DSpace at VNU: Identity in activity: Examining teacher professional identity formation in the paired-placement of student teachers

Teaching and Teacher Education 30 (2013) 47e59

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

Identity in activity: Examining teacher professional identity formation in the
paired-placement of student teachers
Dang Thi Kim Anha, b, *
a
b

Melbourne Graduate School of Education, The University of Melbourne, Level 7, 100 Leicester Street, Carlton VIC 3010, Australia
Faculty of English Language Teacher Education, Vietnam National University, 144 Xuan Thuy Street, Cau Giay District, Hanoi, Viet Nam

h i g h l i g h t s
< The study examined teacher learning in a paired-placement context.
< The teachers experienced qualitative shifts in their teaching identities.
< Activity theory was effective in revealing the complexity of their learning.
< Paired-placement is a promising model for reforming the practicum.

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 31 March 2012
Received in revised form
16 October 2012
Accepted 22 October 2012

This paper examines the evolution of the professional identities of student teachers (STs) in a pairedplacement teaching practicum in Vietnam. The study draws on activity theory, its notion of contradiction, and Vygotsky’s concepts of ZPD and perezhivanie, to identify the factors driving the intricate
learning process. Opportunities for learning were initially manifested in conflicts within the teacher pair,
for example negotiation of their multiple identities, as friends, students and teachers in training.
However, within the framework of planned and supervised collaboration, the STs resolved most of their
conflicts constructively and experienced qualitative development in their teaching identities.
Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Teacher learning
Identity
Paired-placement
Teacher collaboration
Activity theory
Contradictions
Perezhivanie
ZPD

1. Introduction
During their practicum, student teachers (hereafter ‘STs’ or
simply ‘teachers’) commonly teach individually, under a supervising
teacher. On the first day of school the ST is expected to assume
responsibilities similar to those of experienced teachers despite
limited experience and preparation (Westheimer, 2008). STs often
encounter problems in transferring teaching theory into practice.
Many experience isolation and lack of support, and lack of knowledge about their students, having to focus on survival rather than
learning (Bullough et al., 2003; Johnson, 1996; Westheimer, 2008).
One response to these challenges is paired ST placements during
the practicum. Studies on paired placements (e.g. Bullough et al.,

* 332 Barkly Street, Brunswick VIC 3056, Australia. Tel.: þ61 430113068.
E-mail addresses: ,
0742-051X/$ e see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
/>
2002; Gardiner & Robinson, 2009; Heidorn, Jenkins, Harvey, &
Mosier, 2011; King, 2006; McKeon, 2006; Nokes, Bullough, Egan,
Birrell, & Hansen, 2008; Smith, 2004; Sorensen, 2004; Vickery,
Sharrock, Hurst, & Broadbridge, 2011) highlight multiple benefits,
and invite further investigation into this mode (Gardiner &
Robinson, 2009; Sorensen, 2004). Prior research suggests the STs
gain from the tensions, dialogue, reflections, and increased support
that result from being placed with a peer (Bullough et al., 2003;
Nokes et al., 2008). The question left open is how the factors specific
to pair-work mediate teacher learning and identity formation.
The purpose of this study is to better understand teacher
professional development in a paired-placement context. It focuses
specifically on how two teacher students in Vietnam, Hien and
Chinh, develop their professional identities in the collaborative
setting, and how factors specific to pair-work mediate this process.
It uses activity theory and its notion of contradiction (Section 2.1),
Vygotsky’s concepts of ZPD and perezhivanie (Section 2.2), plus


48

Dang T.K.A. / Teaching and Teacher Education 30 (2013) 47e59

studies of teacher identity (Section 2.3), to help elucidate the
learning process. Given the focus and theoretical framework, the
following questions framed the investigation:

 What contradictions were identified in the teachers’ joint-activity
systems?
 To what extent were the contradictions resolved or not in the
course of the study?
 What are the implications of the trajectories of contradictions for
teacher development in the paired placement context?

2. Theoretical framework
2.1. Activity theory
2.1.1. Key tenets
Activity theory has origins in Kant, Hegel, Marx and Engels, and
the Soviet Russian socio-cultural psychology of Vygotsky, Leont’ev,
Luria and Ilyenkov. It explores the ways sociocultural historical
contexts shape human activity. It is an evolving theory that has
proven fertile in educational research. There are various strands
within the tradition, derived in part from divergent readings of the
foundational Russian works (see Bakhurst, 2009; Engeström, 1999;
Smagorinsky, 2009). For Bakhurst activity theory is not an
“unproblematic, coherent, theoretical paradigm”. He promotes
“self-critical dialogue” between its different “styles of thinking”
(2009, p. 209).
The research design of the present study draws largely on
Engeström (1987, 2001, 2008a, 2008b). The study uses third
generation activity theory, elaborated below, to analyse teacher
learning in the paired-placement context. It also draws on other
activity theorists including Roth and Tobin (2002), Grossman,
Smagorinsky, and Valencia (1999), and Smagorinsky, Cook,
Jackson, Moore, and Fry (2004). These different theorists share
several broad tenets relevant to the study.
First, human consciousness develops within practical social

activity settings in which relations between human agent and
environmental objects are mediated by tools and signs (Engeström,
1987; Grossman et al., 1999; Roth & Tobin, 2002; Smagorinsky et al.,
2004). The teacher is not solitary but part of a larger social setting
(Smagorinsky et al., 2004). Their principal mediating artefacts are
pedagogical tools. The process whereby “a person adopts the
pedagogical tools available for use in particular social environments”, and “through this process internalizes ways of thinking
endemic to specific cultural practices”, is known as “appropriation”
(Grossman et al., 1999, p. 15). Degrees of appropriation range from
lack of appropriation, appropriating a label, appropriating surface
features, appropriating conceptual underpinnings, to achieving
mastery (pp. 16e18). Appropriation of tools when happening

involves adaptations and modifications (Athanases et al., 2008;
Newell & Connors, 2011) rather than straight-up internalization. In
the present study, Hien and Chinh demonstrated different levels of
appropriation of pedagogical tools, such as video clips for teaching
English.
Second, the unit of analysis is the collective activity system
(Engeström, 1987, 1999; Roth, 2012). In the present study the unit of
data collection and analysis is the teachers’ (joint) activity system of
teaching English, in which they are also learning “to be someone
who teaches” (Akkerman & Meijer, 2011, p. 317).
Third, the driving force of change and development in activity
systems is internal contradiction, as powerfully conceptualized by
Ilyenkov (1977, see also Engeström, 1987, 2001; Roth, 2012; Roth &
Tobin, 2002). In a parallel approach Smagorinsky et al. (2004) see
tensions that “require a socially contextualized intellectual resolution” (p. 22) as potentially productive for teacher identity
formation.
2.1.2. Third generation activity theory

Third generation activity theory develops conceptual tools for
understanding dialogue, multiple perspectives and voices, and
networks of interacting activity systems (Engeström, 2001). The
third generation model includes at least two activity systems with
a potentially shared object (Fig. 1).
The subject of an activity system is a person or group with
agency (Engeström, 2001). In the present study the subject is the ST
whose activity is influenced by the sociocultural historical context
within which he/she teaches and learns to teach. Object describes
the orientation of the activity, derived from motivation to achieve
an outcome. There is no objectless activity (Engeström, 2008a). The
ST’s motive could be to perform a student teaching task successfully
for assessment purposes, or to promote student learning. The
mediating tools/artefacts used by the STs include lesson plans,
rehearsals, video clips, and other pedagogical tools.
The study conceptualizes planning and teaching in pairs as
a joint-activity system, that is the interacting activity systems of
two individual teachers, embedded in their broader sociocultural
historical context. Their common object could be (teaching) the
students. This framework enables the researcher to analyse how
the individual teacher’s professional learning emerges from within
each individual system, and interacts with the other system.
In Fig. 1 the mediated relationship between subject and object
occurs within a sociocultural setting that includes community, rules
and division of labour. Within the paired-placement model,
community refers to the teaching pair, other STs in the cohort,
supervising teacher, and classroom students. In impacting upon
student teaching activity this community could support or hinder
professional learning. Rules refer to explicit and implicit regulations, norms, and conventions that constrain actions and interactions within the activity system (Engeström, 2008a). Here, they

Mediating tools/ artefacts

Mediating tools/ artefacts

Potentially shared object
Object

Subject

Rules

Community

Division
of labour

Subject

Object

Division
of labour

Community

Rules

Fig. 1. Two interacting activity systems: minimal model for third generation activity theory (Center for Activity Theory and Developmental Work Research, 2003e2004).

Dang T.K.A. / Teaching and Teacher Education 30 (2013) 47e59

include the professional and cultural rules regulating co-working
activity and social relationships between the paired STs as both
friends and colleagues. Division of labour refers to work relationships and power relationships between members of the community, including between the ST pair.
Activity systems emerge and can be transformed over time.
Contradictions within activity systems generate disturbance but
drive change and development (Engeström, 2001) on a collective
basis, through innovations in activity designed to resolve those
contradictions. Third generation activity theory has been applied
by Engeström himself and others to research in different settings,
including formal school settings (e.g. Cross, 2009; Engeström,
2008b; Junor Clarke & Fournillier, 2012; Tsui & Law, 2007).
2.2. ZPD and perezhivanie
2.2.1. Zone of proximal development (ZPD) and contradictions
Vygotsky introduced the concept of ZPD to elucidate the role of
social conditions in the development of thinking (Moll, 1990, p. 12).
He saw thinking as a characteristic not just of the child but of the
child-in-social-activities with others (Moll, 1990). What children
can perform collaboratively or with assistance today, they can
perform independently and competently tomorrow. ZPD is:
the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of
potential development as determined through problem solving
under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable
peers (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86).
Moll (1990) states that children “internalize and transform the
help they receive from others”, using this guidance “to direct their
subsequent problem-solving behaviours.” Therefore “the nature of
social transactions is central to a zone of proximal development
analysis” (p. 11). In the present study Vygotsky’s ZPD is used to

examine what the STs could accomplish by performing collaboratively or with assistance today as an indication of what they could
perform independently tomorrow. Paired placement, as a teaching/
learning strategy, can be understood as an institutional embodiment of ZPD. Arguably, paired placement here either enlarged the
ZPD (as is apparent in Hien’s case) or provided scaffolding for
activities within the ZPD (as is apparent in Chinh’s case).
In Vygotsky’s work ZPD indicated a change of analytical focus,
from sign-mediated activity to socially mediated activity, and from
the individual-as-such to the individual-in-social-activity (Minick,
1985; Moll, 1990). However, he retained “the significance of sign
and tool mediation in understanding human learning and development” (Moll, 1990, p. 5). This change in theorization helped to
ground the later shift to activity under Leont’ev. In further developing Vygotsky’s ZPD, Engeström defines it as “the distance
between the present everyday actions of the individuals and the
historically new form of societal activity that can be collectively
generated” (1987, p. 174). New forms of societal activity are
generated by contradictions. Contradictions are not the same as
problems or conflicts. They are “historically accumulating structural tensions within and between activity systems.” (Engeström,
2001, p. 137) Within an activity system, they include tensions
within each of its components and tensions between its two or
more constituent components (Engeström, 2008a,b).
Tensions are not necessarily obstructive. They can be potentially
productive in creating an environment conducive to professional
learning. In the present study the collective journey of the STs
through their ZPD is mapped in terms of contradictions in their joint
activity system, and how those contradictions were resolved or not
over a period of time. This trajectory shaped the potential and
process of development. Contradictions were manifest as tensions in

49

the negotiation of STs’ multiple identities (see Section 2.3) within

paired placement, for example, friends versus colleagues, or students
versus teachers.
2.2.2. Perezhivanie
Together with ZPD, Vygotsky developed the interrelated
concept of perezhivanie in the last years of his life (Mahn & JohnSteiner, 2008). Perezhivanie describes “the affective processes
through which interactions in the ZPD are individually perceived,
appropriated, and represented by the participants” (p. 49). Vygotsky’s Russian notion of ‘perezhivanie’ has been roughly translated as
‘emotional experience’ (Vygotsky, 1994), or ‘intensely-emotionallived-through-experience’ (Ferholt, 2010, p. 164). Smagorinsky
refers to ‘meta-experience’; that is, ‘how one experiences one’s
experiences’, noting that “people frame and interpret their experiences through interdependent emotional and cognitive means,
which in turn are related to the setting of new experiences” (2011,
p. 337). Vygotsky used perezhivanie in studying the relationship
between child development and its setting, writing of finding “the
particular prism through which the influence of the environment
on the child is refracted”:
. the child’s emotional experience [perezhivanie], in other words
how a child becomes aware of, interprets, [and] emotionally relates
to a certain event. This . prism . determines the role and
influence of the environment on the development of, say, the
child’s character, his psychological development, etc. (Vygotsky,
1994, p. 341, emphasis in original)
The “prism” encompassed both the child’s cognition (“aware of,
interprets”) and emotion (“emotionally relates to a certain event”).
Vygotsky noted that “if children possess varying levels of
awareness. the same event will have a completely different
meaning for them” (1994, p. 343). Their responses were affected by
differing emotional experiences, which in turn related to the
cognitive meaning they made of the situation. When the situation
changed, sometimes one component of personality played
a primary role, sometimes another. In analysing how an environment influenced child development, it was important to identify

which characteristics were decisive in determining the child’s
relationship to the situation (Vygotsky, 1994). In the present study,
these characteristics include the various components of teacher
identity, and the tensions between them.

2.3. Teacher learning as identity formation
Learning to teach is “learning to think like a teacher, learning to
know like a teacher, learning to feel like a teacher and learning to act
like a teacher” (Feiman-Nemser, 2008, p. 698, emphasis in original).
For Kelchtermans and Hamilton (2004 in Akkerman & Meijer, 2011)
it moves beyond learning to ‘know how to teach’ to learning ‘to be
someone who teaches’ (p. 317). Teacher identity development is an
important component of learning to teach (Alsup, 2006).
In a critical review of the research Akkerman and Meijer (2011)
describe teacher identity as unitary and multiple, continuous and
discontinuous, individual and social. The identity of someone who
teaches is
an ongoing process of negotiating and interrelating multiple Ipositions in such a way that a more or less coherent and consistent
sense of self is maintained throughout various participations and
self-investments in one’s (working) life (p. 315).
The definition suggests the dynamic nature of teacher identity,
its social origin, and the tensions in its construction. “The presence
of multiple, possibly conflicting I-positions” is especially helpful in


50

Dang T.K.A. / Teaching and Teacher Education 30 (2013) 47e59

understanding identity “when teachers face dilemmas or tensions

throughout their work” (p. 311). The natural desire for a consistent
and coherent sense of self motivates the self to create a dialogical
space between different I-positions. Thus “the self is also a negotiated space” (p. 312).
From an activity theory perspective, Smagorinsky et al. (2004)
likewise view teacher identity formation as a process of negotiation between different conceptions of teaching. STs see themselves
as students in university settings but as teachers in school settings,
triggering tensions in their self-construction of teaching identity.
Further:
Learning to teach is thus in part a process of constructing an
identity in the midst of systems of relations. During student
teaching, there are multiple systems of relations involved in
overlapping, often conflicting activity settings that make this
identity formation quite challenging. (Smagorinsky et al.,
2004, p. 10)
In a similar vein, Grossman et al. (1999) argue that activity
theory can help:
.understand how prospective teachers and those around them
define the problems they face and how they engage in solving
these problems, using the resources around them. This process
contributes to the identities that they develop as teachers. (p. 12)

2.3.1. Teacher identity and perezhivanie
These accounts of teacher identity parallel Vygotsky’s account of
perezhivanie. Both constructs refer to relations between subject and
environment, such as how one engages with the settings
(Grossman et al., 1999) or multiple systems of social relations
(Smagorinsky et al., 2004). Perezhivanie varies depending on which
characteristics of personality are at play in the given situation; the
teacher adopts identities, and shifts between them, in response to
relevant others such as colleagues, to time and to context

(Akkerman & Meijer, 2011).
Perezhivanie is especially relevant to the present study in three
ways. First, it helps to explain how the individual STs constructed
different meanings of the same planning and teaching event,
depending on how they each emotionally related to that event,
reflecting Moll’s (1990) view that: “Change within a ZPD is usually
characterized as individual change” (p. 12). Vygotsky considers
“emotion and human development to be reciprocally related to one
another” (Smagorinsky, 2011). Second, it identifies both emotional
and cognitive dimensions of teacher development: in research into
teacher development, the former is often overlooked. How the STs
were aware of, interpreted and emotionally related to pairedplacement events all influenced their actions in their environment. Third, the concepts of perezhivanie and identity together
shed light on professional development within paired placement.
The teachers’ identities influenced how they cognitively and
affectively experienced their experiences. Likewise, their cognitive
and affective response to experience could affect their identity
formation, strengthening, weakening, or transforming certain
identities. Their identities thus help to explain the ‘prism’ through
which the context affected learning.
Akkerman and Meijer (2011) note studies of changing teaching
identities have yet to identify ‘what’ is shifting and what determines the direction of shift. Beijaard, Meijer, and Verloop (2004)
call for research into the role of context in professional identity
formation, and research perspectives other than cognitive ones.
The role of affect in teacher identity formation has been acknowledged, either explicitly or implicitly (Alsup, 2006; Smagorinsky,
Lakly, & Johnson, 2002), but still seems under-researched.

In adopting an activity theory perspective plus Vygotky’s ZPD and
perezhivanie, to illuminate two teachers’ professional development
over time, this study contributes to filling in those gaps.
3. Method

The present study is part of a larger research project concerning
the learning-to-teach-English practices of a cohort of 10 pairs of
Vietnamese student teachers (see Dang, 2012; Dang & Marginson,
2012). The present study focuses solely on one of the ten dyads,
Hien and Chinh (these are pseudonyms to ensure participant
anonymity). They were selected because their pair interactions
were sufficiently complex and varied to allow a wide range of
developmental aspects to be explored. Hien and Chinh were
representative of the cohort in terms of gender, background,
including prior teaching experience, and length of participation.
3.1. Context and participants
3.1.1. Context
The larger research project was conducted in the settings of a ST
practicum at a university in Vietnam. The teachers, all females in
their early twenties, had been selected as high achieving students
of English for a special four-year course in English Language
Teaching (ELT). The practicum, in their final year, consisted of
15-weeks teaching English to second year university students. The
STs worked in pairs for planning and teaching lessons. They were
paired by ballot. All lessons were observed by one of the university
supervisors, and the other STs in the cohort. Lessons were followed
by feedback sessions involving the supervisor and STs. This model
of teacher education (TE) had been used at the university for eight
years prior to the research.
Most participants, including Hien and Chinh, chose to be
teachers because in Vietnam teaching is seen as a noble profession
and highly suitable for women. In the Confucian tradition the
teacher is a benchmark of morality, the most important source of
knowledge, and the highest authority in the classroom. English
teaching has gained popularity since the country opened itself to

the world in the 1986 Doi Moi reform, which replaced central
planning with a regulated market economy. Vietnam joined the
World Trade Organization in 2007. The growth of international
business, including transnational education, has multiplied
English-related jobs and demand for English teaching skills. English
now enjoys special status as means of communication and 99.1 per
cent of junior secondary schools teach English (Do, 1999; Nguyen &
Nguyen, 2007).
3.1.2. The teaching dyad: Hien and Chinh
Hien and Chinh had been friends for three years, though not
very close. Hien lived in the city with her family. Chinh was from
the countryside and lived away from home. They had worked
together in group and pair projects in the first three years at
university. Each emphasized they had worked well together,
peacefully, with little argument. Consensus was easy to reach.
However they had not found the outcome productive, and had
different views of collaboration. Hien emphasized the need for
partners to be critical in order to improve the quality of ideas.
Chinh, however, preferred harmony and described herself as happy
when there was little argument. Their personal histories were also
different.
3.1.2.1. Hien. Hien appeared cheerful, friendly, confident, and
articulate. She had long lived in an environment where people
appreciated the English language. Her elder sister was fluent in
English and worked for Sony Ericsson. Hien attended a Hanoi


Dang T.K.A. / Teaching and Teacher Education 30 (2013) 47e59

school for talented students specializing in foreign languages and

participated in the national contest for high-achieving students in
English. She had prior experience teaching English as a one-on-one
tutor for school students and a classroom assistant at an international foreign language centre. She seemed confident when
recalling her teaching experience:
At the beginning, some of my students did not like to learn, did
not want to learn English, but I was able to create a relaxed
atmosphere. Now almost all of my students like English better.
(Hien, Pre-interview, p. 15)
3.1.2.2. Chinh. Chinh looked calm but became emotional in several
interviews. Her family was not well off financially. Chinh eased her
parents’ burden by working as a part-time teacher assistant for
a foreign language centre in Hanoi. She supported herself by private
tutoring. Like Hien she participated in the national contest for high
school students gifted in English and won a prize. However, her
transition from high school to university was painful. Unlike Hien,
who knew English pronunciation from a very young age, before
Chinh entered university she experienced listening, speaking and
writing as alien. She described her experience of entering the TE
program as frightening:
It was really scary, because all I had was grammar. In the Fasttrack program, you need to learn Listening, Speaking, Reading
and Writing. (Chinh, Pre-interview, p. 16)
Chinh believed teaching was often a matter of accommodating students and their emotional needs. Having fun was an
important motivator. But Chinh found motivation a challenge: “It
is hard to make them like foreign languages” (Chinh, Preinterview, p. 19).
3.2. Data collection
As noted, the unit of analysis is the joint-activity system in each
teaching round. In the practicum Hien and Chinh taught four
lessons. Each round comprised co-planning and co-teaching one
lesson. To plan each lesson Hien and Chinh met face-to-face, and
communicated via Internet chat tools and emails. Teaching tasks

were shared.
The data consist of individual semi-structured interviews in
Vietnamese with each ST prior to the practicum (pre-interviews)
and after each lesson (post-teaching interviews); video-recordings
and observations of the lessons; field notes of observations during
the lessons; and artefacts like lesson plans, instructional materials
and other documents (see summary in Table 1). Post-teaching
interviews were conducted within 48 h of each lesson to
strengthen data reliability (Nunan, 1992). The semi-structured
interview format enabled open-ended questioning around the
themes of the research. All interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Field notes, instructional materials, and lesson
plans were used as stimuli in interviews and to enhance reliability,
triangulating findings from interviews.
3.3. Data analysis
3.3.1. Analysis of each teaching round
The primary data source was the interview transcripts. The
interviews provided much insight into ST learning, and into relations between the STs and their context. At times in interview the
STs were asked to recall relevant biographical details (see Table 1),
generating data that helped to explain their experiences in the
practicum.

51

Table 1
Data sources and focus of data collection and analysis.
Pre-service teachers
Data sources

Focus of data collection and analysis

Pre-interviews with individual
teacher (N ¼ 2)

Experience as language teacher/tutor
Experience as language learner
Personal background
Previous group/pair work experience
Perceptions of the paired placement
experience: lesson by lesson, both planning
and teaching stages
Joint activity system of co-teaching and its
evolution
Systemic contradictions in the joint activity
system
Trajectory of contradictions
Relevant biographical details
Pair interaction during the lessons
Uses of teaching tools
Social context of teaching
Pair interaction during the lessons
Uses of teaching tools
Social context of teaching
Evidence of planned division of teaching
tasks between the partners
Evidence of use of teaching tools
Evidence of pair interactions when
planning lessons

Post-teaching interviews with
individual teacher (N ¼ 8)

Classroom observations during
paired placement
(N ¼ 4; 240 min)
Video-recordings of lessons
taught by the pair
(N ¼ 4; 240 min)
Artefacts (lesson plans,
instructional materials, email
correspondence between
partners when planning
lessons, etc.)

In data analysis the researcher first reviewed the videorecordings, observations, and artefacts for each teaching round to
re-activate field knowledge and begin to reconstruct the observable
components of Hien and Chinh’s joint activity system, such as
identification of the artefacts they used. Then the interview transcripts were analysed line by line using a directed content analysis
procedure (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005, pp. 1281e1283) with the
support of Transana, a software package for transcription and
qualitative analysis of audio data. Initial coding categories were
based on the subject, object, tools/artefacts, rules, community and
division of labour in each of the four joint-activity system (i.e. each
teaching round), as advised by Barab, Evans, and Baek (2004).
The analytical method was also informed by prior research into
teacher practice using activity theory (Cross, 2006; Engeström,
2008a,b; Roth & Tobin, 2002; Tsui & Law, 2007; Yamagata-Lynch
& Haudenschild, 2009) including research on pair-work (Cross,
2009; Storch, 2004). This prior research guided refinements in
the coding of each sub-category. (See Table 2 for a summary of the
coding scheme used to reconstruct the pair’s joint activity system.)

The strategy of relying on prior research was important for two
reasons. First, there is much controversy over the use of cultural
historical activity theory (Junor Clarke & Fournillier, 2012),
a discussion which is beyond the scope of this paper. Second, there
are different methodological approaches to using concepts and
principles from activity theory (see Barab et al., 2004; YamagataLynch, 2010). Indeed, as noted, there are various strands within
the tradition.
Drawing on related studies, this study presents one such
approach to research design.
For each teaching round, Hien and Chinh’s individual interviews
were analysed separately, using the code scheme presented in
Table 2. They were then compared and contrasted to identify the
misalignments perceived by the teachers. Contradictions within
the joint-activity system were then distilled, helping to explain the
tensions or challenges in pair work (see Table 3 for a summary of
major contradictions and their occurrences). Because the analysis
focused on identifying systemic contradictions and their trajectories within a limited time period, nuances, suggesting qualitative


52

Dang T.K.A. / Teaching and Teacher Education 30 (2013) 47e59

Table 2
Codes and sub-categories to identify joint activity system.
Codes

Sub-categories from the data set
Level 1

Sub-categories from the data set
Level 2

Subject

Teacher’s prior teaching experience

Years of teaching
Classroom teaching
One-on-one tutoring
Adult students
School children
Years of learning English
Exposure to CLT
(Communicative Language Teaching)
Exposure to grammar-translation method
(Test and grammar oriented)
Family background
Rationales to become a teacher
Transition to the TE program
Experience within the TE program
Working with pair partner
Working in groups in general
Teaching to improve students’ English
Teaching as faithful to the lesson plan
Collaboration as equal work share
Collaboration as harmony
Collaboration to improve quality of work

Teacher’s experience as language learner

Teacher’s personal background

Teacher’s previous group/pair work experience
Object

Teacher’s conceptions of student teaching
Teacher’s orientation towards the collaborative work

Mediational tools & artefacts

Resources to perform the perceived paired placed teaching tasks
Subject content knowledge

Pedagogical content knowledge

Instructional materials

Syllabus
Tools for pair-work

Division of labour

Perceptions of self and partner’s roles and
responsibilities in the pair-work
Contribution to co-planning

Contribution to preparation

Contribution to co-teaching

Power relationship between pair
partners and others in the community
In co-planning, preparation,
& co-teaching stages

Community

Teachers’ identification of the broader
community regulating the performance of the activity
Pair partner
Other peers
University supervising teacher
Students
Others

Knowledge of English grammar and vocabulary
Knowledge of English pronunciation
Knowledge of language skills
English competency
Lesson planning
Knowledge about the students
Language teaching skills
Student engagement
Teacher-led discussion
Small-group work
Student presentations
Modelling
Using instructional materials
PowerPoint slides

Video clips
Games
Handouts
Course program
Internet chat
Email correspondence
Face-to-face meeting
Rehearsals

Brainstorming ideas
Improving ideas
Searching for teaching materials
Finalizing lesson plan
Preparing handouts
Carrying out ICT related tasks
Preparing logistics
Teacher talk-time
Teacher control of lesson
Teacher interruption (of each other)
Teacher correction (of each other)
Share of teaching tasks

Who
Who
Who
Who
Who

took the lead in planning?
made major decisions?

controlled the lesson?
controlled the process?
gave feedback?

Teaching colleagues
Previous (school) teachers
Family


Dang T.K.A. / Teaching and Teacher Education 30 (2013) 47e59

53

Table 2 (continued )
Codes

Sub-categories from the data set
Level 1

Sub-categories from the data set
Level 2

Rules

Teacher’s perceptions of explicit and implicit
rules that regulated the activity
Professional rules

Teaching correctly
Start/finish on time

Following syllabus
Keeping face for partners
Keeping face for students
Students subject to teacher’s authority
Indirectness with partner
Avoiding confronting problems
Co-teaching
Giving feedback
Equal responsibilities
Equal roles
Reaching consensus
Polite turn taking

Cultural rules

Class rules
Collaboration rules

rather than quantifiable changes, were significant. Hence ‘occurrences’, rather than ‘frequencies’ of the incidence of contradictions
were deemed appropriate to this study. Analysis of the different
components of data was interactive and cross-referenced. For
example, findings from the interviews that revealed teachers’
interrupting each other during the lesson prompted further analysis of the video-recordings. See Fig. 2 for a diagrammatic
description of the pair’s joint activity system and identified
contradictions. The left triangle represents Hien’s activity system
and the right triangle represents Chinh’s activity system of coteaching.
3.3.2. Analysis across the teaching rounds
Data from the four joint-activity systems were content analysed
and cross-referenced to see if the identified contradictions were
resolved or not in subsequent systems (Table 3), mapping the

evolution of joint activity and professional development over time.
4. Findings
The findings are reported in the sequence of the research
questions: contradictions; trajectories of development; and implications for teacher professional development. Data analysis identified three main contradictions in the joint-activity systems, traced
over the four teaching rounds, between: 1) subjects and objects of
activity; 2) subjects and division of labour within the community;
3) the community and mediational tools (Fig. 2 refers to the
contradictions, using the numbers 1e3).
Hien and Chinh drew on different and conflicting identities in
their co-teaching and co-planning activities. The respective dispositions triggered contradictions that affected the way they
perceived their experiences, cognitively and affectively. As the
contradictions became identified, with some partly resolved, there

was continual reflection and change in the pair’s joint-activity
systems. Both Hien and Chinh worked within their jointly-created
ZPD on the identified contradictions, leading to qualitative
change in their professional development. Chinh appeared to be
developing a teacher identity in addition to her continued student
identity. Hien, on the other hand, appeared to be developing
a mentor and colleague identity in addition to her continued
teacher identity.
4.1. Contradiction between subjects and objects of activity
Hien and Chinh entered the practicum with conflicting
conceptions of student teaching. In their joint activity system, they
worked towards different objects. Throughout the four teaching
rounds, apparently Hien’s object was student learning, coming
from her strong teacher identity. Hien’s object contradicted Chinh’s
object of faithfulness to lesson plans, resulting from her disposition
as a student. Chinh’s object for her took priority over being flexible
to students’ needs. In the later teaching rounds the contradiction

was partly resolved when Chinh began to realise the need to
develop her role as a teacher and partly transformed her object to
student learning.
From the first teaching round, Hien emphasized teacher
authority, which she wanted. She talked about being flexible with
lesson plans and addressing students’ learning needs. In the second
round, this positioning shaped her definition of collaboration: “The
bottom line [of collaboration] is to achieve the objective of the
lesson.” In round three, her disposition as a teacher was also
demonstrated in the way she helped one student in response to
that student’s need. “I had not expected to spend that much time
helping her with her pronunciation”, said Hien. She appeared
confident and articulate about her role as a teacher, which seemed
to derive from her successful prior teaching experience.

Table 3
Contradictions and occurrences.
Contradiction

Definition

Occurrence

1. Subject e object

Conflicting perceptions of student
teaching: student learning versus
being faithful to the lesson plan
Unequal division of roles and
responsibilities, and unequal

power relationship
Tensions attributed to different
levels of appropriation of pedagogical tools

Lesson 1; Lesson 2; Lesson 3; Lesson 4 (partially resolved)

2. Subject e division of labour

3. Community e mediational tools

Lesson 1; Lesson 2 (partially resolved); Lesson 4 (partially resolved)

Lesson 1; Lesson 2; Lesson 3; Lesson 4


54

Dang T.K.A. / Teaching and Teacher Education 30 (2013) 47e59
Desirable outcomes?
- Student learning
- Teacher learning about teaching
- Good assessment results for the PSTs
- Good collaboration
Mediating tools/ artefacts:
Lesson plans, instructional materials, other
pedagogical tools…

Mediating tools/ artefacts:
Lesson plans, instructional materials, other
pedagogical tools…

Obj 1a

Subject 1:
ST: HIEN

[1]

Obj 1b

[3]

Obj 1b:
TP: faithful
to LP

Obj 1a:
SL - TC

[1]

[3]

Subject 2:
ST: CHINH

[2]
[2]

Rules:
Professional rules

Cultural rules
Class rules
Collaboration rules

Community:
Pair partner
Other peers
Students
Supervising lecturer

ST=Student teacher
TP=Teacher performance

Division of labour:

-Co-planning &

Shared
Object?

Division of labour:

-Co-planning &

teaching

teaching

-Giving comments on

-Giving comments on

LP and lesson

LP and lesson

SL=Student learning
LP=Lesson plan

Community:
Pair partner
Other peers
Students
Supervising lecturer

TC=Teacher collaboration
Obj= Object

Rules:
Class rules
Collaboration rules
Professional rules
Cultural rules

=Contradiction

Fig. 2. Joint activity system of Hien and Chinh (adapted from Engeström, 2001, p. 136; Tsui & Law, 2007, p. 1293).

Unlike Hien, Chinh saw herself as a ‘student’ almost throughout
the practicum. This identity seemed to influence how she perceived

and processed the emotional aspects of the experience. In the first
teaching round, she referred to the university supervising lecturer
as a figure of authority in defining who she was in the practicum:
Ms. Vien (the University lecturer) said, why we are here, we are
here to tutor, not to teach them. We are here to try to help, help
them. (Chinh, Rnd1 Interview, p. 20)
She emphasized that teachers must be faithful to lesson plans.
Student teaching, as she saw it, was performing to the observers of
the lesson, her classmates and the supervising lecturer. In round
three, Chinh still saw teaching from a student’s perspective. She
expressed her concern about being “blamed”, “reprimanded” and
gaining a “bad reputation” if she taught something badly. The
perezhivanie seemed connected to her painful transition into the TE
program, as described earlier. Chinh’s focus appeared to be on
controlling the lesson. She was most comfortable when things went
as planned.
Co-planning the lesson with Hien challenged Chinh’s disposition
as a student. Commenting on the lesson plan, she reluctantly said: “if
it is to help them [the students], the major part should come to the
front, and no need for a warmer”, indicating she was negotiating the
two roles. The dyad’s interactions during co-planning and coteaching appeared to scaffold Chinh’s development of a teacher
identity. In round two, in Chinh’s words, she “just sat and listened
attentively, without noting down details”, so she could provide only
“superficial” feedback to students. Not until Hien started giving
detailed comments, did Chinh comprehend “focusing on key areas
for the students to improve later on”. The incident suggests Chinh
was experiencing a transition from student to teacher, with much
awareness of it when her object inclined towards student learning.
In the last lesson Chinh showed better awareness of the issue, while
still struggling between the two positions:

I realized that I did not put myself completely in the position of
a tutor. It was because I forgot that I should be helping the

students, not testing them. That was why I went through the
lesson so fast and went straight to the exercises. (Chinh, Rnd4
Interview, p. 21)
The excerpt also suggests how her teaching identity influenced
her teaching practice, and the meaning she made of the experience. It shows Chinh’s increased understanding of Hien’s view
that they should divert from the lesson plan if necessary to
facilitate student learning. From an activity theory perspective,
with active pair-work, the object of Chinh’s activity was under
transformation, and a new historical form of activity was in
formation.
4.2. Contradiction between subjects and division of labour in the
community
Hien and Chinh came to pair-work with different perceptions of
it, a difference compounded by the contradictions between objects
in their joint-activity system. These differences created tensions in
both co-planning and co-teaching, manifest in the unequal division
of power and labour between the STs. These contradictions
recurred. Both Hien and Chinh tried to resolve them tactfully. Both
STs developed in this process. Hien learned more about how to
collaborate and developed her identity as colleague/mentor in
relation to Chinh, in addition to her continued teacher identity.
Chinh’s orientation still came from her identity as a student but she
seemed to learn about co-teaching.
4.2.1. Co-planning
The contradiction involving unequal division of power and
labour between the teachers arose in planning for the first teaching
round. They negotiated between their identities as friends and as

colleagues. Hien admitted finding herself dominant in the planning
process. She made final decisions regarding the lesson, while
expecting Chinh to be critical and active in developing Hien’s ideas.
Chinh chose to be low-key. Preferring harmony, a desirable trait of
a Confucian culture, she expressed herself content because they did


Dang T.K.A. / Teaching and Teacher Education 30 (2013) 47e59

not argue much. She recognized, however, that their contributions
to planning were unequal.
Hien was aware of the unequal division of labour and power, and
attempted to resolve it by setting for herself a hidden rule. In
focusing on equal work sharing, she appeared to be developing
a colleague/mentor identity in relation to Chinh. She insisted Chinh
take the lead:
The first time, I presented my ideas first, I still remember that.
Then in the following rounds, I let Chinh speak first. In fact I had
ideas, but after several times working with Chinh, I realized that
she was quite easy. For example, any ideas I proposed she would
ok immediately. So I thought I would let her speak first, then we
both improve the ideas. But not me presenting ideas first. (Hien,
Rnd4 Interview, p. 5)
The journey to resolution was not smooth. In round two, the
contradiction seemed partially resolved when Hien let Chinh lead
the planning. However, after their face-to-face meeting Hien
expressed her dissatisfaction with the agreed plan. She actively
sought advice from other people in improving the lesson. She
suggested major changes in the lesson plan and convinced Chinh to
agree. To Hien, her object of achieving good student learning took

priority over the need to even up the pair work. Her identity as
a teacher again seemed to overwhelm her position as a friend.
Chinh “felt ashamed as Hien made most of the contributions”. The
contradiction recurred.
The contradiction seemed to be resolved in round three when
both Hien and Chinh were equally engaged in planning, despite
their lack of confidence in the subject matter, pronunciation.
Collaboration during planning lessened the challenges in teaching
pronunciation. Hien continued encouraging Chinh to lead coplanning. She described herself as pleased with Chinh’s efforts in
preparing the lesson and giving critical feedback on the pair’s ideas.
Chinh’s engagement with planning had improved. Chinh appeared
happy with the co-planning process, which she believed was equal.
The contradiction recurred in round four, when Chinh’s
engagement subsided. Chinh led the planning but failed to provide
critical comments to develop the lesson. Hien found the materials
prepared by Chinh to be irrelevant. They both looked for other
materials. Hien tried to accommodate Chinh’s involvement in the
planning, but she still played the key role in decision making.
The trajectory of this contradiction in co-planning suggests the
need for collective resolution, not a hidden, individually led resolution. To achieve satisfactory identity formation, what was needed
was mutual awareness and engagement in the collective resolution
of the contradiction. Given the social origin of identity, individuals
with whom a person interacts are significant to the self. They
motivate a person to act and develop in specific directions
(Akkerman & Meijer, 2011). The observation was true of both Hien
and Chinh.
4.2.2. Co-teaching
Two major tensions emerged and recurred during co-teaching
which seemed largely resolved in the later rounds. The way Hien
and Chinh handled these contradictions in the last round was

cognitively and intellectually more advanced than in previous
rounds when their responses were either emotional or spontaneous.
The first contradiction involved the unequal division of labour in
co-teaching, manifest in the STs’ unequal share of teacher talk time.
In the first lesson, Chinh felt the teaching tasks were unequally
divided. She noted the part assigned for Hien took much longer
than planned, which Chinh said made her uncomfortable. She saw
the division of teacher talk time as the indicator of whether the
lesson contributions were equal. She wanted to interrupt Hien but
decided not to. She seemed to be negotiating the tension between

55

her identity as a student (teacher) and identity as a colleague. This
contradiction was manifested in her interpretation of the student
teaching requirements (fair share of teaching time) and her
perception of pair-work (maintain harmony which prohibits
interruption).
In lesson four, Chinh appeared to be more conscious of the
tension. She handled it while increasing her presence in the lesson.
She finally interrupted Hien during a later section:
I was afraid that if Hien had completed that section [on her own],
it would be too long. And so I asked: “Can I help you?”, knowing
the answer would be “Yes”, because by asking that question, I
expressed my need to interrupt, then Hien had to say “Yes”. It
was just because I wanted to avoid solo-teaching, meaning only
one person teaching the lesson. (Chinh, Rnd4, pp. 29e30)
Chinh had prepared her act by reading the part of the lesson that
Hien was leading and carefully planning how best to interrupt. Hien
felt surprised by Chinh’s move but welcomed it. By re-interpreting

past experiences and taking action, Chinh seemed to have resolved
the conflict between two identities and maintained some continuity in her identity formation (Akkerman & Meijer, 2011, p. 313).
The continuity was accompanied by a higher level of cognition
whereby she demonstrated increased awareness of the experience.
The second contradiction was manifested in Hien’s correction of
Chinh’s mistakes. In the first lesson, Hien observed as Chinh was
teaching, and intervened immediately when she felt Chinh’s
instruction was unclear. In the second round, the tension recurred.
However, when reflecting on the incident, Hien found it wrong to
intervene while Chinh was in charge. Her understanding of the
purpose of the lesson (student understanding) conflicted with her
perception of pair-work (the necessity to refrain when there are
problems, typical of Vietnamese culture). Her emotional responses
appeared to be “culturally mediated and appropriated”
(Smagorinsky, 2011, p. 338). Hien recalled the incident:
The words Chinh gave have vowels before /s/ so the letter /s/
must be pronounced as /z/, but she taught it as /s/. I kept on
wondering whether I should join in. Finally, I decided to join in,
but I think yesterday neither they [the students] not everyone
else [my classmates] noticed that I intended to make a correction. In fact I was trying to avoid. correcting each other in front
of the class e something absolutely to avoid. Then I thought to
myself, I looked at the students and they looked confused... They
really looked confused, so I thought I must speak up... (Hien,
Rnd2 Interview, p. 7)
She later explained:
I think, first is to let the students trust the teachers. I hate this
thought but. teachers mostly must not make mistakes. In
general, students will not fully trust teachers if they make
mistakes... However, if I point out my partner’s mistake in front
of everyone, first she will lose face. Second, the students will

question about the tutors: first, the competence of the tutors;
second, they would wonder what kind of cooperation it is that
allows tutors to contrast each other right in class like that... If the
students find out that I pinpointed Chinh’s mistakes, I would not
know what to do. Luckily people did not notice it. I do not want
her to lose face in front of everyone. I need to cooperate well.
(Hien, Rnd2 Interview, p. 9)
The excerpts suggest that Hien was facing a conflict between
different rules internal to the teaching profession. One rule dictates
that teachers must teach correct information. Another rule dictates
that teachers should not be criticized in front of the students.
Keeping each other’s face in public also indicates good


56

Dang T.K.A. / Teaching and Teacher Education 30 (2013) 47e59

collaboration from a Vietnamese cultural perspective. The incident
also reveals Hien’s negotiation between her identity as a teacher
and her identity as a cooperative friend/colleague/team member.
In lesson one Hien corrected Chinh’s mistakes; and it was not
until the second round that she really grasped her dilemma, by
engaging in the experience and (re)-interpreting it. Although the
tension between her two identities was not resolved, by reinterpreting her experience, she was able to access the conceptual tool that helped her make sense of the experience and reduce
its ambiguity (Akkerman & Meijer, 2011).
In response to the incident, Chinh expressed concern about how
the students felt about the incident, and about her:
I was not fully shocked but I found that the students would be
suspicious and would think “as one tutor has corrected like this,

then another has to re-correct for her. Then it means she corrected us wrongly”. I do not know if they thought like that.
Maybe yes. (Chinh, Rnd 2 Interview, p. 11)
Chinh’s identity as a student teacher related to the emotional
response that accompanied her teaching. She seemed more concerned about her students’ judgement of the incident than about
their learning.
In the last lesson, Hien’s internal conflict between the different
professional rules was repeated. Despite her belief that she should
not correct her partner’s mistakes in front of the class to save
Chinh from losing face, she corrected Chinh’s mistake in this
lesson, though in a subtle way. She was able to provide correct
instruction to the students but also keep her partner’s face. The
contradiction seemed largely resolved, in a way that resulted in
less confusion about the act of correction and more awareness of
the collaboration. Hien’s increased understanding informed her
affective reaction to the situation e from having no feeling in
round one, ‘correcting immediately’, to feeling torn in round two, to
being in control and knowing how to intervene in round four. Her
sense of identity as a teacher collaborator also increased during
the process. Her growing understanding and affect to the experience interacted with the learning event and enlarged her ZPD in
the context. Pair-work was both the context and driver of this
process.
4.3. Contradiction between community and mediational tools
Observations and interviews suggested that Hien and Chinh
were at different levels of appropriation of pedagogical tools. The
difference in levels of appropriation explained the contrasting
meanings the STs made of common events, and triggered tensions
in their joint activity. The difference in appropriation seemed to
relate to different identities they brought to pair-work. The
different perezhivanie they experienced was manifested in their
different cognitive and affective response to the same experience.

The tensions however created opportunities for professional
development, especially in Chinh’s case.
In lesson one both STs were aware their students were not
interested in the lesson. Each however gave different explanations,
and approached the problem differently. Chinh tried to make jokes
to get close to the students. She explained that jokes were intended
to create rapport with the students to enable her to understand
their difficulties. She responded to the situation from a learner’s
perspective, drawing on her own experience as a student to make
sense of it. Her approach was an affective one, trying to make the
students feel good and engaged. Hien dealt with the passive class in
a more rational manner, and from a teacher’s position. She believed
the problem was caused by her wrong choice of learning materials.
She modified the tasks, providing suggestions and lowering the
level of requirement.

The use of video clips in lesson three presented different
meanings to Hien and Chinh. Similar to Newell and Connors’s
(2011) study, Chinh’s interview analysis suggested her pseudoconceptual (Vygotsky, 1987) understanding of how to use video
clips in teaching English pronunciation. Her basis for using the
tool was grounded in making the lesson look professional:
“students could see that we have a firm foundation to teach them
pronunciation”. Her focus was more on the credibility of the
lesson and gaining students’ trust rather than on their learning. In
Hien’s interview, however, she demonstrated a more sophisticated understanding of the tool. Hien liked the video files because
she wanted the students to listen to native speakers of English to
help them to communicate in English. Although tools need to be
adapted and tailored to local needs (Athanases et al., 2008; Newell
& Connors, 2011), Hien and Chinh appeared to be at different
levels of appropriation (Grossman et al., 1999) of this particular

tool.
The differences created discomfort and tensions for the teachers
at times but were conducive for teacher learning. Chinh’s appropriation of pedagogical tools suggests she was closely focused on
her own performance. It was still the case in the last lesson:
I was quite nervous at times. In fact the situation was not that
serious to be nervous about. The lesson was to calm down.
Calmly dealing with the situation rather than making students
wonder “Oh, dear! She is not okay today”... I felt quite uneasy
because I made so many mistakes, so that affected the smoothness of the lesson. (Chinh, Rnd4 Interview, p. 17)
The excerpt however also demonstrates her increased awareness of the experience (“the lesson was to calm down”, and “the
situation was not that serious”) in regulating her responses.
Chinh’s perception of lesson planning transformed dramatically
in the last round as a result of working with Hien. She moved from
being faithful to the lesson plan to seeing the significance of being
flexible to address students’ learning. During planning, the materials Chinh had chosen were agreed to be irrelevant and were
replaced by new ones. During teaching, the lesson diverted from
the original plan. They synchronously and spontaneously changed
the last activity. They both took risks. In her reflection of the events,
Chinh commented:
I think Hien just wanted to improve the work, the product. That
explained why we changed activity one, from the other reading
text to this one. Also that explained why our actual follow-up
was different from our planned one. (Chinh, Rnd 4, P. 16)
The decision to change the follow-up activity was like both of us
taking a spontaneous leap at one snap, like taking full risk.
(Chinh, Rnd 4, P. 31)
Chinh became more aware of the rationale behind Hien’s
changes in planning and teaching. She had learned that lesson
plans should not be rigid. She said she was pleased that:
Everything was changed a bit, a lot compared to the plan, but

more effective, I think more effective than in the original plan.
(Chinh, Rnd 4, P. 16)
She realized that the lesson was more effective with the changes
than it would have been if the original plan was followed. Chinh
was starting to mention the “effectiveness of the lesson”, indicating
a shift towards Hien’s position. Vygotsky “posited that children
internalize and transform the help they receive from others and
eventually use these same means of guidance to direct their
subsequent problem-solving behaviours.” (Moll, 1990, p. 11). Coteaching with Hien has provided scaffolding for Chinh’s activities
within the ZPD, as Chinh’s final interview showed.


Dang T.K.A. / Teaching and Teacher Education 30 (2013) 47e59

5. Discussion
The study offers several findings with implications for teacher
education and for developmental research in the sociocultural
activity theory tradition.
5.1. Social relations, contradictions and ZPD
Studies on teacher learning in collaborative settings emphasize
that “when two student teachers disagree there is an enhanced rich
potential for interaction and reflection” (Hargreaves & Jacka, 1995;
Nokes et al., 2008, p. 208). Nokes et al. (2008) reported moments of
tension arising from paired-placed partners’ incompatible
personalities, philosophies of teaching, discipline strategies, and
ideas about instructional activities. They also documented dialogue
and reflection as essential elements of teacher development in
paired-placements. The nature of the tensions in the present study
is distinct from that documented in previous studies (Nokes et al.,
2008), in that the findings show the STs experienced contradictions in their conflicting perceptions of student teaching (subject/

object), the unequal power relationship between them (subject/
division of labour), and differing levels of appropriation of pedagogical tools (community/tools). The present study confirms
previous research in showing that pair-placements constitute an
environment featured by tensions, a key element in teacher
learning (Smagorinsky et al., 2004).
One of the most valuable implications of the findings is the
understanding of how the contradictions emerged, and (some)
were resolved, leading to teacher development. Within the pairplacement setting, the teachers operated within their dynamic
ZPD. The developmental trajectories of the contradictions they
encountered indicate a process of development. As ST awareness
increased, for the most part their contradictions were recognised
and fully or partially resolved. For example, the ways Hien dealt
with correcting her partner’s mistakes in lessons differed across
rounds one, two and four. She also demonstrated growing awareness of what collaboration meant in the contexts of Vietnam and of
professional work. Chinh’s conception of lesson planning changed
during the study, as a result of working with Hien and her observations of Hien’s responses in different pedagogical situations.
Chinh moved from adhering to the lesson plan, as commonly done
by beginning teachers (Edwards, 2005), to admitting satisfaction
when the pair deviated from the plan in response to students’
needs. Pair-work mediated both learning to collaborate with other
teachers and learning to respond to students’ needs. The other
contradictions were not resolved but their trajectory indicates the
developmental potential of activity systems (Engeström, 1987).
In imagining child development and ZPD Vygotsky (1978)
combines forward movement with repetitive cycle. “Development, as so often happens, proceeds here not in a circle but in
a spiral, passing through the same point at each revolution, while
advancing to a higher level” (Vygostky, 1978, p. 56). As Manning
and Payne (1993) remark, “development is not simply quantitative increments but qualitative shifts as the unique past experiences and previous knowledge of individuals interact with the
present learning event” (p. 362). In cases where the two STs faced
similar contradictions several times during the course of the study,

without exception their successive responses indicate a progression through ascending levels of consciousness. Their learning was
not linear but spiral. Their planning, teaching, and reflecting were
increasingly sophisticated. Consider Chinh. Throughout the four
teaching rounds her identity as a student was tied to her relationship with the supervising teacher. This relationship, emotionally and cognitively, reflects a Confucian teacherestudent
relationship typical in Vietnam. This disposition retarded her

57

evolution as an independent practitioner. She talked of being told
to do things and being nervous when making mistakes. However,
pair-work over the four rounds challenged this positioning and
triggered qualitative shifts in her professional identity. She started
to see the need to respond directly to students’ needs (lesson two)
and realised she should exercise her role as a tutor (lesson four). In
the last lesson, she also self-regulated her emotions more effectively e “the situation was not that serious to be nervous about. The
lesson was to calm down” e indicating a shift in cognition and
a stronger teacher identity.
The study also underlines the value of investigating teacher
development in terms of social transactions. Vygotsky emphasized
the central role of social transactions to a ZPD analysis (Moll, 1990).
Social transactions showed repeatedly in the data; for example
Hien’s development of her mentor/colleague identity when interacting with Chinh during co-planning or when correcting Chinh’s
mistakes. The finding is consistent with Cohen’s (2010) that
colleagues are key actors in the formation of professional identity
via collaborative exchanges.
5.2. Identity formation, perezhivanie and ZPD
Student teaching in a pair-placement setting entails a complex
system of relations: with teaching tasks and students; with
supervising teacher and observing peers; and with the pair partner.
Each relationship is associated with perceived rules and ST

responsibilities. For example, as pair-partners, the STs need to
sustain and demonstrate collaboration, as in keeping their partners’
face in public, and their equal contributions to pair-work.
Learning to teach is a process of constructing an identity in the
midst of this system of relations (Smagorinsky et al., 2004). It
means becoming a different person with respect to the responsibilities enabled by the according systems (Lave & Wenger, 1991). An
analytical framework derived from activity theory provides one
apparatus for making sense of ST experience. Pair-placement
provided an environment in which professional identity was
formed while also crystallising the tensions between emergent and
established ST identities.
For Hien there were tensions between her established role as
a teacher, with successful prior teaching experience, and her
emerging identity as a colleague of Chinh. These roles linked to her
emotional and cognitive perceptions of the teaching tasks, relations
to the students, and perceptions of teacher collaboration. Her
contradiction between professional and cultural rules camouflaged
the negotiation of her conflicting identities when working with
Chinh. With Chinh, as discussed, her identity as a student (teacher)
was largely tied to her relationship with her supervising teacher. This
disposition seemed to frame her affect and cognition in the practicum in a certain way. The pair interactions in co-working created
a context in which Chinh’s disposition was challenged. Her identity
as a teacher was emerging, amid negotiation between her identities
as student and colleague. As colleagues, the pair ought to work
towards a shared object, delivering a successful lesson. As suggested
by Akkerman and Meijer (2011), Chinh implicitly constructed and
negotiated her identity in relation to the various people she
encountered, and her community of engagement. Smagorinsky et al.
observe, “one’s identity... is not simply the emergence of internal
traits and dispositions but their development through engagement

with others in cultural practice” (2004, p. 21). The present study over
four consecutive lessons also reveals how the teachers brought prior
elements into the observable systems of relations.
As noted, Smagorinsky emphasizes that emotion and human
development are reciprocally related to one another (2011). In the
present study the teachers’ different identities served as ‘prisms’ in
examining the affective and cognitive relations between the STs


58

Dang T.K.A. / Teaching and Teacher Education 30 (2013) 47e59

and pair-placement environment. As in Vygotsky’s (1994) analysis
of the three children in his lecture on ‘The problem of environment’, Hien and Chinh responded to the same teaching context
differently. They demonstrated different levels of understanding
and made different meanings out of the situation. The differences
were attributed to the varying prior elements Hien and Chinh
brought to the situation and the different identities they drew on.
They had different relations with the settings, demonstrating
distinctly different perezhivanie, which affected their learning
differently. While Hien was confident in her established role as
a teacher, Chinh was often nervous and worried about being reprimanded in her identity as a student. By investigating the negotiation of their multiple identities in context it becomes possible to
understand why they responded differently in pair-placement and
achieved different levels of cognition.
6. Conclusion
This paper began by noting the multiple difficulties for STs in the
traditional practicum. Like other research this study in Vietnam
suggests that pair-placement is a promising model for practicum
reform. It begins to elucidate the process of how teachers mediate

learning to teach in a collaborative setting. Conflicts within the
collaboration, for example as manifest in the negotiation of teachers’
multiple identities as friends, students and becoming teachers,
opened up initial opportunities to learn. Findings from this study
suggest that an individual teacher’s identity influences her/his
cognitive and affective perception of an event. Paired-placement
created an environment whereby the student teachers’ conflicting
identities, associated with different cognitive and affective perceptions of the experience, were challenged, leading to contradictions.
The contradictions in turn enabled the student teachers to work to
resolve these contradictions. Through planned and supervised
collaboration the STs resolved most of the conflicts, leading to qualitative change in their teaching professional identities, though in each
individual case it was rather different. From an activity theoretical
perspective, shared community, past experiences, division of labour,
and potentially shared objects were all part of this process. The study
suggests that more attention needs be paid to the process of collaboration in paired placements, so as to optimize the resolution of
conflict, and to the conditions that affect teacher learning in pairs.
The present study also highlights “the complexity of learning
when thought, emotional experience, and practical action are
brought together in the analysis” (Mahn & John-Steiner, 2008, p.
47). It has done so by combining in its theoretical framework
activity theory and the concepts of contradictions, ZPD and perezhivanie. Both “meaning making and affective aspects of social
interactions affect learning in the ZPD” (p. 50). In addition, the
accounts of Hien’s and Chinh’s identity construction have shed light
on the how and what in the shift of teacher identity formation, a gap
previously identified by Akkerman and Meijer (2011). The study
suggests a new line of inquiry into teacher learning in collaborative
settings capable of many further applications.
Acknowledgements
This research was funded by a doctoral scholarship from The
University of Melbourne. The preparation of this manuscript was

supported by a grant from Melbourne Graduate School of Education, The University of Melbourne.
References
Akkerman, S. F., & Meijer, P. C. (2011). A dialogical approach to conceptualizing
teacher identity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(2), 208e319.

Alsup, J. (2006). Teacher identity discourses: Negotiating personal and professional
spaces. Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Athanases, S., Abrams, J., Jack, G., Johnson, V., Kwock, S., McCurdy, J., et al. (2008).
Curriculum for mentor development: problems and promise in the work of new
teacher induction leaders. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 40(6), 743e770.
Bakhurst, D. (2009). Reflections on activity theory. Educational Review, 61(2),
197e210.
Barab, S. A., Evans, M. A., & Baek, E.-U. (2004). Activity theory as a lens for characterizing the participatory unit. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on
educational communication and technology (2nd ed.). (pp. 199e214) Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Beijaard, D., Meijer, P., & Verloop, N. (2004). Reconsidering research on teachers’
professional identity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(2004), 107e128.
Bullough, R. V., Jr., Young, J., Birrell, J. R., Clark, D. C., Egan, M. W., & Erickson, L.
(2003). Teaching with a peer: a comparison of two models of student teaching.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 57e73.
Bullough, R. V., Jr., Young, J., Erickson, L., Birrell, J. R., Clark, D. C., & Egan, M. W.
(2002). Rethinking field experience: partnership teaching versus singleplacement teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 68e80.
Center for Activity Theory and Developmental Work Research. (2003). Cultural
historical activity theory. Retrieved on 02.12.08, from. sinki.
fi/activity/pages/chatanddwr/chat/.
Cohen, J. L. (2010). Getting recognized: teachers negotiating professional identities
as learners through talk. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(2010), 473e481.
Cross, R. (2006). Language teaching as activity: A sociocultural perspective on second
language teacher practice. Unpublished PhD thesis. Monash University.
Cross, J. (2009). The development of metacognition of L2 listening: A neo-Vygotskian

joint activity analysis. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Melbourne, Melbourne.
Dang, T. K. A. (2012). Impact of globalization on ELT pre-service teacher education in
a Vietnamese context: a sociocultural perspective. In C. Gitsaki, & R. Baldauf
(Eds.), The Future of Applied Linguistics: Local and Global Perspectives (pp. 140e
157). Newcastle upon Tyne, England: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Dang, T. K. A., & Marginson, S. (2012). Global learning through the lens of Vygotskian sociocultural theory. Critical Studies in Education, 1e17. />10.1080/17508487.2012.722557.
Do, H. T. (1999). Foreign language education policy in Vietnam: the emergence of
English and its impact on higher education. In Paper presented at the fourth
international conference on language and development: Partnership and interaction, Hanoi, Vietnam.
Edwards, A. (2005). Relational agency: learning to be a resourceful practitioner.
International Journal of Educational Research, 43(3), 168e182.
Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to
developmental research. Retrieved 02.12.08, from. />Paper/Engestrom/expanding/toc.htm.
Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In
Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R.-L. Punamaki-Gitai (Eds.), Perspectives on activity
theory: Learning in doing (pp. 19e38). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: toward an activity theoretical
reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133e156.
Engeström, Y. (2008a). From teams to knots: Activity-theoretical studies of collaboration and learning at work. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Engeström, Y. (2008b). Crossing boundaries in teacher teams. In Y. Engeström (Ed.),
From teams to knots: Activity-theoretical studies of collaboration and learning at
work (pp. 86e117). Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.
Feiman-Nemser, S. (2008). Teacher learning: how do teachers learn to teach? In
M. Cochran-Smith, S. Feiman-Nemser, D. J. McIntyre, & K. Demers (Eds.),
Handbook of research on teacher education: Enduring questions in changing
contexts (3rd ed.). (pp. 697e705) New York: Routledge and the Association of
Teacher Educators.
Ferholt, B. (2010). A synthetic-analytic method for the study of perezhivanie:
Vygotsky’s literary analysis applied to playworlds. In M. C. Connery, V. JohnSteiner, & A. Marjanovic-Shane (Eds.), Vygotsky and creativity: A culturalhistorical approach to play, meaning making, and the arts (pp. 163e180). New

York: Peter Lang.
Gardiner, W., & Robinson, K. S. (2009). Paired field placements: a means for
collaboration. The New Educator, 5, 81e94.
Grossman, P. L., Smagorinsky, P., & Valencia, S. (1999). Appropriating tools for
teaching English: a theoretical framework for research on learning to teach.
American Journal of Education, 108(1), 1e29.
Hargreaves, A., & Jacka, N. (1995). Induction or seduction? Postmodern patterns of
preparing to teach. Peabody Journal of Education, 70(3), 41e63.
Heidorn, B., Jenkins, D. B., Harvey, R., & Mosier, B. (2011). The effectiveness of using
paired placements for student teaching. In Paper presented at the annual meeting
of the National Association for Physical Education/American Association for Health,
Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, in San Diego, CA, March 2011.
Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis.
Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277e1288.
Ilyenkov, E. (1977). Dialectical logic: Essays in its history and theory (Trans. by H.
Campbell Creighton). Moscow: Progress.
Johnson, K. E. (1996). The vision versus the reality: the tensions of the TESOL
practicum. In D. Freeman, & J. Richards (Eds.), Teacher learning in language
teaching (pp. 30e49). Cambridge [Eng.] & New York: Cambridge University
Press.


Dang T.K.A. / Teaching and Teacher Education 30 (2013) 47e59
Junor Clarke, P., & Fournillier, J. (2012). Action research, pedagogy, and activity
theory: tools facilitating two instructors’ interpretations of the professional
development of four preservice teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education,
28(2012), 649e660.
Kelchtermans, G., & Hamilton, M. L. (2004). The dialectics of passion and theory:
Exploring the relationship between self-study and emotion. In J. J. Loughran,
M. L. Hamilton, V. Kubler LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International Handbook of

Self-study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices (pp. 785e810). Dordrecht,
Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
King, S. (2006). Promoting paired placements in initial teacher education. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 15(4), 370e386.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mahn, H., & John-Steiner, V. (2008). The gift of confidence: a Vygotskian view of
emotions. In G. Wells, & G. Claxton (Eds.), Learning for life in the 21st century:
Sociocultural perspectives on the future of education (pp. 46e58). Oxford, UK:
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 10.1002/9780470753545.ch4.
Manning, B. H., & Payne, B. D. (1993). A Vygotskian-based theory of teacher
cognition: towards the acquisition of metal reflection and self-regulation.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 9(1993), 361e371.
McKeon, F. (2006). Partnerships within a paired teaching placement and support for
the trainee teachers’ professional development. In Paper presented at the 31st
annual conference of Association for Teacher Education in Europe, Slovenia,
October 2006.
Minick, N. (1985). L.S. Vygotsky and soviet activity theory: New perspectives on the
relationship between mind and society. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.
Moll, L. C. (1990). Introduction. In L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of sociohistorical psychology (pp. 1e30).
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Newell, G., & Connors, S. (April 2011). “Why to you think that?” A supervisor’s
mediation of a preservice English teacher’s understanding of instructional
scaffolding. English Education, 43(3), 219e224.
Nguyen, T. M. H., & Nguyen, Q. T. (2007). Teaching English in primary schools in
Vietnam: an overview. Current Issues in Language Planning, 8(2), 162e173.
Nokes, J. D., Bullough, R. V., Jr., Egan, M. W., Birrell, J. R., & Hansen, J. M. (2008). The
paired-placement of student teachers: an alternative to traditional placements
in secondary schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 2168e2177.
Nunan, D. (1992). Research methods in language learning. Cambridge; New York, NY,

USA: Cambridge University Press.
Roth, M.-W. (2012). Cultural-historical activity theory: Vygotsky’s forgotten and
suppressed legacy and its implication for mathematics education. Mathematics
Education Research Journal, 24, 87e104.
Roth, M.-W., & Tobin, K. (2002). Redesigning an “urban” teacher education program:
an activity theory perspective. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 9(2), 108e131.

59

Smagorinsky, P. (2009). The culture of Vygotsky. Reading Research Quarterly, 44,
85e95.
Smagorinsky, P. (2011). Vygotsky’s stage theory: the psychology of art and the
actor under the direction of perezhivanie. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 18(4),
319e341.
Smagorinsky, P., Cook, L. S., Jackson, A. Y., Moore, C., & Fry, P. G. (2004). Tensions in
learning to teach: accommodation and the development of a teaching identity.
Journal of Teacher Education, 55, 8e24.
Smagorinsky, P., Lakly, A., & Johnson, T. (2002). Acquiescence, accommodation, and
resistance in learning to teach within a prescribed curriculum. English Education, 34(3), 187e213.
Smith, J. D. H. (2004). Developing paired teaching placements. Educational Action
Research, 12(1), 99e125.
Sorensen, P. (2004). Learning to teach collaboratively: the use of subject pairs in
school practicum. Canadian Journal of Education Administration and Policy, 32,
1e24.
Storch, N. (2004). Using activity theory to explain differences in patterns of
dyadic interactions in an ESL class. The Canadian Modern Language Review,
60, 457e480.
Tsui, A., & Law, D. (2007). Learning as boundary-crossing in school-university
partnership. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 1289e1301.
Vickery, R., Sharrock, J., Hurst, R., & Broadbridge, J. (2011). What models of paired

trainee placements in secondary ICT departments provide the kind of environment that enhances the quality of the placement and improves the mentoring process? In Paper presented at the BERA conference, Institute of Education,
London, September 2011.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thinking and speech. (N. Minick, Trans.). (Orig. 1934). In
R. W. Rieber, & A. S. Carton (Eds.), The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky. Problems of
general psychology, Vol. 1 (pp. 37e285). New York: Plenum Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1994). The problem of the environment. In R. van der Veer, &
J. Valsiner (Eds.), The Vygotsky reader (pp. 338e354). Oxford: Blackwell
Publishers, Retrieved from. />1934/environment.htm.
Westheimer, J. (2008). Learning among colleagues: teacher community and the
shared enterprise of education. In M. Cochran-Smith, S. Feiman-Nemser, &
D. J. McIntyre (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education: Enduring
questions in changing contexts (3rd ed.). (pp. 756e783) New York: Routledge
and the Association of Teacher Educators.
Yamagata-Lynch, L. (2010). Activity systems analysis methods: Understanding complex
learning environments. New York: Springer.
Yamagata-Lynch, L., & Haudenschild, M. (2009). Using activity systems analysis to
identify inner contradictions in teacher professional development. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 25(2009), 507e517.