & J. Zilliox (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th conference of the
international group for the psychology of mathematics education, Vol. 2 (pp. 145e152).
Clarke, D., & Hollingsworth, H. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professional
growth. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(8), 947e967.
Cobb, P. (1994). Where is the mind? Constructivist and sociocultural perspectives
on mathematical development. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 13e20.
Demo, D. (1992). The self-concept over time: research issues and directions. Annual
Review of Sociology, 18, 303e326.
Forsyth, D. (1999). Group dynamics (3rd ed.). New York: Brooks/Cole-Wadsworth.
Garet, M., Porter, A., Desimone, L., Birman, B., & Yoon, K. (2001). What makes
professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers.
American Educational Research Journal, 38, 915e945.
Gellert, U. (2008). Routines and collective orientations in mathematics teachers'
professional development. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 67(2), 93e110.
Halai, A. (2006). Mentoring in-service teachers: issues of role diversity. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 22(6), 700e710.
Hall, S. (1999). Identiteetti. [Identity]. M. Lehtonen, & J. Herkman (Trans. and eds.).
Tampere, Finland: Vastapaino.
Hargreaves, D. (1980). The occupational culture of teachers. In P. Woods (Ed.),
Teacher strategies: Explorations in the sociology of the school (pp. 125e148).
London: Croom Helm.
Harre, R., & Secord, P. (1972). The explanation of social behavior. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Kaasila, R. (2000). Ela €ydyin oppilaiden asemaan ['An Insight into the Role of Pupils.'
The significance of school recollections in the formation of the conceptions and
teaching practices of mathematics for preservice teachers], Dissertation. Acta
Universitatis Lapponiensis 32. Rovaniemi: University of Lapland.
Kaasila, R. (2007). Mathematical biography and key rhetoric. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 66(3), 373e384.
Kaasila, R., Hannula, M. S., Laine, A., & Pehkonen, E. (2008). Socio-emotional orien-
tations and teacher change. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 67(2), 111e123.
Kaasila, R., & Lauriala, A. (2008). Interactionistic perspective on student teacher
development during problem-based teaching practice. In E. Ollington (Ed.),
Teaching strategies, innovations and problem solving (pp. 257e282). New York:
Nova Science Publisher.
Kazemi, E., & Franke, M. (2004). Teacher learning in mathematics: using student
work to promote collective inquiry. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 7,
203e235.
Lauriala, A. (1992). The impact of innovative pedagogy on teacher thinking and
action: A case study on an in-service course for teachers in integrated teaching.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 8(5/6), 523e536.
Lauriala, A. (1997). Development and change of professional cognitions and action orienta-
tions of Finnish teachers. Dissertation. Oulu: Acta Universitatis Ouluensis, E 27.
Lauriala, A. (2004). Teacher knowledge and learning in a context of change. In
M.-L. Husso, & T. Wallandingham (Eds.), Teacher as researcher - pictures and
perspectives of professionalism (pp. 20e39). Jyva €skyl€a: Tuope, Journal of Teacher
Researcher.
Lauriala, A. & Kukkonen, M. (2001). Teacher and student identities as situated
cognitions, Paper presented at the 10th Biennial Conference of ISATT, Portugal,
Faro, 13.
Lauriala, A. & Kukkonen, M. (2003) Application of self-discrepancy theory in teacher
education: balancing personal ideals and professional standards. Paper pre-
sented at the 11th Biennial Conference of ISATT. New Directions in Teachers'
Working and Learning Environment. June 27eJuly 1, 2003. Leiden, ICLON, 11.
Lee, D., & Smith, J. (1991). The effect of the social organization of schools on
teachers' efficacy and satisfaction. Sociology of Education, 64(3), 190e208.
Lewin, K. (1947). Group decision and social change. In T. M. Newcomb, &
E. L. Hartley (Eds.), Readings in social psychology (pp. 330e344). New York: Holt.
Little, J. W. (1982). Norm of collegiality and experimentation: workplace conditions
of school success. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 325e340.
McNeal, B., & Simon, M. (2000). Mathematics culture clash: negotiating new
classroom norms with prospective teachers. Journal of Mathematical Behavior,
18, 475e509.
Manouchehri, A. (2002). Developing teaching knowledge through peer discourse.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(6), 715e737.
Markham, M. (1999). Through the looking glass: reflective teaching through
a Lacanian lens. Curriculum Inquiry, 29(1), 55e76.
Nunokawa, K. (2005). Mathematical problem solving and learning mathematics: what
we expect students to obtain. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 24, 325e340.
Op 't Eynde, P. (2004). A socio-constructivist perspective on the study of affect in
mathematics education. In M. Johnsen Hines, & A. Fuglestad (Eds.), Proceedings
of the 28th international conference of the international group for the psychology of
mathematics education, Vol. 1 (pp. 118e122). Bergen: Bergen University College.
Op 't Eynde, P., De Corte, E., & Verschaffel, L. (2002). Framing students' mathe-
matics-related beliefs: a quest for conceptual clarity and a comprehensive
categorization. In G. Leder, E. Pehkonen, & G. To €rner (Eds.), Beliefs: A hidden
variable in mathematics education? (pp. 13e37). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Polkinghorne, D. (1995). Narrative configuration in qualitative analysis. In J. Hatch, &
R. Wisniewski (Eds.), Life history and narrative (pp. 5e23). London: Falmer Press.
Puchner, L., & Taylor, A. (2006). Lesson study, collaboration and teacher efficacy:
stories from two school-based math lesson study groups. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 22(7), 922e934.
Putnam, R. D. (1995). Bowling alone: America's declining social capital. Journal of
Democracy, 6(1), 65e78.
€s a
€nen, P., Kupari, P., Ahonen, T., & Malinen, P. (2004). Matematiikka e na € ko
€kulmia
Ra
opettamiseen ja oppimiseen. [Mathematics e views to teaching and learning].
Jyva€skyl€a: Niilo Ma€ki-Institute.
Reio, T. (2005). Emotions as a lens to explore teacher identity and change:
a commentary. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(8), 985e993.
Ricoeur, P. (1992). Oneself as another. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Schein, E. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Senger, E. (1999). Reflective reform in mathematics: the recursive nature of teacher
change. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 37(3), 199e221.
Shaw, K., Davis, N., & McCarty, J. (1991). A cognitive framework for teacher change.
In R. Underhill (Ed.), Proceedings of the 13th annual meeting of the North
American chapter of the international group for the psychology of mathematics
education, Vol. 2 (pp. 161e167). Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Tech.
Smith, S., Williams, S., & Smith, M. (2005). A process model for change in
elementary mathematics teachers' beliefs and practices. In G. Lloyd, M. Wilson,
J. Wilkins, & S. Behm (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th annual meeting of the North
American chapter of the international group for the psychology of mathematics
education (CD/ROM). Roanoke, Virginia: Virginia Polytechnic Institute.
Szydlik, J., Szydlik, S., & Benson, S. (2003). Exploring changes in pre-service
elementary teachers' mathematical beliefs. Journal of Mathematics Teacher
Education, 6(3), 253e279.
Vacc, N., & Bright, G. (1999). Elementary preservice teachers' changing beliefs and
instructional use of children's mathematical thinking. Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 30(1), 89e110.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. The development of higher psychological
processes. London: Harvard University Press.
Woods, P. (1992). Symbolic interactionism: theory and method. In M. LeCompte,
W. Millroy, & J. Preissle (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research in education
(pp. 337e404). San Diego: Academic Press.
Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy
in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4), 458e477.