This article was downloaded by: [Aston University]On: 23 April 2014, At: 07:42Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Action in Teacher EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uate20

Putting Professionalism Back intoTeaching: Secondary Preserviceand In-Service Teachers Engaging inInterdisciplinary Unit PlanningElizabeth Petroelje Stolle a & Charlotte Frambaugh-Kritzer ba Grand Valley State Universityb University of Hawaii at ManoaPublished online: 18 Feb 2014.

To cite this article: Elizabeth Petroelje Stolle & Charlotte Frambaugh-Kritzer (2014)Putting Professionalism Back into Teaching: Secondary Preservice and In-Service TeachersEngaging in Interdisciplinary Unit Planning, Action in Teacher Education, 36:1, 61-75, DOI:10.1080/01626620.2013.850123

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2013.850123

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

Action in Teacher Education, 36:61–75, 2014Copyright © Association of Teacher EducatorsISSN: 0162-6620 print/2158-6098 onlineDOI: 10.1080/01626620.2013.850123

Putting Professionalism Back into Teaching: SecondaryPreservice and In-Service Teachers Engaging in

Interdisciplinary Unit Planning

Elizabeth Petroelje StolleGrand Valley State University

Charlotte Frambaugh-KritzerUniversity of Hawaii at Manoa

Recently, interdisciplinary instruction has come back to the educational scene, specifically supportedthrough the Common Core State Standards. As teacher educators and former middle-level teachers,the authors see this as a positive move to enhance learning for adolescents. This qualitative studysought to answer: How do secondary preservice and in-service teachers respond to interdisciplinaryinstruction? Findings provide key insights into how interdisciplinary instruction, when implementedsuccessfully within a content area literacy course, empowers preservice and in-service teachers,and brings about a more professional environment. That is, data shows designing interdisciplinaryinstruction provided the teachers space to take up an identity as teaching professional—acting as spe-cialist, acting as agent, and acting as regulator. Based on the authors’ analysis, the authors believeinterdisciplinary instruction has the potential to elevate the professional status for teachers, andteacher educators can lead and guide secondary preservice and in-service teachers toward new under-standings and paradigms surrounding interdisciplinary methods as we seek to evolve and improvesecondary-level curriculum.

INTRODUCTION

A long-standing conversation has existed about the professional status of the teaching field.Within this conversation, conflicting views exist. To understand this conversation, we lookedwithin and beyond teacher education to explore what academics and philosophers have to sayregarding the notion of teaching as a profession. The early literature offers commentaries whetherteaching was a craft or a profession (Bagley, 1930; Broudy, 1956; Stephens, 1960). Howsam,Corrigan, Denemark, and Nash (1976) discussed the concerns and tensions of teaching as a pro-fession while making recommendations for bringing teaching up to the professional status. In the1980s a shift occurred, and Mertens and Yarger (1988) advocated teaching as a profession to

Correspondence should be addressed to Elizabeth Petroelje Stolle, Grand Valley State University, 401 W. Fulton,Grand Rapids, MI 49504. E-mail: stollee@gvsu.edu

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

42 2

3 A

pril

2014

62 ELIZABETH PETROELJE STOLLE AND CHARLOTTE FRAMBAUGH-KRITZER

improve schooling and instruction. In recent years, we are still pondering the state of the teach-ing profession (Robards, 2008). Hiebert, Gallimore, and Stigler (2002) posit that the teachingprofession needs a knowledge base that grows and improves. Unfortunately, they also report thatclassroom teachers rarely draw from a shared knowledge base to improve their practice nor locateand translate research-based knowledge to inform their efforts—risking their professional status.This study brings to light ways that interdisciplinary instruction can be a pathway for preserviceand in-service secondary teachers to experience professionalism.

BACKGROUND

Professionalism

When most people think of professionals they often imagine physicians and attorneys first beforethey think of classroom teachers. Why is this the case? Howsam et al. (1976) explore the con-ceptual model of the professions by first understanding that professions stem from society’sdifferentiation of work. However, they explain, “the difference between levels of occupationsis not in the element of the service, but in the nature of the service” (p. 14). That is, profes-sions take up the services that meet the fundamental needs of the people, and individuals seekthe services of professionals, specifically relying on the profession for confidence, assurance, andresponsibility in insuring that service.

Professions are defined by specific characteristics. First, professions provide service to others(Howsam et al., 1976; Robards, 2008), thus helping people. Second, professions possess a body ofknowledge needed to act within the profession (Howsam et al., 1976; Krause, 1996). This knowl-edge is “so specialized as to be inaccessible to those lacking the required training and experience. . . cannot be standardized [or] rationalized” (Friedson, 2001, p. 17), and is grounded in theoryand research within the discipline (Howsam et al., 1976). Third, professions are characterized bydecision making when serving a client. That is, within a profession, “discretion or fresh judgmentmust often be exercised” to perform a successful task (Friedson, 2001, p. 23). Fourth, profession-als often belong to professional organizations that regulate the profession and keep professionalsaccountable to the codes and ethical expectations within the profession (Howsam et al., 1976;Robards, 2008), thus enacting Stinnett’s (1970) argument that one of the basic marks of a pro-fession is that it is largely autonomous. Beyond autonomy, these professional organizations alsoprovide the public with a sense of trust and confidence in the profession. In other words, beinga professional entails education, intellectual growth, challenges, sound judgment, compassion,insight, creativity, autonomy and technical expertise (Sarason, 1977).

In 1984, Duke reflectively wrote that he felt there was no other era in which the teachingprofession was in such peril. He argued, “Until recently, teaching was regarded almost universallyas an essential service, a key element in the nation’s future” (p. 3). Duke’s words continue toring true in the current state of economic and educational affairs. We see this peril for teachingprofessionals as their knowledge base is quickly dismissed and their autonomy is stripped, thusdisrupting their identity as professionals. Instead of trust and confidence, the media and politicianshave painted a negative portrait of our teachers and schools (Robards, 2008).

On the contrary, Pasi Sahlber (2010) in his book Finnish Lessons: What can the world learnfrom educational change in Finland? shares the Finnish experience that “it is more important to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

42 2

3 A

pril

2014

PUTTING PROFESSIONALISM BACK INTO TEACHING 63

ensure professional dignity and social respect (for teachers) so that they can fulfill their inten-tion of selecting teaching as lifetime careers” (p. 70). That is, Finland recognizes the centralrole teachers play in elevating student learning, and they are committed to viewing and treatingteachers as professionals. With that, Finnish teachers “possess a strong sense of being esteemedprofessionals” with an expectation that they will have autonomy, respect, and trust to practicewhat they have been educated to do (p. 76). Teacher professionalism is one area we feel we canlearn from Finnish Lessons.

Interdisciplinary Instruction

Recently, interdisciplinary instruction has come back to the educational scene and has been addedto the Common Core State Standards (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2010). As lit-eracy teacher educators who specialize in content area literacy, we see this as a move in theright direction, yet we advocate for a more comprehensive view of the interdisciplinary approachin the CCSS. We agree with Wraga (2010) who cautions that there are dangerous blind spotsin the CCSS. In particular, Wraga proposes the CCSS is insufficient in advocating substantiveinterdisciplinary connections between and among subjects. Other researchers are also takingnotice, suggesting, “Ideally, an integrated unit would support students to develop higher levelsof literacy through exploration of meaningful content and to draw upon their literacy capacitiesas they deepen and expand their content understandings” (Stillman & Anderson, 2011, p. 31).We agree that interdisciplinary instruction deepens learning while making learning connectionsmore explicit (Vars, 1993). Yet we also propose that interdisciplinary instruction, when imple-mented successfully, not only benefits the students but also empowers teachers and brings abouta more professional environment.

We bring this to the forefront because typically teachers work in their individual classrooms,and this isolation has resulted in a high rate of attrition (Heider, 2005). However, when secondaryteachers are accountable to construct interdisciplinary units, it alleviates teacher isolation andhelps to develop a professional environment where colleagues share decision-making power andcooperate with their colleagues in a unique way (Erb, 1995). Crow and Pounder (2000) explain, “acomparative study of teachers in teamed and non-teamed work arrangements revealed that team-ing teachers reported significantly greater internal work motivation, growth satisfaction, generaljob satisfaction, work efficacy, and professional commitment than did their non-teaming counter-parts” (p. 225). This is promising as it is an additional approach to elevating the professional statusof teaching. Interdisciplinary units offer a deeper concept-based curriculum that allows teachersto shift their own thinking that content serves not as an end product but as a tool to lead studentsto richer and more critical thinking (H. L. Erickson, 2008). This can be a win–win for studentsand teachers. In this approach, each teacher representing his or her content area is responsible forknowing the specialized body of knowledge grounded in research and must demonstrate how thecontent will be integrated in the overall curriculum design. In this way, teachers act as profession-als who possess a body of knowledge needed to act within the profession, taking up and usingthe theory and research within the discipline and integrating multiple resources to teach diversepopulations (Howsam et al., 1976; Krause, 1996). This is not an easy task but takes creativity,innovation, collaboration, and keen decision-making abilities, more characteristics attributed toprofessionals (Friedson, 2001). Lastly, the interdisciplinary team approach inherently builds in

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

42 2

3 A

pril

2014

64 ELIZABETH PETROELJE STOLLE AND CHARLOTTE FRAMBAUGH-KRITZER

the characteristics—accountability and autonomy (Howsam et al., 1976; Robards, 2008; Stinnett,1970). As teachers rely on their colleague’s respective expertise to construct innovative and mean-ingful curriculum, all teachers come to the planning table with something to uniquely offer to thecurriculum design process.

Interdisciplinary instruction, a valued practice that can improve student engagement, increaseteacher morale, and raise achievement levels (Beane, 1997; Fitzharris, 2005; Kerekes, 1987;Strubbe, 1990; Vars, 1993), becomes the context for this study, in which preservice and in-serviceteachers grapple, explore, challenge, question, grow in, and act as professionals as it pertains totheir content area, as well as the content areas of their colleagues. In this new context, teachersare trusted to construct and move from a scripted and prescribed approach, to an autonomousapproach where they are asked to act as curriculum designers to create meaningful learning expe-riences that move students to deep understandings (Stinnett, 1970; Wiggins & McTighe, 2005).

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Social Learning

The theoretical framework that guided this study draws on the social aspects of learning, specif-ically pulling from Vygotsky (1978). First, social constructivism notes that learning occurs in asociocultural environment and learners are “active constructors of their own learning” (Mitchell& Myles, 1988, p. 162). That is, learning occurs through dialogue (Vygotsky, 1978). We learnnot as isolated individuals, but as active members of society who engage in dialogue. Throughdialogue, learners interact with knowledge sources in social settings as well as take an activepart in reconstructing knowledge within their own minds. These notions concerning the socialaspects of learning lend themselves to the nature of planning for interdisciplinary instruction,which provides teachers the opportunity to explore curriculum and learning through dialoguewith colleagues.

Second, social constructivism also advocates learning by doing so the teachers socially con-struct new ideas and concepts based on prior knowledge, attitudes, and values (J. S. Richardson,Morgan, & Fleener, 2009). In practice, Wilhelm and Friedemann (1998) explain,

Classrooms that encourage the active construction of meaning focus on big understandings and pow-erful ideas rather than facts, and they encourage students to ask their own questions, follow their owninterests, make their own connections, reformulate ideas, and reach unique conclusions. (p. 30)

In requiring preservice and in-service teachers to create interdisciplinary units, we offer aspace for them to experience this active construction of meaning, where they interact withideas/knowledge in social settings, as well as reconstruct ideas/knowledge in their own mindsfor their unique purposes. At the same time our hope is that the preservice and in-service teachersexperience professional autonomy, or a sense of agency.

Identity and Agency

Beliefs, values, and attitudes inform what we say and how we act, read, and interact, thus influ-encing how we identify ourselves and others (Gee, 1999; C. Strauss & Quinn, 1997). “Building an

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

42 2

3 A

pril

2014

PUTTING PROFESSIONALISM BACK INTO TEACHING 65

identity means coming to see in ourselves the characteristics of particular categories [and roles] ofpeople and developing a sense of what it feels like to be that sort of person and belong in certainsocial spaces” (Johnston, 2004, p. 23). In this identity building, “we constantly tell stories aboutourselves to others and to ourselves, and the stories shape who we think we are” (Johnston, 2004.p. 30). In thinking about teachers’ identities as professionals, we see social spaces such as thestate, district, school, or classroom, influencing the stories teachers tell about themselves as pro-fessionals. However, teachers’ stories are also shaped by broader social spaces and stories foundin the media and popular culture. In this way, identity and agency are closely linked—the agencyteachers perceive they have is dependent on their identity told through their personal narratives.

Peter Johnston (2004) defines agency as the “perception that the environment is responsiveto our actions” (p. 29). Indeed, the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices,Council of Chief State School Officers (2010) state, “the aim of the Standards is to articulatethe fundamentals, not to set out an exhaustive list or a set of restrictions that limits what can betaught beyond what is specified herein” (p. 9). So as preservice and in-service teachers sociallyconstruct the interdisciplinary units, our hope is that they will identify themselves as autonomousprofessionals. That is, we want the teachers to tell stories that contain images and metaphors thatbuild particular identities or take up specific positions of agency. Because identity never remainsstatic, but changes as we read, experience, observe, and adapt to new situations (Gee, 1999),through the interdisciplinary teams, the teachers have opportunities to build their professionalidentities around content literacy and interdisciplinary instruction.

RESEARCH METHODS

Within this qualitative study, we sought to answer the following question: How do preservice andin-service secondary teachers respond to interdisciplinary instruction?

Context

Forty-five participants, male and female, from two universities voluntarily participated in thisstudy. At one university, situated in the midwestern region of the United States, we collected datafrom in-service teachers taking a graduate-level reading course on adolescent literacy. At the otheruniversity, situated in the southwestern region, we collected data from preservice teachers takingan undergraduate-level content area literacy methods course. At each location, the participantswere placed into teams to plan an interdisciplinary unit for secondary students, which highlightedthe literacy practices and strategies inherent in the learning.

As we share this study, we recognize each classroom established its own unique cultural prac-tices and that each author took up the role of instructor/researcher in her own unique way (Fang,Fu, & Lamme, 1999). Although we shared some common materials for presenting and teachinginterdisciplinary instruction (e.g., interdisciplinary unit plan directions, course text, PowerPoints,and unit examples), and our syllabi reflected similar timelines and instructional time, the students’background knowledge, expertise, needs, and desires influenced our instruction in powerfulways, thus eliminating the possibility for equal dissemination of content or symmetrical learningexperiences.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

42 2

3 A

pril

2014

66 ELIZABETH PETROELJE STOLLE AND CHARLOTTE FRAMBAUGH-KRITZER

The first course taught by first author, Developmental Adolescent Literacy, was taught tosecondary in-service teachers working towards a master’s degree in Secondary Reading orSecondary Education and addressed the literacy needs of adolescents within the content areas.The content areas represented during data collection included English, foreign language, math,science, social studies, and physical education. Additionally, the in-service teachers’ teachingassignments included sixth through 12th grade, professional experiences varying from 1 to19 years, and schools that were rural and urban, private and public, and high achieving and lowachieving (as evidenced by test scores compared to state and national averages). The secondcourse taught by second author, Content Area Literacy, was taught to preservice teachers seekinga teaching certification in Secondary Education. The content areas represented during the datacollection included English, history, social studies, math, science, art and dance.

Within each course, we introduced interdisciplinary instruction at the beginning of the semesterthrough the reading of the first chapter in Daniels and Zemelman’s (2004) text, Subject Matters,yet allowed students to struggle through their definitions of literacy learning for the first 3 to4 weeks. Drawing on Au’s (1997) work on social constructivism, the students’ struggle allowedthem to problematize traditional notions of literacy. Around the 5th week of the semester, wereintroduced interdisciplinary instruction through additional readings and direct instruction of theprocess. Students were then divided into interdisciplinary teams, each team having at least threedifferent content areas represented. For the remainder of the semester, literacy practices, strategies,and instruction were taught within the context of the interdisciplinary units. That is, as we taughtcritical literacy, writing across the curriculum, or vocabulary learning, all topics and conceptswere embedded in the interdisciplinary teams and considered and applied within the frame. Withthis learning, each team collaborated to create an interdisciplinary unit that highlighted the socialconstructivist practices and strategies inherent in each discipline, while organizing these practicesand strategies around a common understanding. At the end of the semester, each group sharedthe interdisciplinary unit with the class and each student reflected on these units.

Data Collection and Analysis

In collecting our data, we had five data sources. First, we conducted classroom observations of allparticipants (Werner & Schoepfle, 1987). Due to our dual roles as instructors and researchers weobserved the participants in the classroom while they worked in interdisciplinary teams and thenrecorded our observations immediately following each class session. We specifically focused ourobservations on how the participants took up and engaged with interdisciplinary instruction.

Second, we collected weekly artifacts from the all participants throughout the 15-weeksemester. Examples include reading responses, student reflections, and evaluations of the interdis-ciplinary instruction assignment. Third, we collected e-mail correspondences (Tao & Reinking,1996) in which we engaged with participants, specifically collecting those related to the topic ofinterdisciplinary instruction. Fourth, we conducted an anonymous survey on the last day of classbefore the unit presentations. The survey specifically asked questions about the participants’ per-ceptions of interdisciplinary instruction as a pedagogical approach. Finally, we kept a researcher’sjournal throughout the research project (L. Richardson, 2000).

To answer our research question, we drew from various interpretive methods. First, we fol-lowed A. Strauss’s (1995) three-step analysis using the process of open coding, axial coding, and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

42 2

3 A

pril

2014

PUTTING PROFESSIONALISM BACK INTO TEACHING 67

selective coding. With these codes, we uncovered the participants’ stories, linking these to thetheoretical framework, and coming up with our initial categories. After we identified our cate-gories, we compared and contrasted our findings as we wrote, which allowed us to analyze thedata working from L. Richardson’s (2000) validity metaphor of crystallization. That is, the inter-play between the data sources from two different research sites allowed us to see the themes,ideas, and categories in complex ways. Taking up L. Richardson’s (2000) writing as a methodof inquiry and F. Erickson’s (1986) data analysis method, we wrote about the categories thatemerged, continuously scrutinizing what we saw and looking for supporting and disconfirmingdata while weighting the themes for relevance. In this way we used writing as a “way of knowing,”discovering “new aspects of our topic and our relationship to it” (L. Richardson, 2000, p. 923).

FINDINGS

From the data, it became clear that the participants’ work with interdisciplinary instructionprovided them the space to take up an identity as teaching professional. In saying that, threesignificant themes emerged: acting as specialist, acting as agent, and acting as regulator.

Acting as Specialist

Throughout the data, we noted that the participants acted as specialists in a variety of ways. First,they used their discipline knowledge, communicating the unique content and pedagogical prac-tices within each discipline. In doing this, each member relied on one another for their respectivecontent expertise, giving each teacher an equal chance to share content specialties. For example,one History preservice teacher, wrote in his reflection,

When the art expert in our group suggested that the students could learn more about a period ofhistory by studying a piece of art this is something I never considered before. It encouraged me totake art more seriously and apply this newfound idea by searching for pieces of art that can be usedto weave amazing interdisciplinary lessons.

Additionally, a preservice English teacher shared,

I’m excited to visualize how my content area (English) can incorporate to our theme surroundingtechnology. I can incorporate novels such as 1984 and other short stories. I have already consideredhow our math and economics member can include finance, yet I’m not 100% sure how to do this so Ilook forward to their ideas.

In these statements we see the participants valuing their colleagues’ contributions and expertisewithin the disciplines, thus bringing integrity to the profession. In this way, each recognized thevarious bodies of knowledge needed to act within the profession (Howsam et al., 1976; Krause,1996) and create an interdisciplinary unit.

This specialized knowledge must be grounded in theory and research within the discipline(Howsam et al., 1976). In this study, preservice and in-service teachers were challenged to under-stand the theory and research of interdisciplinary instruction. That is, as teacher educators wewant teachers to act as professionals, knowing and understanding the theory and research back-ing their practice. The data reveals that the participants did rely on research, taking up the belief

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

42 2

3 A

pril

2014

68 ELIZABETH PETROELJE STOLLE AND CHARLOTTE FRAMBAUGH-KRITZER

that interdisciplinary instruction is beneficial for their professional experience and student learn-ing. One in-service social studies teacher shared, “They (interdisciplinary units) are a great way toshow kids how all subjects connect to a topic . . . plus, it allows students to learn in a more activeand hands-on way where learning truly takes place.” In this participant’s comment we see thenotions of constructivism coming through, the theoretical frame by which we taught each course.That is, within our instructional practices (the methods by which we taught) and our instructionalcontent (the knowledge we shared), we taught the participants the power of constructing knowl-edge and how connections make learning meaningful by organizing and interrelating ideas orconcepts (Alvermann & Phelps, 2002). Therefore, this participant’s comment demonstrates thetheory informing his knowledge base, thus allowing him to take up the identity of professional.Building on this, another in-service science teacher shared that interdisciplinary instruction helpsstudents to “find learning much more important and relevant if they realize how much it all tiesin together.” This teacher draws on schema theory to explain how connections make learningmore meaningful and relevant—schema organizes and interrelates ideas or concepts, helping totransform “the raw data of everyday experiences into meaningful patterns” (Alvermann & Phelps,2002, p. 21). In this instance, this participant enacts her identity as a specialist/professional, orone who uses theory to support her practice.

Acting as Agent

Another characteristic of professionals is the ability to make decisions, drawing on discretion andinformed judgment (Friedson, 2001). Many teachers in today’s schools do not feel empoweredto make influential decisions because their curriculum is scripted and standardized (Gallagher,2009; Supovitz & Weinbaum, 2008; Wise, 2008). Therefore, many teachers are left feeling dis-empowered, or without agency. Throughout the entire semester, we worked to shift these feelings,providing the participants space to socially construct their knowledge of content literacy andinterdisciplinary instruction through dialogue (Vygotsky, 1978) while also making meaningfulcurricular decisions. In these spaces, the participants had agentic experiences. For example, onein-service science teacher shared,

I teach Title I and am very limited in what I can do with students. I would love to use this type ofinstruction to pull more of the science and social studies into reading/language arts time, which Ithink can be done quite easily and effectively. Careful text choice is one way to go about it.

This teacher clearly recognizes the benefits of teacher decision making and shares ideas abouthow she would create curriculum to benefit student learning if she had some autonomy in herteaching assignment.

Going back to Johnston’s (2004) work, we are reminded that agency and identity are closelylinked and heavily influenced by the social spaces in which we live. Specifically, Johnston’s defi-nition of agency is “the perception that the environment is responsive to our actions” (p. 29). Thisdefinition complements Ratner’s (2000) work, as influenced by Bourdieu, which recognizes thesocial aspects of agency, asserting that the individualistic view of agency is problematic becausewe cannot be ignorant of social constraints on individual behavior; moreover, agency dependsupon social relations for its realization. Ratner (2000) went on to say, “Agency constructs andpromulgates social relations because it gains strength from cooperating with other people in lifeactivities. Agency needs social relations to become real (realized) and objective (objectified)”

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

42 2

3 A

pril

2014

PUTTING PROFESSIONALISM BACK INTO TEACHING 69

(p. 422). One in-service social studies teacher brings this dimension of agency to light saying,“It (interdisciplinary instruction) would require that teachers collaborate and think through thecurriculum. I think it would be a huge benefit for teachers, especially in districts where teach-ers tend to be more isolated.” Here collaboration and curricular design are seen as the keys topulling teachers out of isolation. In acting as collaborators, teachers also act as agents, sociallyconstructing knowledge and making decisions that benefit student learning.

Part of the agentic moments was that the participants rehearsed the conversations around con-tent literacy through the interdisciplinary unit planning. Our goal was not necessarily about theperfect unit plan but rather engaging the participants as professionals in conversation, thinkingabout the curricular possibilities. One preservice social studies teacher explained,

Being able to work together and create our own interdisciplinary unit and present it in class was price-less. . . . (Sharing) comments about other groups on-line was valuable in thinking of other variationsand ideas about how interdisciplinary units could be used.

Another in-service foreign language teacher echoes this saying,

Despite the fact that my teaching experience does not lend itself to this kind of teaching with a team,I now have a shared experience with teams who have tried it and resources for those who might wantto give it a try. Thinking through an interdisciplinary unit from its beginning to the end was a goodexperience.

These participants’ reflections highlight this notion of rehearsal; the benefit is seen in therehearsal. As the foreign language teacher articulates, although she can’t currently apply interdis-ciplinary instruction within the classroom, she values the shared experience, the engagement indialogue, and the potential she now holds. With that, we note Vygotsky’s (1978) notions of dia-logue and recognize how the social aspects of learning within the interdisciplinary unit planningteams moved the teachers to think in more complex ways, thus feeling a sense of agency.

For many of the preservice teachers, this was not only their first opportunity to create inter-disciplinary units, but also their first exposure to the idea. In this context, many of the preserviceteachers noted that they attended traditional middle and high schools where they never experi-enced this kind of curriculum. Although the prospect of interdisciplinary teaching was excitingfor many, it was also difficult for some to imagine when they never experienced it firsthand.However, by working in interdisciplinary teams, they began to see they are not alone in creatingimportant curriculum that adolescents deserve. In the words of one science preservice teacher,“I think this unit plan is a combination of everything we have learned this semester. We haveintegrated not only all the literacy practices, but now all the content areas can execute this inone cohesive unit of study.” This response represents the social learning theories we employ asliteracy educators, helping teachers of various backgrounds to collaborate around meaningfulinstruction (Au, 1997). We believe that curriculum development should be a shared experiencebetween students and teachers and not prescribed by textbook companies. Indeed, the partici-pants appreciated this freedom, as they were encouraged to think outside the box and beyond thetextbook—as professionals.

Additionally, the rehearsals in agency also highlighted the participants’ approximations andreflections. For example, one history preservice teacher reflected, “I am proud of our team’s plan. . . we never resorted to worksheets, multiple choice tests or the textbook in our unit plan.” Yetthis same student recognized that if he were to teach this unit some day he would like to make

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

42 2

3 A

pril

2014

70 ELIZABETH PETROELJE STOLLE AND CHARLOTTE FRAMBAUGH-KRITZER

refinements and commented, “I noticed that I resort to the jigsaw strategy a lot; I need to beless dependent on jigsaw in this unit plan.” This is a reminder that the preservice teachers arenovices teaching the strategies within their discipline. In that, they are trying new strategies and,at times, over relying on familiar ones. Through dialogue, the participants could reflect on theirlearning and pedagogical decisions, thus refining their approximations and gaining confidence asprofessionals in what is best for students.

Acting as Regulator

Regulator encompasses the concept of resistance, as this study was not exempt from issues ofpower struggles at times. We noted many participants regulating their control and voicing con-cerns as they shared some apprehension and skepticism regarding interdisciplinary instructionthroughout this project. However, in our analysis of this regulation, we see that the participants inthis study are not necessarily resisting on a conceptual level (they all see the benefits), however,their resistance comes from an imposed resistance they sense from the structures and individu-als within schools. Additionally, their regulation spoke to their professionalism as they assertedtheir voices, respectfully considering the complexities of curriculum design. Professions regu-late themselves to stay accountable to the codes and ethical expectations within the profession(Howsam et al., 1976; Robards, 2008). The participants acted to regulate themselves and the ideasimposed, ensuring that interdisciplinary instruction was the best curricular choice for students.For example, one in-service Language Arts teacher shared,

I can see this instruction benefiting teachers some, in the sense that collaborating with other teacherswill help generate ideas and support . . . (but) interdisciplinary instruction is more involved and time-consuming, which does not benefit time-crunched teachers, although I consider it to be worth the timewith the great amount of benefit for the student.

This teacher’s thoughts represent many of the participants in this study who felt overwhelmedby the time commitment in creating an interdisciplinary unit. In this teacher’s response, we noteconflict—she attempts to regulate by protecting teachers’ time and resources in an educationalsystem that require more and more of teachers, yet she also recognizes the incredible benefit thisinvested time will be for students. In this statement, we see the teacher attempting to regulatethe profession, grappling with where interdisciplinary instruction should fall for teachers andstudents.

For illustration, one in-service science teacher spoke about the colleagues with whom he workssaying,

We have a few of these (teachers who are unable to see how literacy is important to their discipline). . . . Teaching with colleagues across a theme is awesome, but restrictions on time and resourcescause a lot of problems that people would rather avoid (interdisciplinary instruction). It’s easier tojust do things yourself.

This teacher’s thoughts represent many of the teachers in this study who felt limited in theirability to implement interdisciplinary instruction and infuse constructivist practices within theirdiscipline due to these outside forces of resistance.

One reason this resistance seems legitimate to the participants in this study is due to constraintsseen in secondary schools. The teachers asked critical questions regarding the implementation of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

42 2

3 A

pril

2014

PUTTING PROFESSIONALISM BACK INTO TEACHING 71

interdisciplinary instruction and the practical need for constructivism in the content. For exam-ple, one preservice math teacher asked, “When will we really get a chance to implement theseunits in schools – especially when so many middle and high school teachers do not share stu-dents in common?” Moreover, the teachers reported that they rarely see this type of curriculuminstruction in middle and high schools, thus leaving them without effective models/inspirations.Still, the teachers are hopeful to implement these units in classrooms someday. In fact, everyin-service teacher within the study commented in some form that they would like to use interdis-ciplinary instruction within their discipline. With that, all of the in-service teachers could readilytake up the instruction of literacy practices. However, only three of these participants saw imme-diate opportunities for interdisciplinary instruction. The others felt inhibited by the resistance ofcolleagues and schedules.

For the most part, the preservice teachers all felt they would like to teach this way in the future,however there was more resistance with this group, especially in the content areas of math andscience. For example, a science preservice teacher said, “I feel if we use IDU (interdisciplinaryunits) it will lead to more students being interested in school, but I’m not exactly sure it will leadto higher test scores” and a math preservice teacher wrote, “The project will take too long andthey still need to learn the state standards.” Although the preservice teachers had yet to studentteach they were already aware of state standards and high-stakes test scores and not confidentin how they could meet the demands of test pressures with the interdisciplinary approach and aconstructivist approach.

Still, we again note that through collaboration and dialogue (Vygotsky, 1978), the participantscame to understand interdisciplinary instruction and content literacy in new and complex ways,despite their misgivings or notions of resistance. We confidently feel that their regulation spoke totheir professionalism—considering the complexities of curriculum design, determining the placefor content literacy and interdisciplinary instruction within today’s schools.

DISCUSSION

Peter Johnston (2004) writes, “We constantly tell stories about ourselves to others and to our-selves, and the stories shape who we think we are” (p. 30). He goes on to share a quote fromCatherine Riessman that states, “individuals become the autobiographical narratives by whichthey tell about their lives” (as cited in Johnston, 2003, p. 2). In education, Johnston proposesthat we need to consider the “kinds of stories we arrange for children to tell themselves” (p. 30).As teacher educators planning the learning experiences for our preservice and in-service teachersaround interdisciplinary instruction, we thought deeply about the stories we were arranging andhow the teachers might take these stories up, specifically in identifying themselves as profession-als. That is, we sought to open space for the teachers to enact this professional identity, so theycould take this experience up as a story to tell in their futures.

These three themes—acting as specialist, acting as agent, and acting as regulator—highlightthe complex issues faced by secondary preservice and in-service teachers as they think aboutand use interdisciplinary instruction to enhance learning within the frame of content literacy.The findings provide key insights into how teacher educators can encourage interdisciplinaryinstruction as we push forward in professionalizing the classroom teacher. Three specific

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

42 2

3 A

pril

2014

72 ELIZABETH PETROELJE STOLLE AND CHARLOTTE FRAMBAUGH-KRITZER

recommendations for practice include (1) valuing disciplinary knowledge, (2) problematizingagency, and (3) creating a space for collaboration and dialogue.

Valuing Disciplinary Knowledge

As teacher educators who have taught secondary preservice and in-service teachers for more than10 years, many have shared with us that they decided to be teachers because they loved a spe-cific discipline and wanted to share that love with students. We appreciate this passion for contentknowledge, however it has led secondary education to often act in silos—unconnected. Therefore,in our courses, we consciously arranged space for the teachers to explore Pink’s (2006) notionsof symphonic thinkers—individuals who consider the entire orchestra rather than a single instru-ment. We challenged the preservice and in-service teachers to be symphonic thinkers within aninterdisciplinary team, creating themes to unite disciplines and provide intertextual connectionsfor adolescents. Symphonic thinking required a transparency to develop as the participants lookedinto each other’s disciplines to understand the literate practices within each discipline. Moreover,symphonic thinking required trust in the content specialist’s disciplinary knowledge, providingeach team member space to act as a content specialist, thus valuing the discipline knowledgeeach team member brought to the table. In our teaching, we seek to validate teachers’ passionsfor their disciplines, fostering that passion by identifying them as content specialists and thenencouraging them to discover the interdisciplinary connections while engaging them in a story ofprofessionalism.

Problematizing Agency

As we previously note, many teachers feel disempowered, or a lack of agency (Gallagher, 2009).As we orchestrated experiences within our courses to provide teachers with opportunities forautonomous and agentic moments, we also recognize the importance of helping teachers uncoverthe tension between professionalism and the ethos of compliance. Based on our experiences withteachers, many function within the myth of “neutrality”—teachers know the direction educationis heading is not always the correct direction, but they are not willing to voice this dissension.As we admonish the Finnish tradition of giving teachers autonomy, respect, and trust to practicewhat they have been educated to do (Sahlber, 2010), we acknowledge teachers here in the UnitedStates must take a stand within this age of standardization that has moved teachers away frommeaningful instruction like interdisciplinary units. To be professionals with agency, we must actas regulators, taking a stand against policies that do not benefit students. However, this is noteasy, and many of the teachers with which we work with find it too uncomfortable and risky.Still, other teachers do enact their agency within their own teaching circumstances, thus takingtheir classroom learning of professionalism into the world, enacting and seeking change.

Create Space for Collaboration and Dialogue

Finally, to make the interdisciplinary planning process more supportive, we drew on Vygotsky’s(1978) notions of learning through dialogue. Consequently, we provided the participants ampletime for collaboration and dialogue, but in that dialogue we recognized the unique characteristics

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

42 2

3 A

pril

2014

PUTTING PROFESSIONALISM BACK INTO TEACHING 73

of preservice and in-service teachers. That is, though we uncovered the same themes from thepreservice and in-service teachers, we noted a specific variation evident in the participants’ learn-ing connected to creating interdisciplinary units that incorporate strategies within the contentareas—background knowledge. As in any profession, acting as a specialist, agent, and regula-tor happens on a continuum. Through dialogue with a more knowledgeable other, individualsgrow in understandings (Vygotsky, 1978). With the preservice teachers, the knowledgeable otherwas the instructor (second author). In contrast, with the in-service teachers, there were multi-ple knowledgeable others—the instructor (first author) and other in-service teachers within theclass. This difference affected the social learning environment. Even still, we observed both typesof participants—preservice teachers and in-service teachers—acting as professionals in teams tocreate innovative units incorporating literacy strategies in effective ways. Collaboration and dia-logue proved powerful and meaningful within our university classrooms, but as noted, we saw itwork in different ways between the preservice and in-service teachers.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on our findings, we believe interdisciplinary instruction has the potential to elevate theprofessional status for teachers because interdisciplinary unit planning takes secondary teachersout of their content silos and provides space to create curriculum relevant to adolescents’—actingas specialists, agents, and regulators of curriculum. One in-service Spanish teacher’s commentsencompass this potential when she notes, “I would like to take some time to talk about howto ‘sell’ it (interdisciplinary instruction) to fellow staff members who haven’t taken a class andaren’t up on how to create one (an interdisciplinary unit) or why it is so important.” Here, thisteacher takes up the identity of professional by using her knowledge base to make curriculardecisions that prove best for students. That is, teachers must draw from a shared knowledge baseto improve their practice by locating and translating research-based knowledge, which informstheir efforts for improving and growing their practice and ultimately retains their professionalstatus (Hiebert et al., 2002). In other words, teachers must recognize and value the knowledgebase they possess, while working to ever increase and grow this knowledge base. They must alsobe keen decision makers, acting as agents to promote meaningful learning experiences for allstudents. Finally, they must continue to ask critical questions, regulating their practices to insurequality instruction.

We acknowledge our work only studies preservice and in-service teacher learning in thesetwo university courses. Although our findings are encouraging, we cannot fully assume theytranslate into improved professionalism once preservice teachers and in-service teachers headinto their actual school settings. That is, following the teachers into their teaching assignmentsand observing their classroom instruction would benefit our work, thus noting if this courseworkfocused on interdisciplinary instruction within the content areas actually influences the work ofthe teachers and the learning of students. With this in mind, we see important research yet to beconducted.

Although all curriculum programs have positive aspects and drawbacks, we believe teachereducators can lead and guide secondary preservice and in-service teachers toward new under-standings and paradigms as we seek to evolve and reform secondary curriculum. In the end, evenif the participants in this study do not implement the actual unit plans developed in our courses,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

42 2

3 A

pril

2014

74 ELIZABETH PETROELJE STOLLE AND CHARLOTTE FRAMBAUGH-KRITZER

we trust the hallmarks and thinking behind this learning experience provide individual teachersthe best road map to design future unit plans in their own individual classrooms and a senseof professionalism missing in the field today, especially if they take up the salient notions ofinterdisciplinary methods in their respective schools.

NOTE

Both authors contributed equally to this research and article.

REFERENCES

Alvermann, D. E., & Phelps, S. F. (2002). Content reading and literacy: Succeeding in today’s diverse classrooms.Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Au, K. H. (1997). A sociocultural model of reading instruction: The Kamehameha Elementary Education Program. In S.A. Stahl & D. A. Hayes (Eds.), Instructional models in reading (pp. 181–202). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bagley, W. C. (1930). Teaching as a fine art. Journal of Educational Method, 9(1), 456–461.Beane, J. A. (1997). Curriculum integration: Designing the core of democratic education. New York, NY: Teachers

College Press.Broudy, H. S. (1956). Teaching—craft or profession? Educational Forum, 20(2), 175–184.Crow, G. M., & Pounder, D. G. (2000). Interdisciplinary teams: Context, design and process. Educational Administration

Quarterly, 36(2), 216–254.Daniels, H., & Zemelman, S. (2004). Subjects matter: Every teacher’s guide to content area reading. Portsmouth, NH:

Heinemann.Duke, L. D. (1984). Teaching—The imperiled profession. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Erb, T. O. (1995). Teamwork in middle school education. In H. G. Garner (Ed.), Teamwork models and experience in

education (pp. 175–198). Boston, MA: Allyn & BaconErickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching

(3rd ed., pp. 119–161). New York, NY: Macmillan.Erickson, H. L. (2008). Stirring the head, heart and soul: Redefining curriculum, instruction, and concept-based learning.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Fang, Z., Fu, D., & Lamme, L. L. (1999). Rethinking the role of multicultural literature in literacy instruction: Problems,

paradox, and possibilities. The New Advocate, 12(3), 259–276.Fitzharris, L. (2005). Making all the right connections: Curriculum design helps Teachers see the bigger picture that

students experience, then see the logical connections. Journal of Staff Development, 26(1), 24–28.Friedson, E. (2001). Professionalism: The third logic. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Gallagher, K. (2009). Readicide: How schools are killing reading and what you can do about it. Portland, ME: Stenhouse

Publishers.Gee, J. (1999). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. London, UK: Routledge.Heider, K. L. (2005). Teacher isolation: How mentoring programs can help. Current Issues in Education, 8(14). Retrieved

from http://cie.asu.edu/volume8/number14/Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., & Stigler, J. W. (2002). A knowledge base for the teaching profession: What would it look like

and how can we get one? Educational Researcher, 31(5), 3–15.Howsam, R. B., Corrigan, D. C., Denemark, G. W., & Nash, R. J. (1976). Educating a profession: Report of the

Bicentennial Commission on Education for the profession of teaching. Washington, DC: American Association ofColleges for Teacher Education.

Johnston, P. H. (2004). Choice words: How our language affects children’s learning. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.Kerekes, J. (1987). The interdisciplinary unit: It’s here to stay! Middle School Journal, 19(4), 12–14.Krause, E. A. (1996). Death of the guilds: Professions, states, and the advance of capitalism, 1930 to the present. New

Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

42 2

3 A

pril

2014

PUTTING PROFESSIONALISM BACK INTO TEACHING 75

Mertens, S., & Yarger, S. J. (1988). Teaching as a profession: Leadership, empowerment, and involvement. Journal ofTeacher Education, 39(1), 32–37. doi:10.1177/002248718803900108

Mitchell, H., & Myles, F. (1988). Second language learning theories. London, UK: Arnold.National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common

Core State Standards for English language arts. Washington, DC: National Governors Association Centerfor Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_ELA%20Standards.pdf

Pink, D. (2006). A whole new mind: Why right-brainers will rule the future. New York, NY: Penguin.Ratner, C. (2000). Agency and culture. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 30(4), 413–434.Richardson, J. S., Morgan, R. R., & Fleener, C. E. (2009). Reading to learn in the content areas. Belmont, CA:

Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.Richardson, L. (2000). Writing: A method of inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative

research (2nded., pp. 923–948). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Robards, S. N. (2008). Teaching as a profession. College Teaching Methods & Styles Journal, 4(5), 17–20.Sahlber, P. (2010). Finnish lessons: What can the world learn from educational change in Finland? New York, NY:

Teachers College Press.Sarason, S. B. (1977). Work, aging, and social change: Professionals and the one life one career imperative. New York,

NY: Free Press.Stephens, J. M. (1960). Spontaneous schooling and success in teaching. School Review, 68, 152–163.Strauss, A. (1995). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Strauss, C., & Quinn, N. (1997). A cognitive theory of cultural meaning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Stillman, J., & Anderson, L. (2011). To follow, reject, or flip the script: Managing instructional tension in an era of

high-stakes accountability. Language Arts, 89(1), 22–36.Stinnett, T. M. (1970). Reordering goals and roles: An introduction. Phi Delta Kappan, 52(1), 1–3.Strubbe, M. (1990). Are interdisciplinary units worthwhile? Ask students! Middle School Journal, 21(3), 36–38.Supovitz, J. A., & Weinbaum, E (2008). The implementation gap: Understanding reform in high schools. New York, NY:

Teachers College Press.Tao, L. & Reinking, D. (1996, November). What research reveals about email in education. Paper presentation at the 40th

annual meeting of the College Reading Association, Charleston, SC.Vars, G. F. (1993). Interdisciplinary teaching: Why and how. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Werner, O., & Schoepfle, G. M. (1987). Systematic fieldwork: Vol. 1. Foundations of ethnography and interviewing.

Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Wilhelm, J. D., & Friedemann, P. D. (1998). Hyperlinking: Where projects, inquiry, and technology meet. York, ME:

Stenhouse.Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision &

Curriculum Development.Wise, B. (2008). Raising the grade: How high school reform can save our youth and our nation. Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-

Bass.Wraga, W. (2010). Dangerous blind spots in the Common-Core Standards. SpeakingOut. Retrieved from http://www.coe.

uga.edu/news/2010/08/20/dangerous-blind-spots-in-thecommon-core-standards/

Elizabeth Petroelje Stolle is an Associate Professor at Grand Valley State University in theLiteracy Studies Program. Her research interests include: New Literacies, Teacher Education andCritical Literacy.

Charlotte Frambaugh-Kritzer is an Assistant Professor of Secondary Reading at the Universityof Hawaii at Manoa. Her research interests include Disciplinary Literacies, New Literacies, andTeacher Education.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

42 2

3 A

pril

2014