eaching and eacher Education, Vol. 14, No. 7, pp.

687702, 1998
( 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved
Printed in Great Britain
0742-051X/98 $19.00#0.00
PII: S0742-051X(98)00022-5

SHARED TEACHING ASSIGNMENTS IN THE SERVICE OF

MATHEMATICS REFORM: SITUATED PROFESSIONAL
DEVELOPMENT

DANIEL CHAZAN!, DAVID BEN-CHAIM", JAN GORMAS!, with the aid of

MARTIN SCHNEPP#, MICHAEL LEHMAN#, SANDRA CALLIS BETHELL#,
and STEVEN NEURITHER#
!Michigan State University
"Oranim School of Education, Haifa University
#Holt High School

Abstract Proponents of team teaching organizational arrangements in which teachers share

responsibility for instruction of students suggest that it can be a catalyst for teacher learning and
school change. We seek to understand the mechanisms responsible for the potential of this mode of
professional development as opposed to other modes of joint work. In this paper, we analyze
participating teachers explanations for the impact that a year-long shared algebra teaching assign-
ment had on their capacity to change their mathematics teaching. Consistent with situated theories
of learning, the teachers emphasize three important dimensions: the opportunity to assume the role
of observer in ones own classroom, the opportunity to experience a curricular innovation in the
classroom, and the need to make joint pedagogical decisions. ( 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights
reserved.

Attempts to reform teaching in the United States
have, in the past, not had as substantial an
impact as reformers have desired. Indeed, ac-
cording to Cuban (1993), in the United States
teaching practices have changed little in the last
century. Cuban suggests that although they are
often heavily promoted, most instructional re-
forms do not make it past the classroom door,
particularly at the secondary school level. But,
reformers continue to try for widespread change
in the nature of classroom teaching.
In an effort to have a greater impact, and
perhaps as a result of lessons learned from the
New Math movement, professional develop-
ment and teacher learning have become impor-
tant themes in the latest round of mathematics
reform in the United States (as represented by
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics,
1989, 1991, 1995). What is it that teachers need
to know or to learn in order to teach mathemat-
ics for understanding (e.g., Ball, 1992, 1996)?
And, if inservice teachers must learn in order to
687
carry out desired changes in teaching, how do
they learn (e.g., Stein, Silver & Smith, 1998)?
What sorts of professional development oppor-
tunities are promising?
These last two questions about the learning of
inservice teachers have both theoretical and
pragmatic components. How does one concep-
tualize learning? Where does one stand vis a vis
debates between cognitive and situative per-
spectives (see, for example, Anderson, Reder
& Simon, 1996; Greeno, 1997)? Does one, like
theorists stimulated by the study of apprentice-
ship (e.g., Lave & Wenger, 1991), situate learning
in the context of activity and thus emphasize
social practices and modes of organization? Or
is learning more individual and idiosyncratic?
For example, is teaching an art and are teachers
artisans, as argued by Huberman (1993)? Must
explanations of teacher learning emphasize indi-
vidual teachers styles or modalities of learning?
On a more pragmatic level, perspectives on
learning provide different grounds for the design
688 D. CHAZAN et al.
and analysis of professional development activ-
ities. For example, there is a school of thought
whose analysis of teacher learning supports in-
vestment in intensive teacher teacher collab-
orations. Sociological descriptions of teaching
(e.g., Lortie, 1975) and analyses of the culture of
teaching (e.g., Feiman-Nemser & Floden, 1986)
portray an occupation in which practitioners
operate individually behind closed doors. As
a result, for some, it is the isolation of teachers
from each other which professional development
must overcome (e.g., Little, 1990). Researchers of
this bent suggest that teacherteacher profes-
sional collegiality can serve as an important
catalyst for professional development and
school change (see Griffin (1991) for an elabor-
ation of this argument). Proponents of this sort
of professional development also suggest that
what is most deeply known about teaching is
known by teachers (Griffin, 1991, p. 250) and
that therefore it is sensible to have teachers learn
from each other, rather than from others who
are far from the daily realities of teaching. While
such teacher collegiality can take place under
many structures from informal, occasional
conversations about teaching; to the sharing of
lessons, materials, and classroom stories; to in-
tensive collaboration on a shared teaching as-
signment (Little, 1990) some (e.g., Rosenholtz,
1989) argue that this learning should happen in
the classroom. They focus on organizational ar-
rangements, like team teaching, in which
teachers learn from each other by sharing re-
sponsibility for the instruction of a group of
students (For a review of such arrangements, see
Cohen, 1976). By contrast, because of his empha-
sis on teacher artisanship, Huberman is skepti-
cal. He argues that, it is hard to imagine two
such people equally responsible for the same
pupils at the same time. The response set of
one person would collide, early on, with that
of the second, whose reading of the situation
and whose rapid, on-line response would
necessarily be different 2 (Huberman, 1993,
pp. 17, 18).
This paper, a collaboration between teachers
and university-based educators, is based on
a naturally occurring experiment, rather than an
a priori experimental design. It analyzes the case
of one, Professional Development School, high
school mathematics departments development
through shared teaching assignments (for dis-
cussion of Professional Development Schools as
catalysts for change, see Bullough, Kauchak,
Crow, Hobbs & Stokes, (1997)). The goal of the
shared teaching was to create an innovative al-
gebra experience for students.1 Yet, the experi-
ence seems to have had profound impacts on the
teachers and the department.
We have chosen to examine these shared
teaching assignments for two reasons. First, the
shared assignments seemed to be a catalyst for
change; the teaching by department members
did change. For example, the university-based
authors of this paper (one previously unaffiliated
with the project) noted that much of the teaching
in this department was quite different than
teaching found in most such departments. The
teaching in this mathematics department is cer-
tainly different from the teaching in other high
school departments affiliated with the univer-
sitys teacher education program. Second,
though, as Huberman emphasis on teachers as
artisans suggests, there were tensions inherent in
the sharing of a teaching assignment, the
teachers reports of their experiences were quite
positive. Over the course of the 199495 school
year, though there were examples of tensions in
the shared teaching relationships, the teachers
informal assessment of shared teaching assign-
ments emphasized the unique and perhaps even
transformative professional development oppor-
tunities which it represented.
Seeking an understanding of the teachers per-
ception that shared teaching around a curricular
innovation presented unique professional devel-
opment opportunities, the university-based
members of the project focused a set of inter-
views with the four Holt High School teachers
sharing teaching assignments during the
199495 academic year. In search of the reasons
the teachers valued shared teaching assignments
over other modes of professional development,
the interviews centered on the teachers explana-
tions for the unique value of this opportunity.
This paper presents relevant contextual
information, documents the change in the
teachers teaching, and then proceeds to present
three explanatory categories which arose as the
teachers discussed their experience of shared
teaching assignments. Discussion of the
teachers comments includes an examination of
both the pragmatic question of the promise
of shared teaching assignments as a mode of
 Shared Teaching Assignments in the Service of Mathematics Reform
professional development and the question of
relations between a community of practice per-
spective on learning and the teachers accounts
of the power of the shared teaching experience.
Data Collection and Analysis
The fundamental data collected in this study
were transcripts of structured interviews carried
out with all four teachers sharing assignments
during the 199495 academic year. The inter-
views were structured to collect data about the
teachers changing views of algebra and their
experience of shared teaching assignments. Each
teacher was interviewed in the fall and in the
spring. Each interview was carried out by Jan
Gormas and David Ben-Chaim, lasted approx-
imately ninety minutes, and was audiotaped. As
documentors of the PDS project, both David
and Jan were well-known to the teachers. They
were particularly interested in helping teachers
capture aspects of the project they found parti-
cularly useful or valuable.
These interview data were supplemented by
three other sources of data. Though these other
data sources are not as central to the paper as
the interviews, they inform the analysis of the
interview data. David and Jan visited the alge-
bra classrooms on a weekly basis, took notes
during weekly teachers meetings, and inter-
viewed a small sample of students in the algebra
classes.
Given the role which all of the university-
based authors have played in the Holt Math
Departments PDS work, the interviews could
not constitute an outside evaluation of the
shared teaching assignments as a vehicle for pro-
fessional development. Instead, the data were
analyzed to present a description of the nature of
the team taught classes and then a more focused
examination of the teachers reasons for feeling
that the professional development opportunities
presented by shared teaching assignments were
unique.
Analysis of the teacher interviews were carried
out in cycles over the summer and throughout
the 199596 academic year. First, the univer-
sity-based authors sought themes in the inter-
view transcripts, then these themes were tested
with the interviewees for face validity. Together,
the large group of authors reduced the themes
689
to the ones presented below. Finally, the
interviewed teachers responded to written drafts
of this paper. They supplemented their inter-
view comments with more elaborate written
comments (referred to in this text as prepared
texts).
Background/Context
Holt High School, the setting for the events
described in this paper, is located in a subur-
ban/rural community ten miles south of Lans-
ing, the capital of Michigan, and a similar dis-
tance from East Lansing, home of Michigan
State University. Historically, there were always
connections between people associated with
Holt High School and others associated with
Michigan State University, as there are with
many local K-12 schools. But, the nature of
these connections and the level of institutional
involvement escalated dramatically in the mid-
eighties. When Michigan State University re-
vamped its teacher education program and be-
gan to implement Holmes Group notions of
professional development schools (Holmes
Group, 1986), the universitys college of educa-
tion sought institutional connections with K-12
schools, like Holt High School, around teacher
education, the development of exemplary prac-
tice, and educational research. The vision sug-
gested a synergistic set of activities and collab-
orations between university faculty and K-12
educators around important issues of educa-
tional practice.
Michigan State Universitys Professional
Development School initiative at Holt High
School is a complex one which defies simple
description. On one level, it has meant the
infusion of resources into the high school. These
resources have provided funds for teachers to
participate in projects with university faculty.
They also have supported a professional orienta-
tion towards teaching among the schools fac-
ulty. This professional orientation has found
expression in the investment of resources in
professional development of teachers, most
dramatically in the creation of weekly Wednes-
day morning meeting times for the faculty.
These meeting times were created by having
students report to school only for their after-
noon classes.
690 D. CHAZAN et al.
Within the Mathematics Department, these
resources led to a series of projects. This paper
will concentrate on one strand in the work
concerns about students in the lower track
mathematics classes of the high school which led
to changes in the lower track curriculum: the
gradual abolishing of pre-Algebra, General
Math, and Practical Math; adoption of the Uni-
versity of Chicago School Mathematics Pro-
gram (UCSMP) textbook series in the junior
and senior high school; and subsequently an
alternative, non-textbook approach to Algebra
One (see below and Bethell, Chazan, Hedges
& Schnepp (1995) for a description of this ap-
proach). Over time, the ideas behind this ap-
proach have made their way from lower track
Algebra One classes into the college bound
tracks (e.g., tenth-grade Algebra Two) and even
the most accelerated track (Advanced Placement
Calculus).
Though the Mathematics Department meets
regularly during the Wednesday morning meet-
ing times, the algebra work developed primarily
through shared teaching assignments. For two
years, Sandy Bethell, a Holt High School
teacher, taught Algebra One with Daniel
Chazan, a university faculty member. Together,
they developed an alternative to the UCSMP
textbook course. During the 199394 year, other
members of the department were frustrated with
some aspects of the UCSMP textbooks ap-
proach and the department decided to use Pro-
fessional Development School funds to allow
Marty Schnepp and Sandy to teach the alterna-
tive Algebra One approach together. During
the 199495 school year, Marty and Sandy
each taught Algebra One with another member
of the department, while Sandy also team
taught a section of Algebra Two as a way of
exploring the ramifications of this new approach
in a new course context. These 199495 shared
teaching assignments are the focus of this
paper.
Though funds for shared teaching assign-
ments have not remained available at the same
level since, these mathematical ideas have con-
tinued to intrigue members of the department
and to spread. Currently, six of the nine teachers
in the department are using these ideas to struc-
ture the teaching of all sections of Algebra One
and Calculus and some sections of Algebra Two
and Precalculus.
Literature on team teaching (e.g., Geen, 1985)
suggests that in order to be effective it should be
organized around some defining purpose, be in-
itiated by the involved teachers, and be sup-
ported by administrators and/or department
heads. Many of these conditions were met in the
Holt High School Mathematics Department.
The shared teaching assignments in the Holt
Mathematics Department centered on a new
approach to algebra, a subject which is often
problematic for students. Mathematically, it fo-
cused on a change in how the xs of algebra are
conceived. In this approach, instead of viewing
xs primarily as unknown numbers, xs are
treated primarily as variables which can take on
a range of numerical values (See Bethell et al.
(1995) for a development of this approach;
Chazan (1996); and more generally Bednarz,
Kieran, & Lee, 1996)).
This change of mathematical emphasis has
been coupled with the teachers desire to take
responsibility for the direction of the mathemat-
ics curriculum. Rather than leave curricular de-
cisions to textbook authors remote in time and
space from the school, the teachers have used
their evolving understanding of school algebra
to design their courses. This sense of initiative
and empowerment has led members of the de-
partment to develop a set of materials and activ-
ities designed to replace textbook presentations.
As teachers develop materials, they post the re-
sults on the schools internal network. In the
context of a different set of interviews (Gormas,
1998), Marty Schnepp indicated how this activ-
ity represents a change in his view of the
teachers role in students mathematics educa-
tion:
Going in [to teaching] I think I thought it [my role]
was telling kids and doing it in an understanding or
clear or creative and fun way; that was what my job
was to be. I now see myself as someone who has to set
up situations for kids to grow with and pull stuff
[mathematical connections] out of... My primary role
is creating situations to get kids started (Marty,
Spring 1996).
But, these teacher-developed materials do not
constitute a linear curriculum. The problems
that teachers have written pose open-ended
questions, suggest the examination of calcu-
lation procedures used in day to day life, involve
alternative assessment, and make use of graph-
ing calculators and computers. The materials are
 Shared Teaching Assignments in the Service of Mathematics Reform
under continual development and can be used in
different orders; some teachers have particular
preferences in ordering the materials and others
try to shape their instruction in response to
comments their students make. In this sense,
each year each class produces its own textbook.
The class activities as recorded in students ex-
plorations of the problems and their notes on
classroom discussions are organized into chap-
ters and then form the basis for end of the year
review.
Besides the mathematical approach embodied
in these materials, with this approach, members
of the department also seek to change the dis-
course patterns in the algebra classroom. Rather
than a lecture pattern in which the teacher
presents a procedure for students to learn, stu-
dents practice the procedure, and then home-
work is given, they seek a problem solving
orientation where class begins with the posing of
a problem for students, students explore the
problem, and then a whole group discussion
examines the important mathematical ideas ex-
plored by students (For descriptions of problem
solving orientations towards teaching, see Lester
(1994) and National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics (1991)). This change in the nature
of classroom organization is designed to help
students see mathematics as a human activity
and the disciplinary knowledge taught in
school as the wisdom accumulated during this
activity.
In a similar vein, members of the department
are also eager to change the nature of the dis-
course patterns within the department itself. In
particular, in the process of adopting a new
mathematical perspective on school algebra,
members of the department have become accus-
tomed to questioning their own mathematical
understandings. They now seek explanations for
mathematics they once took for granted. To
foster this search, they have worked hard to
create an atmosphere in the department which
assumes that mathematical questions are open
for exploration. They have tried to change
norms around admitting one does not know
some particular mathematical fact, or why some
mathematical statement is true. Rather than
view such an admission as an indication of in-
competence, they have come to value such ad-
missions when they are the starting point for
deeper mathematical inquiry. For example, over
691
the last few years, explorations in the depart-
ment have included: understanding the coeffi-
cients in the quadratic formula, questions about
the place of irrational numberslike piin the
world around us, and relationships between in-
tegrating and averaging.
The 199495 Shared Teaching
Assignments
The presentation of the data collected about
the 199495 shared teaching assignments will be
presented in three parts. An introduction de-
scribes the nature of the collaborative arrange-
ment between the teachers. This is then followed
by two analyses. One analysis examines the de-
gree to which instruction did indeed change in
these classes and the second examines teachers
reasons for feeling that the shared teaching as-
signments were more powerful than other forms
of professional development.
Arrangements Between the eachers
Based on previous work, for the 199495
school year, the mathematics department wrote
a Professional Development School proposal
calling for the participation of four teachers (half
of the math department) in two shared algebra
team teaching assignments. In their teaching
lives, the four Holt teachers sharing a teaching
assignment during the 199495 academic year
had experienced different organizational ar-
rangements with shared responsibility for in-
struction. They had worked with special educa-
tion teachers, student teachers, departmental
colleagues, and with a university professor. But,
as Sandy noted, Collaboration means differ-
ent things to different people and is an extremely
complex relationship to negotiate (prepared
text, Fall 95).
For these shared teaching assignments, each
pair agreed to share year-long responsibility for
teaching one section of Algebra One and one
pair also took joint responsibility for a section of
Algebra Two. Both teachers would be present
each day and would share the instructional
tasks. Outside of the class sessions, the two
199495 teams had slightly different circumstan-
ces. Mike and Sandy were able to schedule
a common planning period, while Steve and
692 D. CHAZAN et al.
Marty were not able to do so. But, both groups
required regular almost daily meeting time. For
example, in order to coordinate their policies on
issues of grading, Steve and Marty met almost
every day.
Weve been at least checking with each other almost
daily. And when we have papers to grade, we will sit
down, grade those together (Steve, Fall 94).
As a result, they found the lack of built-in plann-
ing time difficult, because This meant that our
collaboration time was on our common lunch
and during regular meetings after school (Steve,
prepared text, Fall 95).
Though the work was joint, the teachers
contributions to the collaboration were not
identical. Each pair included a teacher experi-
enced in the new approach to algebra and
a teacher new to this approach. In each of the
two pairs, the teachers who had team taught
Algebra One during the previous year agreed to
help introduce the other team member to the
new approach to algebra. They agreed to pro-
vide, especially early on, the big picture and
direction as well as ideas about the use of pre-
viously developed curriculum materials. In the
Algebra Two team, the roles of the two teachers
were differentone teacher was more familiar
with the Algebra Two curriculum, while the
other was more familiar with the alternative
view of algebra.
Though the roles of the teachers were not
completely symmetrical, it is important to em-
phasize that opportunities to learn went in both
directions. The teachers who had experience
with the curriculum were also interested in
learning from their colleagues. They each hoped
to participate in the further development of the
curricular materials and to grow in their per-
sonal understanding of teaching algebra, parti-
cularly in the context of the Algebra Two class.
Since all four members of the two pairs were
experienced teachers, ranging from 7 y of experi-
ence to more than 20 y of experience (one of the
teachers not experienced with the curriculum
was the department chair), they expected to
learn from the particular expertise of their col-
leagues (e.g., with alternative assessment) and
from their experience accumulated during
years of teaching experience. In attempting to
describe this dynamic, Mike Lehman wrote, for
example:
Our [S. Bethell and M. Lehman] purpose [for shar-
ing a teaching assignment] was two-fold. One, to get
me more acquainted with the function based Algebra
One curriculum and how it was taught. The second
was to get Sandy acquainted with the Algebra Two
curriculum and also to begin to conceive units for this
course (prepared text, fall 95).
Inside the Classroom: he Nature of the eam
aught Classes
Data from the observers fieldnotes, from the
teachers interviews and writings, and from the
interviews with the students all indicate that the
shared assignments resulted in teaching that was
different from a traditional mathematics class.
Rather than present these different sources of
data our first analysis of the shared teaching
assignments substantiates this perception by ex-
amining students views of the team taught
classes. Four students from Marty Schnepp and
Steve Neurithers class were interviewed individ-
ually one afternoon during the spring of 95 by
Ben-Chaim and Gormas. The students were
chosen to represent a variety of student view-
points. While students were in general quite pos-
itive about their team taught class, our interest is
less in their assessment of the class and more in
their descriptions of the ways in which this class
was different than previous mathematics classes.
We focus on three aspects of students percep-
tions of the class: the roles and responsibilities of
the teaching pair, classroom discourse patterns,
and the materials used. For example, in the
following quote, a student touches all of these
bases:
You know, old math class you sit down, they give you
the book, theres usually one teacher in the room and
all you do is just write out problems all day long. This
one, you do a little bit explaining and thinking. It gets
your head moving, your brain working (Algebra
1 student d3, 6/7/95).
In the following analysis, we separate the four
students comments into three categories. Taken
together these comments suggest that the
team taught class was quite different than the
mathematics teaching with which students were
familiar.
Perceptions of eachers Roles and Responsi-
bilities. Classroom observations indicated that
much of the time during a typical team taught
class was allocated to students working, mostly
 Shared Teaching Assignments in the Service of Mathematics Reform
in collaboration with other students on problem
situations created by the teachers. During this
time, typically, the teachers each walked around
the room or interacted with individual students
or small groups. These work sessions were then
followed by whole group discussion and sum-
mary.
Students comments about the presence of two
teachers in the room focused primarily on the
stage during which students were working indi-
vidually or in small groups. Students valued
having two teachers in the class.
My friends (in other classes) are always complaining.
They want to ask a question but the teacher doesnt
have enough time to get to everyone. I would say
thats a factor. I think Mr. Schnepp and Mr. Neur-
ither work well together... I think it helps when theres
a couple teachers because, they have more time to
help the students and work with them (student d1).
Yet, students noticed that the teachers were dif-
ferent people and had different styles of explana-
tion.
They explain things different ways, but they both
meet together, so theyve got the same plan for us.
They just have different styles (student d1).
For another student these different styles were
deemed an important strength:
2 they have a way of explaining it differently. Like,
you can get one thing from one person and if you are
still confused you can go to the other one to try and
clear it up. And it probably will get cleared up (stu-
dent d3).
Perceptions of Discourse Patterns. The stu-
dents focus on having two teachers to answer
questions or to explain seems to indicate that
the teachers remained the traditional authority
figures common to mathematics classrooms.
But, it seems that in using these verbs students
were attempting to describe ways in which the
teachers helped them appreciate the goal of an
activity or the question posed in a task. The
students were adamant that the teachers in this
class changed the discourse patterns traditional
to mathematics classes. In talking about Marty
Schnepp, one student said:
He will never tell us the answer, and it gets us frus-
trated. But well say Tell us! and hell say No. Figure
it out! And then hell give us a new thing thats a little
bit harder than what we had before to work on. And
then theyll go around the classroom and theyll help
us and the next day well go over it and well move on
to something a little bit harder (student d2).
693
Students described this change in discourse
patterns positively. In the interviews, students
presented different rationales for the value of this
change. Some students focused on the way in
which this change asks students to work harder:
2 a lot of the time theyll as you questions to get
you to think. You know, theyre not, theyre trying to
tell you, Were not just here to give you answers,
were going to make you think, were going to make
you work (student d3).
Others felt that this change asked students to
teach each other and as a result learn more
effectively themselves:
I know one thing about the both of them that they
both do, is they answer a question with a question. It
drives everybody in the class crazy. Thats helpful too
because even though we dont like it, its good for us...
they make you think about it as if youre teaching
another person about it. Youre telling another per-
son about it, if you dont understand it, you, like,
explain it to them and once you explain it to them
then youll know what youre doing. If youre trying
to explain it to yourself its like going over it in your
own mind (student d4).
One student also indicated that this strategy of
questioning helped increase classroom partici-
pation by students:
Everybody participates. And I guess its because like,
Mr. Schnepp makes us participate because he throws
questions out at us all the time. And makes us think
about it and everybody can give their ideas and like
not really be afraid and nobody is afraid to say what
they think (student d2).
Another felt that this lack of fear was not a func-
tion of the asking, but instead of the stance that
the teachers took towards solving mathematical
problems:
But in this class they teach you there is no right or
wrong way. Theres many ways to do things. Theres
many different ways to do things. And they show that
to us when we ask questions, when they explain stuff,
when they ask us why or how or 2 (student d3).
This student also thought that the participation
was a function of how the teachers responded to
students confusions and questions.
2 there are a lot of times when somebody would be
confused and theyll say, Wait, I dont understand,
back the truck up. So theyll bring back the problem
and go over it some more and say, Okay, I under-
stand it now. So theres a lot of good talks (student
d3).
694 D. CHAZAN et al.
Perceptions of the Materials. Finally, asso-
ciated with the changes in the discourse outlined
above, students seemed to have negative impres-
sions of standard textbooks and the ways in
which they are used by teachers. They thought
that leaving a book aside was, in part, respon-
sible for the changes in classroom discourse. For
example, one student said:
2 most teachers would say, Go look at your
book! and really wouldnt explain it that well.
But Mr. Schnepp and Mr. Neurither help us a lot
more, like hands-on. They sit there and they ask
these questions and stuff and make us figure it out.
I think thats a lot better than using the book (student
d2).
This student also suggested that the teachers
wrote materials, unlike traditional textbook
problems which were based in real life situ-
ations
They relate problems, like which would be the better
trucking company to have if you were doing this
many miles or that many miles.... The book just has
numbers and problems and you have to figure it out.
But when they put it into real life situations people
might want to do it more because they know this is
what theyre going to have to do when they get older
(student d2).
Focused Analysis of eacher Interviews
The teachers emphasize the power of the
shared teaching assignments as a mode of pro-
fessional development. For example, Marty
Schnepp wrote:
Team Teaching has provided for me opportunities
that have alleviated much of my frustration as
a teacher. Traditional methods of professional devel-
opment one day workshops, research articles, etc.
were a large part of the frustrations I had felt as
a teacher trying to improve my practice. For me, they
helped foster a notion that to become an excellent
teacher, I needed only see someone do it right and
then copy their technique 2 . I know that for me and
my colleagues at Holt High School teaching together
on a daily basis (with the same courses and students)
has helped us grow as professionals in the field of
mathematics and teaching in innumerable ways.
I now see good teachers as people who constantly
reevaluate their understanding of the subject, con-
stantly struggle with activities and lessons, and who
seek their colleagues as resources (prepared text, Fall
95).
In our next analysis, we investigate the
teachers perceptions of the unique value of
shared teaching assignments. We classify the as-
pects of the shared assignment responsible, in
their view, for its power under three broad cat-
egories. First, the teachers saw great benefit in
being physically present in the class with an-
other teacher. The physical presence of two
teachers in the room allowed teachers to take
turns stepping back from the action and becom-
ing an observer in their own classroom. Second,
they also felt that the physical presence of two
teachers in a created shared experience. This
shared experience allowed for the construction
of mutual understandings by way of common
referents. They contrasted these sorts of under-
standings with the misunderstandings that they
felt were often a result from discussion without
a common base of experience. Third, by teaching
the same material to the same students at the
same time, the teachers had unparalleled oppor-
tunities to collaborate in the midst of the com-
plexities of teaching from attempts to assess
individual student understanding to decisions
about course content and sequencing of the ma-
terial for the whole class. The shared teaching
assignment forced the teachers eventually to
take action together; they had come to an agree-
ment or compromise. While there were tensions
associated with the need to come to joint deci-
sions, at the same time, making joint decisions
sometimes supported teachers in exploring in-
novations they might not have attempted on
their own. These three aspects of the shared
teaching assignments form the framework for
our analysis of the interviews.
However, as we proceed with this analysis, it is
extremely important to remember that the
shared teaching assignment was structured
around a new approach to school algebra. Since
the focus of the shared assignment was on new
approaches to algebra, coupled with a pedagogy
that allowed students to construct knowledge
and develop their own understanding, teachers
were confronted with basic questions about the
meaning of algebra, teaching, and learning. As
high school teachers with a disciplinary focus
(For an argument about the centrality of subject
matter for secondary teachers, see Grossman
& Stodolsky, 1995), the teachers found this as-
pect personally enriching. Marty commented on
this aspect in the fall and the spring:
 Shared Teaching Assignments in the Service of Mathematics Reform
I think thats one of the best things about team
teaching, youre getting together with other math
teachers and just being able to talk about math and
talk about new ideas (Fall 94).
A lot of times where were working after school well
start putting a problem together an well get a little
carried away and add a few more because its fun.
Thats one of the neat things about the team teaching
when youre planning together, if you can find the
time in our schedules. Its really enjoyable and you
can get creative with problems and I think that really
shows in the classroom, too. The kids pick up on that
if you come up with a problem that they think is
really interesting and unique. I think that happens
more often when youre working together with some-
one that if youre working alone (Spring 95).
Similarly, Mike commented, What I like
about team teaching, number one, is the way of
thinking about the algebra, how to teach it, and
stuff like that. I see my ideas changing about
what content is. Im learning a lot this year from
teaming putting content together differently
(Fall 94).
he Opportunity Not to Act: Becoming an Ob-
server in Ones Own Classroom. The teachers
found ways to step back and observe each other,
rather than compete. So, a shared teaching as-
signment provided teachers, who usually have
to act and respond, with opportunities to
sit back and watch another respond to their
shared students in their shared classroom. The
teachers highly valued this aspect of the shared
assignment. For example, Marty observed that
he enjoyed the opportunity to see another per-
son interact with his students. Such an oppor-
tunity for reflection is rarely available to
teachers.
It [a shared teaching assignment] gives you times
where you can sit back and watch your class being
taught and think (Spring 95).
Mike indicated that this opportunity to sit
back, observe, and reflect allowed him to think
about the mathematical approach for himself
and to see the Algebra One students in a differ-
ent light:
Since many times I was able to take on the role of
observer in the class I was free to allow my attention
to focus on the mathematics instead of the day to day
operations of the classroom. This freed me up to
study the mathematics, and it became very energizing
to me (prepared text, Fall 95).
695
I think it was the idea that the Algebra One kids can
actually take a situation and talk about it and think
its true and then nine times out of ten, theyll come up
with the right answer. And I dont mean that they get
the number twelve and thats the right answer. But,
the right way of thinking about it (the situation),
working it through. I mean, they may go off into some
real harebrained thing at the beginning, but theyll
come back and theyll bring themselves back. But that
was real surprising to me. Going in, I thought, this is
really going to have to be watered down (Spring 95).
Similarly, Sandy recalled a specific event when
teaching with Marty which allowed her to learn
about students capabilities (Prepared text, Fall
95).
Students had been looking at tables and graphs of linear
functions while changing the slope. I remember one day
sitting with the students across from Marty, who was
seated with the students on the opposite side of the
room facing me. He had lifted his pencil and was asking
the class, What happens if the number out in front gets
larger? Students told him that the pencil would be at
a greater slant. He asked the students, Will the pencil
ever go around so that it aims this way? As he asked
this, he moved the pencil to indicate a negative slope.
This caused students to pause. Someone suggested that
the number would have to be negative.
Marty started the pencil off where he had begun and
tilted the pencil upwards and said, Whats happen-
ing to the number? The students were saying, Posit-
ive. Bigger. Bigger. Then he let the pencil rest point-
ing straight up. Students thought for a long time
about this one (about 20 seconds). Then Nick said,
Thats impossible. Marty asked him why. Nick sug-
gested that the class think about the x-axis as time
and the y-axis as distance. he said that a line that
goes straight up and down would be like going some-
where in no time. Marty glanced over at me, and our
eyes widened. I think I actually fell over on the desk,
saying wow or something. I had been concerned that
the students wouldnt be able to grasp the concept
and that the discussion would fall apart (Prepared
text, Fall 95).
Not Having to Rely Solely on ords: Shared
Experience of the Same Classroom Instead of
alk about the Classroom. Beyond allowing the
opportunity to observe someone else working
with their own students, the presence of two
teachers in the room allowed the teachers to
work together outside of the classroom in a dif-
ferent way. The teachers focused on this aspect
when they compared their conversations after
sharing a teaching assignment with their con-
versations in previous years departmental meet-
ings or to their conversations when teaching
a common course to different students.
696 D. CHAZAN et al.
Though proud of the collegial relationships
which have built up in their department, the
teachers interviewed often compared conversa-
tions resulting from the shared teaching fa-
vorably with Wednesday morning departmental
conversations about classes taught individually.
As Sandy articulated, in a shared teaching as-
signment, It is the experience which gives the
words meaning, rather than me just telling him
(February 96 meeting). By contrast, their de-
scriptions of previous departmental conversa-
tions highlight the difficulties inherent in having
collegial discussions about teaching without op-
portunities for shared examination of the teach-
ing itself. In response to a follow up question to
a statement in which he claimed that the shared
teaching assignment had more impact on his
understanding of the new approach to Algebra
One than the stories and sharing he had par-
ticipated in during the previous 34 years, Mike
commented:
When Dan, and Sandy and Marty had talked about it
[changes in Algebra One instruction], I had a picture
in my mind about what the classroom might look
like, but it was my classroom. It was my set of norms,
the way I operate a classroom. Team teaching helped
me understand how Sandy set up the norms of the
class and the time spent setting up the norms. But
also how she questions kids in such a way that is not
threatening to them, so its made me more aware of
how I question them (Mike, Spring 95).
In the teachers views, the context of a shared
teaching assignment provided support for peda-
gogical conversations; the pedagogical decisions
undertaken in shared teaching are made with
regard to a specific set of circumstances, a par-
ticular class, particular students. Mike made this
argument when comparing the shared teaching
assignments with teaching the same course to
different classes.
Since we were responsible to the same set of students,
we were able to plan our lessons around the students
own ideas. This is much different from teaching
a common course to a different set of students. In the
latter situation, the teachers would not be able to co
- plan based on questions and understandings that
the students have developed since each class would
have different questions 2 . We both had worked
together on the same lesson and taught it to the same
students so we could actually talk about the result
with a common experience. This changed the whole
conversation and made it go much deeper than if we
had taught our individual lesson to different classes
(prepared text, Fall 95).
Building on the shared experience, the
teachers claimed to be able to construct a differ-
ent sort of vocabulary to talk about teaching
and algebra and to have different kinds of con-
versations. They claimed that they were able to
use a shared vision of the class, shared under-
standing of class norms, shared referents for the
mathematical language they were using, and
shared observations of students interaction
with the material as a backdrop for their
discussions.
The benefit of this context is illustrated as
Mike continued to talk about questioning.
Mike described a dilemma faced by teachers
who encourage students to share their ideas:
2 if a kid has a wrong answer, youre kind of like,
youre stuck there... I dont want to insult the kid and
say, Youre wrong. But on the other hand, how long
do you leave a wrong answer laying out there? When
is it appropriate to leave a wrong answer there?
(Mike, Spring 95).
As Mike watched Sandy teach, he saw a different
way of telling a student they were wrong. For
a problem about a savings account, a student
had presented a table of input and output with
values which were unexpected to Sandy; instead
of starting at 50 and going up five dollars each
week, the students table was going up five dol-
lars every five weeks. Sandy told the student that
she did not understand his table of values. He
did not answer right away, so she gave him time
to think about it. A little later in the class she
came back to him:
She said, I dont understand. Im not understanding
this piece right here. And really what she was saying
was, This isnt right, but questioning him to get him
to think about it (Mike, Spring 95).
Eventually, the student was able to explain the
reason his outputs went up by fives, but not why
his inputs went up by fives.
Finally, Sandy just said, Traditionally, what
we do is we go, one, two, three 2 2 (Mike,
Spring 95)
Mike found it very helpful that she did not just
tell him he was wrong, but had allowed him to
develop his thinking.
The ability to see Sandys action in context
helped Mike appreciate her action. Just as his
earlier comment about questioning illustrated
that the word took on new connotations for him
having observed Sandy, having the shared
 Shared Teaching Assignments in the Service of Mathematics Reform
experience as a referent also allowed him to see
how Sandys telling a student that they were
wrong was different than his.
The benefit of the shared experience was not
limited to pedagogical strategies; it also had an
impact on the teachers mathematical under-
standing. The shift in focus at the heart of the
new approach to algebra was in many ways
subtle. As Sandy indicated when outlining her
frustrations with talking about the new ap-
proach to other math teachers, Because the
words sound so similar, its easy to say we do
that, we do that, we do that 2 (Sandy, Spring
95). By way of contrast to talk, Marty identifies
a shared teaching assignment as a way of devel-
oping shared departmental mathematical under-
standings, The thing that I see is that it [sharing
a teaching assignment] gives us a common ex-
perience in mathematics so that we can have
a common language to talk about it (Spring 95).
Marty emphasized that sharing a teaching
assignment also allowed him to see the curricu-
lum as a living phenomena, rather than words or
ideas taken out of the natural environment of
the classroom. Sharing an assignment allowed
him to experience the curriculum in context and
not in an out of context verbal description.
I heard Sandy talk about it [changes in curriculum],
I looked through the problems and stuff, but without
seeing how it played out in the classroom, I couldnt
really understand the differences. And I had a lot
more concerns that the kids would be lacking
certain things when they came out [of the class],
because [when you look at the problems] you miss
the entire discussions part of any of the problems,
which is the key to when the mathematics starts
coming out 2 . (Fall 94).
The idea that you need to witness the students
doing mathematics differently was furthered em-
phasized by Marty:
Until you see what goes on in the classroom... I dont
think a person would understand otherwise. Thats
really pretty limited information if you are just look-
ing at test scores or whatever. Its the change in
attitude that the kids have in the classroom about
math. Its what theyre doing in the classroom and
how they understand the material, not just if they can
do problems with it. I think without team teaching
were not going to get that point across to people,
until they can actually see it and talk about it with
somebody as its happening (Fall 94).
In discussing the students progress and un-
derstanding, Steve, who had found verbal de-
697
scriptions of the class hard to understand, also
mentioned the importance of what he had ac-
tually witnessed. Steve was in the unique posi-
tion of teaching an algebra class based on a text-
book during the same time as he was teaching
with Marty with the new approach. His experi-
ence lead him to make comparisons:
Probably the biggest thing that I carry away from the
class is the fact that I think the kids generally have
a better feeling about math than a textbook driven
class, just possibly because their investment in it
would be in the discussions. Usually, we have some
really good discussions with the class. Yesterday was
an interesting one where kids were very eager to
volunteer (Spring 95).
Having to Decide ogether: Joint Reflection,
Decision Making, and Action Instead of Indi-
vidual Responsibility. The teachers were not
only sharing an experience in which they took
turns being passive observers; they had responsi-
bilities to act in concert. The teachers at Holt
had much to say about the ways in which shar-
ing a teaching assignment provided opportuni-
ties for, and sometimes even forced, collabora-
tion and public discussion of teaching. For
example, as the department chair, Mike com-
mented on the difference in the conversations
when you are teaming versus when you are hold-
ing department meetings.
But somehow, I really think that teaming forces you
to talk about the issues that in meetings we dance
around all the time. Somewhere along the line you
have to talk about homework, you have to talk about
content, how you present content what is impor-
tant, what is not important in the curriculum. You
dont have a choice (Fall 94, emphasis added).
Similarly, Sandy (Spring 95) commented on the
shared, and continual, sorting out of what is
going on in the class. She claimed that sharing
a teaching assignment forces one to articulate
rationales for everything you do with students
from disciplinary action to grading to cur-
ricular choices.
Some aspects of this sort of collaboration
even when ultimately rewarding could be
uncomfortable. In both pairings, the teachers
found it important, valuable, and stressful to
plan together on a regular basis. As Marty put it,
When you team teach, 2 most of the time you
are going to have two opinions (Marty, Fall 94).
The teachers viewed the presence of differing
opinions as valuable in reducing the isolation of
698 D. CHAZAN et al.
teaching. As Steve put it, I hate to admit how
many years Ive been teaching, but it really does
help to see others perspectives (Steve, Fall 94).
Similarly, Mike wrote:
The discussion we had about content and the way we
wanted to approach it were some of the most exciting
conversations I have had in my career (Mike, pre-
pared text, Fall 95).
But, the presence of different views could be
difficult as well. Mike wrote:
Teaming can be very stressful. Both partners need to
be aware of the others needs and must be able to help
meet those needs. It takes a level of professionalism
that is not automatic. It is not just the in - class part
where in front of the students you need to put on
a professional face, but in the planning where you
need to allow everyone to have input and be heard.
This was not always easy, but as we got used to each
others way of thinking about the mathematics and
the students we were able to use our individual
strengths to make it work (Mike, prepared text, Fall
95).
For example, early on, Mike and Sandy had
quite different policies on homework. During the
fall interview, when thinking about outcomes for
the year, Sandy gave some indication of this
tension:
Maybe Mike and I can move more towards consen-
sus on homework 2 Maybe hell convince me of
some things that I hadnt thought of before. Maybe
Ill learn some things like I have with Dan. And on the
other hand, maybe hell learn some things and change
some ways of thinking about it (Sandy, Fall 94).
Over the course of the year, as the teachers
learned more about each other and developed
greater trust, some of the tensions seemed to
dissipate and the nature of the conversations
seemed to change. All of the teachers remarked
on this in their spring interviews. For example,
Marty said:
Lately, weve [Marty and Steve] been able to get a lot
better reflection and a lot better discussion... Up until
now the reflections Steve and I are doing have been
fairly mechanical about how a particular things
went 2 if we should have changed the wording on
something 2 [Now,] we talk more about what the
kids are doing as a result of this course, rather than
what it is we should be doing to make the course.
I think thats changed over the year (Marty, Spring
95).
Mike said:
Theres more common ground than there was before.
There was a gap at the beginning of the year 2 And
right now I think theres more mutual respect. Or at
least I should say I respect Sandy more. I understand
a lot more where shes coming from. And I see her
side of the issues much better than I did before 2
But there are still some basic issues that we disagree
on (Mike, Spring 95).
In keeping with their favorable assessment of
sharing a teaching assignment, the teachers felt it
provided unique opportunities for developing
trust within the department. Mike wrote:
I gained a huge amount of respect for Sandy and her
ability to teach, I also sense she feels the same about
me. I believe that this level of respect can only be
gained though teaming. In the end, it may actually be
the most important outcome as we tackle new chal-
lenges (prepared text, Fall 95).
At other points in the interviews the teachers
talked about the opportunity to take risks that
one would not take alone. They talked about the
added confidence with which one can try new
ideas or teaching techniques as a result of having
the support of a colleague. As Sandy put it, when
sharing a teaching assignment, one is not out
there on your own (Spring 95). She contrasted
this feeling with her experience, as a curriculum
innovator, of departmental meetings about cur-
riculum:
There is a huge difference between meeting to talk
about curriculum and being involved daily in making
decisions about what to teach and how. Then (in
departmental meetings), questions of better and
worse practice are always at the surface. This creates
a constant friction which intensifies the burden of
teaching a course (prepared text, Fall 95).
She illustrated the support with reference to
a particular case. She was asking students ques-
tions and:
It seemed that every question was falling like lead,
with students staring silently back at me... I waited
and waited, asking what seemed to me to be the
next question... After class, Marty mentioned how
helpful it was to see how I stuck with the goal of
having students drive the discussion 2 I had felt
unsuccessful. However, Marty helped me see that by
insisting that students engage in order for something
to happen, I had not let them off the hook (prepared
text, Fall 95).
Mike expressed similar sentiments about the
value of the support he received through team-
ing:
I think the most important thing teaming did for me
was give me the opportunity and courage to think
about the mathematics differently and to try new
 Shared Teaching Assignments in the Service of Mathematics Reform
ways of thinking in our classrooms. It was much
easier to take a chance with your students when you
knew you were not in there alone. Someone else
would share the burden and the whining as you tried
some of these ideas (prepared text, Fall 95).
Mike saw these benefits as a result of the
development of trust and of familiarity with an-
other persons thinking. As department chair,
he thought that such trust and familiarity
might aid in the development of wider collegial
relations in the department: So I think the
more we can team the more we can face the
issues. Also, I think the more we can team, the
more we can develop a real trust of each other
(Fall, 94).
Discussion
Stimulated by studies of the effectiveness of
learning in apprenticeship and by the notion
that learning is situated in the practice of some
activity, Lave & Wenger (1991) proposed legit-
imate peripheral participation in a community
of practice as an analytic perspective on learn-
ing. Though in their monograph they leave
community of practice as an unexamined term,
they suggest that this perspective illuminates
how learning is an integral part of social prac-
tice, rather than some independent process at
the level of the individual. While the utility of
this perspective for describing learning in
schooled settings is controversial, we would like
to explore its utility for describing the shared
teaching assignments and the teachers conten-
tion that this mode of professional development
was particularly meaningful.
We begin our discussion of the teachers re-
marks by using Lave and Wengers language to
describe the shared Algebra One teaching as-
signments at Holt High School. If there is a prac-
tice of traditional teaching of introductory Alge-
bra one characterized by a set of skills to be
taught, a covering the curriculum model of
teaching, and a review-lecture-seatwork-home-
work mode of classroom organization, then the
teachers in this study were interested in a differ-
ent practice one characterized by a particular
understanding of the content, an uncovering of
the curriculum model of teaching, and problem
posing-exploration-discussion mode of class-
room organization. While, by having changed
699
the way they taught Algebra One, Marty and
Sandy could be described as members of a com-
munity constituted around this different prac-
tice, in 199495, Steve and Mike were entering
into this community by engaging in this sort of
teaching.
Mike and Steves entry into this community of
practice through a shared teaching assignment
fits nicely with Lave and Wengers model of
legitimate peripheral participation. As teachers
sharing an assignment, they were legitimate par-
ticipants in the practice. In the classroom, stu-
dents viewed them, unlike an observer in the
classroom, as teachers just like Marty and
Sandy. Students expected them to be able to
answer their questions, to discipline them when
they acted out, and to assign them grades. And,
Marty and Sandy expected their full participa-
tion in the planning of the class. Instructional
decisions were to be joint decisions. But, at the
same time, there was a certain peripherality, in
Lave and Wengers sense of an opportunity over
time to change location within the community of
practice, rather than a particular location on the
edge (as opposed to the center) of a practice. At
the start of the year, the expectation was that
Steve and Mikes participation would change
over the course of the year. While initially Marty
and Sandy would take the lead and Steve and
Mike would have opportunity to observe, this
would shift over time, both in the classroom and
in the planning. If the shared teaching assign-
ments were effective, Steve and Mike would over
time be empowered to develop the same sort of
classroom and planning participation as Marty
and Sandy.
Lave and Wengers perspective becomes mur-
kier when used to describe Marty and Sandys
positions in the Algebra One shared assign-
ments. The origins of the Lave and Wenger work
in studies of apprenticeship may be the source of
much of the difficulty. In 199495, Sandy and
Marty would not claim to be masters in the
sense that apprenticeship connotes.2 Rather
than describe themselves as full participants in
some community of innovative teaching prac-
tice, they described themselves as having had
more experience than Mike and Steve with
a particular kind of teaching; they were also in
a process of becoming members of a commun-
ity of practice. Both Sandy and Marty expected
that their comfort with this new type of teaching
700 D. CHAZAN et al.
practice would grow and develop over the
course of the year. They also expected to learn
from Mike and Steve. After all, Mike and Steve
were experienced teachers and brought much
knowledge and skill with them to the shared
assignment. So, Sandy and Marty also appreci-
ated their opportunities to take a more peri-
pheral role in the classroom on occasion and to
learn from Mike and Steves interactions with
the students.
If Lave and Wengers construct of legitimate
peripheral participation arguably describes the
positions of the four teachers sharing the Alge-
bra One assignments, does this perspective shed
light on the teachers perception that this mode
of professional development was uniquely mean-
ingful? One way to examine this question is to
compare the Holt High School experience of
shared teaching assignments with analyses of
other forms of professional development that do
not involve shared teaching, but which can be
described, using Judith Warren Littles phrase,
as joint work. For Little (1990), joint work is an
interdependent relationship between teachers in
which Teachers open their intentions and prac-
tices to public examination, but in turn are
credited for their knowledge, skill, and judg-
ment (p. 521). For her, it is especially important
in joint work that teachers develop collective
conceptions of autonomy, rather than concep-
tions of autonomy as personal prerogative. By
contrast, she argues that there are many forms of
collegial relation that issue slight challenge to
autonomy conceived as personal prerogative
(p. 521).
In Mathematics reform and teacher develop-
ment: A community of practice perspective,
Stein, Silver & Smith (1998) provide just such
a contrasting case. In many ways, their work is
quite similar. They describe a five year project
with a group of teachers involved in joint work
around the introduction of a new, reform
oriented curriculum into a middle school. Sup-
ported by the QUASAR project, the joint work
of these teachers was not through shared teach-
ing assignments. Their joint work included: bi-
weekly after school meetings, summer staff de-
velopment, monthly staff development meetings,
annual retreats, curriculum workshops, class-
room support by consulting teachers, teachers
mentoring teachers, elective university course-
work, conference attendance, and individual
planning and reflection. It involved efforts to
increase parental knowledge of and involvement
with the mathematics program, ongoing work
adjusting the curriculum, development of
an assessment system, and efforts to coordi-
nate mathematics teaching and learning
district-wide.
In analyzing this middle school project from
a community of practice perspective, Stein,
Silver, and Smith suggest that this sort of per-
spective illuminate[s] areas of the teacher
development landscape that...have tended to re-
main in the shadows with more traditional
methods of studying teacher development (p.
42). In particular, they make much of the way
this perspective shifts ones attention from
pedagogical activity [of a staff developer, say]
and toward an analysis of the structuring
of the communitys work practices and learning
resources (p. 38). This shift of attention
brought to the fore what the authors had
previously called informal learning opportuni-
ties the joint, outside of the classroom,
work of the teachers (e.g., their preparation for
meetings with parents, their curricular dis-
cussions, and the development of the assessment
system).
For us, this contrasting case underscores
the way in which teaching a particular group
of students becomes the joint work of teachers
sharing a teaching assignment. From a
community of practice perspective, it is the
nature of the joint work which must be analyzed
to determine the learning curriculum avail-
able to participants in different modes of
professional development. Thus, this difference
seems quite important. Teaching the same
students together on a daily basis allowed
the task of teaching particular students to
become the focus of the Holt teachers profes-
sional development. As a result, for them as
teachers, this experience was particularly
powerful.
Conclusion
I was talking to one of our special ed. teachers who
was at an elementary school and we were talking
about teaching math differently and she said she
talked about it and talked about it and talked about
it and didnt get it until she team taught it. And
 Shared Teaching Assignments in the Service of Mathematics Reform
I thought, 2 that is the conclusion we are coming to
(Marty Schnepp, Fall 94).
Compared to traditional inservice activity,
sharing teaching assignments is a slow and ex-
pensive method of professional development,
but it may have a greater impact. The shared
teaching assignments at Holt High School seems
promising in this regard; the impact seems to
have been great and continues to pay dividends
over time. In this study, students indicated that
there were substantive changes in the mathemat-
ics classes. At the same time, the teachers self-
report was positive; they reported overcoming
isolation and learning from each other. Accord-
ing to the teachers, the shared teaching within
the Mathematics Department at Holt High
School has produced important changes in
teacher relationships, professional development,
curriculum development, and instructional prac-
tices. They claim to have found themselves
thinking differently about the subject matter,
their colleagues, students and themselves.
However, rather than concentrate on shared
teaching assignments solely as an isolated or-
ganizational arrangement, in this study, we have
tried to keep in mind the larger context in which
these shared team teaching assignments occur-
red. Holt High School is a Professional Develop-
ment School in which faculty have support in
viewing themselves as professionals. The shared
teaching assignments were focused around
a content-based reform initiative, one in which
the teachers had invested; the initiative for this
reform was not a central administration direc-
tive.
As a result, rather than promote the sharing of
teaching assignments as a mode of organiza-
tional arrangement, the central analysis in this
paper focused on three sets of reasons given by
teachers for finding a shared teaching assign-
ment professionally rewarding. The teachers
found it valuable to become observers in their
own classroom, have shared experiences of class-
room interactions, and make joint decisions.
They were engaged in the joint work of teaching
Algebra to a particular group of students. This
joint work provided them opportunities for re-
flection, a context for the sharing of insights, and
a task which needed to be accomplished. Per-
haps as a result, for them, this was a professional
development opportunity like no other.
701
Notes
1These assignments are often referred to as team teaching
by the teachers in their comments. In the body of the paper,
the term shared teaching assignments will be used to distin-
guish this mode of organization from teaming prevalent in
the elementary grades which involves the teaching of separ-
ate cohorts while planning together.
2In the Algebra Two shared assignment, it was much
clearer that Sandy could not be the master with Mike the
apprentice. Mike was much more familiar with the curricu-
lum than Sandy.
References
Anderson, J., Reder, L., & Simon, H. (1996). Situated learn-
ing and education. Educational Researcher, 25 (4), 511.
Ball, D. L. (1992). Teaching mathematics for understanding:
What do teachers need to know about the subject matter.
In M. Kennedy (Ed.), eaching academic subjects to di-
verse learners (pp. 6383). New York: Teachers College.
Ball, D. L. (1996). Teacher learning and the mathematics
reforms: What we think we know and what we need to
learn. Phi Delta Kappan, 77 (7), 500508.
Bednarz, N., Kieran, C., & Lee, L. (Eds.), (1996). Approaches
to algebra: Perspectives for research and teaching. Dor-
drecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Bethell, S., Chazan, D., Hodges, K., & Schnepp, M. (1995).
Introducing students to representations of function. Un-
published manuscript. Michigan State University.
Bullough, R., Kauchak, D., Crow, N., Hobbs, S., & Stokes,
D. (1997). Professional development schools: Catalysts
for teacher and school change. eaching and eacher
Education. 13(2), 153170.
Chazan, D. (1996). Algebra for all students? Journal of Math-
ematical Behavior, 15(3), 455477.
Cohen, E. (1976). Problems and prospects of teaming. Educa-
tional Research Quarterly, 1(2), 4963.
Cuban, L. (1993). How teachers taught: Constancy and change
in American classrooms 18801990 (2nd ed.). New York:
Teachers College Press.
Feiman-Nemser, S., & Floden, R. (1986). The cultures of
teaching. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on
teaching, (3 rd Ed., pp. 505526). New York: Macmillan.
Geen, A. G. (1985). Team teaching in the secondary schools
of England and Wales. Educational Review, 37(1), 2938.
Gormas, J. (1988). The biography of a high school mathe-
matics teacher: A story of hope. Unpublished disserta-
tion, East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.
Greeno, J. (1997). On claims that answer the wrong ques-
tions. Educational Researcher, 26(1), 517.
Griffin, (1991). Interactive Staff development: Using what we
know. In A. Lieberman & L. Miller (Eds.), Staff develop-
ment for education in the 90s: New demands, new realities,
new perspectives (pp. 243258). New York: Teachers Col-
lege Press.
Grossman, P., & Stodolsky, S. (1995). Content as context:
The role of school subjects in secondary teaching. Educa-
tional Researcher, 24(8), 511.
Holmes Group. (1986). omorrows teachers. E. Lansing, MI:
The Holmes Group.
702 D. CHAZAN et al.
Huberman, M. (1993). The model of the independent artisan
in teachers professional relations. In J. W. Little &
M. McLaughlin (Eds.), eachers work: Individuals,
colleagues, and contexts. New York: Teachers College
Press.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: egitimate
peripheral participation. Cambridge, England: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Lester, F. (1994). Musing on problem solving research. Jour-
nal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25(6),
660675.
Little, J. W. (1990). The persistence of privacy: Autonomy
and initiative in teachers professional relations. eachers
College Record, 91(4), 509536.
Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Cur-
riculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics.
Reston, VA: Author.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991). Pro-
fessional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA:
Author.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1995). As-
sessment standards, Reston, VA: Author.
Rosenholtz, S. J. (1989).Teacher Collaboration. In S. Rosen-
holtz (Ed.), eachers workplace: he social organization
of schools (pp. 4170). New York: Longman.
Stein, M. K, Silver, E. A., & Smith, M.S. (1998). Mathematics
reform and teacher development: A community of prac-
tice perspective. In J. Greeno & S. Goldman (Eds.),
hinking practices in mathematical and science learning.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.