Teaching and Teacher Education 67 (2017) 316e329

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

Exploring contextual factors shaping teacher collaborative learning in

a paired-placement
Dang Thi Kim Anh*
Monash University Office of Learning and Teaching, Monash University, Level 3, Building B, Caulfield Campus, Caulfield East, VIC, 3145, Australia

h i g h l i g h t s

The study examined contextual factors shaping teacher learning in paired-placement.

Multi-layered forces were found to shape teacher collaborative learning.

Factors deriving from immediate and broader contexts influenced teacher learning.

Vygotskian tradition was effective in revealing the complexity of the context.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper examines contextual factors shaping teacher learning in a paired-placement teaching prac-
Received 5 August 2016 ticum in Vietnam. The study draws on third generation activity theory and Vygotsky's concepts of
Received in revised form mediation and genetic method to conceptualise ‘context’ and how context shapes learning. Multi-layered
4 June 2017
forces were found to shape the pre-service teachers' learning to teach in their paired-placement. These
Accepted 11 June 2017
forces include the teachers' prior experience, the shift to unconventional teaching, the teacher education
programmatic features, and other sociocultural aspects. Beyond reporting the contextual factors influ-
encing teacher learning, the study offers a novel approach to conceptualising and contextualising teacher
Keywords:
Teacher learning
learning in such collaborative settings.
Contextual factor © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Paired-placement
Teacher collaboration
Sociocultural activity theory
Vietnam
Vygotsky

1. Background and introduction
Current research worldwide continues highlighting the signifi-
cance of teacher professional experience, also known as teacher
placement, in initial teacher education (ITE) programs and the need
to reform ITE (see e.g., Bullock & Russell, 2010; Le Cornu, 2016).
Drawing on the survey data from over 1000 preservice teachers'
(hereafter ‘PSTs’ or simply ‘teachers’) in the United States, Ronfeldt
and Reininger (2012) found that whilst the duration of teacher
placement bears little effect, the quality of teacher placement has
“significant and positive effects” on teacher outcomes (p. 1091).
Much ITE reform has indeed been intended to improve the quality
* Monash University Office of Learning and Teaching, Level 3, Building B, Caul-
field Campus, PO Box 197, 900 Dandenong Road, Caulfield East, VIC, 3145, Australia.
E-mail addresses: kimanh.dang@monash.edu, dangthikimanh@gmail.com.
of teacher placement (Nokes, Bullough, Egan, Birrell, & Hansen,
2008; Ronfeldt & Reininger, 2012), through the introduction of
innovative approaches to teacher placement, rather than simply
extending its duration.
Traditionally, a PST is typically placed individually in a class-
room under the supervision of a cooperating teacher. This form of
single-placement has been found to present multiple difficulties for
PSTs (Bullough et al., 2003), who often experience isolation due to a
lack of support and lack of knowledge about their students. Often
individually-placed PSTs must focus on survival rather than
learning (Bullough et al., 2003; Westheimer, 2008). Bullock and
Russell (2010) argue that this apprenticeship model of teacher
placement is “inherently limited” (p. 91).
Alternative professional experience models, especially those
inspired by collaborative learning, have been developed (Baeten &
Simons, 2014) to partly address the growing need for reform. These
include paired-placements (Cross & Dunn, 2016; Lang, Neal,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.06.008
0742-051X/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 T.K.A. Dang / Teaching and Teacher Education 67 (2017) 316e329
Karvouni, & Chandler, 2015; Rodgers & Jenkins, 2010; Sorensen,
2014). Within the present study, the term ‘paired-placement’ re-
fers to the model where PSTs work together in pairs “in the same
classroom, receiving joint mentoring, while sharing the timetable
and collaborating in planning, teaching, and assessing pupils' work”
(Carter, 2004, in King, 2006, p. 371).
Emerging studies on paired-placements highlight multiple
benefits for teacher and student learning (e.g., Bullough, Egan, &
Nokes, 2010; Heidorn, Jenkins, Harvey, & Mosier, 2011; Lang
et al., 2015), whilst also revealing the tensions and challenges
resulting from being placed with a peer (Dang, 2013; Gardiner &
Robinson, 2011; Nokes et al., 2008). Research also acknowledges
the role of context in the success (or not) of paired-placements (e.g.,
Manouchehri, 2002; Vickery, Sharrock, Hurst, & Broadbridge,
2011). An in-depth understanding of the context of teacher
learning in paired-placements can help to reveal the shaping forces
of teacher learning in this context, and inform successful imple-
mentation of paired-placement models.
Notably, paired-placement research has mainly focused on
micro-meso levels of interactions between partners in paired-
placements and within ITE programs and school-university links.
Systematic research focusing on the broader meso-macro context is
missing in the paired-placement research to date. Few extant
research, however, alludes to the influence of a broader meso-
macro context on the success of this model. For instance, Lang
et al.’s recent study (2015) suggests in the limitations of their study
that cultural and structural challenges, beyond the ITE program and
school context, play a part in the uptake of the paired-placement
model among the PSTs in Australia. While the role of the macro-
level context in PSTs' professional experience in general ITE has
been well documented (see e.g., Knoblauch & Hoy, 2008; Le Cornu,
2016; Nuttall, Brennan, Zipin, Tuinamuana, & Cameron, 2013; Phan
& Locke, 2015), it is not the case with paired-placement research.
Nascent research in second language teacher education (SLTE),
the academic discipline of the paired-placement under examina-
tion in this study, has explored collaborative models such as peer
mentoring and co-teaching (e.g., Johnston, 2009; Nguyen &
Hudson, 2012). Although paired-placement is gaining popularity
in general ITE as discussed, this has yet to become the case in SLTE.
The literature shows that second language teacher learning is a
complex developmental process (Johnson, 1996; Le Cornu, 2005)
influenced by multiple factors. Prior elements include teachers’
previous language learning experiences (Feryok, 2012; Schultz,
2003; Ve
lez-Rendo
n, 2006), their prior beliefs of language
learning and teaching (Chan, Tan, & Khoo, 2007), and early teaching
experience (Borg, 2009). Another prominent theme is contextual
factors (Burns & Richards, 2009; Schultz, 2003), including the ef-
fects of school institutional context and broader educational, socio-
cultural-economic-political context on English teacher develop-
ment (Dang & Marginson, 2013; Xu, 2013).
Although context is acknowledged as shaping teacher learning,
in both SLTE and paired-placement research, context at the meso-
macro levels is often understood as “backdrop” rather than
“interlocutor” of teacher learning, to borrow Freeman’s (2002, p. 5)
words. As in SLTE research (see Cross, 2010), in paired-placement
research, context has yet to be specifically and adequately
addressed in terms of its impact on teacher learning. The notion of
context has often been defined on the basis of “researchers' sub-
jective, arbitrary judgements rather than a sound theory of what
context is and how it affects practice” (Cross, 2006, p. 69).
The purpose of the present study is to better understand
contextual factors that shape teacher learning in paired-placement
in an English as a Second Language (ESL) teacher education context.
It addresses the question: ‘What contextual factors shape teacher
learning in the paired-placement?’, taking into account the
317
multiple contextual layers, including the meso-macro level. This
study adopts a combined theoretical framework of Vygotsky's so-
ciocultural theory and third generation activity theory to investi-
gate contextual factors that shape the learning of four pairs of
Vietnamese pre-service teachers of English over their 15-week
paired-placement. This theoretical framework, elaborated in Sec-
tion 2, is chosen for its capacity to conceptualise ‘context’ and
teacher learning (as a process), and how context shapes learning.
This study also draws on contemporary ITE literature in viewing
teacher learning as socially situated (Grossman, Hammerness, &
McDonald, 2009; Korthagen, 2010), emphasising the role of
teacher participation in social practices, especially in school set-
tings, on teacher learning. Teacher learning, as a product, encom-
passes growth in teacher professional knowledge and skill
(Shulman, 1987), a focus on student learning as a teacher (Fuller,
1974), and collegial collaboration (Gardiner & Robinson, 2011; Le
Cornu & Ewing, 2008) e key components developed in teacher
preparation. Grossman et al. (2009) maintain that engagement in
teaching practice helps novices “assume the role and persona of the
teacher while receiving feedback on their early efforts to enact a
practice” (p. 283).
2. Theoretical framework
A combined framework of Vygotsky’s (1978, 1981) sociocultural
€ m, 1987, 2008)
theory and third generation activity theory (Engestro
is adopted in this study to conceptualise teacher learning and ex-
plores how context shapes teacher learning in the paired-
placement. The extant research on paired-placement mainly
documented tensions and challenges in pair-placement as
obstructive to teacher learning. From a sociocultural activity
perspective, the study however views contradictions as sources of
change and development. It conceptualises tensions in terms of
systemic contradictions in the pair-work and learning is contingent
on the resolution of contradictions. At the heart of the framework
are Vygotsky's concepts of mediation by tools and artefacts, genetic
method, and third generation activity theory.
2.1. Mediation
Vygotsky's sociocultural theory recognises the central role of
culturally constructed tools and artefacts, in the context of social
relations, in mediating human forms of thinking and development
(Vygotsky, 1978, 1981). Vygotsky saw “the transformation of
elementary [mental] processes into higher order ones [such as
learning to teach] as possible through the mediating function of
culturally constructed artefacts, including tools, symbols, and more
elaborate sign systems, such as language” (Lantolf & Appel, 1994, p.
6). Mediation by artefacts “breaks down the Cartesian walls that
isolate the individual mind from the culture and the society”
(Engestro€m, 1999, p. 29), creating the link between subject and
society.
In the present study, the PSTs' principal mediating artefacts are
pedagogical tools, comprised of conceptual tools and practical tools
(Grossman, Smagorinsky, & Valencia, 1999). Conceptual tools refer
to the general principles, frameworks, or guidelines that teachers
use to guide their decisions about teaching and learning, such as
learning theories and philosophical views of schooling. Practical
tools refer to concrete practices and strategies that teachers can
enact in classrooms to address the needs of students. Arguably, in a
paired-placement context partner discourse is another source of
artefacts that mediate teacher professional learning. However,
employment of these tools and artefacts cannot be understood
outside the broader socio-cultural-historical context in which they
are used. Here Vygotsky’s (1981) genetic method provides a
318 T.K.A. Dang / Teaching and Teacher Education 67 (2017) 316e329
theorisation of the contextual framework.
2.2. Genetic method
As culturally constructed tools and artefacts are transferred
from one generation to the next, Vygotsky reasoned that the only
adequate approach to the study of higher mental abilities was
historical (Lantolf, 2000).
His genetic method is a means for genotypic, or explanatory,
research (Lantolf & Appel, 1994) that introduces a “historical point
of view into the investigation of behaviour” (Vygotsky, 1981, p. 141).
Vygotsky's concept of genetic method identified “four general
fundamental genetic stages through which behavioral develop-
ment passes” (Vygotsky, 1981, p. 156). These stages include the
phylogenetic domain (humans undergoing natural evolution), the
cultural-historical domain (the social settings of human activity),
the ontogenetic domain (the individual lifespan) and the micro-
genetic domain (immediate events) (Fig. 1). The four horizontal
lines correspond to four domains of genesis with each lower level
embedded in the level above it (Cole & Engestro € m, 1993). Activity in
one domain continuously interacts with activity in the other do-
mains. The ellipse running vertically through the figure is the event
under analysis. Vygotsky considers this unified genetic scheme as
embracing “both everyday human behaviour and the history of its
development” (Vygotsky, 1981, p. 156).
The genetic method, predicated on the notion of mediation,
echoes Freeman's (2002) view of context as “an interlocutor” in the
development of teacher professional knowledge (p. 5). The link
between the ontogenetic and microgenetic domains seems to
reflect the idea of the continuum of teacher learning (Schwille,
Dembele, & Schubert, 2007; Villegas-Reimers, 2003), starting
from the ‘apprenticeship of observation’ (Lortie, 1975) as a student,
through to initial teacher education, and taking into account the
longitudinal contexts of teachers' life histories (Freeman, 1996; Lee
& Schallert, 2016). The link between the cultural-historical domain
and other domains can be used to systematically capture the impact
of “the macro societal conditions and the micro-contexts provided
by school cultures” (Avalos, 2011, p. 12) on teacher learning at the
microgenetic level. At the microgenetic level of development, third
generation activity theory contributes to further conceptualising
Physical Time
Phylo Time
Cult-Hist Time
Ontogeny
Microgenesis
Fig. 1. Sociocultural theoretical domains of genetic analysis.
Cole & Engestro € m, 1993, p. 20.
teacher learning in paired-placements.
2.3. Third generation activity theory
Activity theory is predicated on the idea of mediation that is
fundamental to Vygotsky's sociocultural theory (Engestro € m, 1999,
2001). Activity theory explores the ways sociocultural and histori-
cal contexts shape human activity. Various strands evolved within
the tradition, attributed to divergent readings and developments of
the foundational Russian works (see Bakhurst, 2009; Edwards &
Daniels, 2004; Engestro € m, 1999). The research design used in the
present study draws largely on Engestro €m’s (1987, 1999, 2001,
2008) works, especially on third generation activity theory. Third
generation activity theory (Engestro € m, 1987, 2008) helps to
conceptualise learning to teach as an activity, and learning to teach
in pairs as a joint-activity, embedded within its broader socio-
cutural and historical contexts. The third generation model in-
cludes at least two activity systems with a potentially shared object
(Fig. 2). Components of an activity system are explained in Table 1,
illustrated by categories from the data set of the present study.
The present study conceptualises the PSTs' co-teaching/co-
planning in pairs as a joint-activity system (see Fig. 2), embedded
in their broader sociocultural historical context. Joint-activity, as a
system, provides a systematic and methodological approach for
analysing teacher learning at the microgenetic level; namely, the
actual instances of co-planning/co-teaching within each teaching
round. The study views ‘systemic contradictions’ or tensions in the
pair-work as sources of change and development. Contradictions
are defined as tensions between two or more components of the
activity system; once resolved, they can transform the activity
system, leading to learning and development (Engestro € m, 1987,
2008).
3. Method
3.1. Context and participants
The present study constitutes part of a larger research project on
the professional learning of a cohort of 20 PSTs of English in a
special ITE program, also called the fast-track English language
 T.K.A. Dang / Teaching and Teacher Education 67 (2017) 316e329 319

Desirable outcomes?
- Student learning
- Teacher learning about teaching
- Good assessment results for the PSTs
- Good collaboration
Mediating tools/ artefacts: Mediating tools/ artefacts:
Lesson plans, instructional materials, other Lesson plans, instructional materials, other
pedagogical tools… pedagogical tools…

Obj 1a Obj 1b

Subject 1: PST 1 Obj 1b:

Obj 1a: Subject 2: PST 2

Rules:
Rules: Community: Division of labour: Division of labour: Community:
Shared Class rules
Pair partner Pair partner
Professional rules
Other peers
-Co-planning & Object?
-Co-planning &
Other peers
Collaboration rules
Cultural rules teaching teaching Professional rules
Class rules Supervising lecturer Supervising lecturer
Cultural rules
Collaboration rules -Giving comments on -Giving comments on
LP and lesson LP and lesson

LP=Lesson plan Obj= Object PST= Preservice teacher

Fig. 2. Activity theoretical model of learning to teach through pair-work.

Dang, 2013, adapted from Engestro € m, 2001, p. 136; Tsui & Law, 2007, p. 1293.

Table 1
Components of an activity system.

Component Definition from an activity theory perspective Categories from the data set of the present study

Subject Within an activity system, the subject is a person or group
with agency (Engestro€ m, 2001), acting toward the object.
Object The object reflects the orientation of the subject's activity,
derived from the motive to achieve an outcome (Engestro € m,
1987).
Mediational Tools & Artefacts The subject uses mediating tools/artefacts to act on the
object.
In Fig. 2 the mediated relationship between subject and object occurs within a sociocultural context comprised of the
community, rules and division of labour.
Community The community refers to the broader community regulating
the performance of a pre-service teacher's activity.
Rules The rules refer to the explicit and implicit rules that
regulated the activity.
Division of Labour Division of labour refers to work relationships and power
relationships between members of the community.
The subject is the preservice teacher whose activity is
embedded in the sociocultural historical context within
which he/she teaches and learns to teach (Fig. 2).
The object of the PST's activity could be students; teacher
learning about teaching; or teacher collaboration. The
desirable outcomes could include: student learning, good
assessment results for the PSTs, and good collaboration
(Fig. 2).
The mediational tools and artefacts the PSTs use could
include lesson plans, video clips and other pedagogical tools
(Fig. 2).
The community includes her pair partner, other PSTs peers
in her cohort and the supervising lecturer.
In this context, rules include (see Fig. 2):
Professional rules refer to expectations for a teacher, such as
giving correct instruction, or teacher's individual autonomy
in running a class.
Cultural rules may refer to expectations to keep face for
partner, maintain harmony and avoid direct confrontation.
Class rules may refer to the expectations for the lesson to be
co-taught by pairs.
Collaboration rules refer to expectations, such as sharing
equal responsibilities and roles between partners or polite
turn taking during the co-taught lesson.
Division of labour refers to PST's perceptions of self and
partner's roles and responsibilities in the pair-work and
power relationship between pair partners and others in the
community. For example, peers and supervisors are
expected to give comments on co-taught lesson plans and
the lessons (Fig. 2).

teacher education (ELTE) program, at a Vietnamese university
(henceforth the ‘Vietnamese University’ to preserve anonymity).
Unlike typical TE programs in Vietnam, lecturers in this fast-track
program, mainly Western trained, were given autonomy to
develop syllabi, assessment tools, and update teaching materials.
The author was one of the teacher educators in the program, fully
released from work to conduct this study. The author has not been
involved in any teaching or academic supervision of any of the 20
PSTs.
To qualify for this program, the PSTs passed a placement test and
320 T.K.A. Dang / Teaching and Teacher Education 67 (2017) 316e329

Table 2
Participants.

Pair Name Age Years of English learning English-related work experience

PST Pair 1 V^
an 21 13 Private one-on-one English tutor
Thảo 20 9 Assistant teacher at an English language centre (ELC)
& teacher of IELTS & English to tertiary students
Pair 1's initial interactions are found typical of an expert/novice pair described in the literature on pair-work (J. Cross, 2009; Storch, 2001).
Thảo appeared to be in the expert role, while Va ^n seemed to be the novice. Their dyadic features show the dominant partner acting in the role
of expert and attempting to involve the less knowledgeable partner in the activity (Storch, 2001). The expert “makes many decisions and
offers help which the ‘novice’ learner usually accepts” (J. Cross, 2009, p. 149). The novice's contributions are also important in this interaction (Storch, 2001).
PST Pair 2 Ng^an 21 13 English tutor for tertiary students & ELT teacher at an ELC

Ha 20 12 Private one-on-one English tutor & volunteer in
international public events
Pair 2's interactions are generally found typical of a collaborative pair described in the literature on pair-work (J. Cross, 2009; Storch, 2001).
Their dyadic interaction patterns show that “both participants contribut[ed] to the task, treating the task as a joint responsibility”
(Storch, 2001, p. 362). Within this collaborative pair, they combined “resources to negotiate and resolve issues and make decisions”;
and both generally “contribute equally to all aspects of the task” (J. Cross, 2009, p. 149).
PST Pair 3 Hie
^ền 21 10 Assistant teacher at an ELC & private English tutor
Chinh 21 10 Assistant teacher at an ELC & private English tutor
Pair 3's interactions in the early teaching rounds were typical of a dominant/passive pair as described in the literature on pair-work
(J. Cross, 2009; Storch, 2001). In their dyadic interaction patterns Hi^e largely monopolized the task, treating it very much as her
ền
own responsibility. The ‘dominant’ partner made nearly all decisions. Chinh played a relatively passive role, acquiescing to her partner's domination.
PST Pair 4 Mai 21 11 Private one-on-one English tutor
Huệ 21 13 Private one-on-one English tutor
Pair 4's interactions in the early teaching rounds were typical of a dominant/dominant pair as described in the literature on pair-work
(J. Cross, 2009; Storch, 2001). This included a lack of (productive) engagement with each other's ideas and suggestions (Storch, 2001).
Within a dominant/dominant pair, “each learner offers assistance with the task which is often ignored; one learner attempts to control and
direct the task but is resisted by the other learner; [and] decision making is also marked with disputes” (J. Cross, 2009, p. 149).

an interview in English. Every year around 400 students enrolled in
the Bachelor of ELT; only 20e25 students qualified for this fast-
track course. The four-year course adopted an English-medium-
instruction approach and focused on developing learner auton-
omy and collaboration. The PSTs were often required to complete
group assignments in English. In their final year, they were placed
in pairs to teach English to first and second year mainstream stu-
dents. Notably, this placement model had been in place at the
Vietnamese University for eight years prior to the research, though
it had not been implemented elsewhere in Vietnam.
The paired-placement under examination in this study lasted 15
weeks. The PSTs, who were paired by ballot, worked together to
plan and teach lessons. All pairs chose to meet face-to-face with
their partner to co-plan their lessons. Each pair co-taught four
lessons under the supervision of one university lecturer in a joint-
mentoring arrangement. The supervision support included feed-
back and advice either verbally or via email to pairs on their lesson
plans prior to instruction. The supervising lecturer also provided
feedback to the teaching pair in debriefing sessions involving the
entire PSTs cohort after each lesson. Studying together in the TE
program for 3 years, PST peers knew each other well and provided
mutual support upon request by giving advice on each other's
lesson plans prior to instruction.
All the lessons were observed and assessed by their supervisor
and the other PSTs in the cohort based on assessment rubrics (see
Appendix A). These rubrics were intended to evaluate PSTs' per-
formance individually according to multiple criteria, including their
capacity to manage time, set and achieve the lesson's goals, and
collaborate with partners. During co-taught lessons, the supervisor
and PST peers observed the lesson, using the rubrics to guide their
observation. At the follow-up debriefing session, the supervisor
asked the teaching pair to reflect and comment on their own lesson.
Their observing peers and the supervisor then provided further
feedback on the lesson and performance of individual PSTs, against
criteria in the assessment rubrics.
For the purpose of this paper, four pairs were selected as case
studies for close analysis. Four cases was appropriate (Stake, 2005)
for the nature of this research, which aims for in-depth under-
standing of the contextual factors that shaped PSTs’ collaborative
learning rather than generalising the findings statistically. Table 2
provides summary profiles of the research participants. Participa-
tion in the research was voluntary. All names are pseudonyms, to
ensure participant anonymity. These pairs were selected because
their interactions were sufficiently complex and varied to allow a
wide range of developmental aspects to be explored. They were
also representative of the cohort in terms of gender, background,
including prior teaching experience, and length of participation in
the ITE program. They were all female, in their early twenties
during the study and had proceeded together in the same cohort in
the ITE program for three years. These four pairs initially demon-
strated dynamics similar to the four patterns of dyadic interaction
and characteristics identified in work on peer learning by Storch
(2001) and J. Cross (2009): expert/novice, collaborative, domi-
nant/passive, and dominant/dominant.
3.2. Data collection
In adopting a Vygotskian framework of genetic analysis, the
present study seeks to understand the teachers' current experience
(their activity at the microgenetic level) on the basis of its historic
antecedents. First, this means having to understand the social,
cultural, and historic context of their co-planning/co-teaching
joint-activity. This understanding constitutes the broader
cultural-historical domain in which the activity at the microgenetic
level, the events of analysis, emerges. Second, it means having to
understand the PSTs’ ontogenesis (their individual histories, back-
grounds, and experiences) in relation to teaching and learning
English, and working in small groups or pairs. Therefore data
collection incorporated three of the four Vygotskian genetic do-
mains, the cultural-historical, ontogenetic, and microgenetic do-
mains, and interrelations between these domains.
Fieldwork commenced after receiving approval from the
designated Human Research Ethics Committee. Prior to data
collection, PSTs were clearly informed of the research aims, the
nature of their participation, and its possible impact on them,
verbally and in writing. To guard against coerced participation, PSTs
were assured participation was totally voluntary, and non partici-
pation had no implications for their academic results.
 T.K.A. Dang / Teaching and Teacher Education 67 (2017) 316e329
Table 3
Data sources and focus of data collection and analysis.
Genetic domains Data sources
Ontogenetic Pre-interviews with individual PSTs
(N ¼ 8)
Microgenetic Post-teaching interviews with individual PSTs
Ontogenetic (N ¼ 32)
Microgenetic Classroom observations
(N ¼ 16; 16 h)
Microgenetic Video-recordings of pairs' lessons
(N ¼ 16; 16 h)
Microgenetic Video-recordings of pairs' co-planning meetings
(N ¼ 16; about 32 h)
Microgenetic Artefacts (lesson plans, instructional materials,
email correspondence between partners
when planning lessons, etc.)
Cultural-historic Artefacts (relevant policy documents and reports
relating to the teacher education program)
Cultural-historic Artefacts (relevant policy documents relating to
the Vietnamese University)
Cultural-historic Artefacts (relevant documents on the broader social,
cultural, & historical context of Vietnam)
Data include 8 semi-structured pre-interviews; 32 semi-
structured post-teaching round individual interviews (over 1 h
long each) with the PSTs; 16 observations of the pairs’ co-taught
lessons; video-recordings of planning meetings and lessons; and
relevant artefacts such as policy documents and instructional ma-
terials. The interviews provided insight into teacher learning, and
into relations between the teachers and their context. Table 3
summarises the data sources and focus of data collection and
analysis.
The pre-interviews, each lasting 40e45 min, were conducted
with individual PSTs prior to the paired-placement. They were
designed to generate participants’ ontogenetic data around the four
topics: experience as language teacher; experience as language
learner; personal background; previous group/pair-work experi-
ence (see Table 3). Based on SLTE research and pair-work in second
language learning within the sociocultural and activity theory
tradition (e.g., J. Cross, 2009; R. Cross, 2006, 2010; Storch, 2001),
these types of ontogenetic data were needed to understand what
PSTs as subjects bring to the joint-activity system.
The post-teaching interviews were the primary data source,
generating the majority of microgenetic data (see Table 3). The
semi-structured interview included PSTs' recounts of their plan-
ning sessions, their perceptions of the co-planning/co-teaching
experience and of partners’ roles and responsibilities when plan-
ning and teaching lessons. The interviews were conducted in
informal settings with individual PSTs within 48 h of each lesson, to
strengthen data reliability (Nunan, 1992).
Following the fieldwork all the interviews were transcribed
verbatim. Transcripts were then returned separately to each PST to
check if they accurately recorded what they had wanted to share
during the interviews, as part of the member-checking process
(Lincoln & Guba, 1986).
To further support trustworthiness, issues of reflexivity
(Schwandt, 2007) were attended to by the researcher's awareness,
self-discipline and continuous scepticism. First, being aware of
potential power relationship issues arising from various perceived
roles (see section 3.1), the author/researcher communicated clearly
her role as researcher to PSTs throughout the fieldwork. Second, the
researcher was self-disciplined to set aside preconceptions by
maintaining field notes to record her own thoughts. Third,
321
Focus of data collection and analysis
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 co-planning & co-teaching stages)
Pair interactions during the lessons
Use of pedagogical tools
Social context of teaching
Pair interactions during the lessons
Use of pedagogical tools
Social context of teaching
Pair interaction during planning
Use of planning tools
Social context of planning
Evidence of plans of division of teaching tasks between the partners
Evidence of use of pedagogical tools
Evidence of pair interactions when planning lessons
Local context of the joint-activity: fast-track teacher education program
Institutional context of the joint-activity: The Vietnamese University
National context of the joint-activity: Vietnam
throughout the analysis process she exercised continuous scepti-
cism by focusing on the paired-placement experience as viewed
through the lenses of each of the PSTs, rather than her well-
developed lens.
3.3. Data analysis
A combined genetic and joint-activity system analytical
approach was applied in data analysis. This approach comprises
three levels of analysis, namely a genetic domain analysis, joint-
activity system analysis within each case, and cross-case analysis,
as summarised in Fig. 3.
Briefly, following an adapted version of the genetic-analytic
approach employed by R. Cross (2006, 2010), data from multiple
sources (individual interviews, video-recordings, observations, ar-
tefacts) were successively categorised into the three domains of
microgenetic, ontogenetic, and cultural-historical analysis (see
Table 3). Each data set was then analysed according to emergent
themes and patterns (Miles & Huberman, 1994).
For each case study, microgenetic data, primarily post-teaching
interview transcripts, were coded and categorised using the con-
ceptual categories identified through Engestro €m’s (2001) model of
joint-activity systems. 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.
Contradictions were identified within each PST pair's joint-activity
system. Analysis of ontogenetic and cultural-historical data then
followed, to identify the context for the contradictions emerging at
the microgenetic level and their trajectory over the course of the
practicum.
Within and cross case analysis was applied to all the four cases.
Comparing similarities and differences across the four cases made
visible further issues not always identified in the within-case
analysis.
4. Findings and discussion
The genetic and joint-activity system analytical approach
adopted to examine data relating to different genetic domains
322 T.K.A. Dang / Teaching and Teacher Education 67 (2017) 316e329
Fig. 3. Summary of the combined genetic and joint-activity system analysis.
enables the study to reveal multiple inter-related contextual factors
shaping teacher learning across the four pairs. These include PSTs'
prior histories, the shift from the conventional single-placement
with one teacher teaching one class at a time to the innovative
collaborative teaching in the paired-placement, the ITE program-
matic features, and other broader sociocultural aspects. Specifically,
findings revealed that these micro-meso-macro contextual factors
explained the systemic contradictions facing the pair-placed PSTs
and contributed to their respective resolution of the contradictions,
which in time led to PSTs' professional learning. PSTs’ professional
learning was documented in terms of their growth in teacher
professional knowledge and skill (Shulman, 1987), a focus on stu-
dent learning as a (becoming) teacher (Fuller, 1974), and collegial
collaboration (Le Cornu & Ewing, 2008). Findings revealed that the
inter-connected socio-cultural-historical factors affected different
teachers in different ways.
4.1. Pre-service teachers’ prior histories in learning, teaching and
collaboration
Vygotsky claims “an analysis of an individual's mental processes
must be based on a knowledge of the earlier stages through which
he/she has gone” (Wertsch, 1981, p. 145). His view seems to be
reflected in Schwille et al.’s (2007) perspective on teacher educa-
tion, “whatever is done in any one phase should be informed and
will be informed by what has been learnt before” (p. 29). The
findings across the four pairs consistently show the influence of
teachers' prior experience with English language learning and
teaching, and collaboration, on their learning in the paired-
placement.
4.1.1. Prior learning experience
It is commonly acknowledged that “teacher professional
development cannot be understood without reference to the as-
sumptions teachers bring to their work and their complex un-
derstandings of that work and of their own part in it” (Johnston,
Pawan, & Mahan-Taylor, 2005, p. 54). The present study demon-
strates that all the PST pairs encountered contradictions deriving
from their different, sometimes conflicting, initial conceptions of
student teaching. Apparently these differences originated from
differences in their diverse experiences as language learners. In this
placement the contradictions were resolved (fully or partially) over
time and led to growth in teacher learning, especially in their focus
on student learning.
Take the Mai-Huệ pair as an example. The ontogenetic analysis
reveals that their prior English language learning experiences
differed greatly. Huệ attended a Hanoi school for talented students
specialising in foreign languages. Huệ’s interviews revealed her
belief in fun as a motivator for language learning. In contrary, Mai's
history of learning English had been featured by traditional rote-
learning, coming from a province in northern Vietnam. According
to Mai, the multiple-choice question format of the university
entrance exam, focused on grammar and vocabulary, drove her to
rote learn grammar and the answer keys rather than to commu-
nicate in English.
Drawing on her learning experience, Mai initially distinguished
learning and fun as follows: “Since young I have always been
learning how to read in silence. In fact, it was quite productive …
Cheerful activities, such as singing or role-play, were only for fun.”
(Round2, p.14). Reflecting on the co-planning (when her idea for a
warm-up was rejected by Huệ) and on the co-teaching (when Huệ’s
idea was enacted and welcomed by the students), Mai admitted: “I
just wanted the students to do some short reading sentences [for
the warm-up] but now I think it would be the wrong thing to do.”
(Round2, p. 5). She later explained:
Because just [having the students] sit reading could not warm
them up, Huệ said: “Let's do the picture activity so that it can be
lively.” I found that was right. The students were happy, and
even those who never spoke would also speak up … So I think it
sort of engaged the students [in the lesson]. (Round2, p.14)
The above excerpts demonstrate a transformation in Mai's
perception of teaching with regard to student motivation, enabling
her to view student motivation from a different perspective. The
change resulted from her dialogue with Huệ during co-planning,
 T.K.A. Dang / Teaching and Teacher Education 67 (2017) 316e329
her observation of the enactment of Huệ’s idea during co-teaching,
and her reflection on the process. Mai also re-positioned herself as a
(becoming) teacher in relation to the task and the students. She
initially drew on her experience as a learner, but later focused more
on the students' engagement: “it sort of engaged the students”
from a (becoming) teacher's perspective. For Gardner and
Williamson (2007) “progression from the role of student to the
role of teacher is at the core of student teachers' learning to teach”
(p. 695).
This finding consolidates extant research on SLTE in that teacher
learning is influenced by their previous language learning experi-
ences (Feryok, 2012; Ve
lez-Rendo
n, 2006). Beyond confirming
Lortie’s (1975) observation that teachers are likely to be influenced
by their prior learning experience, this study also showed that peer
discourse enabled by the paired-placement could help PSTs break
the pattern when past experience seemed obstructive to their
learning, as demonstrated in Mai-Hue's case.
4.1.2. Prior teaching experience
The continuum of teacher learning includes “informal in-
fluences on what and how teachers learn to teach” (Schwille et al.,
2007, p. 28), documenting opportunities teachers may encounter in
learning to teach. In the present study, these influences include the
prior informal teaching experience the PSTs had all gained before
their practicum (see Table 2). The PSTs’ prior teaching experience
profoundly impacted their beliefs regarding language learning and
teaching and explained several contradictions.
For example, contradictions between ‘subject and division of
labour’ and between ‘community and mediational tools’ (Fig. 2)
emerged in the Va ^n-Thảo pair's joint-activity because of their
different prior teaching experiences. Reflecting on the first lesson,
Va^n said, “I find myself immature in delivering the lesson. Thảo has
had much more teaching experience than me” (Round1, p.15). With
her remarkably richer experience compared to Va ^n (see Table 2),
Thảo exercised an expert/mentor role within their pair, which
resulted in their imbalanced power relationship in initial teaching
rounds. Explaining one teaching episode, Thảo recalled:
That was only to help my friend because … I saw Va ^n standing
there stammering. Then I spoke up so she had time to calm
herself down, and for us to ensure the purpose of our lesson, the
effectiveness of our teaching. (Round1, p.38)
Thảo and Va ^n demonstrated different levels of appropriation of
pedagogical tools (Grossman et al., 1999). The situation caused
initial tensions in their dynamics but also led to their professional
growth. For example, Va ^n described her learning about how to
engage with students and scaffold student learning from Va ^n's
observation of Thảo teaching and her reflection afterwards: “the
way she elicited the students' answers, involved them in answering
the questions, I could learn from that … And the way she corrected
the exercise was also clear and easy to understand” (Round1, p.38).
Together with Thảo's scaffolding during the co-teaching, as
demonstrated in Thảo's quote above, over time Va ^n became more
confident, exercised autonomy in planning and took instructional
risks to respond to student learning needs.
From the co-working process, Thảo learned how to collaborate
with V^ ^n and to direct the
an. Reflecting on her effort to cover for Va
planning process during initial rounds, Thảo said she was domi-
nant. The following excerpts after the third teaching round reveal
her response to the contradiction to ensure a more equal rela-
tionship between them. These also illustrate a transformed
dynamic:
323
Last time, after allocating a task to V^
an, I would say: “This part
should be done like this and that, is that okay?” This time, I did
not say like that, and let V^
an decide for herself how she would
do it. (Planning, Round3, p.5)
Today, the correction of the exercise section would require more
elicitation, so I wanted her to have a go … as we had divided the
workload, she would handle her part better … it's best to let her
speak the parts assigned to her. (Teaching, Round3, p.14)
The differences created by the pair's diverse prior teaching ex-
periences contributed to incompatibility between the pair partners,
a phenomenon that has been well documented by extant paired-
placement research (Eaton et al., 2009; Heidorn et al., 2011;
Walsh & Elmslie, 2005). However, as demonstrated by the Va ^n-
Thảo pair, the findings reveal that incompatibility is not necessarily
destructive to pair-work, rather it can create opportunities for PSTs
to learn about teaching and collaboration.
4.1.3. Prior collaboration experience
The findings show that PSTs’ perceptions of collaboration, his-
torically shaped by their prior group/pair-work experiences in the
ITE program, constitute a source of contradictions, especially be-
tween subjects and division of labour (Fig. 2). The findings reveal
that within the frame of supervised and planned collaboration, the
PSTs managed to resolve the contradictions and learned how to
collaborate.
For example, in Pair 4, Mai and Huệ came to the paired-
placement with different perceptions of pair-work rooted in their
differing prior experiences. The analysis of Mai's ontogenetic data
reveals her resentment in prior pair-work experience with Huệ:
“We could not reach agreement, not that we did not reach agree-
ment” (Round1 Interview, p.2). Indeed, during the initial teaching
rounds they had difficulty in engaging with each other's ideas. The
process of resolution was slow and rough. Their dynamics finally
shifted away from an antagonistic orientation towards negotiation
and collaboration. For instance, Huệ initially dominated the co-
planning/co-teaching, creating an unequal division of power be-
tween them. Reflecting on their first co-planning session, Huệ
explained: “I thought I was rather dominant because I forced her to
focus on teaching only one sound whereas she wanted to teach in a
different way” (Round1, p.3). Reflecting on her first co-taught
lesson, she also noted: “I was probably a little bit dominant, step-
ping into my partner's section. But I did not know what to do,
because the students did not understand, so I had to do it.” (Round1,
p.19).
Towards the end of the paired-placement, Huệ demonstrated a
qualitative change in her understanding of collaboration. This
seemed to result from her reflection on the experience, and from
her peers' and supervisor's comments during their debriefing ses-
sions. For example, reflecting on the climax of their tension in the
third round when Mai disengaged herself from co-planning, Huệ
realised: “We are not close friends, so we would not say explicitly
when we are not displeased. Just being diplomatic … So better
work in a way that is comfortable without much argument.”
(Round3, p. 10). Huệ invoked the rule of social harmony and
confrontation avoidance to resolve the contradiction, reflecting the
Vietnamese trait of indirectness and respect of social harmony
(Pham, 2008) in social relationships. With this new rule, when Mai
disagreed with her idea, Huệ said she “thought better just leave it,
to avoid argument” (Round3, p.5).
In the last round, Huệ appeared more willing to accept Mai's
ideas. The subject-division of labour contradiction was partially
resolved when both partners negotiated the differences and
learned to collaborate, demonstrated in Mai's account:
324 T.K.A. Dang / Teaching and Teacher Education 67 (2017) 316e329

I was wondering how come we could reach consensus so easily. I
suggested: “Let them listen to a song, very efficient and obvi-
ously good!” … Huệ okayed immediately. I felt excited when
hearing that. Then, we discussed which song to use. (Round4,
p.1)
This study corroborates previous research on pair-work in En-
glish language learning (J. Cross, 2009; Storch, 2001) in highlighting
the influence of learners' histories with pair-work on their dyadic
interactions. Little research has been attempted in a similar vein
regarding teacher paired-placements. Literature on paired-
placements instead stresses that PSTs very often enter paired-
placements with very little experience in collegial collaboration
(Gardiner & Robinson, 2011). The findings from the present study
may, then, shift the attention of research to the potential impact of
PSTs’ histories as learners in pair/group-work. The findings reveal
that although perceptions of collaboration are historically shaped
through their prior pair/group-work experience, they could also be
reshaped in paired-placement when an array of other factors, such
as their supervisors and other PST peers, come into play.
The findings reveal that in handling the tensions caused by the
paradigm shift from single-teaching to co-teaching, the PSTs
learned about collaboration and learned to collaborate to address
students' learning. These findings support Le Cornu’s (2005)
advocacy of teachers' collaborative/collegial relationships, so that
“learning outcomes are maximised for all learners” (p. 356). The
findings from this present study support extant paired-placement
research (Bullough et al., 2003; Gardiner & Robinson, 2011;
Grierson et al., 2011) in uncovering tensions, dilemmas, and com-
plexities arising from this shift. Further, the findings also show that

^ền-Chinh's
the PSTs, with Hie pair as an example, attempted to
resolve the contradictions, and consequently learned how to
collaborate better in response to student learning.
4.3. Local context: Programmatic factors
At the local contextual level findings indicate that the ITE pro-
gram exerted pronounced influence in different ways on pairs'
resolution of systemic contradictions. Three major programmatic
elements mediating pairs’ joint-activities were: supervising lec-
turers, peers, and the assessment rubrics.

4.3.1. Supervising lecturers and observing peers

4.2. The shift from conventional individual teaching to collaborative
Supervising lecturers and observing peers, as members of the
teaching
‘community’ (Engestro € m, 1987) in pairs' joint-activity systems
(Fig. 2), appeared to initially shape the conception of student
Findings suggest that the PSTs experienced tensions in the
teaching of several PSTs, contributing either to the occurrence of
paradigm shift from conventional individual teaching to uncon-
contradictions or their resolution. This in turn provided opportu-
ventional collaborative teaching (Grierson, Cantalini-Williams,
nities for them to learn to address student learning as a (becoming)
Wideman-Johnston, & Tedesco, 2011). A contradiction between
teacher and to collaborate with colleagues.
individual autonomy and collective collaboration (Fig. 2) that all
The Ha -Nga^n case provides an example on the role of super-
four PST pairs, without exception, initially encountered was re-
vising lecturers and observing peers in shaping Ha ’s initial
ported. The PSTs’ mentality of single-placement, entrenched by
conception of teaching. For example, Ha  initially referred to Ms
their prior individual teaching experience and their apprenticeship
Xu^ an, their supervising lecturer, as an authority figure in guiding
of observation when being students themselves, seemed to initially
their teaching, and aimed at producing “a perfect lesson”, one that
hinder their learning. Resolving the tension contributed to their
her pair could rehearse: “In the previous lesson, I realised that Ms
profound learning to collaborate.
  admitted “So far, Xu^ an was very critical … so we wanted everything to be perfect. We
Consider Hie ^ền-Chinh pair. In round one, Hie^ền
decided to rehearse [the lesson], just to be on the safe side.”
when I give private tutorials, I have to do all the planning on my
(Round1, p. 6).
own, because I have the real power, and full control. Now I think it
However, her pair's teaching experience challenged her
can be hard” (Preinterview, p.19). She struggled to negotiate be-
conception of teaching. Because they misjudged their students'
tween the individual and the collective and admitted finding her-
level of English, the first lesson became challenging. H a recalled
self dominant in planning the first lesson: “So I was trying to
“When I turned on the cassette player …, the students were so
impose … Then I was skilfully persuading Chinh … for the general
confused. They could not distinguish the sounds. I thought I had
points, it seemed she agreed right away.” (Round1, p.5).
 ‘over-assessed’ their level [of English]” (Round1, p.14). Ha  later said,
Becoming aware of their unequal power relationship, Hie ^ền
“I think we have to understand the students more in order to teach
attempted to resolve the contradiction. The resolution was not
 well” (Round1, p.21). For Ha , the object of student learning now also
linear and smooth. Hie ^ền's resolution involved her observation of
meant better understanding of the students.
and reflection on the pair's dynamics, her own agency, and practical
 gained a better understanding In subsequent rounds, Nga ^n and Ha worked together to resolve
action. Throughout the process, Hie ^ền
this contradiction to achieve student learning. New pedagogical
of her partner, became less dominant, and tried to involve Chinh
tools, such as using glossaries for reading tasks (round two) to
more in pair-work. Her final interview reveals her transformed
scaffold student learning, were created. Because of their continuous
conception of collegial collaboration, compared to her initial
reflection and practical action, the contradiction was mostly
reservation about pair-work: “I wanted the lesson to have ideas
resolved in the last rounds. Through the process, H a learned more
contributed by both of us … Once working together, both should
about her students, and her conception of teaching was no longer
contribute, not one person. I don't want to dominate.” (Round4, p.5).
about performing a perfect lesson to please her supervisor as in the
Notably, they were also both inclined for student learning in
first round. It was about student learning, as demonstrated in Ha ’s
their final rounds, with Chinh clearly seeing her role as a
reflection on the third lesson: “I was pleased with the lesson
(becoming) teacher “I should be helping the students.” (Round4,
 because certainly my students had learned something new.”
p.21). Hie^ền's account of the last lesson also revealed her learning
(Round3, p. 9).
about focusing on students' learning:
Interestingly, the findings also suggest supervising lecturers and
I think by linking new knowledge to what they have already got, observing peers played a major role in identifying the unequal di-
to their experience, and linking what they already know to new vision of labour in coteaching initially present in all the pairs, a
things, it would be easier to remember … that was the highlight prerequisite for pairs to adjust their dynamics and learn to
of what I have learned. (Round4, p.22) collaborate. This can be demonstrated in Ng^ an's excerpt:
 T.K.A. Dang / Teaching and Teacher Education 67 (2017) 316e329
It appeared that I spoke more, which affected the assessment of
our joint work. People [supervising lecturer and observing
peers] said that Ha  was a bit quiet … When the class became
quiet, I felt it necessary to speak. That's why people said that I
was dominant. (Round1, p.1)
The comments from the observing supervising lecturers and PST
peers prompted the PSTs to reflect on their experience and become
aware of their contradictions. This finding confirms findings from
previous research on paired-placement highlighting the issue of
parity, or equal share of work, between pair partners (Gardiner &
Robinson, 2011). The present study further identifies the role of
supervising lecturers and observing peers in mediating teacher
pair's interactions in response to contradictions.
4.3.2. Assessment rubrics
Rubrics have been used in ITE for various purposes, including
providing feedback to and assessing PSTs (Wolf & Stevens, 2007).
Whilst the use of rubrics is contentious (Bryant, Maarouf, Burcham,
& Greer, 2016), rubrics have potential to influence student learning
positively by mediating improved performance and self-regulation,
depending on contextual and individual factors (Panadero &
Jonsson, 2013). In accordance with Panadero and Jonsson (2013),
the findings of this study reveal that the assessment rubrics of in-
dividual student teaching tasks (see Appendix A), as ‘mediational
tools’, mediated the joint-activity of all the pairs. Within the same
pair, this tool appeared to mediate different partners' learning
differently, depending on their interpretation of the student
teaching task and their prior elements discussed earlier. Different
partners may interpret the assessment rubrics differently, which
could create contradictions for pair-work. However, once resolved,
they could result in PSTs' professional learning.
Take Huệ and Mai pair as an example. Huệ’s activity was driven
mainly by a motive to learn to teach as the intention of the student
teaching task and as her interpretation of the assessment (rubrics).
In the first round, Huệ perceived student teaching as a learning
opportunity: “This is the first time I wanted to find out what it is
like for me to teach … If it is successful, I will be more confident”
(Round1, p.20). In the first lessons, a contradiction emerged when
the pair aimed for a smooth lesson but the students did not engage.
Huệ recalled: “When I asked them, they were very quiet. No
response. They kept their heads down.” (Round2, p.22).
In resolving the contradiction, Huệ inclined more towards un-
derstanding and addressing students’ learning needs, resulting
from her interactions with Mai and other PST peers, and her
reflection. Huệ described their process of designing a reading task
for the second lesson:
From my experience, if we have to do a very difficult reading
task we will be very discouraged … According to Mai, the
reading lesson Trang-Tam pair taught was very difficult for the
students … The lesson failed because the students did not un-
derstand … So I thought … ‘Just choose a simple reading task,
from simple to complex, because the students’ English, except
for Nam's, was not that good’. (Round2, p.13)
The extract illustrates transition in Huệ’s positioning in the ac-
tivity, from student perspective to teacher perspective. As a student
Huệ interpreted the challenge of having a difficult task as “we will
be very discouraged.” Her interactions with her partner and peers
mediated Huệ’s repositioning as a teacher. In this short extract “the
students” appears four times. She demonstrated a better under-
standing of the students in her response to their learning needs:
325
“Just choose a simple one, from simple to complex, because the
students' English … was not that good.”
Towards the final teaching round, the contradiction seemed to
be resolved when Huệ demonstrated a qualitative change in her
conception of teaching:
In order to teach well, I have to pay attention to student learning
… Before I thought I just needed to do anything to complete the
lesson. But now I have realised I need to teach in a way that the
students could learn something. (Round4, p.31)
As demonstrated, through the process of identifying the
contradiction and working with her partner to resolve it, over time
Huệ came to understand that teaching is not about rushing through
the lesson to complete it, but about scaffolding students’ learning.
The analysis reveals that Mai's (Huệ’s partner) activity was
however initially driven by a motive to perform for assessment. In
the first round, Mai focused on providing a smooth lesson for
assessment purposes. Notably, the assessment rubrics indicates
‘performance’ of instructional material, lesson goals, and class
management, without an explicit focus on student learning (see
Appendix A). Focusing on ‘performing’ the lesson, Mai initially
blamed the students and her partner when the first lesson was
‘mediocre’. Reflecting on the lesson, Mai said:
I did not find it difficult to design activities … Yeah, I did it and it
was okay … But after completing it, I was not fully satisfied with
my lesson … I felt it was just mediocre … sort of doing it just for
the sake of it. (Round1, p.8)
Mai's object of performing lessons for assessment was not
achieved in the first lesson because the students disengaged. In
round two, when this contradiction recurred, Mai focused more on
student learning. Instead of blaming them for their disengagement
as she did in round one, Mai realised the reading task did not suit
their English level:
Only Nam could do the task, because he studied in the
Amsterdam school before … Just Nam and the girl next to him
could get more correct answers … I was really shocked …
Because they are second year students and obviously to be
eligible to study at this university they must have passed the
entrance examinations. The reading texts [in this lesson] were
not difficult compared to the entrance examinations. (Round2,
p.3)
In Mai's case, the contradiction was finally not fully resolved,
partly explained by Mai's perceived past experience in the ITE
program, when she did not receive fair grade in pair-work. Her
previous negative experience in the program (see section 4.1)
appeared to deter her from taking additional instructional risks to
fully resolve the contradiction to address student learning.
The present study demonstrates that just like any learners, PSTs
do not always implement student teaching tasks “in the way in
which designers [of the assessment] intend” (Spence-Brown, 2001,
p. 474). This study shows that assessment rubrics may have initially
lessened its value for teacher learning to teach for some PSTs like
Mai, when they strategically focus on factors in the rubrics to obtain
the highest score possible for their work (Zeichner, 2010). Assess-
ment rubrics, however, proved helpful to mediate the learning for
some others like Huệ, regarding her self-regulation and improved
performance (Panadero & Jonsson, 2013). For PSTs like Mai, an
explicit focus on student learning in the assessment rubrics may
have helped to orientate the object of her activity (see Fig. 2) to
326 T.K.A. Dang / Teaching and Teacher Education 67 (2017) 316e329
focus on student learning. This means that when carefully prepared
and orchestrated, it could provide “an incentive for [teacher]
learning” (p. 479) for more learners.
4.4. Global and national context: Sociocultural historical factors
The study has identified several aspects from the broader na-
tional context in which the PSTs' joint-activities were embedded.
Interacting with other factors, these sociocultural historical factors
mediated PSTs’ response to the paired-placement in different ways
for different PSTs.
4.4.1. Globalisation transforming English learning and teaching
(ELT) experiences
Contextually, global elements in the PSTs' ontogenetic domain
were “nested in the historical-cultural-political-economic domain,
and manifest in their day-to-day microgenetic domain” (Dang &
Marginson, 2013). As discussed in Section 4.1, the PSTs' learning
to teach in the microgenetic joint-activity was shaped by their prior
ELT experiences. The analysis of teachers’ ontogenesis shows that
these prior experiences were deeply influenced by a discourse of
globalisation (Held, McLew, Goldblatt, & Perraton, 1999), enabled
by economic and political developments in Vietnam since the late
1980s and manifest in growing popularity of English but diverse
quality of English language education across the country.
These global flows (Appadurai, 1996; Rizvi & Lingard, 2010),
such as global mobility of people, technology and ideas, influenced
the PSTs directly and indirectly. Many of them had travelled abroad,
or had family or friends living overseas, or actively engaged with
native speakers of English or their organisations. For example, in
the Hie  e Chinh pair, when asked to explain a pronunciation ac-
^ền
tivity, Hie  recalled: “I have watched a teacher teaching pronun-
^ền
ciation on Youtube. She used that map … So I adapted it to this
lesson.” (Hie  Round 3).
^ền,
Regarding teaching experience, for this cohort of high achieving
students of English, the unprecedented socio-economic and polit-
ical development of Vietnam since the Doi Moi renovation in 1986,
the pervasive phenomenon of private tutoring phenomenon in
Vietnam, created multiple English-related employment opportu-
nities, including English teachers and private tutors (see Table 2).
This globalisation aspect of the Vietnamese context was found to
influence the PSTs’ views of English and of English language
teaching (Dang, 2012). For instance, excerpts from interviews with
the Hie  e Chinh pair show the influence of their contact with
^ền
foreign teachers who they worked with in their casual teaching
positions. They drew on these external teaching experiences when
making pedagogical decisions:
 and I work as teacher assistants in language centers,
^ền
Both Hie
there the teachers also use nametags in the first lesson to
remember students' names better. (Chinh, Round1, p.31)
One teacher in the British Council where I work told me that
normally students may not feel comfortable sharing with their
teacher, but … they become more confident once they have
 Round1, p.16)
^ền,
talked to their classmates. (Hie
This situation implies that because of the current sociocultural
developments in Vietnam, this teacher cohort did not come to the
placement with homogeneous teaching experience. This lack of
homogeneity helped to explain the diversity in dyadic interactions
^n and Thảo in the expert/
within different pairs, such as between Va
novice pair (see Table 2), where Thảo had gained more teaching
experience than Va ^n prior to the paired-placement. As previously
discussed, the differences between PSTs’ prior experiences created
initial contradictions, which manifested potential learning oppor-
tunities for the PSTs.
4.4.2. Globalisation interacting with Vietnamese cultural
dimensions in mediating dyadic interactions
The findings also suggest that global aspects interacted with
Vietnamese cultural dimensions in mediating pairs’ dyadic in-
teractions in paired-placement and their resolution of contradic-
tions involving collaboration.
On the one hand, the interplay of Vietnamese notions of social
face (Nguyen and Hudson, 2012), teacher authority, and the tradi-
tionally rigid view of knowledge (Nguyen, Terlouw, Pilot, & Elliott,
2009), as cultural and professional rules, seemed to explain several
PSTs' co-working decisions, and their resulting growing awareness
about how to collaborate. For example, when noticing Chinh make
an instructional mistake, in the first round, Hie  would correct
^ền
Chinh's mistake immediately. However, in the second teaching
round, when this recurred, Hie  recalled:
^ền
I kept on wondering whether I should step in … In fact, I was
trying to avoid … correcting each other in front of the class e
something absolutely to avoid. (Round2, p.7)
I hate this thought but … teachers mostly must not make mis-
takes … 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, they would
wonder what kind of cooperation it is that allows tutors to
contrast each other right in class like that … I do not want her to
lose face in front of everyone. I need to cooperate well. (Round 2,
p. 9)
These aspects, as cultural rules regulating their joint-activity
system, shaped their perceptions of collaboration and teaching,

and influenced their response to related contradictions. Hie ^ền's
response demonstrates her increased awareness about collabora-
tion in the Vietnamese culture, resulting from her reflection when
the contradiction recurred.
On the other hand, non-traditional and global aspects also
mediated teacher learning in the paired-placement. To ensure so-
cial harmony, the PSTs tended to avoid open and direct confron-
tation when contradictions occurred. Paradoxically, some relied on
social media, in these cases Facebook, to express negative emotions,
which prompted their partners to recognise contradictions. For
example, Nga ^n learned to collaborate better in the later rounds
after an incident mediated by Facebook:
] posted on her Facebook status as “disturbed”. I then
[Ha
emailed her immediately … I think when working together, it is
not effective if we are not comfortable with each other … Then
we agreed that next time we should assign the tasks more
appropriately … If we do different tasks, we can gain different
experience and that is more equal. (Round3, p.16)
Higher education, including teacher education, in Vietnam are
“largely framed by national pedagogical traditions” (Dang &
Marginson, 2013). The findings from this study suggest that glob-
alisation aspects, however, were shaping teacher learning in this
context. The PSTs moved beyond the national regulatory frame-
work to negotiate collaborative learning at the intersection of local,
national, and global dimensions.
5. Implications and conclusion
Given the shortcomings of the traditional single-placement
 T.K.A. Dang / Teaching and Teacher Education 67 (2017) 316e329
model for preservice teachers (Bullough et al., 2003; Westheimer,
2008), the findings from this study confirm that paired-
placement offers a promising alternative to promote teacher
learning (Dang, 2013; Eaton et al., 2009; King, 2006) in ITE reforms
in general and SLTE in particular. Findings revealed that, teacher
learning occurred across the four PST pairs, although learning
differed from one PST to another. Learning was documented in
terms of PSTs' growth of teacher knowledge, development in
collegial collaboration, and striving for both their students’ learning
and their own learning. The finding supported prior paired-
placement research which documented teacher learning in terms
of teacher knowledge (e.g., Manouchehri, 2002; Sorensen, 2004;
Vickery et al., 2011) and collaborative skills (e.g., Baker & Milner,
2006; Birrell & Bullough, 2005; Bullough et al., 2003).
Moving beyond the level of merely describing learning (as
product), the study explains how learning occurred (as process) and
what factors affected the process, addressing Donato’s (2004) call
for collaborative research in the sociocultural tradition to “describe
and explain the phenomenon comprehensively and adequately” (p.
299, emphasis in original).
First, this study has found that teacher learning in the paired-
placement was contingent on resolution of contradictions in pair-
work. This study highlights contradictions as potential areas for
teacher learning and development, rather than as obstacles with no
positive potentials. Within the framework of planned and super-
vised collaboration, contradictions could be resolved and lead to
professional learning. This study explains how the PSTs developed
through the process of responding to the various recurring con-
tradictions in the paired-placement. However, unless timely
resolved, recurring contradictions, such as those identified in the
Mai-Huệ pair, might render the joint-activity system dysfunctional.
These findings imply a need to reconceptualise teacher learning
in relation to ‘tensions’ and ‘contradictions’ commonly found in
paired-placements. Most of the prior research tends to view ten-
sions as problematic and obstructive to teacher learning. Very few
(e.g., Gardiner & Robinson, 2011; Nokes et al., 2008) have started to
acknowledge tensions as inherent in collaborative learning. The
present study fills in this gap by moving beyond the level of doc-
umenting tensions to explicating the link between ‘tensions’ and
teacher learning. The findings indicate that attention should be
paid to the process of collaboration in paired-placements, to opti-
mise the resolution of conflicts and the conditions that lead to
teacher learning in pairs. As contradictions were found to get
resolved over time, successful pairings require that PSTs find time
and ways to engage with each other effectively (Gardiner &
Robinson, 2011). At the level of supervised practicum, PSTs should
be encouraged to involve themselves in co-planning/co-teaching
over an extended period of time, and orientation to the nature of
co-planning/co-teaching may be helpful.
Second, the study systematically reveals contextual factors at
the micro-meso-macro levels shaping teacher collaborative
learning. Specifically, it identified multiple factors which gave rise
to systemic contradictions in the paired-placement and/or
contributed to the resolution of contradictions. The study has
revealed the impact of PSTs' prior experience, including learning
and collaboration experience in the ITE program, on their percep-
tions of collaboration and student teaching. This suggests that it is
essential to forge a culture supportive of learning and collaboration
among PSTs throughout the entire ITE program, for paired-
placements to be effective. Further, the findings have highlighted
the significant roles of the supervising lecturers, observing PST
peers and assessment rubrics in shaping the paired teachers'
learning. These elements of ITE programs should be carefully pre-
pared and orchestrated to promote the learning it is intended to
achieve. For example, a focus on achieving student learning could
327
be made explicit in the assessment rubrics. An explicit under-
standing of expectations of performance, in this case student
teaching, through rubrics could help promote learning and improve
instruction, which would facilitate feedback and transparency
(Jonsson & Svingby, 2007). Finally, the PSTs’ activities are also
shaped by a broader context well beyond the immediate ITE pro-
gram. Teacher educators and other stakeholders should thus
consider the external socio-cultural contextual factors PSTs may
bring to paired-placements. Notably, this study of a paired-
placement in ESL teacher education points to contextual factors
relating to ELT within a broader context of Vietnam. Further in-
vestigations on paired-placements in other disciplines in other
socio-cultural contexts may shed more light on the model.
At the level of methodological underpinnings, the study un-
derscores the value of the theoretical framework adopted in this
study in response to Cross’s (2006) call for one which “gives proper
consideration to the concept of context” and explains “why it is that
context affects practice” (p. 72). Vygotsky's genetic method (Cole &
Engestro€m, 1993; Vygotsky, 1981) and third generation activity
theory (Engestro € m, 2001, 2008) enable this research to systemati-
cally capture the context of teacher learning in paired-placement
both vertically and horizontally, encompassing past and present,
local, national and global. As illustrated in the paper, this explan-
atory theoretical framework also sheds light on how that context
impacts on teacher learning, contingent on the resolution of various
identified contradictions. Beyond revealing the contextual factors
influencing teacher learning, the study offers a theoretically
informed approach to conceptualising and contextualising teacher
learning in such collaborative settings. It is thus likely to open a
new line of inquiries into teacher collaborative learning using this
theoretical framework.
Acknowledgement
This research was funded by a doctoral scholarship from The
University of Melbourne.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data related to this article can be found at http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.06.008.
References
Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalisation. Min-
neapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Avalos, B. (2011). Teacher professional development in Teaching and Teacher Edu-
cation over ten years. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(1), 10e20.
Baeten, M., & Simons, M. (2014). Student teachers' team teaching: Models, effects,
and conditions for implementation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 41, 92e110.
Baker, S., & Milner, J. (2006). Complexities of collaboration: Intensity of mentors'
responses to paired and single student teachers. Action in Teacher Education,
28(3), 61e72.
Bakhurst, D. (2009). Reflections on activity theory. Educational Review, 61(2),
197e210.
Birrell, J., & Bullough, R., Jr. (2005). Teaching with a peer: A follow-up study of the
first year of teaching. Action in Teacher Education, 27(1), 72e81.
Borg, S. (2009). Language teacher cognition. In A. Burns, & J. Richards (Eds.), The
Cambridge guide to second language teacher education (pp. 163e171). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Bryant, C. L., Maarouf, S., Burcham, J., & Greer, D. (2016). The examination of a
teacher candidate assessment rubric: A confirmatory factor analysis. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 57, 79e96.
Bullock, S. M., & Russell, T. (2010). Does teacher education expect too much from
field experience? In T. Falkenberg, & H. Smits (Eds.), Field experiences in the
context of reform of Canadian teacher education programs. Manitoba: University
of Manitoba.
Bullough, R., Egan, W., & Nokes, J. (2010). Building to strength: Paired teaching and
the reconceptualisation of public school practica. In A. Rodgers, & D. B. Jenkins
(Eds.), Redesigning supervision: Alternative models for student teaching and field
experiences (pp. 37e55). New York: Teachers College Press.
328 T.K.A. Dang / Teaching and Teacher Education 67 (2017) 316e329
Bullough, R. V., Jr., Young, J., Birrell, J. R., Clark, D. C., Egan, M. W.,
Erickson, L., … Welling, M. (2003). Teaching with a peer: A comparison of two
models of student teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 57e73.
Burns, A., & Richards, J. (2009). Introduction. In A. Burns, & J. Richards (Eds.), The
Cambridge guide to second language teacher education (pp. 1e8). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Chan, K.-w., Tan, J., & Khoo, A. (2007). Pre-service teachers' conceptions about
teaching and learning: A close look at Singapore's cultural context. Asia-Pacific
Journal of Teacher Education, 35(2), 181e195.
Cole, M., & Engestro € m, Y. (1993). A cultural-historical approach to distributed
cognition. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educa-
tional considerations (pp. 1e46). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cross, R. (2006). Language teaching as activity: A sociocultural perspective on second
language teacher practice. Unpublished PhD thesis. Melbourne: Monash
University.
Cross, J. (2009). The development of metacognition of L2 listening: A neo-Vygotskian
joint-activity analysis. Unpublished PhD thesis. Melbourne: The University of
Melbourne.
Cross, R. (2010). Language teaching as sociocultural activity: Rethinking language
teacher practice. The Modern Language Journal, 94(iii), 434e452.
Cross, S., & Dunn, A. (2016). “I didn't know of a better way to prepare to teach”: A
case study of paired student teaching abroad. Teacher Education Quarterly, 43(1),
71e90.
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.), Future directions in applied linguistics: Local and global perspectives (pp.
140e157). Newcastle upon Tyne, England: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Dang, T. K. A. (2013). Identity in activity: Examining teacher professional identity
formation in the paired-placement of student teachers. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 30(2013), 47e59.
Dang, T. K. A., & Marginson, S. (2013). Global learning through the lens of Vygot-
skian sociocultural theory. Critical Studies in Education, 54(2), 143e159.
Eaton, P., Curry, A., Gibson, K., Ievers, M., Nelson, J., & Purdy, N. (2009). It's good to
talk e the benefits of peer learning in developing professional practice. Paper
presented at the 34th annual conference of the Association for Teacher Edu-
cation in Europe, Palma de Mallorca, Spain.
Donato, R. (2004). Aspects of collaboration in pedagogical discourse. Annual Review
of Applied Linguistics, 24(March 2004), 284e302.
Edwards, A., & Daniels, H. (2004). Using sociocultural and activity theory in
educational research. Educational Review, 56(2), 107e111.
Engestro €m, Y. (1987). Learning by Expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to
developmental research. Retrieved 2 December 2008, from http://lchc.ucsd.
edu/MCA/Paper/Engestrom/expanding/toc.htm.
Engestro €m, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In
Y. Engestro € m, R. Miettinen, & R.-L. Punamaki-Gitai (Eds.), Perspectives on activity
theory: Learning in doing (pp. 19e38). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Engestro €m, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical
reconceptualisation. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133e156.
Engestro €m, Y. (2008). From teams to knots: Activity-theoretical studies of collabora-
tion and learning at work. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Feryok, A. (2012). Activity theory and language teacher agency. The Modern Lan-
guage Journal, 96(1), 95e107.
Freeman, D. (1996). The ‘unstudied problem’: Research on teacher learning in
language teaching. In D. Freeman, & J. Richards (Eds.), Teacher learning in lan-
guage teaching (pp. 351e378). Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Freeman, D. (2002). The hidden side of the work: Teacher knowledge and learning
to teach. Language Teaching, 35(01), 1e13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/
S0261444801001720.
Fuller, F. F. (1974). A conceptual framework for a personalised teacher education
program. Theory Into Practice, 13(2), 112e122.
Gardiner, W., & Robinson, K. (2011). Peer field placements with preservice teachers:
Negotiating the challenges of professional collaboration. The Professional
Educator, 35(2), 1e12.
Gardner, C., & Williamson, J. (2007). Complexities of learning to teach: “Just what is
it that I am doing?”. In T. Townsend, & R. Bates (Eds.), Handbook of teacher
education: Globalisation, standards and professionalism in times of change (pp.
691e710). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Grierson, A., Cantalini-Williams, M., Wideman-Johnston, T., & Tedesco, S. (2011).
Building scaffolds in the field: The benefits and challenges of teacher candidate
peer mentorship. Brock Education, 20(2), 85e103.
Grossman, P., Hammerness, K., & McDonald, M. (2009). Redefining teaching,
reimagining teacher education. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice,
15(2), 273e289.
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.
Heidorn, B., Jenkins, D. B., Harvey, R., & Mosier, B. (2011). The effectiveness of using
paired placements for student teaching. Paper presented at the The Annual
Meeting of the National Association for Physical Education/American Associa-
tion for Health, Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, San Diego, CA.
Held, D., McLew, A., Goldblatt, D., & Perraton, J. (1999). Global transformations:
Politics, economics and culture. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis.
Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277e1288.
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 & New York: Cambridge University Press.
Johnston, B. (2009). Collaborative teacher development. In A. Burns, & J. Richards
(Eds.), The Cambridge guide to second language teacher education (pp. 241e249).
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Johnston, B., Pawan, F., & Mahan-Taylor, R. (2005). The professional development of
working ESL/EFL teachers: A pilot study. In D. J. Tedick (Ed.), Second language
teacher education (pp. 53e72). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Jonsson, A., & Svingby, G. (2007). The use of scoring rubrics: Reliability, validity and
educational consequences. Educational Research Review, 2(2), 130e144.
King, S. (2006). Promoting paired placements in initial teacher education. Interna-
tional Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 15(4), 370e386.
Knoblauch, D., & Hoy, A. W. (2008). “Maybe I can teach those kids.” the influence of
contextual factors on student teachers' efficacy beliefs. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 24(1), 166e179.
Korthagen, F. A. (2010). Situated learning theory and the pedagogy of teacher ed-
ucation: Towards an integrative view of teacher behavior and teacher learning.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(1), 98e106.
Lang, C., Neal, D., Karvouni, M., & Chandler, D. (2015). An embedded professional
paired placement model: “I know I am not an expert, but I am at a point now
where I could step into the classroom and be responsible for the learning”. Asia-
Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 43(4), 338e354.
Lantolf, J. (2000). Introducing sociocultural theory. In J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural
theory and second language learning (pp. 1e26). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lantolf, J. P., & Appel, G. (1994). Vygotskian approaches to second language research.
Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Pub. Corp.
Le Cornu, R. (2005). Peer mentoring: Engaging pre-service teachers in mentoring
one another. Mentoring and Tutoring, 13(3), 355e366.
Le Cornu, R. (2016). Professional Experience: Learning from the past to build the
future. Asia Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 44(1), 80e101.
Le Cornu, R., & Ewing, R. (2008). Reconceptualising professional experiences in pre-
service teacher education... reconstructing the past to embrace the future.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(2008), 1799e1812.
Lee, S., & Schallert, D. L. (2016). Becoming a teacher: Coordinating past, present, and
future selves with perspectival understandings about teaching. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 56, 72e83.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1986). But is it rigorous? Trustworthiness and
authenticity in naturalistic evaluation. New Directions for Program Evaluation,
30, 73e84.
Lortie, D. (1975). School teacher: A sociological study. Chicago IL: The University of
Chicago Press.
Manouchehri, A. (2002). Developing teaching knowledge through peer discourse.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(2002), 715e737.
Miles, M., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded source-
book. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Nguyen, T. M. H., & Hudson, P. (2012). Pre-service EFL teachers' reflections on
mentoring during their practicum. In C. Gitsaki, & R. Baldauf (Eds.), Future di-
rections in applied linguistics: Local and global perspectives (pp. 158e178).
Newcastle upon Tyne, England: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Nguyen, P. M., Terlouw, C., Pilot, A., & Elliott, J. (2009). Cooperative learning that
features a culturally appropriate pedagogy. British Educational Research Journal,
35(6), 857e875.
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:
Cambridge University Press.
Nuttall, J., Brennan, M., Zipin, L., Tuinamuana, K., & Cameron, L. (2013). Lost in
production: The erasure of the teacher educator in Australian university job
advertisements. Journal of Education for Teaching, 39(3), 329e343.
Panadero, E., & Jonsson, A. (2013). The use of scoring rubrics for formative assess-
ment purposes revisited: A review. Educational Research Review, 9, 129e144.
Pham, T. H. N. (2008). Vietnamese politeness in Vietnamese-Anglo cultural in-
teractions: A confucian perspective. PhD. The University of Queensland. Unpub-
lished PhD thesis.
Phan, N. T., & Locke, T. (2015). Sources of self-efficacy of Vietnamese EFL teachers: A
qualitative study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 52, 73e82.
Rizvi, F., & Lingard, B. (2010). Globalizing education policy. New York: Routledge.
Rodgers, A., & Jenkins, D. B. (2010). Redesigning supervision: Alternative models for
student teaching and field experiences. New York: Teachers College Press.
Ronfeldt, M., & Reininger, M. (2012). More or better student teaching? Teaching and
Teacher Education, 28(8), 1091e1106.
Schultz, J. C. (2003). Learning to teach secondary English: Using Vygotsky's activity
theory to explore the impact of context, prior beliefs and experience on the growth
of three first-year teachers. Unpublished PhD thesis. Alanta, GA: Georgia State
University.
Schwandt, T. A. (2007). The SAGE dictionary of qualitative inquiry (3rd ed.). London:
SAGE.
Schwille, J., Dembele, M., & Schubert, J. (2007). Global perspectives on teacher
learning: Improving policy and practice. Paris: UNESCO: International Institute
for Educational Planning.
Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform.
Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1e22.
Sorensen, P. (2004). Learning to teach collaboratively: The use of subject pairs in the
 T.K.A. Dang / Teaching and Teacher Education 67 (2017) 316e329
school practicum. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy (32),
1e24.
Sorensen, P. (2014). Collaboration, dialogue and expansive learning: The use of
paired and multiple placements in the school practicum. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 44, 128e137.
Spence-Brown, R. (2001). The eye of the beholder: Authenticity in an embedded
assessment task. Language Testing, 18(4), 463e481.
Stake, R. (2005). Qualitative case-studies. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The
SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 443e466). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Storch, N. (2001). An investigation into the nature of pair work in an ESL classroom
and its effect on grammatical development. Unpublished PhD thesis. Melbourne:
The University of Melbourne.
Tsui, A., & Law, D. (2007). Learning as boundary-crossing in school university
partnership. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(8), 1289e1301.

lez-Rendo
Ve
n, G. (2006). From student to teacher: A successful transition. Foreign
Language Annals, 39(2), 320e333.
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?.
Paper presented at the British Educational Research Conference. London:
Institute of Education.
Villegas-Reimers, E. (2003). Teacher professional development: An international re-
view of the literature. Paris: International Institute for Educational Planning -
329
UNESCO.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1981). The genesis of higher mental functions. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.),
The concept of activity in Soviet psychology (pp. 144e188). Armonk, N.Y.: M.E.
Sharpe.
Walsh, K., & Elmslie, L. (2005). Practicum pairs: An alternative for first field expe-
rience in early childhood teacher education. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Ed-
ucation, 33(1), 5e21.
Wertsch, J. V. (1981). The concept of activity in Soviet psychology. Armonk, N.Y.: M.E.
Sharpe.
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). NewYork: Routledge &
the Association of Teacher Educators.
Wolf, K., & Stevens, E. (2007). The role of rubrics in advancing and assessing student
learning. Journal of Effective Teaching, 7(1), 3e14.
Xu, H. (2013). From the imagined to the practised: A case-study on novice EFL
teachers' professional identity change in China. Teaching and Teacher Education,
31(2013), 79e86.
Zeichner, K. (2010). Rethinking the connections between campus courses and field
experiences in college and university-based teacher education. Journal of
Teacher Education, 61(1e2), 89e99.