TEACHER LEARNING IN STUDY GROUPS Текст научной статьи по специальности «Фундаментальная медицина»

ПРОФЕССИОНАЛЬНОЕ ОБРАЗОВАНИЕ: ПРОБЛЕМЫ, НАУКА, ПРАКТИКА

Патрик М. Дженлинк

ОБУЧЕНИЕ УЧИТЕЛЕЙ В УЧЕБНО-ИССЛЕДОВАТЕЛЬСКИХ ГРУППАХ

Ключевые слова: учебная группа, теория культурно-исторической деятельности, установленное обучение, сообщество исследователей и практиков.

Аннотация: Организация работы в учебно-исследовательских группах ставит учителей в условия, когда у них появляются возможности более продуктивного личностно-индивидуального роста. В таких условиях происходит интернализация конкретной ситуации, в которой потенциально заложены новые социальные и интеллектуальные предпосылки, что в свою очередь влияет и отражается в сознательной деятельности каждого педагога. В данной статье автор анализирует феномен групповой работы учителей. Такие группы представляют некие сообщества, деятельность в которых призвана повышать уровень мастерства учителя и в которых к нему предъявляются особые повышенные требования. Автор также говорит о теории культурно-исторической деятельности как социокультурном факторе, где заложена идея правильного понимания и оценивания профессионального роста учителя. Вопросы познавательного роста педагога рассматриваются в рамках организации работы в учебно-исследовательской группе, сопровождающейся использованием элементов материальной культуры, реализацией соответствующих требований и другими методами.

doi: 10.21510/1817-3292-2018-5-42-60

Discourse on teacher learning in the last decade has focused on the challenges of rethinking what professional learning should be in relationship to the role of the teacher in schools. A new image of teacher learning is emerging (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Grimmett & Neufeld, 1994; Hamilton, 1998; Hargreaves & Fullan, 1992; Lieberman & Miller, 1991; Richardson, 1997). Within this emerging image of professional learning, how teachers learn has become as important as what teachers learn. A major focus of this discourse has also been the types of knowledge important to teacher learning. Traditional views of knowledge-for-practice (i.e., codified knowledge) are being challenged by views of knowledge-in-practice and knowledge-of-practice (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999). An emerging theme in the discourse is the place of inquiry in the role of the teacher. Recently, questions of teacher knowledge, learning, and practice have taken new direction as professional development is being reconceptualized through the notion of "inquiry as stance" (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999), redefining teacher learning as an "inquiry-of-practice." Herein, it is argued, lies the importance of the teacher study group as a process of teacher learning.

Teacher study group, as examined in the literature, is viewed as a transformative learning experience (Saavedra, 1996), a community of discourse, and a form of teacher inquiry that is situated within the teacher's place of practice. Study group method, in the context of professional development (Meyer, 1995; Murphy, 1995; Murphy & Lick, 1998), is viewed as a form of inquiry that guides teacher learning and construction of knowledge.

The teacher study group as a forum for inquiry, discourse, and experimentation may be viewed as a socially and culturally situated community of practitioners (Lave & Wenger, 1991). As members participate in professional learning activities, they contribute to the development of community practices that simultaneously contribute to the individual teachers own development. Through participation, teachers become skilled in the specific cognitive activities of their communities (Rogoff, 1991). It is in recognizing the role that activity plays within culturally situated learning that cultural-historical activity theory (CHAT) serves to guide thoughtful examination of teacher learning and inquiry within the learning communities such as teacher study groups. Teacher learning, inquiry, and related activities form interrelated activity systems in which teachers participate, offering opportunity to examine teacher practice within and in relation to the historical-cultural contexts in which teachers carry out their practice.

42

п€пяюгмч*снмй журнал епшмортостпнп м ж(7в). жат

sSSSsSl nPO<P€CCHOHf1AbHO€ OBP0300nHH€: HP OCA€Mbl, HMJHn, flPflHTHH/l

Social constructivists have elaborated on the concepts of community, contextualization and situated cognition (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Lave, 1988; Rogoff & Lave, 1984; Vygotsky, 1978). Context and activity are viewed as an integral part of the teacher learning (Engestrom, Miettinen, & Punamaki, 1999; Fosnot, 1996). Based on an understanding that learning is socially and culturally situated in contexts of practice, learning occurs while teachers participate in the historical, sociocultural activities within and across their communities of practice, transforming the teachers understanding, practice, and view of reality as they participate (Fosnot, 1996).

In this paper, the author examines teacher study group as a form of community of inquiry and learning, incorporating cultural-historical activity theory as a theoretical and methodological framework for examining and understanding teacher learning activities.

Theoretical Frame

The current literature on teacher learning has emphasized the importance of opportunities for teachers to learn within structures that support ongoing inquiry embedded within the day-to-day realities of practice (Ball & Cohen, 1999; Hawley & Valli, 1999). Furthermore, teachers learning with other teachers is proving to be a powerful context for sustainable and meaningful professional growth over time (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Kinnucan-Welsch & Jenlink, 1998). The theoretical frame for this study was two-fold, with a focus on study group as a form of community for teacher learning and a focus on cultural-historical activity theory as a consideration for understanding the workings of the study group as a communal form of teacher learning.

Teacher Study Group

Much of the research and evolving theory of teacher development has been based within the context of the school as the unit of study (Hargreaves & Fullan, 1992; Little & McLaughlin, 1993). The study group, however, is one mode of professional learning outside of the formal structures of the school that bears some promise as a supportive context within which teachers can learn and grow professionally (Lieberman, 1996; Loucks-Horsley, Hewson, Love, Stiles, 1998; Murphy, 1995). As Lieberman (1996) suggests

in addition to formal learning they [teachers] may, by joining informal groups, develop stronger voices to represent their perspectives, learn to exercise leadership among their peers, . . . and perhaps, most importantly, develop a community of shared understanding that enriches their teaching while providing the intellectual and emotional stimulation necessary for personal and enduring growth and development. (p. 194)

The teacher study group, as an alternative supportive context for teacher learning, is transformative and mediates the cultural constraints associated with more traditional professional development experiences (Loucks-Horsley, et al., 1998; Meyer, et al., 1998; Saavedra, 1996). Study group activities have focused on how classroom practices of teaching and learning might reflect continuous growth and development of the teacher as a professional. This continuous growth can be accomplished by creating a forum for ongoing discourse and collective reflection. The topics of this discourse, inquiry, and reflection are varied and situated in the social and cultural contexts of the teachers' practice, generated by individual and collective needs of the group members (Fosnot, 1996). A basic premise of the study group is that teachers should be more responsible for their own professional learning "through the creation of critical and reflective social contexts that place the teachers at the center of their own learning" (Saavedra, 1996, p. 272).

Teacher study group method is based on certain assumptions about teachers, teacher learning, and teacher professional development. These include: 1) teachers are capable of being responsible for their own learning; 2) if teachers are expected to continually grow, they must be

nennrorvmecKMH ytcypHnn cnwhoprocrnHn m 5(78). soia sSSSSSs

provided the social and reflective contexts that will enable them to change their practice to reflect that growth; 3) teachers share common experiences and have the practical knowledge which serves as the focus of their inquiry and discourse; 4) linking teachers' practical knowledge to well-grounded theoretical tenets is an important aspect of teacher learning; 5) changing teachers' classroom practice necessarily requires teachers be recognized as empowered social agents who are committed to membership in a community of learners; and 6) teacher learning and professional development is most effective when situated within their community of practice (Loucks-Horsley et al., 1998; Meyer et al., 1998; Saavedra, 1996).

The study group as a forum for teacher inquiry, discourse, and experimentation may be viewed as a socially and culturally situated community of practitioners (Lave & Wenger, 1991). As teachers participate in study group activities, they contribute to the development of community practices that simultaneously contribute to the individual's own development. It is through inquiry and discourse, examination, and practice that facilitators become skilled in the specific cognitive activities of their communities (Rogoff, 1990). Participating in the study group shapes both the teacher's experiences and the experiences of other members of the study group.

Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (CHAT)

A second aspect of the theoretical frame, cultural-historical activity theory, is instructive for understanding the activity of teacher learning in the context of communities (Engestrom, Miettinen, & Punamaki, 1999; Vygotsky, 1978). An activity is a coherent, stable, relatively long -term endeavor directed to a definite goal or "object." CHAT builds on a Vygotskian concept of development whereby external social processes are internalized into a person's repertoire through participation in a zone of proximal development (Newell, Rosenbloom, & Laird, 1989). Learning as situated in a cultural-historical context, is "a process of social negotiation or collaborative sense making, mentoring, and joint knowledge construction" (Zhu, 1998, p. 234). The zone of proximal development (ZPD) refers to the ". . . distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving . . . in collaboration with more capable peers" (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86). In example, the teacher study group forms a zone of proximal development, in which teachers engage in various activities of inquiry and learning with peers.

Cultural-historical activity theory emphasizes the social and cultural situatedness of activity (Jonassen & Rohrer-Murphy, 1999). In examining individual learning through the experiences of teachers participating in study groups, we understand that learning is situated within contexts that both transform knowledge and the context itself as practitioners carry out their activities. As Lave and Wenger (1991) point out, "there is no activity that is not situated" (p. 33), and hence no learning that is not situated. What participants in a study group do is woven in a social matrix of human relationships and cultural artifacts like language systems and propositional and practical knowledge that are used in the activity.

Cultural-historical and cognitive theories both highlight the crucial role that activity plays in teacher learning and development (Fosnot, 1996). Within the constructivist-based teacher education research (Fosnot, 1993; Richardson, 1997) during the past decade, an emerging focus has been given to the socially and culturally situated nature of activity (Jonassen & Rohrer-Murphy, 1999; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Rogoff, 1990). In examining teacher learning through the lens of cultural-historical activity theory, we understand that what teachers do, such as in a study group, is "embedded in a social matrix, composed of people and artifacts (physical tools and sign systems) that are used in the activity" (Jonassen & Rohrer-Murphy, 1999, p. 65).

Figure 1 presents a graphic representation of cultural-historical activity theory (CHAT). Activity is delineated into three triadic relationships, interrelated in nature, demonstrating a complex, dynamic set of interactions. The study group serves as a focus for delineation of the

sSSSsSi np0*peccM0HfíAbH0c OBP03oanHH€: npoGACMu, Hnynn, npnKTMnn

various elements of the activities that define a study group in relation to the embedded nature of activity in a social matrix of people and artifacts. The relationship of mediational artifacts to the subject (a study group and its members) and to the object of the study group activity (teacher learning) forms a triad. Interrelatedly, the relationship of the subject and the socio-cultural rules (rules associated with teacher learning and study group activity) and community (study group as a community of inquiry and learning, guided by a communal motive) forms a triad. Also interrelated the first two triads, the relationship of object (teacher learning) with community (study group guided by communal motive of learning) and the division of labor (roles related to inquiry and learning and individual community-based responsibilities) form a triad.

Figure 1. CHAT and the study group as an activity system for teacher learning

As teachers learn together in study groups, they experience what are sometimes thought of as higher stages of human development. A teacher's "consciousness is embedded in the wider activity system that surrounds an individual's activities, so that changes in the physical, mental, or social conditions of a person's situation are internalized and directly reflected in the person's conscious activities" (Jonassen & Rohrer-Murphy, 1999, p. 65). The concept of mediation plays a critical role in the construct of activity, such as that found in the teacher study group, and the generation of higher mental processes. Higher mental processes, "such as logical memory, selective attention, reasoning, analysis, and the metacognitive dimension of problem solving, bear a striking similarity to categories of learning strategies" (Donato & McCormick, 1994, p. 456). Mediation can take the form of the texts and research literature, visual material, discourse patterns, opportunities for inquiry, facilitation, or various kinds of peer-assistance. All forms of

nennrorvmecKMH ytcypHnn cnwhoprocrnHn m 5(78). soia sSSSSSs

mediation are embedded in some context that makes them inherently cultural-historical processes (Donato & McCormick, 1994; Engestrom, 1991; Tharp & Gallimore, 1988).

In examining cultural-historical activity theory and its relationship to creating communities of inquiry through the teacher study group, we find that CHAT focuses on the interaction of activities of participating and the participants' consciousness in attending to the integration of knowledge and practice. In examining individual learning through the experiences of teacher study groups we understand that learning, situated within bounded contexts, transforms both knowledge and the context itself as practitioners carry out their activities. The perspective of teacher learning within study group, informed by cultural-historical activity theory and the concept of mediation, ". . . maintains that the emergence of strategies is a by-product of goal-directed situated activity in which mediation through artifacts, discourse, or others plays a central role in apprenticing novices into a community of practice" (Donato & McCormick, 1994, p. 456).

Taking into consideration the uniqueness of the teacher study group, and the activities that define the group's purpose and identity, the relationship between cultural-historical context and learning is reflexive in that not only does context affect the individual's learning, but also that individual's actions construct context. Understanding the situatedness of learning, then, depends on understanding "the whole person rather than receiving a body of factual knowledge about the world; on activity in and with the world; and on the view of that agent, activity, and the world mutually constitute each other" (Lave & Wenger, 1991, p. 33). An important consideration in understanding the whole person is to recognize that each person brings a set of knowledge, values, and beliefs to the activity settings, such as eh teacher study group.

Method of Inquiry

This research draws upon experiences of 72 teacher and administrator practitioners who were a part of an initiative designed to develop, implement, and research the use of study group method as an alternative approach to teacher inquiry, learning, and professional development.2

2

The participants that took an active part in the initiative formed three tiers of participants. The first tier included the design team members who provided facilitated assistance to all participants throughout the initiative. The design team members wrote the grant that funded the eighteen-month initiative and collaboratively designed the learning activities supporting the evolution of facilitation as a part of study group method. The design team members were active participants in the initiative from the initial conceptualization of the grant through current dissemination activities.

The second tier of participants included the design team plus those individuals invited to study and learn how to facilitate teacher professional development through study groups. This group was comprised of twelve educators. Included were six classroom teachers, two lead teachers responsible for supporting professional development in their own district, two technology consultants, one administrator, and one intermediate school district professional development consultant. The invitation to participate was advertised by a flier distributed throughout the Math and Science Alliance. In reality, most of the participants had experienced previous contact with the director of the Alliance through other professional development venues. The second tier of participants was active from August of year 1, through the writing retreat in June of the second year.

The third tier of participants included educators who formed nine study groups, each convened and facilitated by members of the second-tier study group. These newly convened study groups ranged in size from five to fourteen members and focused on a variety of topics. The nine study groups met regularly from February until June of year 2, with the exception of one group that began in January of year 2. The second tier study group members who were facilitating these groups continued to meet as their own study group to engage in dialogue, reflection, and examination of the facilitation and study group processes from a perspective of their own experiences. The focus of this article includes the perspectives of the design team and the core study group, or the second tier of participants.

In order to learn about study groups and facilitation, the second tier participants were formed into a study group with facilitation as the focus of its inquiry, as related to the teacher study group. The belief was that if the participants actually experienced being in a study group, they would better understand the power and potential of the study group. Focusing on facilitation as the topic of inquiry and study followed a similar belief. If these educators were to learn how to be facilitators, then being in a facilitated study group (facilitated by the design team) would provide experiential knowledge as well as ongoing modeling of how study groups can be facilitated.

ààSàâàâ nPO<P€CCHOHf1AbHO€ 0BPH30ßnHH€: IIPOBACMbl, HR UHR, flPflHTHH/l

The concept of teacher study group used in the study was premised on four assumptions: a) that teachers' work is a viable context in which to situate professional learning; b) that collective, collaborative inquiry within a professional community provides a richer context for development and learning; c) that teachers have the professional knowledge and capacity to take responsibility for their learning; and d) that facilitated assistance of professional learning is important to the implementation and sustainability of study groups. In essence, it was believed that "study groups [would] provide a forum in which teachers can be inquirers and ask questions that matter to them, over a period of time, and in a collaborative and supportive environment" (Loucks-Horsley, et al., 1998, p. 113-114).

The setting for this study was a consortium of twenty-five school districts in an urban area of the Midwest. As part of its purpose, the consortium provided professional development for several hundred teachers and administrators through short-term and long-term programs and activities.

The research for this paper was guided by the use of case story method to collect, analyze and report the data. Case story as a narrative form of personal experience method blends the power of narrative analysis with the meaning and theory construction potential of cases (Ackerman & Maslin-Ostrowski, 1995; Clandinin & Connelly, 1991; Kleinfeld, 1992; Shulman, 1992).

Case stories are a generative, evolving medium that are works in progress (Mattingly, 1991). The case story method is both a written and oral description process of lived experiences which practitioners examine through narrative inquiry, story telling, and re-experiencing the lived moments of their lives. Shulman (1992) identifies the case story as being crafted from case materials. Such materials are referred to as field texts (Clandinin & Connelly, 1994).

The research for this paper was also guided by using cultural-historical activity theory (CHAT) as a frame for analyzing the processes used to negotiate and assess the learning activities3. The work of a teacher study groups is driven by a deeply communal motive (Engestrom, 2000, p. 964). The communal activities are depicted in the narrative case stories of participants. The grounding for this analysis is drawn from the work of Jonassen & Rohrer-Murphy (1999) who suggests that activity theory: ". . . is a powerful socio-cultural and socio-historical lens through which we can analyze most forms of human activity. It focuses on the interaction of human activity and consciousness . . . within its relevant environmental context" (p. 62). This is further supported by the work of Engestrom, Miettinen, & Punamaki (1999) and their use of activity theory as frame for analyzing human learning.

The field texts from which the case stories were crafted included field notes from participant observation, reflective journals, critical moment stories, transcripts of audio-recorded conversations, video scripts of study group activities and orientation experiences, transcripts of individual, peer and focus group interviews, written artifacts, participant stories of their experiences, personal journals, and E-mail dialogue among the participants. An important source

During the course of the initiative, this core group became known as the Thursday Night Study Group (TNG) (because they met on alternating Thursdays) or Facilitation Study Group. The exploration of facilitation by this group followed a path of inquiry and study guided by questions like "What is facilitation?", "What is a study group?", "What is the role of facilitation in study groups?", and "How do study groups contribute to professional development?"

3

Engestrom's (2000) discussion of cultural-historical activity theory is instructive in understanding teacher study group as a historically evolving collective activity system, offering opportunities for developmental transformation in the way of individual and collective teacher learning. Within the study group as the unit of analysis, transformation or teacher learning proceeds through cycles of learning: "which begin with actions of questioning the existing standard practice, then proceed to actions of analyzing its contradictions and modeling a vision for its zone of proximal development, then to actions of examining and implementing the new model in practice" (p. 960).

nennrormtecKMH >t<ypHnn en whop rocrnHn m 5(78). sois b§§s§sê

of field texts included case materials created during a "Writing Retreat"4 for the study group participants. A constant comparison of the multiple data sources was used to examine for key questions, themes, and emerging patterns (Merriam, 1998).

4

The writing retreated was designed as an activity system, structured with a set of writing activities. Considering the socio-cultural nature of the participants' personal professional experiences of study groups and facilitation, as well as the desire to examine the stories related to these experiences, we sought to create a narrative inquiry setting. This setting would be one apart from the practical contexts of participants' professional lives, thereby yielding to a context conducive to writing personal experience narratives.

Through the lens of activity theory, the retreat had specific objectives and expected outcomes. There was also a focus on the socio-cultural rules for professional learning and the continued development of community that had begun with the Thursday Night Study Group. In examining the role of participants in the writing retreat, and the desire to have the participants engaged in writing case stories, a division of responsibility for the writing was developed in which the participant was the primary story teller. A number of cultural artifacts and mediational tools were used to guide the inquiry process. The writing retreat took place June 20-25, 1998 at the Mission Point resort on Mackinac Island in the upper peninsula of Michigan. Three purposes guided the design and implementation of the writing retreat. These included:

1. The writing retreat contributed to collecting data for the evaluation study and contributed to understanding the SD 2000 experiences that facilitators shared with study groups.

2. The writing retreat contributed to creating elements of facilitator's case stories, which will become part of a Casebook for Facilitators.

3. The writing retreat served as a professional development experience by engaging the facilitators in a deep examination of their experiences within SD 2000, specifically with their study groups and the Thursday evening study group for facilitators.

These purposes guided the design of the writing retreat and helped to set a schedule of activities. The activities were designed and facilitated by the authors of this paper and the director for SD 2000 initiative. The purposefully designed activities included opportunities for participants to engage in writing, reflection, dialogue, interviews (peer and focus group), sharing, self and collective inquiry, peer-assistance, and scaffolding or mediational assistance from writing retreat facilitators. The writing retreat time was balanced between activity targeted at achieving the purposes of the writing retreat and activities focused on providing personal and social time for participants. An underlying premise of the writing retreat was that sharing in these activities would engage second tier participants who were facilitators of study groups in learning from and develop understanding about their own experiences in a study group. Each writing retreat participant brought two categories of study group experience to the retreat experience. One type of study group experience was that of being a member of a study group inquiring into facilitation practice (the Thursday Night Study Group). The

48

ààSàâàS nPO<P€CCHOHf1AbHOC OBP0300nHH€: IIPOGACMbl, H/tUMI, flPflHTHH/l

Findings

In this study, following an eighteen month period during which time the study groups were active, participants were then engaged in a storying and restorying process - situated narrative activities - to examine various aspects of their experiences in study groups and / or as facilitators of a study group. Field texts were also used in crafting the stories, drawing from journals, interviews, e-mails, peer-interview process, etc.

What emerged from the storying and restorying process was narrative elements that formed case stories. The stories reflect the participants' attempt, as authors, to construct a narrative analysis of the personal and professional experiences of those who joined collectively to examine the foundations of study group method and live the life of a study group participant and facilitator. As Mattingly (1991) explains, "Simply asking practitioners to reflect on the stories they already tell can provide a natural bridge to a serious inquiry about the very deepest layers of value and belief that undergird the decisions they make" (p. 256). In all references to field texts, pseudonyms were used for participants' names with the exception of the design team members. The case stories of teachers' experiences provide a text for analysis of the embedded nature of teacher learning in a social matrix of activity in the study group. Drawing on cultural-historical activity theory as a lens, the experiences are analyzed.

Case Story: The Importance of Structure

The opportunity for teachers and other educators to engage in professional development activities offered outside of the place of practice are numerous. These opportunities, however, are often short-term workshops disconnected from the day-to-day practices of the world in which teachers work. The purpose of SD 2000 was to provide opportunities for teachers to engage in focused professional development through study groups and related activities that were closely connected to professional interest and practice, over a period of time. These opportunities do not often arise from external sources. That is what made, in part, this initiative so unique. It combined the power of learning in the local setting with the support from an external source. However, what became apparent in the initiative was the importance of structure. From a cultural-historical perspective, the social contexts of schools are defined by socio-cultural rules, rules that are normative in nature. Introducing new approaches to teaching learning often conflicts with some of these rules, as does forming new communities of inquiry and learning that set outside the existing socio-cultural rules and renegotiate established roles and responsibilities of teachers.

The study group profiles constructed by the facilitators during the writing retreat describe the elements of logistics supporting the sustainability of the groups. In some groups, the facilitator assumed responsibility for the necessary details such as organizing meeting place, time, and materials; in other groups, all group members shared that responsibility. Sandy, a principal of an elementary school and a facilitator of a study group on technology, talked about organization during a peer interview. She commented, "I think organization is important . . . I think facilitators

second type of experience was that of being a facilitator of his/her own study group (one of the nine study groups comprising tier three of the initiative).

The writing retreat provided the situated experiences of examining, through case story as a narrative non-fiction method (Barone, 1992), the personal practical experiences and knowledge of facilitation and study group which participants brought with them to the retreat. The retreat was viewed as an extension of the community of practice that the group of participants had created through their work in studying and practicing facilitation of study groups.

49

nennrorvmecKMH ytcypHnn cnwhoprocrnHn m 5(78). soia sSSSSSs

need to have all the materials and the situation set and organized in their minds." Contrast this view of facilitated structure that shared by Kathy, a teacher-facilitator who had only been in the classroom for two years when she joined the project. She also talked about structure, but in a different way:

The process I used in organizing was making sure there were snacks and refreshments. We took time to visit with each other and eat snacks. I took care of the snacks and dinner. We each took a turn hosting the meeting in our own classrooms. When it was in a member's classroom, she would be responsible for having the room set up. This was just how it happened. I did not decide this; it was never even talked about. After this, I usually shared messages about other study groups or shared important dates. After this I would open the discussion by talking about what we had looked at or talked about at the previous meeting. I would remind them of the topic they had chosen for this meeting. At the end of a meeting, I would always ask the members what they found most helpful or useful and what did they want to study or look at next time. From here we would choose our topic and prepare. Sometimes there would be a member or members who would bring in something they knew about or we would gather resources for a meeting. When dinner arrived we would all visit and eat. After dinner we would get back to our topic for the evening. When it was time for the meeting to end we would all pitch in and clean up, talk about the focus for the next meeting and decide who would bring what.

From these perspectives, we see glimpses of how structure supported the study group process. The facilitators approached the responsibility for organization in different ways. Some facilitators managed that for every meeting; some group dispersed that responsibility across group members. However the structure and organization is accomplished, it is certainly a necessary condition for maintaining a study group once one has formed. Wiggins and McTighe (2000) elaborate on the necessity of the condition - structure - through descriptions of necessary roles for study group participants, thus providing form to follow function, which assists people in accomplishing that structure. Some may find this useful. Others, such as Kathy, may be comfortable with a more loosely defined assignment of roles and responsibilities. Finding what works in terms of organized structure for a particular study group is part of the necessary process as the study group self-organizes and matures. Returning to cultural-historical activity theory, the role and responsibilities that define, in part, the dynamic nature of learning activity as well as the sociocultural dynamics of the study group participation, surfaces in Kathy's story.

Case Story: Trust and the Sustainability of Study Groups

A critically important theme that emerged was the development of trust between the facilitator and the group members as well as among the members as a whole. References to trust surfaced across all data sources from all facilitators and participants; it was a topic embedded in many of their stories of facilitation and study group experiences and relatedly viewed as contributing to their professional growth.

In a peer interview response to the question, How would you describe the role of the facilitator? Duncan said, "As facilitator you have to be the most open minded you've ever been in your life. Non-judgmental. Body language and . . . remarks that won't shut somebody down once you get them going. You know. . . . I think it's the trust thing. That I'm going to be able to say whatever I feel like saying. And nobody's going to put me in time out."

Study group participants shared critical moments, as part of structured activity for narrating experiences. Many of the stories were particularly rich with images of trust. Excerpts written by one participant, which exemplifies the issue of trust, follows. Marion, a study group member and facilitator opens with a reference to the trust that had developed among TNG members.

sSSSsSl nPO<P€CCHOHf1AbHO€ OBP0300nHH€: /IPOBA€Mbl, HMJHn, flPflHTHH/l

After two months of meeting every other week I can see that we have truly begun to bond as a group. I look forward to seeing everyone, hearing about the events of their past two weeks, and interacting with them in our group activities. . . . There is a safe accepting, and committed atmosphere among the group. . . . But will I be able to create this intense atmosphere of learning, personal bonding, and respect for one another in my study group?

As Marion reflects on her experiences over the course of her study group, she returns to the issue of trust.

As in most groups, some members were more verbal than others. At each meeting I tried to get every member's voice into the room, even if they didn't initially volunteer to speak. After a few meetings, most of the members were volunteering to enter into dialogue without being prompted. They seemed to begin to sense that the group valued their comments and could be depended upon to eagerly respond to their questions. The meeting atmosphere had become safe, comfortable, exciting, and supportive. There was also open sharing of materials, equipment, and software. Most nights I could feel the electricity in the air as group members buzzed around the lab demonstrating their new discoveries, showing their printed photos like a trophy, and complimenting each other on their successes.

Trust is an essential condition if teachers are to seriously examine their own practice in deep and meaningful ways. Teachers need safe places in which to explore their practice uninhibited by fear and competition. Marion demonstrates the importance of mediating group interaction and illuminates the need for and importance of valuing members. Drawn to the foreground is the diversity that defines the identity of each member, how he or she participates. Trust, as an emerging sociocultural rule as the study group forms, acknowledges the critical importance of defining rules that enable the newly forming community to function, interact, and come together

Case Story: Confidence as a Learner

The activities that define a study group are situated in a rich, dynamic social matrix of individuals and mediating artifacts. Many times, members of a study group, much the same as with any community, have varying years of experience and expertise. The zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978) for some is different from others. Confidence as a learner and member of a newly forming community is important. While the object of the activity, in our case teacher learning in a study group, is often the same, the path to achieving the intended purpose requires different mediation for different members. Connecting learning, from one session to another, presents challenges to understanding how a study group as an evolving community of learners, keeps focus on the selected topic of inquiry. Kathy, a classroom teacher with two years of teaching experience, reveals the challenges of being in a study group as a member and a facilitator.

The members of my study group are all teachers. There are four first year teachers, one four-year teacher, one two- year teacher, one 10-year teacher, and one 35-year teacher. Six of the members were from the same school district and only one member is from a school outside the district. There are two kindergarten teachers, two second grade teachers, and three first grade teachers. Four of the teachers were from the same building in their school district and there were two members from another school in the district. Three of the teachers are age 23-25. One teacher is 30. One teacher is 40. One member is 54. One member is 55.

I can remember the night of our first study group meeting. I thought I did a great job introducing myself, setting the purpose, and making everyone feel comfortable. I told everyone we had come together to think about how the math program we were traditionally using could be enhanced by alternative programs or activities. How could we tie these threads together? Then it hit me. I felt hot, red, and ready to go home. Everyone in the group silently stared at me. I was the

nennrorvmecKMH ytcypHnn cnwhoprocrnHn m 5(78), soia sSSSSSs

facilitator. I didn't have to know what activities would fit perfectly with our curriculum but I did need to know what question to pose next. At this critical moment, I thought about the task I had committed to. How am I going to be a facilitator? Do I have the confidence and training to carry this out? Am I qualified to do this? I remembered seeing Rick come into our Thursday night meeting and the feeling I had when he described his first study group meeting. I was nervous and felt a loss of confidence. I was again experiencing this feeling at my first study group meeting. This is the last place I wanted this to happen. I wondered what these teachers were thinking about as they looked at me like I would tell them what to do next. After all, I was not a leader and had never been. I remembered some advice a fellow groupie had given me, "Lead a workshop, give the group good food and let them out early." At the time, this was the only advice I could conjure up. Figuring out what to do next and how to keep it going was the greatest challenge I had faced yet. It was the challenge I so confidently decided I would not have to face due to my age! Here I was facing it.

The focus of our group we had decided . . . was to take the math program we were given to teach and to bring in activities or other programs that could enhance what we already had. We did not decide this the first night. It took us time to get to this realization. The group went through a process of asking and answering questions to figure out the purpose of us getting together. We really had to ask ourselves what could our study group do that we could immediately take back to our classrooms and use? I had to really push at times to get people to think hard while also pushing my own thinking. I don't think it's that people don't want to think hard. It is that we don't think we have time. We all decided that we lead busy lives and committing to a study group was huge. It was a disruption to all of our time schedules. I had to evaluate myself as a facilitator. Am I helping the group choose a focus that will help everyone? Is everyone happy? Are people turned on to this idea of a study group? I felt and still feel very responsible about the perception the members of my study group walked away with on being a part of a study group. . . .

Once the group came together, we realized that not all of us had the same background or training in the traditional math program or in alternative programs. What we did realize was that each of us had unique backgrounds and we could each bring something from our own training. What we decided would be most beneficial and worthwhile was to look at our traditional programs that we had to use and to each bring in the best activities or other programs we know about. We shared, copied, and planned. We took a math chapter and broke it down by skills and then enhanced with activities, programs, etc. . . .

It was the hard questions that were my greatest challenge but that made the difference in my growth. What will the focus at our next meeting be? How will everyone be able to contribute? Does everyone feel comfortable? All of these questions had to be answered before we could move on. . . .

I would open the discussion by talking about what we had looked at or talked about at the previous meeting. I would remind them of the topic they had chosen for this meeting. At the end of a meeting, I would always ask the members what they found most helpful or useful and what do they want to study or look at next time. From here we would choose our topic and prepare. Sometimes there would be a member or members who would bring in something they knew about or we would gather resources for a meeting. . . . When it was time for the meeting to end we would all pitch in and clean up, talk about the focus for the next meeting and decide who would bring what. The process changed once we had narrowed our focus. We had a broad topic and narrowed it down after looking some programs and realizing we each had a specialty to bring to the math programs we were all using in our classrooms. . . .

Toward the end each member expressed the feeling that we didn't have enough time. We should have met longer. I noticed there were two kindergarten teachers who really bonded. They were planning on meeting even outside of our study group. They really seemed like they

sSSSsSl nPO<P€CCHOHf1AbHO€ OBP0300nHH€: IIPOGACMbl, HMJHn, flPflHTHH/l

bounced off of one another. I think the group liked meeting for the professional aspect but also because they seemed to enjoy each other.

The group spent time looking at videos, student and teacher math workbooks, activities, math catalogs, manipulatives, teacher resource books, and we spent time creating lessons. It seemed to take more time narrowing a topic than anything else. Time was a factor in that we were all busy. It was difficult to accommodate the large meetings when all groups were supposed to come together. The time was not a problem for me because I was committed to the project. I think sometimes people make commitments and then don't follow through or they complain along the way. It was difficult to leave on Thursday and be at the Teacher Center by 4:30 just because there are school things that need to be taken care of. . . .

It was interesting to me that on the last night of my study group meeting we all decided that we would like to continue to meet next school year once a month to continue what we had already done. As members of a study I think their perception of this new idea of teacher learning was worthwhile. We all felt what we had accomplished was so useful in our teaching that we would commit to it again. I feel successful and a sense of confidence has emerged.

Mediating the needs of a newly forming community of learners isn't without its challenges, both inter- and intrapersonal. Kathy's memory of her first meeting, and the discomfort that created for her reflects the tension that is often experienced by study group members, and by individuals like Kathy responsible for facilitating - a mediational process - the formation of study group. In the moment she realized "I didn't have to know what activities would fit perfectly with our curriculum, but I did need to know what question to pose next." It is that realization of the essence of the role of facilitation that indicates Kathy's evolving maturity and confidence as a professional and as a facilitator. She began with what was comfortable for her, meeting food and drink needs. It seemed that after that opening, the group moved in concert to make the decisions that would focus their study for the next few months. But Kathy also realized that she had a deeper sense of responsibility as facilitator: "I had to really push at times to get people to think hard while also pushing my own thinking." The group was engaged in thinking about how to enhance their math curriculum and instruction.

Kathy provides the reader insight into how novice teachers can enhance and extend their professional learning early in their professional careers as a member of a community. Kathy admits she was stretched in this endeavor, but that she gained the confidence and learned along with her peers. This raises the issue of how we are mentoring novice teachers, mediating the learning-to-teach experiences as well as mediating the emergence of professional identity as a teacher, and equally important as a member of a professional community of learning. For Kathy, the opportunity to meet regularly with a group of colleagues pushed her boundaries and confidence both as a teacher and as a learner.

Case Story: Mediational Dilemmas

Many dilemmas arise that are beyond the scope of practical knowledge of the teachers, both novice and more experienced. As the Thursday Night Facilitators' Study Group (TNG) discovered, quite often the study group facilitators were faced with a situation or experience that left the facilitator asking the question, "What do I do now?" or "How do I handle this situation and not offend someone?" or "Should I be more directive or less directive in addressing this issue?"

In reflecting on their personal experiences as facilitators of a study group, TNG members recounted a number of dilemmas that surfaced once they began to facilitate groups of their own. Chana, a district-level staff development consultant shared: "I think one dilemma . . . is when you have a person, or maybe more than one person, in your group who doesn't fulfill the commitment. Maybe they come late. Or they leave early. You know, that can happen. I had one person do that, quite a few times." As was discovered in working with the different study groups, there were often

nennrorvmecKMH ytcypHnn cnwhoprocrnHn m 5(78), soia sSSSSSs

cases where some participants did not have the same level of commitment - shared communal motive - as others. This posed a problem for the facilitator as he/she attempted to sustain the group dynamic and the flow of the inquiry process. Responsibility is a constant issue in working with diverse groups as is evidenced here in and in later stories.

Randy, a teacher that moved into a new principalship during the initiative, reflects on his dilemma associated with social dynamics and the impact that one personality can have on the study group.

I think, a major problem, or dilemma, would be a person in the group that's very domineering. Or, not necessarily that they know it all but that they always have to say something. Or they always have to have a question. So, how are you as facilitator going to handle the person who feels, who is like the know-it-all. But they don't. So, how do you quell that, I guess. That could be a big dilemma. And the reverse of that would be a dilemma . . . a person that wants to be in the group and one person's being so domineering they're taking the place of that person who wants to speak and so how do you draw them out. Almost like in your classroom. You've got people that work really high, and you've got people who work really low. How do you make it so everyone gets an opportunity? You can't always call on the person that raises their hand. So you have a dilemma that could be getting that person who you want to be a part of the group, or who wants to be a part of the group, those opportunities to be in it.

Mediation in this sense is much like peer-assisted learning or scaffolding with a learner. It was essential to making the learning experience not only successful, but also accessible and safe for all participants. When the domineering personality surfaced in a group, it often impacted the group dynamics, and the opportunity for inquiry and professional learning. In this case, Randy found himself identifying issues of dynamics and other types of patterns in personalities and practice, with the understanding that as a situation presented itself, one must be prepared to acknowledge the integrity of the group. Providing opportunity for each participant was key to the facilitative role.

The issue of logistics was also a dominant factor in the dynamics of study groups. As Betty, also a district-level staff development professional, indicates in retelling her experiences, the biggest dilemmas she faced had to do with scheduling and motivation.

I think one of the biggest dilemmas that I faced was scheduling. How to schedule yet another activity into an already busy schedule that I had . . . How to motivate the participants in the beginning. Because they really didn't know what they were coming to . . . Moving the people on. Getting them refocused. Keeping the focus on our task for each evening. That might be one time when I think I had to step out of facilitator and do a little leadership by saying, "Speaking about" and . . . ". . . we feel that . . ."

Keeping focus on the topic of study was often a challenge for the study group process, especially as the facilitator read the overall group dynamics and recognized the need to refocus the group when it seemed to have strayed from the topic of study. This speaks the triadic relationship in the cultural-historical activity theory framework that connects subject, object, and mediational processes. The right type of facilitative strategy was as important as how the strategy was implemented within the study group community dynamics.

Issues of diversity continuously confronted participants across the different study group experiences. Kathy shares the dilemma of different learning styles for adults.

I think one of the dilemmas possibly might be that you have to understand that people don't learn in the same way. They have different learning styles. So they're not always going to respond to my learning style, . . . that I have to be flexible in terms of learning styles. And even flexible in understanding how others feel about a certain issue. Most definitely one of the dilemmas for facilitation is that you cannot be real structured in terms of you have to be a risk taker.

sSSSsSl nPO<P€CCHOHf1AbHO€ OBP0300nHH€: IIPOGACMbl, HMJHn, flPflHTHH/l

As Kathy's reflections reveal, flexibility and openness were essential to the relationship with a diverse group of individuals. In the work of facilitators, flexibility and openness were mediational tools in addressing dilemmas of working within the shifting dynamics of a study group as the group learns and grows as a community.

Group size and how the group self-organizes is an issue that Phyllis faced, and retells in her story of dilemmas faced in implementing the study group. Interwoven in this story are logistical issues as well as issues of establishing an infrastructure for the study group.

I think one of the first dilemmas is worrying about how many people are going to be in your group, and will you have enough. And if you should encourage people to participate. Or how you can spread the word so people will know enough about it to participate. And then worrying about the size of the group. Is it going to be too big, or too small. And then looking at the facility that you have available. And figuring out what would be the best situation, and set up. And a lot of this you can do with your group. But you, I think you have to have thought it out ahead of time. What would be the best facility, place to meet, restructuring your time a little bit to fit the needs of your group. In our case, part of our group was deciding what we were going to study. It wasn't a predetermined single topic. So people determined their topic as we went along . . . And then also as a group we struggled with how we wanted to set up our sort of a framework. And then at the end we sort of did set up a little framework of how we wanted to break up our time. Because we felt we always had much more to accomplish than we had time to accomplish it by the study group.

The place and space for the study group became an important consideration. The overall issue of creating the initial study group dynamic related directly to the success and sustainability of the study group over time.

Case Story: Time, Trust, and Communal Motivation

Forming and sustaining a teacher study group is intensive work for all, but perhaps particularly for the person facilitating the study group. Marion shares her experience with a study group that focused on the topic of digital cameras and how this technology might be used in the classroom. Her story recounts the experience of organizing for the study group meetings, reflection on the amount of time often required, and acknowledges the dilemmas often encountered in groups with diverse personalities.

I would say, the amount of time and effort and knowledge it takes to organize and prepare all the behind the scenes preparations to be able to have everyone come to your study group and have it run smoothly. You can focus on just the topic at hand and have all those other little organizational things taken care of. Also it sometimes is a dilemma dealing with all the different personalities of the people in your study group. Sometimes it's difficult to generate the same level of motivation in all study group members. And time. It takes time before, during and after the meeting. It takes a large chunk of time . . . And when you are trying not to be the leader, you're trying to be the facilitator, and not the leader. Sometimes it's difficult to establish cohesiveness among the group without taking a leadership role.

Affirming Marion's dilemma related to time, Charlene also notes her sensitivity to the issue of trust and motivation. Charlene had one of the larger study groups with fifteen members, which often presents tensions to the group dynamic of a community of learners.

The time and the scheduling, I think is a dilemma for the facilitator. Because that's really a very cooperative thing that should be determined by all. You know, when you're looking at your calendar, you've got every Monday devoted to graduate school and every other Thursday devoted to something else. Like where do you find the time. But, I did notice, because I was studying something I wanted to study, it went to the top of the A list and some things went to the top of the C list . . . I think a dilemma somebody might have is . . . looking at these people and how am I

nennrorvmecKMH ytcypHnn cnwhoprocrnHn m 5(78), soia sSSSSSs

going to bring them together to trust. How am I going to validate everybody so that they want to be here. They want to trust. They want to be part of it. And, keep the motivation, you know, high for them to keep coming. I really thought a lot about motivation . . . Knowing when to change hats. I don't think you put on a facilitator hat and keep it there. I think that hat goes on and off during your discussions, and during your investigations, or whatever you're doing. So, you know, facilitator, to sometimes leader, to sometimes summarizer, to sometimes adding a question, that one question that will refocus the group. Or take a different direction, you know.

The recurring theme of time presents an important topic for consideration in forming a study group. Fostering and sustaining communal motive within the study group dynamics -fostering motivation in self as facilitator as well as other members of the study group - is a central issue in the study group experience. As Marion and Charlene explain, the work of being in and becoming a study group is time intensive whether as a participant member or a facilitator, divisions of responsibility that often overlap in the community. Charlene's story surfaces another central issue which is trust, and how the facilitator who works with a large group can assist in developing and sustaining trust over time.

Case Story: Transformative Learning

An intended outcome of the study group is learning. The activities that define the nature of a study group as a community of inquiry and learning form the situated nature of learning that teachers experience in the study group. As Saavedra (1996) has argued, the study group is a socio-cultural context for transformative learning and action. The ability to form a community of inquiry and learning that exists outside the form boundaries of the cultural-historical activity system of a school is important to enabling teachers not only to learn but to transform their practice through action.

Chana, reflecting on how she experience in the study group has changed her, reinforces how the experience of being in a study group and being a facilitator of a study group has crossed over into her professional and personal life.

Oh, I think it's made me more tolerant. Of other people. Definitely more open to other's opinions, suggestions. It's allowed me the privilege of knowing there's a better way of getting people to participate. I think with the format of facilitation, I've gotten more positive response from staff members and people who I work with. And it's made me carry this beyond the study group. I utilize it a lot in my every day job. Of truly listening. Not just saying unhum, but focusing on, not only listening to what people have to say, but even why they say it. Even, I think, to a point, it's made me question myself. You know, I examine myself a lot more and my motives for what I need to do. So it's made me look at myself a lot closer. And how I'm carrying something out or, am I doing it in a way. What's my body language saying? You know. Am I coming across? I'm more conscious about how I come across to other people. I don't think I was as conscious of that. Being one of them (facilitator) has afforded me, I think, the opportunity to be more accepted. They accept me more.

The self-reflective examination that Chana shares in her story speaks to the importance of self-inquiry that many of the participants and facilitators found to be important. Focusing on changes in "self" often reflects a deep processing of personal and professional issues associated with practice.

Recognizing the diverse ways in which teachers learn expands the perspective that individuals bring to the study group. Betty's transformative experience reflects not only what changed in her professional life, but in her personal life as well.

I'm certainly more confident about being part of a group. It's opened my eyes to other styles of learning. Other group member abilities. I taught special education for so many years, I knew a lot about learning styles, and different abilities, but this has really opened up my eyes as

sSSSsSl nPO<P€CCHOHf1AbHO€ OBP0300nHH€: IIPOGACMbl, HMJHn, flPflHTHH/l

an adult learner and viewing other adult learner's abilities and strengths. Another thing that it's done for me is open up a new avenue to learn, be a part of learning new things. New and exciting things. A new exciting way to learn. I think I must be one of those life long learners. I always have to learn. It's opened up a new avenue to gain information and certainly the camaraderie that our study group will give you . . . sharing and learning. I'm able to use many of the techniques that we've discovered in all facets of my life. Not just at school with students, or with other adults, or in a learning situation, but at home with my own family. I now look at dialogue and discussion in a whole new light. I'm able to better see the big picture and all the little parts that go along with it. And in regard to dialogue and discussion, how to ask the big question. And how to rephrase so that you're sure that you understand what other people are saying, or asking. And it's so delightful to be able to share the teaching and share the learning. It gives me new energy.

Early in the initiative, as part of the initial experience in examining teacher study group and facilitation, participants focused on the difference between dialogue and discussion, emphasizing that dialogue is conducive to collective inquiry and learning, and helps to sustain the community as it focuses on the topic of study. What Betty reflects in her story is sensitivity to the presence of existing cultural-historical norms and expectations with respect to cultural artifacts in the school. What surfaces is the importance of selecting new mediating artifacts and tools in relation to establishing specific social-cultural rules in a study group. For Betty, how to "ask the big question" is an important part of mediating one's actions and interactions in the study group. Changing professionally, as noted in Betty's story, indicates the inseparable nature of change in our lives.

As Betty shares, the role of facilitator is quite different from more traditional roles associated with workshops, teacher in-service, and professional development. The facilitator takes on the role of co-learner with other participants. There are times when the facilitator is the person providing facilitated assistance to the study group, and other times when the facilitator is a co-learner in the study group, learning side-by-side with everyone else.

It has given me the opportunity to participate. Versus always being in the leadership role. It's given me the opportunity to learn. And to accept responsibility for just my part, not the whole group. I think I've become a better listener. It's given me an opportunity to appreciate other people's strengths and weaknesses, and also the opportunity to work with people I might not ordinarily work with . . . I was able to use the facilitator's strategies in other areas of my life, besides education. [pause] And I found that very helpful. That was something I was able to apply to life situations in addition to a study group setting.

Betty shared an important change in her life as she became a better listener while taking responsibility for her own learning. She also affirms the positive impact of her experience as facilitator in other aspects of her life.

Conclusions

Working within teacher study groups as situated contexts of learning, the researcher has come to understand that cultural-historical activity theory plays a critical role in understanding individual and collective inquiry and learning. Understanding teacher inquiry and learning through activities can best be described only in the cultural-historical contexts - the communities of practice, inquiry, and learning - where the teachers' professional lives are lived and carried out on a day-to-day basis. Saavedra (1996) explains the study group as such a community, "a group of teachers who meet regularly . . . to discuss educational issues that evolve from each participant's beliefs, experiences, practices, and interests. The group may have a designated facilitator, or that role can be shared and alternated among members" (p. 273).

Each of the case stories brings voice to the unique and diverse nature of how lives are changed by participation in a study group and facilitation processes. Study group, and the

nennrorvmecKMH MtypHnn cnwhoprocrnHn m 5(78), sota sSSSSSs

facilitation of study group, places the teacher and practitioner in a very different context as a learner, one rich in common purpose and individual and collective responsibility for learning. The narrative approach to restorying these personal experiences has enabled the participants to reflect, reconnect, relive, and retell their stories so that others might share in the changed lives that have evolved through this initiative.

As demonstrated in the case stories, the community negotiates and mediates the rules and customs that describe how the community functions, what it believes, what artifacts are relevant, and the ways that it supports different activities. In essence, teachers learn through activities that are socially and contextually bound and culturally mediated. Teachers that participated in a study group came to understand that ". . . learning is not merely a condition for membership, but it is an evolving form of membership" (Lave & Wenger, 1991, p. 53). The communal motive of a study evolves as the members learn together.

Study groups require the participation of members that share a communal motive, individuals are committed to reflecting on their work and taking initiative for their own learning, and who view their membership as an inquiry-oriented relationship and therefore as a process of learning. Because the study group necessarily involve teachers in reflection on classroom practices, but outside of the classroom, it is difficult to sustain study groups in traditional school cultures, thus giving rise to the need for a supportive and caring community-oriented setting such as those fostered by forming a study group. The common theme that emerges from examining the case stories of teacher inquiry and learning communities is that educators are engaged in deep, substantive conversation and reflection about their practice and their own professional growth. The important contribution of the study group as a forum for inquiry and learning, as Saavedra (1996) notes, is that the study group

. . . provides a social context for critical dialogue, presents teachers opportunities to learn about current teaching theories and practices, permits collaboration and planning with peers, provides s supportive context for teachers to experiment with ideas and innovative practices and to share these experiences, and allows teachers to become actively responsible for their own learning and change. (p. 273)

Importantly, the study group as social context for inquiry and learning provides teachers with the time and space in which to engage in substantive reflection, inquiry, analysis, dialogue, and critique of their personal-professional practices.

Each study group in the initiative functioned with very different structures. Some facilitators provided considerable structure to the process and assumed responsibility for maintaining the smooth operation of the group. Some facilitators dispersed that responsibility once the group organized. Administrators and teacher educators can support teachers in their efforts to participate in study groups by providing resources and a forum to develop the process skills that contribute to successful study group.

As evidenced in the shared experiences of teachers participating in the study groups, essential to creating and sustaining a study group as a forum for teacher learning is an understanding of the critical nature of such factors as time; support from administrators; substantive topics; study group activities; facilitation of group process, either through self-direction and self-governance or by assistance from designated member of the group; and group interaction skills. Each factor influences the dynamics of the study group and the learning activities associated with study groups. Whereas these factors influence the dynamics, cultural-historical activity theory as a theory of learning guides the professional learning. Findings indicate that the opportunity to learn and grow through an inquiry-based approach like the teacher study group is often difficult based on the socio-cultural politics of place (i.e., the professional learning setting, school and/or district) and non-traditional modalities of teacher learning that transfer control and responsibility to the teacher.

gnssäffn nPO<P€CCHOHf1AbHO€ OBP030ßttHH€: IIPOBACMbl, Hfl UHR, nPßKTMKIt

References

1. Ball, D.L., & Cohen, D. K. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 3-32). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

2. Barone, T.E. (1992). Beyond theory and method: A case of critical storytelling. Theory Into Practice, 31(2),

142-146.

3. Brown, J.S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.

4. Cannella, G.S., & Reiff, J.C. (1994). Individual constructivist teacher education: Teachers as empowered learners. Teacher Education Quarterly, 21(3), 27-38.

5. Cobb, P. (1994). Where is the mind? Constructivist and sociocultural perspectives on mathematical development. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 13-20.

6. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S.L. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher learning in communities. In A. Iran-Nejad and C.D. Pearson (Eds.), Review of research in education, vol. 24 (pp. 249-305). Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research Association.

7. Condon, M.W.F., Clyde, J. A., Kyle, D. W, & Hovda, R. A. (1993). A constructivist basis for teaching and teacher education: A framework for program development and research on graduates. Journal of Teacher Education, 44(4), 273-278.

8. Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn: A blueprint for creating schools that work. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

9. Mattingly, C. (1991). Narrative reflections on practical actions: Two learning experiments in reflective storytelling. In D.A. Schön (Ed.), The reflective turn: Case studies in and on educational practice (pp. 235-257). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

10. Engeström, Y. (1991). Non scolae sed vitae discimus:: Toward overcoming the encapsulation of school learning. Learning and Instruction, 1(3), 243-259.

11. Engeström, Y. (2000). Activity theory as a framework for analyzing and redesigning work. Egronomics, 43(7),

960-974.

12. Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R., & Punamäki, R. (1999). Perspectives on activity theory. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

13. Fosnot, C.T. (1996). Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice. New York, NY: Teachers College

Press.

14. Gallimore, R., & Tharp, R. G. (1990). Teaching mind in society: Teaching, schooling, and literate discourse. In L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of sociohistorical psychology (pp. 175205). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

15. Hawley, W., & Valli, L. (1999). The essentials of effective professional development: A new consensus. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession (pp. 127-150). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

16. Jenlink, P.M., Kinnucan-Welsch, K., & Odell, S.J. (1996). Designing professional development learning communities. In, D.J. McIntyre and D.J. Byrd (Eds.), Preparing tomorrow's teachers: The field experience. Teacher Education Yearbook IV, (pp. 63-86). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.

17. Jenlink, P.M., & Kinnucan-Welsch, K. (1999). Learning ways of caring, learning ways of knowing through communities of professional development. Journal for a Just and Caring Education, 5(4), 367-385.

18. Kozulin, A. (1998). Psychological tools: A sociocultural approach to education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

19. Jonassen, D.H., & Rohrer-Murphy, L. (1999). Activity theory as a framework for designing constructivist learning environments. ETR&D, 47(1), 61-79.

20. Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

21. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

22. Leont'ev, A.N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

23. Lieberman, A. (1996). Practices that support teacher development: Transforming conceptions of professional learning. In M.W. McLaughlin & I. Oberman (Eds.), Teacher learning: new policies, new practices (pp. 185-201). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

24. Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P.W., Love, N., & Stiles, K. E. (1998). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.

25. Lytle, S.L. (1996). A wonderfully terrible place to be: Learning in practitioner inquiry communities. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, No. 70, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

26. Mattingly, C. (1991). Narrative reflections on practical actions: Two learning experiments in reflective storytelling. In D.A. Schön (Ed.), The reflective turn: Case studies in and on educational practice (pp. 235-257). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

27. McLaughlin, M.W., & Oberman, I. (1996). Teacher learning: new policies, new practices. New York: Teachers College Press.

nennrorvmecKMH MtypHnn cnwhoprocrnHn m 5(78), sota sSSSSSs

28. Merriam, S.B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

29. Meyer, R.J., Brown, L., DeNino, E., Larson, K., McKenzie, M., Ridder, K., & Zetterman, K. (1998). Composing a teacher study group: Learning about inquiry in primary classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

30. Moll, L. (1990). Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of sociohistorical psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

31. Murphy, C. (1995). Whole-faculty study groups: Doing the seemingly undoable. Journal of Staff Development, 16(3), 37-44.

32. Murphy, C. U., & Lick, D. W. (1998). Whole-faculty study groups: A powerful way to change schools and enhance learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

33. Murphy, J. (1993). What's in? what's out? American education in the nineties. Phi Delta Kappan, 74, 641-46.

34. Noddings, N. (1990). Constructivism in mathematics education. In R. B. Davis, C. A. Maher, & N. Noddings (Eds.), Constructivist views on the teaching and learning of mathematics, Monograph No. 4, (pp. 7-18). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Inc.

35. Noddings, N. (1992). The challenge to care in schools: An alternative approach to education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

36. Noddings, N. (1995). Philosophy of education. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

37. Noddings, N. (1996). On community. Educational Theory, 46(3), 245-267.

38. Oxford, R. L. (1997). Constructivism: Shape-Shifting, substance, and teacher education applications. Peabody Journal of Education, 72(1) 35-66.

39. Prawat, R. (1992). Teachers' beliefs about teaching and learning: A constructivist perspective. American Journal of Education, 100(3), 354-395.

40. Prawat, R. S., & Floden R. E. (1994). Philosophical perspectives on constructivist views of learning. Educational Psychology, 29(1), 37-48.

41. Resnick, L. B. (1991). Shared cognition: Thinking as social practice. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 1-20). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

42. Richardson, V. (1997). Constructivist teacher education: Building a world of new understandings. Washington, D.C.: The Falmer Press.

43. Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in context. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

44. Rogoff, B., & Lave, J. (1984). Everyday cognition: Its development in social context. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

45. Newell, A., Rosenbloom, P., & Laird, J.E. (1989). Symbolic architectures for cognition. In M. I. Posner (Ed.), Foundations of cognitive science (pp. 93-131). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

46. Russell, D.R. (1997). Rethinking genre in school and society: An activity theory analysis. Written Communication, 14(4), 504-554.

47. Saavedra, E. (1996). Teachers study groups: Context for transformative learning and action. Theory Into Practice, 35(4), 271-277.

48. Shulman, L.S. (1992). Toward a pedagogy of cases. In J.H. Shulman (Ed.), Case methods in teacher education (pp. 1-30). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

49. Shulman, L.S. (1996). Just in case: Reflections on learning from experience. In J.A. Colbert, P. Desberg, & K. Trimble (Eds.), The case for education: Contemporary approaches for using case methods (pp. 197-217). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

50. Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and schooling in social context. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

51. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

52. Wiggins, G., & McTighe. J. (2000). Understanding by design: Study guide. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

53. Zhu, E. (1998). Learning and mentoring: Electronic discussion in a distance-learning course. In C. J. Bonk &K. S. King (Eds.), Electronic Collaborators: Learner-centered technologies for literacy, apprenticeship, and discourse (pp. 233259). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.