Researchers have stressed that knowing more about how teachers work in self-initiated collaboration can help develop collaborative cultures and provide insight on the characteristics of those cultures (e.g., Darling-Hammond & Richardson, 2009), specifically, how collaborations in teacher groups can lead to generative professional learning opportunities (Coburn, Mata, & Choi, 2013). This study sought to address that gap. I conducted a case study of collaboration among middle school mathematics teachers using the Connected Mathematics Project (CMP) curriculum. Field observations, pre and post interviews, teacher logs and informal conversations with teachers supported a close examination of these teachers’ collaborative culture, allowing me to investigate how, when, and for what reasons they collaborated. Observation data was the main source of analysis and interview data and teacher-logs were used for triangulation purposes, to support and/or validate claims. Data analysis was carried by either adapting existing frameworks already provided in the literature or by using a grounded theory approach with open and axial coding techniques (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) and following with constant comparative analysis (Miles & Huberman, 1994). I found that the teachers interacted multiple times each day in spontaneous forms but in particular groupings. There were physical, practical and interpersonal factors that contributed to the frequency and directionality of teachers’ collaborative interactions. In addition, I found that the depth of their interactions was related with the interpersonal and disciplinary positioning of these teachers. This study provides evidence that even in a highly collaborative setting teachers’ discussion of mathematics as tied closely to their teaching and students, and interactions gained more depth from the initiation or response of a more knowledgeable peer. Teachers created a collaborative context where they shared their experience, examined emergent concerns and questions in their practice, and as they interacted within a domain of knowledge, they expanded their understanding of the issues and possible ways to address those issues. Teachers’ positioning one another in their interactions and their positioning themselves with respect to mathematics and curriculum provided entry points in deepening their understanding. At the same time, teachers’ interpersonal or disciplinary positioning limited the depth of their interactions. Shared knowledge co-constructed through collaborative interactions did not appear in different contexts as frequently, so it might be more realistic to expect for minor changes in teachers’ practices rather than dramatic shifts.
Read
