Higher Education Science Teaching Faculty Talk About Science And Mathematics: An Examination of the Role of Discourse In A Middle -Level Teacher Preparation Program

[Return to MCTP Research Page]

J. Randy McGinnis, University of Maryland at College Park

Tad Watanabe, Towson State University

A paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, St. Louis, Missouri, March 31-April 3, 1996.

The Preparation of this manuscript was supported in part by a grant from the National Science Foundation.

(NSF Cooperative Agreement No. DUE 9255745)

Abstract

This research employs a mixed theoretical perspective drawing on elements from interactionism and social constructivism. In this study, a discourse analysis is performed on conversations among intra- and inter-institutions' science teaching faculty participating in reforming content classes for teacher candidates in the Maryland Collaborative for Teacher Preparation [MCTP] an NSF funded project. The goal of this study is to begin the process of painting a picture of the discourse landscape higher education science teachers inhabit when the referent in their thinking is science and mathematics, two disciplines the MCTP project hopes to connect. The assumption is that this information will assist in understanding the science teaching faculty's beliefs and actions taken in designing and teaching undergraduate teacher preparatory science classes in which connections with mathematics is a major goal.

Discussion focuses on two areas: (1) the comparison of the discourse on science and mathematics by the science content specialists and by the science methods specialists and (2) the impact of collaboration on the science teaching faculty's discourse on mathematics.

Introduction

The notion of collaboration has become an important idea in the field of education. A number of recent studies have investigated the classroom culture with an underlying assumption that learning/teaching is a collaborative effort involving teachers and students (see, for example, Cobb, Wood, Yackel, & McNeal, 1992). This development is consistent with the basic premises of the social constructivist perspective of learning/teaching (Bruffee, 1986; Gergen, 1985 ) which has become widely accepted in the education research community.

Because teacher development is also a process of learning/teaching, and because being a teacher involves a wide range of knowledge (Shulman, 1987), understanding the role of 'collaboration' in knowing and learning is crucial. A number of recent reform documents (see, for example, American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], 1994; National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM], 1991) call for collaborations among universities/colleges/community colleges, K-12 schools, business, and government agencies in preparing future teachers. Since 1993, the National Science Foundation has awarded several highly funded grants to the projects which aim to reform teacher education programs under the Collaborative for Excellence in Teacher Preparation Program.

In this research study, a discourse analysis is performed on conversations among intra- and inter-institutions' science teaching faculty participating in reforming content classes for teacher candidates in the Maryland Collaborative for Teacher Preparation [MCTP] an NSF funded project. The goal of this study is to begin the process of painting a picture of the discourse landscape higher education science teachers inhabit when the referent in their thinking is science and mathematics, two disciplines the MCTP project hopes to connect. The assumption is that this information will assist in understanding the science teaching faculty's beliefs and actions taken in designing and teaching undergraduate teacher preparatory science classes in which connections with mathematics is a major goal. Research in teacher beliefs and actions have been a major focus of teacher education research since Clark and Peterson (1986) and Munby (1986) alerted the research community to its importance in understanding teaching practice.

Theoretical Perspective

This research employs a mixed theoretical perspective drawing on elements in interactionism and social constructivism. This theoretical perspective is thought to be consistent with a focus on the documentation and the interpretation of collaboration among differing speech communities.

Interactionism posits that individuals communicate meanings of experiences by inventing symbols within a cultural context (Cobb & Baursfeld, 1995). Invented symbols include units of communication called speech, talk, discourse, or registers (Roth & Tobin, 1996). These symbols sustain and contribute toward defining and conducting social life within a defined population (Alasuutari, 1995; Gee, 1990; Lave & Wenger, 1991). Social constructivism (Bruffee, 1986; Gergen, 1985) asserts that the construction of understandings of experiences is a socially mediated act. As a result, much emphasis is placed on documenting and interpreting by the precepts of interaction analysis the conversants' communication in a culture.

Definitions And Methodology

Discourse as used in this study is defined as the dynamic interplay of dialogue between individuals that includes the use of rules developed by certain groups of people (Gee, 1990). The focus on discourse in this study is the result of recent theoretical views that stress the importance of the context in which members of a community communicate (Greeno, 1991; Rogoff, 1990; Roth & Tobin, 1996). Conversations, or `talk,' is recognized as a particularly revealing resource in analyzing social interactions for patterns of sense making in a community (Lemke, 1990; McCarthy, 1994). Talking is a communicative event in which the conversants collaborate in constructing a social text and an academic text simultaneously (Green, Weade, & Graham, 1988). The social text is defined as the agreed upon rules and purposes for the social interactions. The academic text is defined as the content of the discussion.

In the Maryland Collaborative for Teacher Presparation, the large speech community consisted of higher education faculty members who taught revised mathematics and science undergraduate content classes. Content expertise and an interest in reforming content classes for MCTP teacher candidates defined the academic membership in the teaching faculty speech community. Sharing ideas on the role of mathematics and science in MCTP undergraduate content classes served as the purpose of the social text. In each of these speech or discourse communities there were two groups: discipline experts (mathematicians or scientists) and education experts (mathematics or science educators). The focus in this study is only on the science teaching faculty. Figure 1 contains a diagram of the entire MCTP teaching faculty speech community.

Insert Figure 1 About Here - Contact Author for Figure

A qualitative methodology (Erickson, 1986; LeCompte, Millory, & Preissle, 1992) was used to interpret conversation text supplied by audiotaped and transcribed interviews of individual faculty members conducted throughout the 1994-1995 academic year. Faculty interviewed were members of the MCTP science teaching faculty who taught MCTP science content classes at the participating eight institutions of higher learning in Maryland. In addition, a large group interview of the faculty who taught MCTP science content classes was videotaped and transcribed during the summer of 1995. Participants included science content specialists and science methods specialists. All are given pseudonyms in this study. The software program NUD.IST was used to assist in chunking transcribed interview data into the speech communities by professions involved in the teacher preparation classes (bench scientist, research mathematician, science educator, and mathematics educator). It also assisted in the labeling and the retrieval of instances of conversation on the academic texts of interest: science and mathematics. Refer to figure 2 for a graphical display of the tree index analysis as conducted in the NUD.IST environment.


Insert Figure 2 About Here - Contact Author for Figure

Context of Study

The Maryland Collaborative for Teacher Preparation is a National Science Foundation funded statewide undergraduate program for students who plan to become specialist mathematics and science upper elementary or middle level teachers. The goal of the MCTP is to promote the development of teachers who are confident teaching mathematics and science, and who can provide an exciting and challenging learning environment for students of diverse backgrounds. An underlying assumption of the MCTP is the notion that college-level faculty transformation and teacher preparation is contingent on participant collaboration.

The MCTP consists of the following:

* Specially designed courses in science and mathematics, taught by instructors committed to a hands-on, minds-on interdisciplinary approach.

* Internship experiences with research opportunities in business, industrial and scientific settings, and with teaching activities in science centers, zoos, and other institutions.

* Field experiences and student teaching situations with mentors devoted to the interdisciplinary approach to mathematics and science.

* Modern technologies as standard tools for planning and assessment, classroom and laboratory work, problem-solving and research

* Placement assistance and sustained support during the induction year in the teaching profession

* Financial support for qualified students.

History of the MCTP

The National Science Foundation selected Maryland in 1993 as one of the first three states awarded Collaborative Teacher Preparation Grants (spread out over a five-year period) to develop and implement an interdisciplinary program for intending elementary and middle school teachers to become science/mathematics specialists. Higher education institutions involved in this grant include ten colleges and universities in Maryland. Public school districts involved include Baltimore County and Prince George's County. The project management team consists of Jim Fey, Project Director, Co-Principal directors Genevieve Knight, Tom O'Haver, and John Layman, and Executive Director Susan Boyer. Various committees working on the MCTP include the Content Teaching Committee, the Pedagogical Committee, and the Research Group. These committees are charged with developing and researching new college-level content and methods courses for recruited teacher candidates who started in the program in the fall of 1994.

Participating faculty engaged in MCTP summer meetings at various colleges and universities during 1993, 1994, and 1995. During those extended meetings (several days and nights at a time) they collaborated in small content groups (physical science and biological science) to develop teaching modules which could be used in existing and new content classes. They also attended large group meetings in which topics such as constructivism were discussed. Throughout the intervening academic school years, participating faculty communicated with each other over the project's LISTSERV. They also met once each year between fall and spring semesters to engage in course debriefings. During these debriefings, the focus was on individual presentations by members of the mathematics and science teaching faculty. Limited discussion was conducted. The central leitmotif of the conversations was on the tension between content coverage and the time required to enact a more student-centered pedagogy promoted by the MCTP. One scientist stated after the winter debriefing,

A complaint that we heard from most of the people that taught courses that we spoke with, and to a certain extent it happened to us, was that we planned an amount of material that we thought was very easily manageable during the semester, and we didn't get anywhere near accomplishing what we thought we would. And I think in some ways that's because we...we had a difficult time teaching the course the way we wanted to teach it for MCTP and still being hung up on teaching it the way we probably would have taught it before. (Biologist, 2/95)

Findings

This section is divided into three sections. Section one contains the science teaching faculty's individual talk about science. Section two contains participants' individual talk about mathematics. In both of these sections, the speech communities are analyzed by groups: science content specialists (faculty in the sciences) and science methods specialists (faculty in science education). Section three contains the science teaching faculty's whole-group talk about mathematics.



Section One: MCTP Science Teaching Professors Individually Talk About Science

Throughout the 1994--1995 academic year, faculty teaching science content classes at five institutions of higher education within the project were interviewed multiple times

(n = 11, 8 science content specialists, 3 science methods specialists). In those audiotaped and transcribed individual semi-structured interviews, faculty were asked questions that prompted them to discuss their understandings of science. What follows are the key conversation referents they made to science.

Group One: Science content specialists

Science is modeling observable phenomena

It was really enlightening because the one group had real concrete examples that were.... She must write everything in here, somebody must write everything in her notes because you could hear it--[Bob] standing there saying, "When we make a model there's an assumption, we have to make an assumption." And that came back. An the other though, the other pair as we've paired them up this time were much more fluid and conceptual in their thinking...(Biologist, 2/95)
Science is progressive

...and we got to the end and they said, "But we still don't know if energy can have a particle nature of if matter can have a wave nature." Well, heck, folks didn't know that for a very long time, but I was just delighted that she...she said, "Should we know that? Should we have figured that out from what we did?" (Biologist, 2/95)
Science is specific topics

This class was more planned to make connections between chemistry and biology, so we didn't do a whole lot of math this time, but in the end when were studying photosynthesis, we were measuring as the index of the rate of photosynthesis, we were measuring volume of oxygen produced. (Biologist, 5/95)
Science is compartmentalized into discrete disciplines

On every comment sheet I've completed I've discussed the same issue, and it's

not been addressed. The earth and space sciences are not represented. We have only one geology and no astronomy specialists in the project ... I'm concerned about how content specialists have been picked; what is the logic to having only biology, chemistry, and physics represented? These are not the only sciences that there are. In the middle grades, earth science is taught - soils, rocks, planets, moons, meteorites. Whether MCTP produces specialists in math & science will be limited by the design they have chosen; it does not represent all of science. (Geologist, 2/95)

Science is information

And incidentally, one thing I learned this semester from working with [Bob] is that I think wasa problem for me and a mistake that I made the first semester being on my own is that I slowed down considerably. I didn't worry about having something going all the time, and I let it be more class curiosity driven and less driven by me always having something for them to do, or think about, or discuss. And I think that that made a more comfortable atmosphere for the students, and it certainly is, conducive. They probably get less information. I think I was trying to still...even though I had made a concerted effort to cut back on the information, I think I still tried to put too much into the first semester, so I have a lot of rethinking that I have done in terms of modifying that first semester course. (Biologist, 2/95)

Science is scholarship and an intellectual activity

...and that's not just in this course, but I think in a lot of courses, you know, especially someone who is...who is going to be a teacher needs to have an attitude about scholarship and intellectual activity and learning that is different from what they can get by with if they're simply looking for a grade. (Biologist, 12/94)

Science is experimenting

So they saw, I think, a very student-centered atmosphere both in the lab as well as in the lecture. The lab was very hands-on and concrete-oriented....And if they suggested an experiment, we set it up and gave them free lab where they could do whatever they wanted to. (Physicist, 3/95)

Well, their are cooperative exercises in the class. Of course, the lab experiments aren't unique because they're a standard part of science. (Chemist, 5/95)

My graduate students look at me with great puzzlement when I tell them about the things that I am involved with in this project. I mean, you know, they can't understand why in this world would you be doing that? It doesn't have anything to do with the particular labs down there, and that all my papers had to do with all these years....You know, they thought I was a different person. (Chemist, 5/95)

Group Two: Science methods specialists

Science is a lifelong process

...if you're doing the constructivist approach, there is no end point either for the teacher or the students, it's a lifelong process that by happenstance you and the students have shared for one semester (Science educator, 2/95)

Science is an inquiry that involves models and explanation

Yeah. I would hope that they would view science as inquiry, or science was a way of thinking, or inquiry as a way of thinking, and that I would see students gathering data about questions that either they had posed, or the teacher had posed, or the curriculum had posed, or that somebody had posed, and that they were trying to gather data and then trying to make some sense out of that data, trying to develop models to explain what they had observed or somehow analyzing that and communicating what they had analyzed. Pretty tough to do. (Science educator, 3/95)

Science is questioning

One thing that I'm finding, and I don't know, I'm still new at much of this, but one thing I'm finding is if, in fact, we begin to take that big step to say, "Let me try to become immersed with constructivist principles," one doesn't really know where the topic will lead because if we really believe that it should be student directed in terms of what I want to know, or I want to know more about this, or I found this, is this going to be the same case? For example, with the germination domes there were students who said, "What would happen if I use artificial lighting as opposed to natural lighting?" Or, "...if I used my southwest window..." What am I trying to say? It was the south window, was it.... I'm trying to remember an example from a real experience here. At any rate, she was...her home was sort of on a slant or something, it wasn't straight, it wasn't directional, due north, or due south, or east, or west. But at any rate, she wanted to see what would happen with root structure, and the way certain seeds would germinate under those conditions. (Science educator, 6/95)

Science is content and process

And that's uncomfortable because.... Well, I was groomed with "You need to be steeped in your content as well as process." (Science educator, 6/95)

Science is a serendipitous thing

And when I think about the real world and...and the work of some of the scientists, it is the serendipitous thing that might in fact provide some of the important responses to devastating questions which are out there.(Science Educator, 6/95)

See table 1 for a summary of the science teaching faculty's conversation referents about science.

Table 1

Science Teaching Faculty's Talk About Science

Group Conversation Referents

Science content specialists Science is modeling observable phenomena

Science is progressive

Science is specific topics

Science is compartmentalized into discrete disciplines

Science is information

Science is experimenting

Science methods specialists Science is a lifelong process

Science is an inquiry that involves models and explanation

Science is questioning

Science is content and process

Science is a serendipitous thing

n = 11, 8 science content specialists, 3 science methods specialists.

Section Two: MCTP Science Teaching Professors Individually Talk About Mathematics

Throughout the 1994- 1995 academic year, faculty teaching science content classes within the project were interviewed multiple times. In those audiotaped and transcribed individual semi-structured interviews, faculty were asked questions that prompted them to discuss their understandings of mathematics. What follows are the key conversation referents they made to mathematics.

Group One: Science content specialists

Mathematics is something you can have or possess

The students, they didn't feel prepared, but the manner we went about it, we had discussed and negotiated that this would be...they would be learning the mathematics, it was not necessary that they would be assumed to have it coming in. I told them I assumed that they had very little coming in. (Physicist, 5/95)

Mathematics is an equation for straight lines

Yeah. I did not assume that they knew the equation of a straight line. I assumed that they had heard that there is such a thing as the equation of a straight line and could probably parrot back Y=MX+B. (Physicist, 5/95)

Mathematics is terms

So we went further. We got into the quadratic equation, we got into polynomials, we got into exponential functions, and not in depth, but they did start curve fitting, you know, using the computer, and I had no intention of really getting that far into it, as well as some of the students went into a description of polynomials and degrees, and what that might have meant in terms of the curvature and the various terms in the lines. So I got in further than I thought I was going to get into. (Physicist, 5/95)

...the students were really making the connections and thinking, you know, in mathematical terms about a lot of what we did in class without...without needing to be prodded that way. They also...they would remark in class, "Gee, we were just doing these things in math. You know, we feel comfortable with that, we're experts now in this area." You know, that makes you feel good about it. And I think they felt good about it. (Biologist, 10/ 94)
Mathematics is calculations

Well I am teaching genetics right now, and that is very much mathematically based, uh, primarily via the simple laws of probability are being employed. And what I have done to try to stress that basis is to not allow the kids to use the sort of classic punnett square, which is really just another way of...of doing probability, but I've made them do the mathematical calculations, and we did that for a whole week before I showed them the punnett square, which most of them had been introduced before anyway, and then we talked about the foundation of that, and why you can use that, so that...that's basically what I've done so far. (Biologist, 10/94)

And then the end of the class had to do with evolution, and that's just simply applying the laws of probability and the same sorts of things that we learned in genetics, but rather than to individuals, to populations. I would often have them calculate probabilities of some event, or I had them for instance calculate the number of possible genetic codes of triplets. (Biologist, 12/94)

When doing genetics, we looked at probability, uhm, we did, uh, calculations when determining the number of nucleotides in a hypothetical gene. We also did calculations, early on, during the course when looking at the chemistry of life and pH. (Biologist, 5/95)

Mathematics is measurements of data

As I mentioned, this class was more planned to make connections between chemistry and biology, so we didn't do a whole lot of math this time, but in the end when were studying photosynthesis, we were measuring as the index of the rate of photosynthesis we were measuring volume of oxygen produced. (Biologist, 5/95)

Mathematics is problem solving

Well, we had problem solving in the physical sciences in the areas of physics and chemistry. That's where the math connection is, in the physics and chemistry. (Physical scientist, 5/95)

Mathematics is basic operations

I spent quite a bit of time on such topics as molecular geometry and symmetry, which involves 3D visualization and spatial thinking. Also, we frequently used basic operations such as units conversion, measurement, ratio, proportion, logarithms, exponents, area and volume calculations, counting vs weighing ("how much" vs "how many"), as needed throughout the course (Chemist, 12/ 94)

Mathematics is a tool to do science

I had planned to do a good bit of that connection [mathematics and science] in this chemistry class. Of course, that's from the point of view, natural point of view, that I would take as a scientist as math as a tool to be used, as opposed to math to be developed. (Chemist, 12/94)

Mathematics is quantification of qualitative explanations

I can't tell you anything in particular, but I think that the plan as far as both of us are concerned is to continue to make those connections wherever we can and also to present the science we present in as quantitative a way as possible. (Biologist, 10/ 94)

It was a comment that the book made in a qualitative sense and I felt that this was something we could attack in a more quantitative way. (Chemist, 12/ 94)

With every topic, mathematics is being addressed: write a mathematical expression for the phenomenon; graphical representation of phenomenon....(Geologist, 2/95)

Mathematics is really more than as is perceived by scientists

Measurement in units, units of measurement, unit conversions are a bit of a stumbling block, you know, how many centimeters are there in a half of meter, something like that, you know, that sort of thing. Those are, I would have thought, fairly basic things but they're challenging to the student. So you know, that's, but you know, I still look at that as being fairly weak kind of excuse for connections between math and science, but if they have trouble with that, then, I'm not sure I could, how much success I would have doing something that a mathematician would truly feel as satisfying mathematics. Part of it is that I really don't know what mathematicians would say is math. What is satisfying mathematics from their point of view. But there's no question. The student's would prefer there are no connections. Many of them would prefer that there are no connections between science and math because a lot of them don't like it. I had one student who just, you know, flat out said he doesn't like math, doesn't want to do it and wants to avoid it and please don't do any math in this course. (Chemist, 12/ 94)

Yeah, well, I guess I see that I'm going to, basically we're still on Chapter One and I already see that particularly the mathematically part, I mean, just really, tool using kind of mathematics which is not, I recognize probably very interesting mathematics to the mathematician but those things are a challenge to the students already and the book has a good bit it more of that. I suspect I'm going to have to scale back a bit on some of my expectations here but on the other hand, you know, I want, I would like to be able to integrate more mathematics. Maybe I need to broaden my concept of what mathematics, what constitutes mathematics.... (Chemist, 12/94)

Group Two: Science methods specialists

Mathematics is the visual display of data (e.g., graphing, charts)

We have achieved that at a moderate level and primarily through the

use of the microcomputer-based labs and the graphs that are produced...We had moderate success in the use of the graph as a means of relating the science to the mathematics. (Science educator, 12/ 94)

So, it's a very rich array of physical behaviors represented by the transformation into the graph...which is REAL STUFF! Real distances, real velocities, real accelerations, ah, that they can make reference back to their own personal decisions in the case of their own personal motion, or describe the behavior of the fan cart (Science educator, 9/ 94)

Students were involved in several long-term projects which gave them opportunities to conduct a variety of observations and to collect data and then to translate that data, chart that data, in a variety of ways.... see the need to be accurate, or to display the information as succinctly as possible and so on. (Science educator, 6/95)

Mathematics is a tool to be used (not to fundamentally understand)

What we do is just make math a part of our data analysis, so we do a lot of data analysis, plus we do some model development. In science, for example, the heat energy unit which looks at areas and conservation of area, so that's kind of mathematically developed as well. ...So it's not specifically designed to highlight the relationship, we just simply use the mathematics. (Science educator, 5/95)

See table 2 for a summary of the science teaching faculty's mathematics conversation referents.

Table 2

Science Teaching Faculty's Talk About Mathematics

Group Conversation Referents

Science content specialists Mathematics is something you can have or possess

Mathematics is an equation for straight lines

Mathematics is terms

Mathematics is calculations

Mathematics is measurements of data

Mathematics is problem solving

Mathematics is basic operations

Mathematics is a tool to do science

Mathematics is quantification of qualitative explanations

Mathematics is really more than as is perceived by scientists

Science methods specialists Mathematics is the visual display of data

(e.g., graphing, charts)

Mathematics is a tool to be used

n = 11, 8 science content specialists, 3 science methods specialists.

Section Three: The Science Teaching Faculty Collectively Talk About Mathematics

During the summer of 1995, the science teaching faculty participating in the MCTP project attended a project conference. At this conference, those present participated in a group interview in which they discussed their beliefs about mathematics (n = 7, 6 science content specialists, 1 science educator). What follows are the key referents they make to mathematics in the chronological order they unfolded in the conversation.

Mathematics is a tool

Obviously, mathematics is a tool in support of science conceptual understanding, and science dips into it and uses it as needed.... (Science educator, 6/95)

Mathematics is more than a tool

I used mathematics as a tool without worrying about honoring the mathematics viewpoint, but now I do, you know, because of this collaboration. I'm now aware that there is this other point of view that I need to honor in an integrated course, and that is a challenge for me. (Chemist, 6/95)

Mathematics is characterized by its intrinsic logic and beauty

Before MTCP, I regarded mathematics as strictly a tool, or a language, or both. After MCTP we have come, or at least I have come to appreciate, math more in terms of its intrinsic logic, its beauty, and a challenge to teach it, and I appreciate some interconnectedness that I did not really, you know, appreciate. (Biologist, 6/95)

To truly understand mathematics, you need to be informed by a mathematician

But one of the things we're going to specifically work on in the next month is trying to make those very deliberate points where new concepts and skills can be developed, and we're using a mathematics education person at [our institution] is to try to address that much more consciously.(Geologist, 6/95)

Well, I will say, from the biologist's point, that I realize the importance of math, that it is actively essential. But I think that during this summer as I rework the syllabus for the biological science that I will definitely be talking to a mathematician for ways to integrate it more. (Biologist, 6/95)

Mathematics does not need science as a discipline (but science does need mathematics as a discipline)

The students do not appreciate the fact that math as a discipline does not need science, but science as a discipline absolutely requires math.... I don't think there's a mutual need. I think we would like to present an integrated approach to both science and math. But the mathematician can be very happy, thank you, without having science.... my perception is that the core of mathematics is without science. I think because we're so practical minded we want to see its applications, we think well it only become illuminated when it's applied to an scientific problem. (Biologist, 6/95)

I would say that probably all of us are extraordinarily skillful at using mathematics, and we have multiple opportunities to use mathematics in a profitable way. What I feel uncomfortable with is that's not all there is to mathematics. I don't have the mathematician's view of math as a system of thought as opposed to a tool and language. (Biologist, 6/95)

Discussion

Discussion focuses on two areas: (1) comparison of the discourse on science and mathematics by science content specialists and science methods specialists and (2) impact of collaboration on the science teaching faculty's discourse on mathematics.

A comparison of the science content specialists' and science methods specialists' discourse on science reveals both similarities and differences on a referent within the same speech community. In this study, under the definition of speech community membership as defined by Green, Weade, and Graham (1988), the academic text was defined by science content expertise and an interest in reforming content classes for MCTP teacher candidates. The social text was defined as sharing ideas on the role of mathematics and science in MCTP undergraduate content classes. In discussing science, a similarity between some members of the groups was the belief that science is characterized by modeling of physical phenomena. Key differences between the groups discussing science involved some members of the science content specialists group expressing the beliefs that science is information, compartmentalized into discrete disciplines, and specific topics while some members of the science educator's group expressed that science consisted of content and process, a way of doing science. In discussing mathematics, a similarity between some members of the groups was that mathematics is a tool to be used in science. Key differences between the groups discussing mathematics involved some members of the science content specialists group expressing the beliefs that mathematics is also terms, calculations, operations, the quantification of qualitative explanations, and that mathematics is really more than as is perceived by science content specialists.

These findings that these similarities and differences exist in how science and mathematics are perceived between the two groups which compose the science teaching faculty in the Maryland Collaborative for Teaching Preparation are significant. Firstly, the findings serve to document the conversation landscape found in the science teaching faculty speech community. It is revealed that discourse within the speech community is cohesive in certain areas but not in others. It is informative to note in which groups composing the speech community certain beliefs are found. For example, in the case of referents to science, the belief that science is a body of information is expressed by members of the scientist group. This can be contrasted with the belief expressed by members of the science education group that it is both a body of knowledge and a process. Also, in the case of referents to mathematics, the belief that mathematics is more than a tool is expressed in the science content specialists' group and not by any members in the science methods group. In the case of the science referent, this supports recent finding that differences between content discipline experts and content methods experts tend to exist in how they conceive their content discipline (Mura (1993/1995). In collaborative projects such as the MCTP in which both content and methods experts participate and there are specific project goals that relate to making connections between disciplines and making classes student-centered, this recognition can assist project directors implement project goals. With the type of information supplied by this type of discourse analysis, energy and strategies can be targeted for specific groups (and members of those groups) composing the science teaching faculty speech community which will promote and support faculty transformation in the direction toward project goals. Certainly supporting the beliefs that science is both content and process and that mathematics is more than a tool would assist in efforts to transform the science teaching faculty's practices in this teacher preparation project.

Secondly, the findings assist in interpreting the dynamics of collaborative conversation within the MCTP science teaching faculty and offers insight into how imperative collaboration is for faculty transformation. Figure 3 contains a discourse analysis of the science teaching faculty's group conversation. It is informative to note that the initial referent made to mathematics was a belief expressed in both the scientist and the science educator's groups: mathematics is a tool (refer to tables 1 and 2). This supports Lave and Wenger's (1991) theoretical position of legitimate peripheral participation that conversants bring to a conversation their previously constructed discourses and potentially move to an emerging discourse community from those understandings. The conversation then entered a catalytic state when a member of the scientist speech community expressed that he believed that mathematics is more of a tool. This belief had not earlier been noted in the science education discourse community but earlier had been detected in the scientist discourse community (see table 2). At that point, the conversation included new understandings of mathematics as members of the science teaching discourse community expressed the new script that mathematics can be characterized by its intrinsic logic and that to truly understand mathematics, one must be informed by a mathematician. These are proposed as emerging new understandings in both groups composing the science teaching discourse community since neither had been expressed in this fashion before. The conversation entered a termination state when a speaker proposed that mathematics does not need science as a discipline, but science does need mathematics as a discipline. Much disagreement in both the scientist and science educator discourse groups emerged and no new consensual domain (Maturana, 1978) formed.

Figure 3. Science Teaching Faculty's Collaborative Talk About Science

Conversation Start: Shared Understanding Between Science Content Specialists and Science Methods Specialists Discourse Communities

Referent: Mathematics is a tool (Speaker: Science Methods Specialist)

Conversation Catalyst: Understanding In the Science Content Specialist Speech Community Not Expressed in the Science Methods Discourse Community

Referent: Mathematics is more than a tool (Speaker: Chemist)

Collaborative Conversation Development: Emergence of New Understandings in Both
Science Content Specialist and Science Methods Speech Communities Brought About By
Collaboration

Referent: Mathematics is characterized by its intrinsic logic and beauty

(Speaker: Biologist)

Referent: To truly understand mathematics, you need to be informed by a mathematician (Speaker: Geologist)

Conversation Termination: Controversial knowledge claim introduced at the end of the collaborative conversation for members of both the science content specialist and science methods speech communities to consider

Referent: Mathematics does not need science as a discipline (but science does need mathematics as a discipline) (Speaker: Biologist)

In this discourse analysis of the collaborative conversation on mathematics, the impact of statements made by differing members of the science teaching faculty speech community is revealed. Newer understandings of mathematics were constructed in a social setting in which representatives of both groups (science content specialists and science methods specialists) in the science teaching faculty speech community participated. This suggests that collaborative conversations are critical in forging developments in understanding among members of a whole-group speech community since knowing and learning are thought to be distributed among members of a community rather than in individual's minds (Brown, 1994).

Conclusion

This study documents and interprets discourse in the science teaching speech community within the Maryland Collaborative for Teacher Preparation. Ongoing efforts are directed toward examining the mathematics teaching speech community using a similar methodology. Also, ongoing studies are investigating how the participants' understandings of mathematics and science as disciplines influence their teaching of mathematics and science to intending upper elementary/middle level specialist teachers of mathematics and science. Future research will focus on examining the MCTP teacher candidates' discourse and on comparing that with the teaching faculty's discourse. This is a five-year longitudinal research program which promises new insights in understanding teacher preparation of mathematics/science middle-level teachers and in higher education faculty transformation

References

Alasuutari, P. (1995). Researching culture: qualitative method and cultural studies.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for Science Literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.

Bickel, W.E., & Hattrup, R.A. (1995). Teachers and researchers in collaboration: Reflections on the process. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 35-62.

Brown, A.L. (1994). The advancement of learning. Educational Researcher, 23(8), 4-12.

Bruffee, K. A.(1986). Social construction, language, and the authority of knowledge: a bibliographical essay. College English, 49 (8), 773-789.

Clark, C. W., & Peterson, P.L. (1986). Teacher's thought processes. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd Ed.). New York: Macmillan.

Cobb, P., & Baursfeld, H. (1995). The emergence of mathematical meaning: interaction in classroom cultures. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Cobb, P., Wood, T., Yackel, E., & McNeal, B. (1992). Characteristics of classroom

mathematics traditions: An interactional analysis. American Educational Research

Journal, 29, 573- 604.

Denton, J.J., & Metcalf, T. (1993). Two school-university collaborations: Characteristics and findings from classroom observations. (Report No. EA 025227) Atlanta, GA: Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 361850).

Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research and teaching. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Science Teaching. (3rd Ed.). New York: Macmillan.

Gee, J. (1990) Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. London:

Falmer.

Gergen, J. G. (1985). The social constructionist movement in modern psychology.

American Psychologist, 40 (3), 266-275.

Green, J.L., Weade, R.,& Graham, K. (1988). Lesson construction and student participation: A sociolinguistic analysis. In J.L. Green & J.O. Harker (eds.), Multiple perspective analyses of classroom discourse (pp. 11-47). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Greeno, J.G. (1991). Number sense as situated knowing in a conceptual domain. Journal in Research in Mathematics Education, 22, 170-218.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.

LeCompte,M.D., Millroy, W.L, & Priessle, J. (Eds.) (1992). The handbook of qualitative research in education. San Diego: Academic Press.

Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Mura, R. (1995, June). Images of mathematics held by university teachers of mathematics education. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 28(4), 385-399.

Mura, R. (1993, Dec.). Images of mathematics held by university teachers of mathematical sciences. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 25(4), 375-385.

Maturana, H. (1978). Biology of language: the epistemology of reality. In G.A. Miller & E. Lenneberg (Eds.), Psychology and biology of language and thought: Essays in honor of Eric Lenneberg (pp. 27-63). New York: Academic.

McCarthy, S.J. (1994). Authors, text, and talk: The internalization of dialogue from social interaction during writing. Reading Research Quarterly, 29, 201-231.

Munby, J. (1986). A qualitative study of teacher's beliefs and principles. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, Virginia: Author.

NUD.IST Revision 3.0.5. (1995). Victoria, Australia: Qualitative solutions and research Pty. Ltd.

Ross, J., Armstrong, R., Nicol, S. & Theilman, L. (1994). The making of the faculty: Fostering professional development through a collaborative science community. (Report No. SE 054585). Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Higher Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 370812).

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

Roth, W.-M., & Tobin, K. (1996). Staging Aristotle and natural observation against Galileo and (stacked) scientific experiment or physics lectures as rhetorical events. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33 (2), 135-157.

Shulman, L.S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1-22.

Authors Note

We would like to acknowledge and express appreciation to Amy Roth-McDuffie, Mary Ann Huntley, and Karen King for their assistance in conducting interviews reported in this study. We also would like to acknowledge the technical assistance of Steve Kramer for the NUD.IST data analysis.