This article was downloaded by: [University of Stellenbosch]On: 04 November 2014, At: 23:58Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Teachers and Teaching: theory andpracticePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ctat20

Student and novice teachers’stories about collaborative learningimplementationIlse Ruysa, Hilde Van Keera & Antonia Aeltermana

a Department of Educational Studies, Ghent University, Ghent,BelgiumPublished online: 17 Feb 2014.

To cite this article: Ilse Ruys, Hilde Van Keer & Antonia Aelterman (2014) Student and noviceteachers’ stories about collaborative learning implementation, Teachers and Teaching: theory andpractice, 20:6, 688-703, DOI: 10.1080/13540602.2014.885705

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2014.885705

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Student and novice teachers’ stories about collaborative learningimplementation

Ilse Ruys*, Hilde Van Keer and Antonia Aelterman

Department of Educational Studies, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

(Received 20 April 2012; final version received 15 July 2013)

Despite the research evidence on the effectiveness of collaborative learning(CL), the implementation of this teaching strategy has not yet found a profoundplace in teaching practice. As a consequence, several studies have investigatedteachers’ motives regarding and experiences with the use of CL. Most of thesestudies concern however senior teachers, whereas new generations of teachersare important actors in the process of educational innovation. Hence, it is crucialto explore novice teachers’ stories about CL implementation: what motivatesthem to implement this teaching strategy, what hinders them and how do theyhandle the challenges they are confronted with? The answers to these questionsmay provide useful information for improving the teacher education curriculumregarding CL. In this respect, the present study intends to study pre-service andbeginning teachers’ experiences with CL in classroom practice, after a formaltraining pertaining to CL as part of their teacher education programme. The aimis to identify the main challenges student and novice teachers encounter whenthey want to implement CL in their teaching practice, and how they positionthemselves in these challenges. A qualitative case study design with in-depthinterviews in the Flemish context (Belgium) was used to gain access to theparticular experiences of each teacher, and to the processes of interpretation andmeaning-making that go with those experiences. Participants were interviewedindividually one week before graduation (n = 15). After at least half a year ofexperience in the teaching profession, 10 participants were interviewed for asecond time. In the present study, we present the results from a cross-case analy-sis, using the method of constant comparative analysis to identify similarities ordifferences, and to capture recurring patterns within the data. The findings revealseveral dilemmas that illustrate the conflicting options teachers are facing inrelation to their colleagues, their pupils, the curriculum and in the classroomcontext when they intend to implement CL. In particular, the following dilemmaswere identified: two dilemmas related to professional autonomy (studentteachers: teacher autonomy vs. pre-service performance assessment; noviceteachers: teacher autonomy vs. institutional conformity), further dilemmas relatedto teachers’ beliefs about pupils’ readiness for CL vs. evidence about pupils’readiness for CL, investing in innovation vs. curriculum and job pressure, andpedagogical intentions vs. contextual constraints. In most conflicting situations,student and novice teachers position themselves in the challenge by opting fornon-implementation.

Keywords: collaborative learning; primary education; student teachers; noviceteachers; teacher dilemmas

*Corresponding author. Email: Ilse.Ruys@UGent.be

© 2014 Taylor & Francis

Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 2014Vol. 20, No. 6, 688–703, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2014.885705

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 2

3:58

04

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Introduction

Collaborative learning (CL) refers to instructional strategies in which two or morelearners work together towards a common learning goal, emphasising interactionand group processes (Prichard, Bizo, & Stratford, 2006). Students depend on andare accountable for their own and their teammates’ active learning (Dillenbourg,1999). Although ‘collaborative learning’ is often used interchangeably with ‘cooper-ative learning’ (MacInnerney & Roberts, 2004), we use the term ‘collaborativelearning’ – in line with Dillenbourg (1999), Meloth and Deering (1999) andPalinscar (2002) – as a broad concept covering multiple approaches on peer collabo-ration (e.g. cooperative learning, peer tutoring and discussion groups). Collaborativelearning strategies are less specific and not easy to define, since they include a broadscope of strategies that are not necessarily systematic or prescriptive (Rose, 2002).Particular forms of interaction between team members, such as asking questions,debating and explaining, encourage active and purposeful knowledge constructionand ensure that everyone in the group benefits from working together (Dillenbourg,1999; Slavin et al., 1985). The variety of collaborative learning strategies fits bestthe reality of peer collaboration in Flemish primary school classes, which is thecontext of the present study.

During the last decades, there has been growing interest in the study of CL. Afirst wave of research focused on the effectiveness of this teaching strategy andrevealed a positive impact on students’ cognitive learning processes (e.g. Fawcett &Garton, 2005), social–emotional functioning (e.g. Tolmie et al., 2010) and psycho-logical development (e.g. Marzano, Pickering, & Pollock, 2001). Several factors are,however, found to influence the potential success of CL implementation. Johnsonand Johnson (1999), for example, linked five key components to the effectiveness ofCL: positive interdependence, individual accountability, direct interaction, socialskills and evaluation of the group process. In addition, numerous recent studiesemphasise the importance of preparing pupils for collaborative work. In this respect,research largely focuses on fostering the quality of pupils’ communication andhelping behaviour during group activities (e.g. Gillies, 2006; Oortwijn, Boekaerts,Vedder, & Strijbos, 2008; Prichard et al., 2006; Webb, 2009).

Despite the positive research evidence, however, the implementation of CL hasnot yet found a profound place in teaching practice (Baines, Blatchford, & Kutnick,2003; Lopata, Miller, & Miller, 2003). Several studies indicated that this may bedue to teachers’ unfamiliarity with this teaching strategy (e.g. Krol, Sleegers,Veenman, & Voeten, 2008) and lack of sufficient understanding as to how to imple-ment it effectively (Gillies & Boyle, 2008, 2010; Johnson & Johnson, 2003). Severaltraining programmes were set up to familiarise teachers with the use of CL in theirteaching practice (e.g. Krol et al., 2008; Ruys, Van Keer, & Aelterman, 2011;Veenman, van Benthum, Boosma, van Dieren, & van der Kemp, 2002). Sharan(2010), however, is critical about the long-term influence of CL training on theimplementation in practice: ‘Once the formal training programme ends, CL is oftenabandoned, or at best, practice is significantly reduced’ (p. 303).

The difference between the intended or recommended ‘implementation’ of CLand actual ‘enactment’ may clarify Sharan’s doubts about the long-term impact oftraining. In this respect, curriculum literature has previously pointed at the impossi-bility and the undesirability of telling teachers what to do and how to do it. Teachersrather play a mediating role between the intended or recommended curriculum

Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 689

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 2

3:58

04

Nov

embe

r 20

14

(implementation) and the professional teaching action and outcomes (enactment),because both they have their own interpretation of the curriculum (influenced bytheir own beliefs about CL; Abrami, Poulsen, & Chambers, 2004) and because ofthe challenging interplay between their intentions and situational constraints(Clandinin & Connelly, 1992; Craig & Ross, 2008).

In view of increasing CL implementation, it is important to gain insight intothese challenges teachers are confronted with when implementing CL, even afterprofessional training. In this respect, the concept of professional dilemmas providesa valuable framework for understanding the complex dynamics between the teacherand his working conditions (Fransson & Grannäs, 2013; Kelchtermans, 2013).Teacher dilemmas are tensions that may arise when the values, beliefs and identityof a teacher, and consequently his teaching actions, come into conflict with the edu-cational context, policy, etc. As a consequence, teachers are permanently ‘managing’these dilemmas by positioning themselves within these tensions (by making choicesbetween often equally important alternatives; Sparrow, 2000) in order to feel com-fortable with the situation (Cuban, 1992). An example of a common dilemma furtherclarifies this. In the personal vs. professional context, there are two competingvalues: you value highly both your work and your family and friends. However,your time and energy are limited, so you have to make choices. Consequently, thereare several options: put in fewer hours at work and more time at home. Take morevacations and give up thoughts of career advancement. Or do the reverse. Each ofthe alternatives, with its particular trade-offs, becomes a candidate for a compromisethat includes both satisfaction and sacrifice. If you do nothing – anotheroption – you risk losing your family and friends or your job. The example showsthat there is no tidy solution, the dilemma will not depart. You can only try tomanage it by searching for worthy compromises (Cuban, 2012).

Windschitl (2002) describes four frames of reference to describe dilemmas in theimplementation of constructivist teaching strategies: (a) conceptual dilemmas thatare rooted in teachers’ attempts to understand the theoretical underpinnings of – inthis case – CL and reconciling their current beliefs with them; (b) pedagogicaldilemmas that arise from pedagogical decisions and choices in teaching practice; (c)cultural dilemmas that emerge between teachers and students/context when changingpedagogical practice; and (d) political dilemmas that are related to the confrontationand negotiation with various stakeholders in the school community.

With respect to CL implementation, previous studies have pointed at severalproblems teachers are confronted with. For example, Gillies and Boyle (2010) pointat senior teachers’ time management issues and problems with assessing students’group work. Other studies showed that practical constraints, like the availability ofmaterial or class size, influence the implementation of CL negatively (Abrami et al.,2004). In addition, developing effective group tasks (Baines et al., 2003; Blatchford,Kutnick, Baines, & Galton, 2003; Gillies, 2006), changing the classroom organisa-tion (Gillies, 2006; Hertz-Lazarowitz, 2008) and preparing pupils to work together(Blatchford et al., 2003; Gillies & Boyle, 2010) are perceived as complex, challeng-ing and time-consuming aspects of implementing CL. Teachers also fear loss ofcontrol, loss of content coverage and unequal contributions of pupils (Veenman, vanBenthum, Boosma, van Dieren, & van der Kemp, 2002), which might lead todecreased use of CL.

690 I. Ruys et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 2

3:58

04

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Aim of the study

The above-mentioned research findings almost exclusively report on the challengessenior teachers experience with the use of CL, predominantly after an in-servicetraining programme. Pre-service and beginning teachers’ teaching experiences are,however, far less studied in relation to CL implementation. Veenman et al. (2002)found that student teachers’ intentions to use CL increased after an explicit trainingprogramme, but no insight was provided in their actual use of CL in teachingpractice.

To address this gap in the literature, the present study intends to study studentand novice teachers’ experiences with the implementation of CL in classroompractice, after a formal training pertaining to CL as part of their teacher educationprogramme. In particular, we aim to identify challenges they are confronted with,and how they position themselves in these challenges. The results may provideuseful information for teacher education to improve the curriculum regarding prepar-ing teachers for CL implementation.

Method

Given that the aim of this study focuses on processes of interpretation and sense-making that go with the particular experiences of individual teachers with CL, aqualitative case study design (Miles & Huberman, 1994) with in-depth interviewswas adopted to gain access to the experiences.

Research questions

Using the concept of ‘teacher dilemmas’ as a framework for investigating studentand novice teachers’ experiences with CL implementation, our central research ques-tions are: what are the main challenges student and novice teachers encounter whenthey aim at implementing CL in their teaching practice? More specifically, we intendto understand how teachers position themselves in relation to (a) their colleagues,(b) their pupils, (c) the curriculum and (d) the classroom context, when facingconflicting options in the implementation of CL.

Participants

Participants were selected from the sample of a series of previous, quantitativestudies on competency development of student teachers regarding CL implementa-tion in primary schools (Ruys, Van Keer, & Aelterman, 2011, 2012). During the aca-demic year 2008–2009, 121 second-year student teachers participated in four 2-hworkshops concerning the theoretical background of CL and CL implementation. Inaddition, they were required to apply CL in their practicum during second-yearteacher education. One year later (2009–2010), 116 student teachers of this sampleentered third (and last) year of teacher education. From this group, the cases for thepresent study were selected.

We opted for a ‘theoretical sampling’ method (Strauss & Corbin, 1998), selecting15 student teachers using two sampling dimensions: (1) self-efficacy regarding theuse of CL (Ruys et al., 2011) and (2) beliefs regarding CL (Abrami et al., 2004), sinceteachers’ self-efficacy and beliefs strongly influence the implementation of educa-tional innovations in practice. We measured both parameters in February 2010 in the

Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 691

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 2

3:58

04

Nov

embe

r 20

14

complete group of 116 third-year students. Based on the survey results, we selectedfive student teachers that scored, respectively, significantly higher (+ +) or lower(− −) than the average self-efficacy scores, and five student teachers that scoredaround the mean (+ or −). Nested within the sampling structure for self-efficacy, weselected student teachers with different beliefs: student teachers with both positivelyoriented beliefs (high expectations regarding CL, highly valuing pupil collaboration,assessing the cost going with CL as rather low) and negatively oriented beliefs, ormixed results were included.

Further, we took into account the representative gender proportion in Flemishteacher education for primary schools (about 17% male student teachers). Table 1provides an overview of the cases. During teacher education, each participant hadpracticum periods in all grades of primary school. Participants were white, predomi-nantly middle-class teachers, which corresponds to the overall teaching populationin Flanders.

Procedure

Interview I

Participants were interviewed individually and in depth in June 2010, one weekbefore graduation (interview I). A semi-structured interview guideline was devel-oped based on the theoretical framework and focused on student teachers’ experi-ences with CL during practicum. A few examples of questions in the guideline are:did your mentor teachers adopt a positive or critical attitude towards CL implemen-tation, and how did that affect your teaching behaviour during practicum? Are thereany factors you experienced as influencing the extent in which you used CL?

In order to get more clarifications or illustrations, the researcher was allowed tocontinue asking questions (Lindlof & Taylor, 2002). The flexible use of theinterview questions accounted for small differences in the duration (approximatelyone hour) of the interviews.

Table 1. Overview of the cases.

Case Year of birth Gender CL self-efficacy

CL Beliefs Interview

Name Expec-tations Value Cost I II

1 Julie 1989 Female − − − − − + + ✓ ✓2 Hannah 1989 Female − − − − − − + + ✓ ✓3 Kiara 1986 Female + + + + + + − ✓ ✓4 Samuel 1987 Male − + + + + − ✓ ✓5 Sophie 1989 Female + + + + + − − ✓6 Silke 1989 Female + + + + + − − ✓7 Caroline 1989 Female − − + + + + + ✓8 Emma 1989 Female − − − − − + + ✓ ✓9 Kelly 1988 Female − − − − − ✓10 Nele 1989 Female − − − + + + ✓ ✓11 Kevin 1988 Male − + + + − − ✓ ✓12 Sander 1988 Male − + − − − − ✓ ✓13 Lynn 1989 Female + − − − + + ✓ ✓14 Vanessa 1989 Female + + + + + + ✓15 Emily 1988 Female + + − + + + ✓ ✓

692 I. Ruys et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 2

3:58

04

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Interview II

After at least half a year of experience in the teaching profession, 10 participantswere interviewed a second time in April 2011 (Interview II). Five participants ofInterview I were excluded from Interview II for various reasons (e.g. not enteringthe teaching profession).

For the second interview, the guideline was slightly adapted to the changedprofessional situation of the novice teachers. For example, questions about theschool context (e.g. Is CL often used in your school by your colleagues? How doesthat influence your own teaching behaviour?) and their perception of the teachingprofession (e.g. How did you experience the phase of entering the teaching profes-sion? How did it influence your planned use of CL?) were added. The interviewduration was between 60 and 90 min.

Data analysis

Interviews were audio-taped and transcribed verbatim. All interviews were coded inNVivo 9, following the middle order approach (Dey, 1993), allowing for furtherrefinements of previously defined broad coding categories of experiences andmotives. Fragmentation of the interviews was based on the meaningfulness of thetext fragments in view of the research questions. Each fragment was assignedvarious codes: one code referring to the time of the experiences (as a student ornovice teacher), and at least one code with regard to the content of the fragment.Content-related codes were both descriptive (identifying the issues addressed in thefragment) and interpretative (codes reflecting dilemmatic spaces that entail position-ing and negotiation of power).

A within case analysis (Miles & Huberman, 1994) was applied first. A specificsynthesis report (portrait) was created that presents the interpretative data using thesame structure for every case. Secondly, the results of the within case analysis weresubmitted to a cross-case analysis (Miles & Huberman, 1994) using the method of‘constant comparative analysis’ (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) in order to identifysimilarities or differences and to capture recurring patterns within the data. In thepresent study, mainly the results from the horizontal analysis will be clarified.

Five interviews were independently coded by two researchers; percentage agreementwas .86 (Krippendorff, 2004; Neuendorf, 2002).

Findings

The within case portraits reveal that seven out of ten novice teachers use CLfrequently in their teaching practice. Four of them (Emily, Emma, Kevin and Lynn)feel predominantly comfortable about it whereas Julie, Samuel and Nele oftenexperience doubts and challenges. Three novice teachers (Kiara, Hannah andSander) do not or only rarely use CL, despite their original intentions at graduation.

In the cross-case analysis, we focused explicitly on the communalities andcontrasts in the teachers’ stories. We discuss several dilemmas that student and nov-ice teachers experience when intending to or implementing CL. In particular, wereport how they position themselves in these challenges in relation to (a) theircolleagues, (b) their pupils, (c) the curriculum and (d) the classroom context.

Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 693

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 2

3:58

04

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Professional autonomy: two dilemmas

Particular stories illustrate that feelings of professional autonomy and collegial sup-port are positively influencing the use of CL in teaching practice. Sander, for exam-ple, emphasises that he always has had carte blanche in choosing his pedagogicalapproach as a student teacher. Several novice teachers (Emma, Emily, Samuel andNele) perceive the school context as a stimulating environment for the use of CLbecause of the collegial support and inspiring leadership. In their schools, principalsare enthusiastic about CL and stimulate and coach all team members in this respect.

Other participants feel a lack of professional autonomy when it comes to explor-ing new teaching strategies such as CL. The interpersonal challenges in which theyhave to position themselves in relation to their colleagues differ however slightly forstudent (ST) and novice teachers (NT). Therefore, we distinguish between twodilemmas concerning professional autonomy.

Student teachers: teacher autonomy vs. pre-service performance assessment

At first, we thought: it’s sufficient to know CL in theory, but eventually you experiencenew points of attention every time. The theoretical background is important, becausewithout that you don’t know how to start using CL, but using it during practicum iscertainly even important. (Nele)

Almost all participating student teachers were strongly motivated to use CL in prac-tice, valuing the practical experience with CL in addition to the theoretical basisfrom the training they received. However, most student teachers experienced CLimplementation during practicum as threatening. They found themselves in conflictbetween having the professional autonomy to choose their own pedagogical behav-iour, and opting for ‘safe’ teaching behaviour since their teaching performance wasbeing assessed. The risks that go with trying new teaching strategies made themdoubt about trying CL. In many cases, they preferred to rely on rather familiarteaching when CL implementation was not compulsory. This positioning choice waseven reinforced since several mentor teachers prohibited or advised student teachersagainst implementing CL, which decreased their feelings of professional autonomy.This is closely related to the dilemma of teacher autonomy vs. institutional confor-mity that novice teachers experience.

Novice teachers: teacher autonomy vs. institutional conformity (NT)

Once graduated, novice teachers have full responsibility for their own classes, or atleast they hope so. Nevertheless, the participants experienced that several senior col-leagues tend to try to ‘protect’ new teachers by dissuading them from using innova-tive teaching strategies. As a consequence, more than half of the participatingnovice teachers had to position themselves between their own beliefs about teachingand learning, and the pedagogical approach of their colleagues. In most cases, theyopt for non-implementation of CL or did not discuss the use of CL further with theircolleagues.

694 I. Ruys et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 2

3:58

04

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Beliefs vs. evidence about pupils’ readiness for CL

The assessment of pupils’ readiness for CL is cited as strongly affecting student andnotice teachers’ motives to (not) implement CL. However, judging the readiness ofpupils’ for an innovative and complex teaching strategy such as CL is considereddifficult by the participants. In many cases, they lack acquaintance with their pupilsto assess their readiness based on evidence. For student teachers, observing pupils(as is mostly done prior to the practicum) appears insufficient to gain insight inactual pupil characteristics. The collaboration with mentor teachers often fails tocompensate and complement this lack of knowledge.

Everything went wrong, I made a wrong decision in my group composition since Ididn’t know the pupils very well. The first thing my mentor said after that lesson, was:‘I had expected that’. I was wondering why she didn’t adjust my group compositionafter having read my lesson preparation. (Kiara)

As a consequence of the lack of evidence, student teachers develop certainbeliefs about pupils’ readiness that restrain them from CL implementation, which isperceived as taking risks when children are not ready for it. After graduation, begin-ning teachers have the opportunity to use CL with children they know better andgather evidence about pupils’ readiness. Some of their previous beliefs are adjustedand come in conflict with their ‘playing safe’ attitude. As a consequence, their moti-vation to use CL increases. When new proofs of evidence become available (byovercoming the doubts and trying CL), teachers tend to reposition themselves againbetween their beliefs and the evidence they have.

For example, several student teachers in this study believed that pupils who arenot familiar with CL would prefer to work individually or receive whole-classinstructions instead of working collaboratively. These teachers started doubting theuse of CL, although they strongly valued this teaching strategy. However, after someweeks of (compulsory) using CL, all teachers experienced a changing motivation inthe pupils: they are more motivated and fascinated, and they appreciate the variety inteaching strategies, making it pleasant to use CL as a teacher. A sustained use of CLdoes not only improve pupils’ attitudes towards CL, and thus teachers’ motivation touse this teaching strategy. In addition, the effectiveness and efficiency also increaseswhen pupils become more familiar with CL. During practicum periods, when studentteachers are teaching only for some days or weeks in a classroom, pupils’ unfamiliar-ity with CL creates problems, particularly regarding class time management.

You notice that in some classes, CL is not yet frequently used. You have to give moreextensive instructions and pay more attention to rules and agreements, otherwise it willfail. (Vanessa)

Beginning teachers experience the same problems. However, they have time touse CL more frequently to make their pupils more familiar with this teachingstrategy. After repeated use, it runs more smoothly and efficient.

Further, student teachers also hold strong beliefs about the age of children andtheir related competences to make a success of CL. The younger the children, themore difficult the student teachers perceive the use of CL, and the less they arewilling to implement it. Mainly children from first grade are perceived (a) to be tooself-centred, competitive and easily distracted; (b) as not yet having the basic social

Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 695

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 2

3:58

04

Nov

embe

r 20

14

and cognitive skills necessary for CL; and (c) to need too much guidance and steer-ing. These beliefs lead to non-implementation of CL with younger children duringpracticum. Four student teachers slightly nuance their view by suggesting that somesubjects (e.g. musical education) would permit the use of CL for younger children(Kiara and Kevin) or by suggesting that specific forms of CL would make it possible(Emma and Emily).

Some of the novice teachers who previously stated that CL turns out to be lesssuccessful with younger children, positioned themselves differently after teachingfirst or second grade. They still experience problems with children’s unfamiliaritywith CL, but after some time these problems disappear so they cannot be attributedto pupils’ age. Other beginning teachers emphasise the success of cross-age peercollaboration to overcome age-related difficulties.

Finally, student teachers have doubts about the readiness of pupils’ with specialeducational needs (SEN) for CL. However, only few of them have teachingexperience with groups of these pupils. Julie and Samuel, who started teaching agroup of pupils with SEN after graduation, experience the use of CL differently thanin ‘regular’ primary school classrooms, but not impossible. Their pupils are gener-ally less socially skilled and often experience difficulties while understanding thetask. However, it does not prevent them from using peer collaboration.

In our school, pupils get lessons in social skills during half an hour per week. I thinkthis is not effective enough, you have to pay attention to social skills and peer collabo-ration during the other lessons too. Therefore, CL is at least even important for pupilswith SEN. (Julie)

To make it work for their pupils, Julie and Samuel invest additional time in theinstruction of CL by making the collaboration process visible (using pictograms),making smaller groups (maximum 3 pupils) and paying extra attention to the attrac-tiveness of and differentiated instruction within the group assignment. Samuelemphasises that the teacher has to lower his expectations too.

Investing in innovation vs. curriculum and job pressure

Parallel to the experiences of senior teachers (Gillies & Boyle, 2010), both studentand novice teachers stress the dilemmas they encounter related to time pressureissues. These issues require them to take a position between their intentions to useinnovative teaching strategies such as CL on one hand, and the experienced timepressure on the other hand.

Both student and novice teachers attribute time management issues to curriculumpressure that is in conflict with their pedagogical intentions. Student teachersperceive the lesson programme as strict, while novice teachers perceive theprogramme as overloaded. This implies less time for teaching strategies such as CL,which are considered time-consuming.

In addition, novice teachers experience pressure in their preparation timemanagement. Having only limited expertise in teaching, preparing lessons andadditional administration requires so much time that it is difficult for them to opt formethods requiring more preparation time than whole-class instruction. The lack ofinspiration regarding CL from textbook series creates additional time pressure forinexperienced teachers. Since textbook series only seldom include lesson suggestionsincorporating forms of peer collaboration, they are often inhibiting the use of CL.

696 I. Ruys et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 2

3:58

04

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Everything is much prescribed in textbook series. Sometimes I do wave this all asideand do my own thing, but when you are pressed for time, it’s much easier to give thelessons as they are prepared in the course books. (Sander)

Novice teachers’ motivation to use CL is also challenged by the nature of theirschool assignments. Novices often start their career in education with assignmentsthat are rather limited in duration and/or only part-time. Having no future in that par-ticular class or school unfortunately discourages novice teachers to invest muchenergy in using innovative teaching strategies such as CL.

Pedagogical intentions vs. contextual constraints

When intending to implement CL, challenges often emerge between teachers’ peda-gogical choices and practical or contextual constraints. Both student and noviceteachers argue that the physical classroom space and class size influence their actualextent of and experience with CL implementation. Further, classrooms with largedifferences between pupils’ capabilities create doubts for student and beginningteachers to implement when using CL.

Physical classroom space. When classrooms are too small to rearrange tablesadequately, most of the student and novice teachers abandon peer collaboration orthey experience failure because the classroom organisation interferes with theefficient communication between group members. Some teachers look for otheropportunities in the school (e.g. the school restaurant), but then they experienceproblems with the acoustics and the reservation of these rooms.

The infrastructure is not suitable for CL. The classrooms are overcrowded, so you can’treplace the tables. Only seldom, other rooms are available for CL. If the weather isgood, you can go outside, but then you have other disadvantages. (Samuel)

Class size. Many student and novice teachers tend to avoid the use of CL in classesof more than 20 pupils. Obviously, group size and space constraints are oftenrelated: the more the pupils in the classroom, the less the space available for rear-ranging the classroom. It is therefore not surprising that class size is also oftenreferred to in relation to CL failure. Kiara, Caroline and Sander experienced difficul-ties to provide sufficient monitoring and guidance when using CL in classes of morethan 25 pupils. However, the stories of other beginning teachers in comparativelylarge classrooms make clear that success is however possible when factors on thepupil level are beneficial (e.g. pupils’ familiarity with CL).

Heterogeneous classrooms. Some student teachers have serious doubts about imple-menting CL in classrooms with a heterogeneous developmental level. They believethat pupils – or at least themselves as teachers – will consider the group compositionunfair given the big differences.

Discussion

Research on CL implementation has this far predominantly been based on quantitativemeasures of effectiveness and on questionnaires about factors influencing the use ofthis teaching strategy. In the present study, the stories of student and novice teachersprovide a qualitative view on this topic, yielding more rich, detailed and contextua-

Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 697

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 2

3:58

04

Nov

embe

r 20

14

lised data about their experiences with CL during teacher education practicums aswell as during their first year in the profession. Given that a case study design wasused with a relatively small sample size, caution needs to be exercised when general-ising from the results.

In this study, we identified several dilemmas in the stories of student and noviceteachers that illustrate the conflicting options teachers are facing in relation to theircolleagues, their pupils, the curriculum and in the classroom context when imple-menting CL. In particular, the following dilemmas were identified: two dilemmasrelated to professional autonomy (student teachers: teacher autonomy vs. pre-serviceperformance assessment and novice teachers: teacher autonomy vs. institutional con-formity); further dilemmas related to teachers’ beliefs vs. evidence about pupils’readiness for CL, investing in innovation vs. curriculum and job pressure, and peda-gogical intentions vs. contextual constraints were also identified. When framingthese dilemmas in the four dimensions of Windschitl’s model (2002), the findingsindicate that student and novice teachers are predominantly facing political and cul-tural dilemmas in CL implementation.

Political dilemmas in student and novice teachers’ stories are mostly related tothe autonomous position as a teacher in relation to the authority of colleagues. Stu-dent teachers emphasise the threatening character of CL use during their practicumsince they were assessed. In this respect, teaching practicum appears to insufficientlybe a stimulating and supportive environment for CL implementation. In line withKlein (2001), student teachers tend to perceive that ‘the classroom is not the placeto take risks when marks are concerned’ (p. 236). Therefore, it might be useful forteacher training to consider first the experiences with CL use in a non-evaluatedpractical experience period.

Novice teachers in this study also point at the difficult balance between collegialrelationships and issues of autonomy. In line with Dymoke and Harrison (2006),who warn of the pressure of institutional conformity for beginning teachers, the useof CL is often diminished by novice teachers in order to comply with the expecta-tions of the school culture or particular team members.

The stories of student and novice teachers who are not confronted with dilemmasof teacher autonomy show the importance of an open and stimulating school envi-ronment regarding CL use. Shared interests of the complete school team in innova-tive practices largely increase collegial support and guidance and, as a consequence,CL implementation. This affirms previous results of Ishler, Johnson, and Johnson(1998), Krol et al. (2008) and Veenman, Kenter, and Post (2000) for senior teachers.As a consequence, it may be useful for teacher education institutes to invest in acombination of pre-service training regarding CL for student teachers and in-servicetraining for mentor teachers regarding CL. This combination might stir mentorteachers’ curiosity for CL, creating a more stimulating environment for studentteachers to experiment with CL. In addition, mentor teachers will be more compe-tent after training to support student teachers by providing useful feedback.

The dilemma of ‘investing in innovation vs. curriculum and job pressure’ is alsopolitical in nature. Both student and novice teachers are confronted with the conflictof implementing CL and at the same time succeeding in attaining the ‘ideals’ in thecurriculum. The pressure of educational programmes, attainment of targets, the totalresponsibility of teaching as well as the detailed guidelines in course textbooksdecrease the feelings of professional ‘ownership’ of beginning teachers regardinghow to work in daily practice. In this respect, some cases in this study clearly

698 I. Ruys et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 2

3:58

04

Nov

embe

r 20

14

illustrate the ‘transition shock’ (Korthagen, Loughran, & Russell, 2006) that manybeginning teachers are facing. The administrative pressure, short replacement periodsand the lack of prospect for future discourage them to invest in the time-consumingpreparation of innovative pedagogical approaches. As a result, they hold on totraditional pedagogical behaviour. The findings in this study confirm this for bothparticipant groups, since their perceived curriculum and job pressure lowers theirmotivation and intention to implement innovative teaching strategies such as CL.

Cultural dilemmas emerge in student and novice teachers’ stories when theirbeliefs about when and how to implement CL come into conflict with their (beliefsabout) pupils and classroom context characteristics. First, student teachers appear tohave developed beliefs about pupils’ readiness for CL, mostly based on rather lim-ited practical experience with CL implementation. These beliefs largely influencetheir motives for CL use: they tend to opt for ‘playing safe’ and avoid CL imple-mentation with young children, children who are not familiar with CL, or pupilswith SEN. Novice teachers who are more acquainted with their pupils often receivecounter-evidence for their beliefs by taking risks and trying CL implementationdespite their beliefs about pupils’ readiness. The continuous conflict between beliefsand evidence forces beginning teachers to position themselves within the dilemmaby risk-taking or playing safe.

Given the difficulties that were mentioned in the stories of student and noviceteachers related to the lack of familiarity of their pupils with CL, it may be impor-tant to develop the cross-curricular expectations about learning to work together, asthey are determined in the attainment targets of the Flemish Government (Ministryof the Flemish Government, 2010) for primary school pupils in general, for eachgrade in particular. This would make the use of peer collaboration a shared matter ofall primary school teachers. Pupils would have the opportunity to become familiarwith working collaboratively step by step during their school career. In this case,further research on the continued impact of CL is needed, since most studies on theeffectiveness of this teaching strategy were concentrated on a shorter period of time.

The second cultural dilemma (pedagogical intentions vs. contextual constraints)we identified in our study confirms the research results of Abrami et al. (2004), whofound that senior teachers’ beliefs regarding the cost of CL and practical constraintshave a strong negative impact on the extent of CL implementation. Student and nov-ice teachers also experience a conflict between their intentions to use CL and thecontext in which they are teaching. However, they perceive the context often fromthe ‘old’ lens of their usual teaching routines. The dilemma ‘pedagogical intentionsvs. contextual constraints’ challenges them to rethink the potential of the learningenvironment as it is, and to reflect on how certain accommodations would suit theenactment of their pedagogical intentions.

In the present study, we focused on the group of rather inexperienced teachers(student teachers and novice teachers in their first year in the teaching profession),since participants in previous studies were mainly senior teachers. Whereas in arecent study of Gillies and Boyle (2010) the pedagogical dilemmas were emphasisedin the experience of senior teachers, our results show that that within the group ofinexperienced teachers experiences with CL implementation and mainly the politicaland cultural dilemmas encountered do not differ very much. With regard to issues ofteacher autonomy, student teachers and novice teachers face another conflict.Concerning the impact of pupils’ characteristics, both participant groups tend to

Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 699

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 2

3:58

04

Nov

embe

r 20

14

position themselves differently within the dilemma based on the amount of evidencethey have about their pupils.

In general, all identified dilemmas in the present study closely relate to theconcept of ‘vulnerability’ as a structural characteristic of the teaching profession(Kelchtermans, 2009, p. 265): ‘teachers are not in full control of the conditions theyhave to work in’. Their working conditions – team composition, infrastructure, legalframework, etc. – are largely imposed on them, and place them in situations theyexperience as like they have to deal with. However, through an ongoing process ofnegotiation, professional development, power and attempts to establish change,certain working conditions can be influenced by teachers (Kelchtermans, 2007).Nonetheless, when beginning teachers have to make a decision about CL implemen-tation in case of one or more dilemmas, it is remarkable that student and noviceteachers tend to position themselves in the challenge by opting for non-implementa-tion of CL. They avoid actually wrestling with how to put their educational valuesand beliefs into practice. In that respect, our research findings reveal a real challengeto educate teachers that resolving a dilemma is a matter of compromise and ongoingmanagement of conflicts (Katz & Raths, 1992) instead of playing safe when dilem-mas emerge. Therefore, we suggest adding reflection groups to the CL training inteacher education, giving student teachers the opportunity to exchange and discussexperiences and challenges since Meirink, Meijer, and Verloop (2007) demonstrateda relationship between professional learning communities and the implementation ofinnovative instructional strategies.

Conclusion

In the present case study several challenges that student and novice teachers areconfronted with when intending to implement CL were identified: teacher autonomyvs. pre-service performance assessment (student teachers), teacher autonomyvs. institutional conformity (novice teachers), beliefs about pupils’ readiness for CLvs. evidence about pupils’ readiness for CL, investing in innovation vs. curriculumand job pressure, and pedagogical intentions vs. contextual constraints). In addition,it appears that beginning teachers tend to position themselves in these challenges byopting for non-implementation of CL. Interpreting the above-mentioned dilemmasfrom Windschitl’s framework (2002), student and novice teachers appear to bepredominantly confronted with political and cultural dilemmas when intending toimplement CL; no conceptual or pedagogical dilemmas were found in the presentstudy.

These insights provide support for some results of previous studies on seniorteachers, but also add new perspectives on the particular experiences of beginningteachers (e.g. dilemmas regarding professional autonomy). The focus on new gener-ations of teachers is important in the process of educational innovation and thereforeneeds further attention in future research. In addition, we suggest to continue thequalitative research approach, since our case study design shed light on the complexdynamics between teachers and their professional context when it comes to imple-mentation of evidence-based successful teaching strategies such as CL. Previousstudies on CL were largely quantitative in nature and, as a consequence, less sensi-tive for the impact of the teaching context on teachers’ pedagogical intentions andbehaviour.

700 I. Ruys et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 2

3:58

04

Nov

embe

r 20

14

The dilemmas that were identified in student and novice teachers’ stories aboutCL implementation help to clarify the degree of ‘vulnerability’ of beginningteachers. To reinforce their impact on the pedagogical behaviour of the teachers thatgraduate, teacher education should take up the challenge to train teachers to resolvedilemmas by compromising instead of playing safe when dilemmas emerge.

ReferencesAbrami, P. C., Poulsen, C., & Chambers, B. (2004). Teacher motivation to implement an

educational innovation: Factors differentiating users and non-users of cooperativelearning. Educational Psychology, 24, 201–216.

Baines, E., Blatchford, & Kutnick, P. (2003). Changes in grouping practices over primaryand secondary school. International Journal of Educational Research, 39 (1/2), 9–34.

Blatchford, P., Kutnick, P., Baines, E., & Galton, M. (2003). Toward a social pedagogy ofclassroom group work. International Journal of Educational Research, 39 (1/2), 153–172.

Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1992). Teacher as curriculum maker. In P. W. Jackson(Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 363–401). New York, NY: Macmillan.

Craig, C., & Ross, V. (2008). Cultivating the image of teachers as curriculum makers. InF. M. Connelly (Ed.), The sage handbook of curriculum and instruction (pp. 282–305).Los Angeles, CA/London: Sage.

Cuban, L. (1992). Managing dilemmas while building professional communities. EducationalResearcher, 21, 4–11.

Cuban, L. (2012, November). Persistent dilemmas that cling to teaching. Larry Cuban on SchoolReform and Classroom Practice. Retrieved May 12, 2013, from http://larrycuban.wordpress.com/2012/11/10/persistent-dilemmas-that-cling-to-teaching/

Dey, I. (1993). Qualitative data analysis. London: Routledge.Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.),

Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 1–19). Oxford:Elsevier.

Dymoke, S., & Harrison, J. K. (2006). Professional development and the beginning teacher:Issues of teacher autonomy and institutional conformity in the performance reviewprocess. Journal of Education for Teaching, 32, 71–92.

Fawcett, L. M., & Garton, A. F. (2005). The effect of peer collaboration on children’sproblem-solving ability. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 157–169.

Fransson, G., & Grannäs, J. (2013). Dilemmatic spaces in educational contexts – Towards aconceptual framework for dilemmas in teachers work. Teachers and Teaching, 19, 4–17.

Gillies, R. M. (2006). Teachers’ and students’ verbal behaviours during cooperative andsmall-group learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 271–287.

Gillies, R. M., & Boyle, M. (2008). Teachers’ discourse during cooperative learning and theirperceptions of this pedagogical practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24,1333–1348.

Gillies, R. M., & Boyle, M. (2010). Teachers’ reflections on cooperative learning: Issues ofimplementation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 933–940.

Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (2008). Beyond the classroom and into the community: The role of theteachers in expanding the pedagogy of cooperation. In R. M. Gillies, A. F. Ashman, & J.Terwel (Eds.), The teacher’s role in implementing cooperative learning in the classroom(pp. 37–54). New York, NY: Springer.

Ishler, A. L., Johnson, R. T., & Johnson, D. W. (1998). Long-term effectiveness of astatewide staff development program on cooperative learning. Teaching and TeacherEducation, 14, 273–281.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Learning together and alone: Cooperative,competitive, and individualistic learning. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2003). Joining together: Group theory and group skills(8th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Katz, L., & Raths, J. (1992). Six dilemmas in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education,43, 376–385.

Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 701

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 2

3:58

04

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Kelchtermans, G. (2007). Professional commitment beyond contract. Teachers’ self-under-standing, vulnerability and reflection. In J. Butcher & L. McDonald (Eds.), Making a dif-ference: Challenges for teachers, teaching and teacher education (pp. 35–53).Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Kelchtermans, G. (2009). Who I am in how I teach is the message: Self-understanding,vulnerability and reflection. Teachers and Teaching, 15, 257–272.

Kelchtermans, K. (2013). Dilemmas, theory, pedagogy, and learning in teachers’ work lives.Teachers and Teaching, 19(1), 1–3.

Klein, M. (2001). Constructivist practice, pre-service teacher education and change: The limi-tations of appealing to hearts and minds. Teachers and Teaching, 7, 257–269.

Korthagen, F. A. J., Loughran, J., & Russell, T. (2006). Developing fundamental principlesfor teacher education programs and practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22,1020–1041.

Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.).Thousand Oaks, CA/London: Sage.

Krol, K., Sleegers, P., Veenman, S., & Voeten, M. (2008). Creating cooperative classrooms:Effects of a two‐year staff development program. Educational Studies, 34, 343–360.

Lindlof, T. R., & Taylor, B. C. (2002). Qualitative communication research methods (2nded.). Thousand Oaks, CA/London: Sage.

Lopata, C., Miller, K. A., & Miller, R. H. (2003). Survey of actual and preferred use ofcooperative learning among exemplar teachers. Journal of Educational Research, 96,232–239.

MacInnerney, J., & Roberts, T. (2004). Cooperative or collaborative learning? In T. Roberts(Ed.), Online collaborative learning: Theory and practice (pp. 203–214). Hershey, PA:Information Science.

Marzano, R., Pickering, D., & Pollock, J. (2001). Classroom instruction that works.Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria: ASCD.

Meirink, J. A., Meijer, P. C., & Verloop, N. (2007). A closer look at teachers’ individuallearning in collaborative settings. Teachers and Teaching, 13, 145–164.

Meloth, M., & Deering, P. (1999). The role of the teacher in promoting cognitive processingduring collaborative learning. In A. O’Donnell & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive perspectiveson peer learning (pp. 235–256). London: Routledge.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). ThousandOaks, CA/London: Sage.

Ministry of the Flemish Government. (2010). Ontwikkelingsdoelen en eindtermen voor hetgewoon basisonderwijs [Developmental goals and attainment targets for kindergartenand primary school]. Brussels: Department of Education.

Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA/London:Sage.

Oortwijn, M. B., Boekaerts, M., Vedder, P., & Strijbos, J.-W. (2008). Helping behaviour dur-ing cooperative learning and learning gains: The role of the teacher and of pupils’ priorknowledge and ethnic background. Learning and Instruction, 18, 146–159.

Palinscar, A. S. (2002). Designing collaborative learning contexts. Theory Into Practice,41, 26–32.

Prichard, J. S., Bizo, L. A., & Stratford, R. J. (2006). The educational impact of team-skillstraining: Preparing students to work in groups. British Journal of EducationalPsychology, 76, 119–140.

Rose, M. A. (2002). Cognitive dialogue, interaction patterns, and perceptions of graduatestudents in an online conferencing environment under collaborative and cooperativestructures(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.

Ruys, I., Van Keer, H., & Aelterman, A. (2011). Student teachers’ skills in the implementationof collaborative learning: A multilevel approach. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27,1090–1100.

Ruys, I., Van Keer H., & Aelterman A., (2012). Assessment of student teachers’ knowledge aboutcollaborative learning using Blooms taxonomy (Manuscript submitted for publication).

Sharan, Y. (2010). Cooperative learning for academic and social gains: Valued pedagogy,problematic practice. European Journal of Education, 45, 300–313.

702 I. Ruys et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 2

3:58

04

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Slavin, R., Sharan, S., Kagan, R., Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., Webb, C., & Schmuck, R. (Eds.).(1985). Learning to cooperate. Cooperating to learn. New York, NY: Plenum.

Sparrow, R. L. (2000). The professional development of beginning teachers of primary math-ematics (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Edith Wowan University, Perth, Australia.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research. Techniques and proceduresfor developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA/London: Sage.

Tolmie, A. K., Topping, K. J., Christie, D., Donaldson, C., Howe, C., Jessiman, E., …Thurston, A. (2010). Social effects of collaborative learning in primary schools. Learningand Instruction, 20, 177–191.

Veenman, S., Kenter, B., & Post, K. (2000). Cooperative learning in Dutch primary class-rooms. Educational Studies, 26, 281–302.

Veenman, S., van Benthum, N., Boosma, D., van Dieren, J., & van der Kemp, N. (2002).Cooperative learning and teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18,87–103.

Webb, N. M. (2009). The teacher’s role in promoting collaborative dialogue in the classroom.British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79 (1), 1–28.

Windschitl, M. (2002). Framing constructivism in practice as the negotiation of dilemmas:An analysis of the conceptual, pedagogical, cultural, and political challenges facingteachers. Review of Educational Research, 72, 131–175.

Zwart, R. C., Wubbels, T., Bolhuis, S., & Bergen, T. C. M. (2008). Teacher learning throughreciprocal peer coaching: An analysis of activity sequences. Teaching and TeacherEducation, 24, 982–1002.

Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 703

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 2

3:58

04

Nov

embe

r 20

14